Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:12, 20 November 2007

Archives

Description of archives 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 May 2007 June 2007 July 2007 August 2007 September 2007 October 2007 November 2007

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Welcome!

Hello, Newyorkbrad, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Karmafist 15:21, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Bumper sticker

This image is being used as a way of canvassing, on more than 20 pages. I dislike that, and am requesting that you request it be removed. You don't have to, it just might get you opposed for the ArbCom position. Dreamy 22:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I have seen the "bumper sticker" and find it enormously flattering, and thank the editors who are displaying it. For what it's worth, it appears that it's only actually appearing on about 3 or 4 live pages, the rest being archives and subpages and the like. I certainly had nothing to do with the creation of this image. Similar "bumper stickers" were displayed for a couple of candidates last year, and I don't believe caused a problem. I presume and expect that anyone choosing to vote for (or against) me would do so on the basis of my record as a Wikipedian plus my answers to the candidate questions, and not on the basis of an image, however flattering.

However, I certainly don't want to give an impression of canvassing; at the same time, I don't want to seem ungracious to editors who are being (overly) kind to me. Strong considerations on both sides: Just the sort of dilemma that an arbitrator should anticipate dealing with for the next three years, I suppose.

The bottom line is that if there is any substantial body of opinion holding that having this image around creates an appearance of canvassing or impropriety, I will suggest that it be curtailed. I would welcome anyone else's thoughts on this issue. Newyorkbrad 22:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Dreamy 22:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I wish I had a bumper sticker... *Cremepuff222* 22:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

First you need a car! :-P Newyorkbrad 22:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't you remember our conversation on IRC? *Cremepuff222* 22:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Of course, but I don't know when they're delivering it. :) Newyorkbrad 00:07, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

There was a large discussion about this a year ago with the last elections, with the consensus being that they are legitimate to be used. The discussion was at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive64#Arbcom_campaigning_images - will you be the puppy-eating candidate this election by any chance, Brad? Daniel 10:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I remembered that there had been some discussion, but not where it had taken place, nor that I had participated in it myself. Regards, Newyorkbrad 10:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Might as well add my link as well: User:Jc37/Userboxes/NYB4Arbcom : ) - jc37 19:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Just a heads up

There have been users put on probation/blocked after the Troubles ArbCom ended, you may want to check the log of blocks/bans/probations :) SirFozzie 19:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, yes; I was referring only to that particular user's not being on any probation or restriction; sorry if that was not clear. Regards, Newyorkbrad 19:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Protecting Diego Rivera for 20 days... excessive and abusive?

Could you comment on justification of Protecting Diego Rivera for 20 days..., please? Sincerely, -70.18.5.219 21:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I will comment after I see what the administrator who protected the page has to say. Regards, Newyorkbrad 21:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Solved... and I won't bother you anymore; I've learnt to better understand the policies, their interpretations, where to post such questions, and, where to discuss the policies. Thanks again. Sincerely, -70.18.5.219 05:06, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad this is resolved to your and, hopefully, everyone's satisfaction. Happy editing, and perhaps you would want to register an account so that other users can communicate with you more easily. Regards, Newyorkbrad 05:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

No, thanks, I like to remain anonymous and not to make communication easier; it was bothering me that Misplaced Pages does not protect inexperienced editors (potentially loosing valuable contributions; the best part of my contribution to Frida Kahlo is gone) the same way the US Constitution protects individuals (and minorities) against oppression by a majority (Bill of Rights, other Amendments). Instead of dealing with abuse by editors without high school diploma, I made a difficult contribution to the vandalism discussion, and this overprotection of Diego Rivera was a needed there example. My task is complete. I do not want to deal with such an abuse at the present cost, because the current vandalism policy does not make it easy. So, I will wait anonymous until something is changed for better. Hopefully, it will sooner or latter, but I have time, or Misplaced Pages is not for me, but I gave it my best shot. Thanks again. Sincerely, -70.18.5.219 06:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

'hoy hoy

Hey Brad! Bit of an esoteric request on my part, but I'm wondering if you've any experience in Irish law. I'm trying to get started on a new project writing articles about recent important court decisions, but my knowledge of the finer points of law are wanting for a bit. I'd be more than happy to do the actual article writing, but I'm a bit hesitant to actually throw something up on Misplaced Pages before its reviewed first by someone with more experience than I. If you do, in fact, have some experience, would you mind terribly to review the content for factual accuracy? (I could send you e-mails or put it in userspace somewhere, if it's easier that way). Thanks a lot, mate and I hope all's well with you. gaillimh 00:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I know very little about Irish law. I'll be glad to read anything you want to post, either before or after you post it, but it would probably be more for copyedits (if any were needed) rather than the finer points of the law. A post to the talkpage of either Wikiproject Law or Wikiproject Ireland would probably be more fruitful than anything I could contribute. Regards, Newyorkbrad 00:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, thanks mate! I actually posted on the Irish WikiProject just prior to contacting you. I wasn't sure if you had any direct experience with Irish law, but I figured I'd give it a shot, hehe. Good idea about posting on the Law WikiProject, I'll definitely do that. Thanks again gaillimh 01:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom Case on "COFS"

Hi, I don't know if I am right here. I expect to get blocked for arbitrary reasons very soon so I take a chance to write to you before. It's about the "Scientology case". You were the clerk there and I don't know how to go about it. Here is what happens: COFS/Shutterbug is accused of "edit warring" (which is a bogus claim, in my eyes) and gets banned from all Scn pages for another 30 days. That happened yesterday or so. I was not involved and had to find out about on my talk page. Means I was not "edit warring" or anything but spent my time on talk pages and minor edits. Below is a copy. Seems to me the ArbCom decision is taken in a way which is totally contrary to the spirit of Misplaced Pages. I disagree and that will not stop. So what can I do?

Copy of my talk page entry:

ArbCom ban has been reinstated

Good afternoon. I'm advising you that due to continued edit warring at Free Zone (Scientology), you are being banned from editing any Scientology-related articles for another 30 days. This ban will expire on December 13, 2007, at 0:00 UTC. Note that if you violate this ban by editing these articles, you will be blocked. Thanks, --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 00:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

There is not such ArbCom ban. Misou 00:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there is the fact that of ArbCom placing all Scientology related articles on probation, with the option of blocking and even banning editors who make disruptive edits, as per here. John Carter 01:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

That is always true, probation or not. But what "disruptive edits" are there? I am talking along with GDamon right now. Misou 01:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify, you are still permitted to edit the article's talk page, so I suggest that you do that and help to resolve the dispute that way. -- ChrisO 01:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I want an answer, not covered restrictions. So what are you talking about? Misou 01:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

What is going on here? Misou has hardly any edits in that page. I would get involved but I don't care about such a page. Bravehartbear 09:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Another user (formerly COFS) was topic-banned, and ArbCom noted that all sanctions that user also apply to this user. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 11:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, any further violations of this topic ban will result in a block for the remainder of the ban period. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 11:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

ST47, I lived in Germany for some years in the 90s, working on a documentation but also researching the holocaust and how it came about. I went to talk to people on camera, freely. The mindset of quite some people I met there still is "all Jews are the same", and a "bad jew" or - usually - a jew with bad reputation is "evidence" that "all Jews are bad" and they should be ostracized, no matter what personality, character the specific individual has, no matter if they actually did something to criticize him or her. I found similar think with "all poles are thieves" and "turks are criminal" in other countries. It's prejudice, it's fanatic and ugly, and most of the time covered by some "good bureaucratic reasons". It's not a German thing, it's how much someone cares and actually looks at the circumstances. What you are doing right now - and I know you will yell "rude" and whatnot, but LOOK at it - is just the same, right here in public, for everyone to see, with Scientologists. It's not as big, it's not as deadly, it still can be fixed, but the intention counts. It's not your fault it came that way but I'm not impressed. Look at MY actions and judge me for that. Misou 17:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

-- Misou 18:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I only find one edit by you on Free Zone (Scientology) so you are probably right that you can't be accused of edit-warring on the article. However, ST47's concern may be that you edited the article when a prior topic-ban that had been imposed on you in October had not yet expired. I will post to his talkpage and ask me to clarify the basis for his action so I can evaluate it. Newyorkbrad 18:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for looking. What's happening is that ST47 is banning three Scientology editors at the same because he finds Shutterbug is doing something wrong, not because I or Makoshack have done something wrong (Makoshack did not edit at all on Scientology a month!). If Makoshack would come along and edit any article before checking his talk page, ST47 will block all three of us right there. You see the problem? Misou 18:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

In all honesty, I have no idea why the other two need to be banned. ArbCom's principle 8, Multiple editors with a single voice, says so and Thatcher noted on the case page that this applied to these three. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 18:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, if that is so, why the heck did you do it then? Misou (talk) 23:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

See here and here. Because we have three editors who claim to be different people, but who sometimes edit from a single IP (the firewall of the organization I believe) the only sensible way to enforce topic bans in this case is to apply them to all three editors. All three editors were notified on their talk pages as well. Whether these three editors have edited in a way to justify a topic ban is a judgement call that can be made by any admin (and can be overturned by any other admin after consultation, if that seems the best course) but clearly these editors need to be treated as a single entity for purposes of deciding whether edit warring or other disruptive behavior is going on. Thatcher131 19:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Thatcher131, may I point out to you that your Diffs could be mistaken as if there is a rule in Misplaced Pages that people using the same firewall (occasionally only, I must say) are to be treated as one person? There is no rule or "policy" in that regard. What you are quoting and what uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) misread as well are the principles defined in the COFS Arbitration case, namely Principle 8. If I remember correctly, though this might not be important right now, a ArbCom majority consists of seven (7) members and this principle was "passed" with six only. So it might not be valid at all.

In any case, Principle 8 reads as follows: "8) It is rarely possible to determine with complete certainty whether several editors from the same IP or corporate server are sockpuppets, meat puppets, or acquaintances who happen to edit Misplaced Pages. In such cases, remedies may be fashioned which are based on the behavior of the user rather than their identity. The Arbitration Committee may determine that editors who edit with the same agenda and make the same types of edits be treated as a single editor. (Based on Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Starwood) Passed 6 to 0 at 03:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)" (emphasis added). Thus this principle exclusively appoints the Arbitration Committee to do decisions such as the one both of you are trying to do. Any threat or claim of yours in punishing editors for the actions of others editors are therefore nil. Further the Arbitration Committee lays out that "remedies may be fashioned which are based on the behavior of the user" (emphasis added), i.e. decisions are based on individual actions of a user and not to be based on activities of other users. You might want to reconsider your statements.

The Arbitration Committee did well in leaving the question of "several individuals - one voice - punishment for all" up to them and any individiual case. Not only would a general rule violate basic rights of participants of this project but Misplaced Pages - in my opinion and without further research on the subject - would be liable to discrimination claims and have its non-profit status endangered. I am currently not in a position to regularly edit any articles but I will keep an eye on this page should you decide to answer. Makoshack 00:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• The majority required depends on the number of active arbitrators at any given time; in this case it was 6. When a pattern of disruptive (or at least questionable editing) turns up, and checkuser documents that the editors share an IP address (see Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/COFS) it is routine for the editors to be blocked as sockpuppets. The "Multiple editors with a single voice" principle in your Arbitration case is nothing new or extraordinary, it is simply a restatement of what happens nearly every day. The claim that the other account is a boyfriend/roommate/spouse/neighbor/coworker is routine, and handled by looking at the accounts' edits. Two accounts that edit different topics are likely to be treated as different people. Two (or more) accounts that edit the same topics, and that support each other in disputes, and that edit for each other when one is blocked, are almost always treated as sockpuppets. This probably means that separate individuals have indeed been blocked from time to time, but until someone invents a away for us to look through the wire at who is typing, this is the best we can do. Beyond that, 3 accounts that edit from the same place, in the same manner, on the same topics, and that edit for each other when one is blocked, are sock puppets in behavior and may be treated as such by policy. It is rather unusual, in fact, for Misou, Shutterbug and Makoshack to be treated as individuals given the circumstances. I orginally blocked two of the accounts indefinitelyas sockpuppets, but upon being made aware that that there was a history of treating you as separate individuals, I decided that we could continue that practice, as long as any topic bans applied to one account applied to all. You are welcome to appeal to the Arbitration committee if you wish. Thatcher131 00:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, I don't really like to be talked about in third person but I take it that you are answering to my statement above. There is nothing to appeal about. The Arbitration Committee Principle 8 is very clear and it does not state that "topic bans applied to one account apply to all". This would require approval of the Arbitration Committee, per Principle 8, and I have not seen them giving you or other Administrators approval of such treatment. But let's hear the Administrator who started this procedure, uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) or the Arbitration Committee's clerk on the matter, whose talk page we are currently abusing. Makoshack 00:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Um, ST47 is not an Arbitration committee clerk (although I actually was) and it was I that put into place the idea that the three of you are treated as one. He is simply enforcing it. Administrators are allowed reasonable latitude to enforce Arbitration decisions. If you don't think you are bound by the topic ban, try editing some COS-related articles and see what happens. I suggest that if you are convinced that my interpretation of the decision is wrong you should ask for clarification. Thatcher131 01:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

By the way, not to be mistaken. I am very much supporting responsible editors and I would vote for the registration of real names and some means of personal identification of Wikipedians and be it only for the eyes of an appointed Wikimedia employee. That would end the endless fiddling around and assumptions about lines, IP addresses and firewalls. I would rather have the individual in sight than his or her equipment. Makoshack 00:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Not really. Even if I had copies of your passports showing your real names and that you were different people, the fact that you edit from the same place, with the same goals, support each other when in disputes, and help each other out when one is blocked, means that you can be treated as sock or meat puppets under the sockpuppet policy. The reason for this is very simple. No one can know who is actually sitting in front of a computer typing at any given moment, and you could easily share each others's passwords. When User A is blocked for disruptive editing of some kind, and User B continues the pattern, it makes no difference if User B is the same person as User A, if Users A and B are different people but User A logs in as B, or if A and B are different people and B makes edits at A's request while A is blocked. All are prohibited. Thatcher131 01:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow. And how do you separate those people who happen to have the same interest? I mean, just the same hobby or so? Fans, so to say? Getting shot for agreeing with someone sounds wild to me. Anyway, this is actually an exchange between ST47 and Makoshack, so we two chickens should see what the big ones have to say. Agreed? Shutterbug (talk) 07:05, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Rama's Arrow

Hello Newyorkbrad. Today I found out that before I became a part of the Misplaced Pages community, there was another remarkable Wikipedian - Rama's Arrow. He wrote 11 Featured articles. That's amazing. I also noticed that he lost his adminship and left Misplaced Pages. Can you tell me something about him? Why did he lost adminship? Please reply on my talk page. Regards, Masterpiece2000 10:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. Regards, Masterpiece2000 09:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hello!

On this article Users GiovanniGiove and Ghepeu are vandalizing the article

They simply delete the entire paragraph . I remind that Giovanni_Giove has a limit afor editing per week and I believe he broke it with this.

Regards! --Anto 17:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

This appears to be primarily a content dispute, and I don't know enough about the subject-matter of the article to opine on whether the disputed paragraph belongs in the article or not. Please discuss on the talkpage. I know there is discussion of Giovanni Giove's editing on Misplaced Pages:Arbitration enforcement, so you might want to add your thoughts there if you haven't already done so. Newyorkbrad 18:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Can you take a look at this?

I am involved in another debate with David Shankbone. See this (and the following section). This was a stub article with no pro or con material. After NLC merged into AEI, David added an isolated quote from a 1990 Times article which implies that this organization has supported the activities of Dow Chemical, Amway, and Shell Oil. This is an isolated (and unelaborated) quote in a single article from 17 years ago - an article that appears to be an opinion piece (though not certain that it is). David's claims effectively doubled the length of this stub article, and I believe it is undue weight to include an isolated 17 year old claim as controversial as this, even if it is sourced to the Times. (That's not the only issue I have, but it's the main one).

I toned down the claim, but David reverted me, and we've reached an impasse on the talk page. He is now claiming I am unqualified to comment because I am not a lawyer, so I'm asking you (as a lawyer whose judgement I respect) to comment on this. I realize you are busy with your arbcom candidacy, so feel free to say no. :-) ATren 00:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Brad, User:Swatjester has agreed to review the article, although you are welcome to do so as well. And the main issue is that the organization was funded by corporations. I have provided four references to two New York Times articles, a Salon article and a UConn law journal, and I supplied the quote from the Times article. Everything is sourced and cited. --David Shankbone 00:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

No, the main issue is the quote that it is "focused on the corporate sector" - being funded by corporate entities is not the same as saying they are "focused" on corporate issues - and the implication that it is sacrificing the public good to support Dow, Shell, and Amway. I removed those claims, David reverted me. David, reread my comments on the talk page. ATren 01:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I am trying to stay away from disputes to which David Shankbone is a party, in view of some recent disagreements we have had. In general, I would say that this article contains nothing overtly unacceptable, although it can certainly stand to be further developed. I would point out, though, that David Margolick's "At the Bar" column in The New York Times was largely a human-interest and opinion column, rather than a news column, and that the sentence of the article quoted from Margolick was his personal opinion of the organization rather than a news report. Unless it is made clear that the quotation represents one individual's opinion, I am sure that a more reliable source can be found to summarize the organization's position on the ideological spectrum. Hope this helps. Newyorkbrad 01:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, understood. Thanks. ATren 01:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

If the change I made suits you, ATren, I will tell Swatjester that he doesn't have to spend his time reviewing the Talk page. --David Shankbone 01:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

No, it's still problematic. See the talk page. ATren 03:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

That's fine. We can wait for Swatjester. --David Shankbone 03:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• Brad, sorry to disturb you, but User:ATren has really twisted what you wrote above into new directions. I'm sure you know David Margolick is one of the country's more acclaimed journalists and is seen as balanced in his reporting. ATren has taken your "Unless it is made clear that the quotation represents one individual's opinion, I am sure that a more reliable source can be found" quote and turned it into, "He specifically said a more reliable source of criticism would be better." He has turned "I am trying to stay away from disputes to which David Shankbone is a party" into "your insistence in trying to re-involve de him in this debate after he specifically asked you not to is starting to look like harassment" because I have cited you found "nothing overtly unacceptable." With your reasonable suggestion, I attributed the quote to Margolick and created a stub for him (which ATren has helpfully expanded). You don't have to involve yourself, but I want to point out that the short paragraph you wrote is being twisted into new directions over an innocuous quote by an acclaimed reporter, a dispute that so far two other people (User:Jeffpw and User:Swatjester, who said after I made the change that the page looked "remarkably neutral") have not seen what ATren sees. The dispute continues because ATren won't let it die.--David Shankbone 05:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Brad, I asked him half a dozen times to respect your wishes and leave you out of it, but he refuses. He keeps bringing you back into the debate on the talk page. I honestly don't know what to do. Feel free to ignore this and remove it from your talk page immediately. ATren (talk) 05:18, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't feel harassed, but I have no further comments. Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee Content Decisions

Hi Newyorkbrad. I'm wondering if you, as a clerk, have in mind a good example of an arbitration case with content findings aside from the Paranormal case? In that case, there were several findings of fact related to the status of different groups, objects, ideas, etc. I was looking over a handful of other arbitration cases to try to find a pattern that would help me better understand when and why the Arbitration Committee makes content decisions, and what impact those decisions are intended to have with regards to editing Misplaced Pages. Because I couldn't find any other cases after my cursory search, I decided I'd ask you since you'd probably seen some. Sorry to bug, and thanks for your help. Antelan 01:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I think Paranormal was, as you've found, something of an unusual case. The way the findings were written was partly a function of the subject-matter of the case, and partly a function of the writing style of the arbitrator who wrote up the decision (some arbs tend to write decisions that go into much more detail than others). I can't think off the top of my head of another case that contained similarly detailed findings that came so close to content rulings (which the arbitrators generally disclaim any interest in making), but I will look over the list of completed cases when I have a few minutes and see if any spring to mind. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I really appreciate your attention to detail. Antelan 01:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Newyorkbrad, this is of help (: ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 19:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

RfA: RoyalBroil

You are out of line. I want to support this user, but first, you tell me why there is a problem with my asking my question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keepscases (talk • contribs)

You continue to post increasingly odd questions to the RfA's of seemingly randomly selected candidates. The questions typically bear no relation to the candidates' qualifications and add in a wholly unnecessary way to the stress of the RfA process. The particular scenario you posit is not a reasonable question for a candidate, although I concede it is somewhat more plausible than your prior requests for haikus. Please stop this sort of nonsense at once. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I categorically deny your assertion. I am not the only Wikipedian who is sick of the same old questions. An administrator should be able to think outside the box. That's really important. Keepscases (talk) 05:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

You know something ... I still don't approve of your approach to these questions, but I have to admit that your question to Royalbroil elicited an unexpectedly relevant and interesting response. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

See, that's what happens. I assure you my questions have a purpose. Keepscases (talk) 04:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Can you look...

Can you look at John Peter Zenger, a biography primarily about a colonial era law case in New York. We've been playing rvv with IP edits all fall. I've seen this happen because old vandalism made it into the article, so I'd like it reviewed - or it could be driven by this Conservapedia page, item #66. I'd also like you to decide as an admin whether the article should be semi-protected; I'm too close to it to do so myself. In fact, I've looked at it too many times to tell what work the article needs GRBerry (talk) 19:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Invisible Barnstar
		For being with us for so many years, and for many years to come, raise a glass. Marlith /C 05:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

User_talk:Tezza1

Now that User:Tezza1 has been banned, can I remove the vexatious (and now discredited) sock allegations his talk page or are you or another admin able to remove it permanently? Can Tempblockeduser be used in this case? Thin Arthur (talk) 11:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)