The Fair Use policy in this regard is crystal clear; it is your reading of it that is either hazy or merely outright faulty.

I am but an editor; I gain no special rights though my being a sysop, an oversighter, an Arbitrator, or an Officer - they are all symptoms, not causes, of the worrying tendancy that people want to listen to what I say. ;-) I cannot indicate when I'm using my "special privileges", because I have none excepting that it is I who wields them and so people sometimes chose to pay more attention.

It certainly would not be "unnacceptable" for a "normal" (have you met some of our sysops? "Normal" is, I fear, not the word ;-)) sysop to take these actions. As to editing the page whilst protected, I'm sure that you can understand why that would be strongly frowned upon.

I would ask you to retract immediately your comments and accusations against my character, including that I am seemingly involved in the issue - I have never edited the page, not once, nor made reference to it; that I have deliberately chosen m:The Wrong Version on which to protect the page merely to frustrate you - I protected it in the form that it appeared to me when I went to the page; and that, indeed, I am doing anything other than what a responsible sysop who saw the situation would do. It is a most hurtful thing to say, especially when it is wholly lacking in any factual basis.

Also, please spend some time to work out the rules of English grammar with regard to capitalisation. :-)

James F. (talk) 10:40, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your Reply. I'm Sorry for the Accusations. I was just overwhelmed by your accusations of me. It's just that the last edit was Ed's and you have had prior relations with him on the same issue regarding fair use. You have a picture of him on your userpage. And your edit summary did endorse an edit. A assumed you and Ed were working as a team. Him editing and you’re protecting. I know there is no Wrong version but you are involved in the fair use dispute. And you are allowed to protect the page to Lock-off the copyright license notice for the site. However leaving it Protected forever is not acceptable. Please indicate how long you are letting the issue cool down. Also Please indicate that you are protecting it to protect our GNU integrity an not just stooping and edit war.

The Policy does Not specifically address media navigation pages. And the president is. Very Different from your Official interpretation of the Policy. If the Policy was clear it would be the same as the president. Also the policy page seems being used for Ballot Stocking on these issues. We don’t have to fallow what the policy says, we do have to fallow what the policy is trying to say.

If this problem is ever going to be resolved we need a featured list as a Model to work from. No such Model exists without excessive Extensive use of fair use. I agree that you did what you had to do. I just feel that if you are Endorsed the fair use Policy you need to say that. Otherwise it is an awful coincidence.

As Far As My Caps Go I Am So Sorry. I spend 2/3 rds my time just Spell Checking i Usually ignore the Caps. I also use it for putting the wrong emphAsis on my silAbles.--E-Bod 17:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you must be open to other Interpreting Of Policies. As far as the Guideline of WP:Point. We are entitled to one violation of a policy until somebody objects

Misplaced Pages:Ignore all rules Misplaced Pages:Interpret all rules Misplaced Pages:Use common sense M: Instruction creep

I went out of my way to make my edits very non-disruptive.

For instance I linked to all my edits so they can be easily reverted and not pass under the radar. (This was used against me to find the questionable edits).

I had not involved any bystanders. This was only against one user, and my point was so mild that the user unfortunately agreed with my edit (Hence my edits were a catch 22. If the person didn’t like my edit they would be more civil about removing fair use images and if the person liked my edit I didn’t offend anybody.)

WP:Point is about making edits that nobody would agree with just to make a point. My point was not an extreme.

My point was he should not remove fair use images until he removed all of his. I felt it would be less destructive for him to revert those three documented changes that to have the numerous other user have his changes on their page without even knowing it and latter having to find aE-Bod

Actually maybe I should re-say this. My Objection is not In your Initial Protection of the page. I Just think you can't leave the page Protected for ever. I wouldn't even object you saying that you have choice but to protect the page to keep the Fair use images off of it. However I do object to the Template saying that it is not an Enforcement of a Version when your stand on Fair use Is Clear. I am just Objecting to your process. You Should not Just leave that page protected for.

And Factual Evidence leading to my suspicion of you and ed working closely together. You are Both in the same picture at a Wiki meet in Real life. You had been really quick to Block me Without notifying me when i complained to ed. Even though i was uncivil Admins are not supposed to Jump to a block unless you are actually trying to Block me from doing something. (You ended up interfering with the resolution of the issue). And I see the last edit your protect is Ed's. But it's not just that. The thing stays Protected. Protection isn't something you should be taking so lightly. You do what you have to do and then let us go on to editing. I haven't' Edited the Lost Page Once. In fact I found out about the issue when Ed Ballot Boxed the page with a notice on the Fair use Policy page. I am very disturbed by the fair use Enforces asking Other Fair use Enforcers to look over Possible Fair use Violations. We may have to get rid of a lot of Fair use images but that decision should not be made by a small group of people who only go to themselves to talk about the issue. Ballot Boxing is bad when use For or Against policies. I don't understand why people are going to the talk page saying they were told to on a message on their talk page. As an admin and an Arbitrator you should not only Hold yourself to high standards but also Encourage others to do the same, Just don't set the standars to hight eather. --E-Bod 05:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't think that there's anything more to say. "Fair Use" is not a guideline - it is an extrmely strictly-applied set of rules, and your reading of it in this context is, well, wrong. However many people come to the talk page agreeing with you, you're all still wrong. Sorry.

James F. (talk) 18:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

You don't understand. I know fair use is not a guideline, Point is. This is not an issue of fair use. This is an issue of you not fallowing Misplaced Pages process. Few object because you are an arbitrator, not because you are doing the right thing.

1. you clamed you blocked me for making a point.
   • my point was ed should do to others as you would have them do to you and i made it by removing fair use form ed's userspace. Unfortunately ed actual did want others to do that and he did not get my point because he appreciated the edit. You clamed to block me for wp:point but you meant to block me for being un Civil, and i did not break the spirit of the point guideline. I did not add fair use images, i made my point by removing them. If a user makes an uncivil edit you don’t block then right away. You warn them and if they don’t cool down then you say I’m sorry but i have to block you.
2. i am not asking you to allow fair use images on lost
   • i am asking you to unblock the page and ask the users not to repost the images. If they are reposted revert one. If they are reposted again revert and protect. But don't block the page just like that.
3. you are enforcing the fair use policy the wrong way.
   • all the featured media lists have fair use images so even if the policy says something it would be better to make a policy solely to address this issue. If you object to a specific instance you can remove the fair use images from that page. If you object to the way every single model media list violate fair use policy is made you need to (in addition to what you did) create a policy page. Quote existing policy or jimbo. And direct all the arguments to that page. Jimbo reserves the right to have the final say and he has already said what he has to say regardless of consensus. If an editor adds a fair use image to a page, that does not warrant a page protection for a month. You had no choice but to protect the page but you can't just leave it protected forever.

A further problem is the people enforcing the fair use policy doesn’t even read it the same way. Some see it as a, we are respecting copy rights while others see it as protecting our GFDL while others see it as a primitive way to avoid lawsuits. The truth is it is all of these things combined plus more, however many people in favor of the fair use policy only see some of the issues.

I am not commenting on fair use. I am commenting of your abusive/disruptive actions.

And by the way. My microsoft word does not fix cap errors. I have changed it to all lower case and back to sentence case but some words that should be capital are now lower case such as “i”. I hope this is less distracting for you.--E-Bod 20:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

To summarise your length and meandering prose, you wish me to unprotect a page that I know will immediately erupt into a frezy of counter-policy image use violations, and no doubt then an edit war, and then dedicate many hours of my life to patrolling the page and laying down impromptu rules and threats that I have no position to be making. I'm sorry, but no. Talk to the other sysops involved (and there are quite a few who have commented).

James F. (talk) 17:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The Problem is I'm more Optimistic about the issue than you are. Correct me if I'm wrong but the message you are sending to me is "No, I will leave that page Blocked Forever". Anyway the Page has been Unbocked and Images have been added and reverted twice, However The people Removing the images included the people advocating for the images. 3 users have Contributed 5 Improvement Edits. That alone was worth an unblock.

In Other Words. You were Wrong. In fact the current Edit war is over the page Formatting. You had nothing to worry about with the Copyright issue because those of us who Argued For the images Still Value Misplaced Pages enough to Understand Adding the images is unacceptable while the issue is being discussed and we are receiving it against our Wises. You should WP:AGF in the Future We can Be trusted to Enforce policies we disagree with strongly. You should be more trusting of our community. Don't let a few bad apples hurt us all.--E-Bod 21:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I "should be more trusting of our community" because they picked an even more stupid thing to edit-war over. Quite.

James F. (talk) 17:33, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion

Hello! I noticed that you have been a contributor to articles on Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion. You may be interested in checking out a new WikiProject - WikiProject Anglicanism. Please consider signing up and participating in this collaborative effort to improve and expand Anglican-related articles! Cheers! Fishhead64 22:25, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, but I don't think that I'll be interested. Good luck, however!

James F. (talk) 18:11, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Your vote on List of terrorist organisations

At Talk:List_of_terrorist_organisations you wrote: "we don't generally move for AE/BE issues". This isn't an AE/BE issue, it's about adherence to policy. See discussion. You might want to change your vote! Best, --Cultural Freedom talk 06:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks.

James F. (talk) 18:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

You're Welcome! I see you've neither changed your vote, nor removed it. May I ask why? As an admin, I would have guessed you'd be interested in seeing that policy is adhered to. Thanks, --Cultural Freedom talk 07:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the prod. Forgot about this one. Done now. :-)

James F. (talk) 17:33, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Clarification of something

elements cross-posted

Your comment at the Tony Blair talk page that "Misplaced Pages is not a bureaucracy" got my curiosity going. I went to and couldn't find an explicit mention of the phrase there; the phrase does exist as a redirect to , although What links here for it gives only two WP talk pages and a user page. Can you tell me what you understand about the meaning and/or cultural significance of this phrase in WP. Having only been here a year, I assume it must be something (policy, guideline?) that originated before I joined, which is familiar to old hands like yourself, but is no longer known by that name? Rather than guess incorrectly what you are referring to, I thought it better to ask directly. I also thought I'd better post this query here rather than at the Tony Blair page as the section on which bits of trivia to include & exclude has already got cluttered up with stuff that isn't actually about that subject (partly my fault!). Cheers. SP-KP 21:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Interesting - it has been removed from the policy page. BTW, this exhibits rather well how policy pages don't always (well, very rarely) accurately reflect what "policy" is, and are imperfect instantiations of some words that to some extent describe the ethos of the policy - or rather, hope to, and often flat-out contradict it.

In a nutshell, the phrase "Misplaced Pages is not a bureaucracy" means that Misplaced Pages isn't here to follow policy blindly, and that process and its application with all that entails - including, to rather unfairly quote you (;-)), "accountability and auditability" - is generally strongly discouraged and often ignored because it has been found to be not only unhelpful, but outright counter-productive, good only for alienating contributors and enforcing a hierarchy of those who are more familiar that the others with the archanery and complexities which they can exploit to raise themselves above hoi polloi. Yes, I am going off the deep end with hyperbolæ, I agree, but that's the line of argument that I was hoping to convey. Sorry if I confused you - I really didn't mean it to suggest that I was more correct than you in my point of view because of my better ability to cite policy, certainly. :-)

One of the major social problems we're having on Misplaced Pages is what Kelly has coined as our "enculturation" - basic, fundamental ideas such as this just aren't being communicated effectively to newer users at all, or, at best, with only partial and patchy sucess.

James F. (talk) 19:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that - quite an interesting reply. To me though, it does raise more questions than it answers. Reading through your second paragraph, I see a point of view - a well-argued point of view - but I have no way of telling that it accurately reflects the real position (other than the fact that your are quite a well-established Wikipedian, so extra weight should be attached to what you say, but ...). As a not-totally-new but not-quite-in-the-old-timer's-league editor, I feel that 90% of the time, I understand what we're all about, but then things like this come up which completely throw me. I'm now not clear whether I should pay any attention to policy, or pay some attention, some of the time, and if the latter, when I can choose to pay attention, and when I can choose to ignore. Do you see the difficulty? Aside from the specific issue of whether trivia sections are OK or not, and how I as an editor would know this in the absence of a defined policy on the subject, what do I do?? To be frank, this particular incident is making me doubt quite seriously whether Misplaced Pages really is the kind of endeavour that I thought it was. It felt like a place where we actually tried to make progress towards consensus, harmonious discussion, respect for alternative viewpoints, the pursuit of well-written, NPOV text etc etc. I'm now beginning to get an awful feeling that its actually somewhere where mushroom management is alive & well, where policies & so on are created as a smokescreen, to give the impression that we actually do things through process, agreement & consensus, but where in fact, behind the scenes, they don't really matter. Blimey, I don't normally write stuff that sounds as emotive as that does - sorry! Calm me down and stop me walking away bemused & disillusioned, please? SP-KP 22:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. I agree that it's a real difficulty. Some have likened Misplaced Pages's internal processes to a game of "Calvinball" - certainly, there is a strong element of fluidity and flexibility in some of what we do - though, certainly, to a lesser extent than the "progress towards consensus, harmonious discussion, respect for alternative viewpoints, the pursuit of well-written, NPOV text" and so on that you mentioned rather worthily. :-)

Have you considered becoming a sysop? I'm tempted to nominate you - given what you've said here, I think you'll be an asset.

James F. (talk) 21:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Getting a cloak...

Hey there, I was wondering if I might be able to get an IRC cloak. IRC nick is AmiDaniel, linked to AmiDaniel_ and AmiDaniel_away with e-mail enabled. AmiDaniel (talk) 06:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I will request this, but I have been having difficulties for the past few weeks trying to get cloaks set.

James F. (talk) 11:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I also wish for an cloack for the #wikipedia IRC room. The username I use for the room is Zscout370, which is also my nick on en.wikipedia.org. I also followed the instructions at Misplaced Pages:IRC_channel_cloaks. Thank you. User:Zscout370 06:07, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I would also like an IRC cloak - I have registered as Haza-w, linked Haza-w_ as an alt nick and set an e-mail address (hidden). I believe I have to speak with you before I can sign Misplaced Pages:IRC cloak verifications. haz (user talk) 17:40, 25 June 2006

I'd like a cloak to if possible. IRC nick Stormscape linked to Stormscape|AFK and Stormscape_ e-mail address is also displayed. Stormscape 06:04, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

All four now requested (along with a dozen or so more). Let's see how it goes. :-)

James F. (talk) 21:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

CFD renomination

For info: a cat you previously voted to delete has been recreated. Please see:

• Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_June_26#Category:White_people

--Mais oui! 17:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Eurgh. Thanks.

James F. (talk) 20:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Accessing #wikipedia-en-admins

Hi Jdforrester. You are the only remaining active contributor who is listed at Misplaced Pages:IRC channels that knows how to grant access to #wikipedia-en-admins. I'd like to be able to join that channel, as I am an administrator on en. Could you help me out? Thanks. ~MDD4696 05:35, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, of course. Contact me on IRC ("James_F" or, more normally, "James_F|Away"/"James_F|Busy"/etc.).

James F. (talk) 10:39, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Rosie Winterton

elements cross-posted

David,

Re. your edit, "PC" is only used used for Peers because any sane publication would say "The Right Honourable" in front of PCs, and you can't tell with Peers from that because they already are. Also, I'm rather confused by your statement that it's not the house-style to use "MP", given that we have been doing so for years now on many of them...

James F. (talk) 12:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

While I may agree with you that it would be more appropriate to give Privy Counsellors the prenominal "The Right Honourable", this is not now thought appropriate. The postnominal "PC" is currently used only by Peers, who are of course already "The Right Honourable" (at least). If the form of address actually used is eliminated by house style then that is unfortunate, but Misplaced Pages cannot make up a new form of address.

It most certainly isn't house style to add a postnominal "MP" to members of the House of Commons. Look at almost any article on a current MP and you will find it is not there. To do so would also open up a can of worms about whether it should go on former MPs. David | Talk 12:23, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

We use a made-up new form of address for every article on a Peer. I hardly think worrying that stating PC in the PNLs is the straw for the camel's break. Right now, the style that you are enforcing, in conjunction with other, admittedly-stupid style conventions, actively removes useful information from articles. Think to yourself - "how does this make Misplaced Pages a better encyclopædia?".

Hmm. Obviously, "MP" as PNLs should go solely on the articles of anyone who is an MP now. It should technically not be present after Parliament is dissolved, though that's a bit more work than I think is sensible. That's not opening a can of worms - protocol is quite clear on where and when the PNLs should be used. For the few MPs who have died in office, almost none of them have died in the current Parliament, and over time, said number will always decrease; if necessary, we can keep "MP" as PNLs for recently deceased MPs up until the Parliament wherein they died is dissolved.

James F. (talk) 12:43, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I am thinking "how does this make Misplaced Pages a better encyclopaedia?". I don't think it makes Misplaced Pages a better encyclopaedia to use "PC" as a postnominal for members of the Privy Council who are not peers, because it misleads readers unfamiliar with their subject into thinking this is accepted usage, which it isn't. Perhaps it may be better to argue that Privy Counsellor membership qualifying for "The Right Honourable" be an exception to the general rule against prenominal honorifics? I would support such an argument.

I did a quick check and the only articles which actually have a postnominal "MP" for current MPs are the ones edited on Thursday by a House of Commons IP to have them. I don't think that removing it, which I am now doing, harms the encyclopaedic value because in all cases it is mentioned in the introductory text that the subject is a current Member of Parliament. David | Talk 12:51, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

We used that argument, if you recall - it "lost". Isn't ochlocracy wonderful? (Though given your job, you'd probably say "yes" ;-).)

By your argument, why do we not remove the PNLs from every article, then? Almost all of them "mention in the introductory text" that they are what they say they are a Bt or SRS or FRSA, after all. It seems a tad odd to ignore our general conventions in the one regard of using "MP". And we use "MSP", "AM", etc. almost without fail - why is Parliament so terribly especial?

James F. (talk) 13:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Hawaii state seal.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Hawaii state seal.png. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use it on Misplaced Pages (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Misplaced Pages:Fair use, use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Note that any unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Bkell (talk) 09:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Fixed (some idiot deleted the original without thought to why a PD image of something rather well-referenced had suddenly become unused), but it's nothing that you could not have done yourself. In future, don't bot-message people about the copyright status of images when they are not the original uploader. An implicit message behind WP:CIVIL is not to ask silly questions. :-)

James F. (talk) 18:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

IRC cloak

Hi, I'd like to get a wikipedia associated cloak. If I understood it correctly, you are the only person left to contact, and that language associations are no longer available. I'm KevinBreit on IRC, and I've left you a message on IRC as well. The requested cloak is wikipedia/KevinBreit Thank you. Kevin_b_er 23:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Contacting on IRC.

James F. (talk) 07:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Discussion at Village pump

Please have a look at Misplaced Pages:Village_pump_(policy)#Resolving_content_disputes. Please help me to find the answer to my questions. Thanks.--AndriyK 13:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, though I think that everything that I would have said has been so done already.

James F. (talk) 07:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Helping out with IRC

I've noticed that there is often a backlog for cloak setting on IRC as you're basically the only contact left these days. I spoke with Jimbo on IRC and asked if I could help out as I'm often on IRC and in the -irc channel. In his usual fashion he delegated the job to someone else (jk), you, so I'd like to ask if there is a chance I can get involved in this. Thanks. —Xyrael _{/ 18:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)}

Ian Bostridge - PNLs and years

Is there a WP policy on PNLs? I can't find one.

Unlinking isolated years is entirely consistent with the policies in WP:MOS-L#Internal links

An article may be considered overlinked if … low added-value items are linked without reason — such as, 1995, 1980s, and 20th century.

and with WP:DATE#Partial dates. Colonies Chris 12:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I know exactly what that says. It is a highly controversial reversal of a very long-standing policy, and is widely vilified as such, but (as is too often the case) has its own camp of people dedicated to the current "policy", though it's in the process of being unpicked and rationalised. It doesn't mean that it should be followed blindly - links to the years give context (that is, after all, the entire point of links).

As to PNLs, I don't believe there's a specific written-down policy, just people tidying things up as they go about their wiki-business. :-)

James F. (talk) 07:42, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Flood exemption / Cloak on freenode for a bot

I operate the bot DigitalBot on freenode in #vandalism-en-wp and #antivandalism as a backup bot for pgkbot. I am interested in obtaining flood exemption and a new cloak (possibly Misplaced Pages/Digitalme/bots/DigitalBot). Please let me know if this is possible. Thanks.--digital_me 20:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Issue has been resolved.--digital_me 00:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Umm... OK. :-)

James F. (talk) 07:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Georgia Move

As a past participant in the discussion on how to handle the Georgia pages, I thought you might be interested to know that there's a new attempt to reach consensus on the matter being addressed at Talk:Georgia (country)#Requested_Move_-_July_2006. Please come by and share your thoughts to help form a consensus. --Vengeful Cynic 03:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Done. Thanks.

James F. (talk) 07:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I was wondering...

Since you are an ArbCom member, you do have the power to delete individual history revisiosn, right? Could you delete , , and ? I don't want to give away my birth year. Hbdragon88 07:38, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Done.

James F. (talk) 10:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Babel templates again I'm afraid....

Just thought I'd flag these (Template:User en-gb-0 and Template:User CalE-0) up again as they've been recreated, but with new text. Many thanks. Ian3055 21:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Lovely. Done. Thanks for bringing this to my attention.

James F. (talk) 12:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

IRC cloak CheNuevara

Can I get a wikipedia/ irc cloak? I've registered the handles CheNuevara, CheNuevara_, and CheNuevara_away. I'd like the cloak to be wikipedia/CheNuevara. Thanks! - Che Nuevara: 14:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Cloak

Hi I'm TehKewl1 secondary nick TehKewl22 email adress Simeon.Higgs@gmail.com, can I please have a cloak?

irc cloak

main: Deon
Alternative:Deon555

I request a cloak of wikipedia/Deon.

thanks --Deon555|talk 03:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

ps i sent u a memo on irc. ;) Reply here or here

--Deon555|talk 03:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Sam Sloan announcement

"I did not 'attempt' to post 100 chess biographies on Misplaced Pages. I did post 100 chess biographies on Misplaced Pages. All but one of them is still there. I merely waited until Ralf Callenberg, Paul Rubin and Louis Blair were not looking and reposted them. I added a new biography yesterday and no I am not going to tell you where it is for fear that they will vandalize it again." - Sam Sloan (samhsloan@gmail.com, NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.199.110.255, 11 Jul 2006 05:23:13 -0700) http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.chess.misc/msg/f245a0650c22f010?hl=en

"My Biography of Dimitrije Bjelica" - Sam Sloan (sloan@ishipress.com, NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.199.110.255, Sun, 16 Jul 2006 19:09:34 GMT) http://groups.google.com/group/samsloan/msg/eefc91bb2aeda9d0?hl=en http://en.wikipedia.org/Dimitrije_Bjelica - Louis Blair (July 19, 2006)