User talk:70.109.223.188

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Attention:

This host, static-70-109-223-188.prov.east.verizon.net, is registered to Verizon; Providence, RI, an Internet service provider through which numerous individual users may connect to the Internet via proxy. This IP address may be reassigned to a different person when the current user disconnects.

For this reason, a message intended for one person may be received by another. If you are editing from this address and are frustrated by irrelevant messages, you can avoid them by creating an account for yourself. In some cases, you may temporarily be unable to create an account due to efforts to fight vandalism, in which case, please see here.

If you are autoblocked repeatedly, we encourage you to contact your Internet service provider or IT department and ask them to contact Wikimedia's XFF project about enabling X-Forwarded-For HTTP headers on their proxy servers so that our editing blocks will affect only the intended user.

Caution should be used when blocking this IP or reverting its contributions without checking - if a block is needed, administrators should consider using a soft block with the template {{anonblock|optional comment}} as the block reason.

Note: In the event of vandalism from this address, abuse reports may be sent to your network administrator for further investigation.
IT staff who want to monitor vandalism from this IP address can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.


Contents

[edit] Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, 70.109.223.188, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!

[edit] October 2007

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary, which wasn't included with your recent edit to Talk:Anderson Cooper. Thank you. MBK004 14:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to El Al, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.

[edit] January 2008

Please do not gratuitously remove content from Wikipedia, as you did to the Joseph McCarthy page. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. RedSpruce (talk) 20:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Allegations of state terrorism committed by the United States, especially without providing an edit summary you will be blocked from editing. Silly rabbit (talk) 15:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Natasha Collins

I've reverted your edits to Natasha Collins as I think it probably isn't wise to speculate about the case. Thanks Paul20070 (talk) 20:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I've put it back as it's mentioned in the Speight article, so is probably ok. I've made a slight edit though, and will be adding some more information. Please accept my apologies for challenging your edit. I was just a bit concerned that it could be controversial. Thanks and happy editing. Paul20070 (talk) 21:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

More petty vandalism from this IP, almost certainly the same person because it was to remove some comments of mine from talk pages. [1] [2] [3] SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 19:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked for 12 hours. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 20:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tagging

Not really, the tagging is done to keep track of ISP's, as well as possible sockpuppetry. Please keep in mind that logging out of an account to edit as an IP to circumvent WP:3RR is not allowed. Other than that, as long as you stick to the policies and guidelines it should not matter if you edit under the IP or under the account name; realizing that IP and account edit histories are open to all people, and that editing history can be conclusive, even without the use of wp:checkuser. -- Avi (talk) 16:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

thanks, i do edit from different locations, but not really to cause problems. iam glad that isn't against any rules. if i have broken any rules can you please point them out so i don't do them again? thanks again. --70.109.223.188 (talk) 16:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

also, i saw my contributions list. there is stuff going way back that i did not contribute. how can that be. i am on a network computer, does that matter.--70.109.223.188 (talk) 16:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I would encourage you to create an account and login before you make any edits. That way your changes follow you regardless of where you are. It also help you disassociate yourself from any vandalism that happens on the same IP. -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) (Talk) 21:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

i am not allowed to create an account. --70.109.223.188 (talk) 21:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Why not? If you can't due to an IP block, you can request an account. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 19:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

i would rather not discuss that here. --70.109.223.188 (talk) 14:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] February 2008

Hi, the recent edit you made to C-Squat has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. Jonathan 20:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

As a matter of interest, can you say why you made this edit? SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 02:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

loisaida is slang and some people in that area of nyc find it offensive. is that a problem.--70.109.223.188 (talk) 14:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Notice of editing restriction

As a result of an Arbitration case, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles, all articles related to Israel and Palestine and related disputes are placed under broad discretionary sanctions. Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.

This message places you on notice that the sanctions apply to your editing of these articles, which is the subject of a current complaint at WP:AE. Despite the notice on this page that this is a dynamic IP address, I am aware that it has been stable for some time and I know the names of the accounts you have been using. You are simply being informed of the sanctions at this time so I will avoid disclosing the names of those accounts. However, if it becomes necessary to apply individual sanctions due to disruptive behavior, it will be necessary to disclose those account names. Thatcher 22:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nobody "owns" a Wikipedia article

It depresses me even to see such phrasing here. Moncrief (talk) 19:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Phil Ford

I would suggest that you learn the meaning of 'vandalism'; what I added is to this article is truthful and verifiable ... the cornerstones of Wikipedia. Don't waste my time or yours with these inane accusations. Duke53 | Talk 05:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Please respond on the article's talk page. It seems that you are in the minority position on readding that material. Nobody is questioning its truth or verifiability, it is more its relevance to the overall article and what impact if any it had on this person and why you keep on insisting on adding it against BLP concerns. Thank you. --70.109.223.188 (talk) 13:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] George Stamatis‎

Hi - I see you are trying to clear up this article at the moment, but you appear to be engaged in a revert war. Please be aware of the 3 revert rule, and try to keep a cool head. Thanks. —  Tivedshambo  (t|c) 20:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Cool head?!? My head is going to EXPLODE!!!!!!WTF, is this person trying to drive me crazy??? Thanks, I will chill :) --70.109.223.188 (talk) 20:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Well done for chillin'! Have you considered opening an account? —  Tivedshambo  (t|c) 22:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] March 2008

Please do not gratuitously remove content from Wikipedia, as you did to the Waterboarding page. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 16:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC) Please see WP:CAT. This is not vandalism. --70.109.223.188 (talk) 16:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Waterboarding

Waterboarding is consider a controversial topic. Therefore we ask you not to make any controversial edits without discussion or a consensus. See the top of the talk page for more details. --neonwhite user page talk 16:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I tried to use edit summaries and the talk page and was met with rudiness. Too bad. --70.109.223.188 (talk) 16:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] unblock request

{{unblock| Hi, I have not been edit warring, this is very strange, indeed. Thank you. If this is in regard to waterboarding, I reverted my self when I added a category in error. I then removed another category that appeared to be a parent category of a sub category. I have been using the talk page and I am actually pretty tame.}}

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

It would appear that most of your reverts were "self" reverts, and thus not strictly WP:3RR violations. However, please be keen to the fact that the Waterboarding article is the subject of heavy controversy and is under an ArbCom case, thus any questionable edits to that article are likely to me met with swifter blocks than other, less controversial articles. Take care when editing in articles whose subjects are the source of such controversy. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Request handled by: Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chris O, where have I been edit warring?

Very strange indeed. --70.109.223.188 (talk) 20:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

This is the edit warring. [4][5][6][7] The unblock was an error. Please join the discussion at WP:AE. Jehochman Talk 21:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I have responded there. Thank you. --70.109.223.188 (talk) 14:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your recent edits

I have just reverted several of your last edits after one of them showed up on my watchlist, some of these might be controversial so take some time to discuss them in the relevant project (WP:PUR), especially the ones involving removal of portal links, thank you. - Caribbean~H.Q. 20:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd also suggest that "ce" is not an adequate edit summary... you will want to give more detail than that (I don't even know what "ce" actually means and I've been around for quite some time). You've been warned about this before. Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 13:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I thought it meant copy edit. Also, have you warned Caribbean H.Q. as well for reverting without using edit summaries? --70.109.223.188 (talk) 15:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Consider this your last warning. Calling something vandalism does not make it so. If you continue to change an article, and claim that the work of other is vandalism in your edit summary, when it is clearly not so, will result in a return of prior blocks. I unblocked you earlier in good faith that you would edit civily and constructively. You are doing a good job of proving me wrong. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 15:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Can you please point to what you are talking about? Thank you. --70.109.223.188 (talk) 15:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Just because the person does not use edit summaries does not give you the right to call what they are doing vandalism. It looks like you and this other person are engaged in a clear edit war over the issue, and you must stop. Continuing to use reverts to force your personal preference as to the article in question will get you blocked, even if the other person is doing the same thing. Simply leave m:The Wrong Version up, and instead engage in a talk page discussion or seek dispute resolution. The other persons edits are NOT VANDALISM, and trying to give the impression that they are, as if to claim some sort of "moral high ground" or avoid being called for a three revert violation is disruptive and needs to stop. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nationality vs Ethnicity in lead sentence of bios

Hi 70.109.223.188, I know that you are well intentioned. "Puerto Rican" is not an ethnicity as the term "Hispanic" would be. Puerto Rican is a nationality. Therefore, there is nothing wrong with stating in a lead sentence that a person born in the United States who has Puerto Rican heritage is an "American" of "Puerto Rican" descent. I have provided you with a detailed explanation here:WikiProject Puerto Rico. I hope that this clears up the situation and that this does not become a big issue. Take care and enjoy Wikipedia. Tony the Marine (talk) 17:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I am starting to understand this better I think. Per MOSBIO however, it seems that a persons nationality should be mentioned in the lead, and descent should not be mentioned in the lead unless that is what makes the person noteable. If your parents are Puerto Rican, does the child get automatic Puerto Rican nationality? --70.109.223.188 (talk) 18:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I see you've done this with some Japanese Americans as well, but I wonder if the MOSBIO would consider that Gotanda and Houston's Japanese ancestry is part of their notabiliy -- you might want to raise the issue over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups and see what people think. Aristophanes68 (talk) 14:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi Aristophanes68, if you think the subject's ethnicity is relevant to thier notability, please revert my changes and add why its relevant so it is in context. I will also look at this and see if I edited in error. Thank you. --70.109.223.188 (talk) 14:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm trying to decide -- I can see how for some people (Imahara, Araki, etc.), ethnicity isn't part of their notability. But Gotanda and Houston are primarily studied as Asian American writers, so their ethnicity seems more important. I don't know though. I'll leave the changes for now and raise the issue at the Ethnic groups page.... Aristophanes68 (talk) 14:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nationality of Persons of Puerto Rican descent

Hi Caibbean, I see that you have blindly reverted a number of my edits. Can you please advise how we can work this out? It seems that people born in the US and are US citizens are Americans. People who are born in Puerto Rico should be called Puerto Rican? I am sure this has been addressed before, can you point me in the right direction?--70.109.223.188 (talk) 15:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

This is treated by a case by case basis, Puerto Rican is more than a ethnicity, its a nationality. Now people like Alexis Rios who were born in the US (although some newspapers put his birthplace as Guaynabo) but have lived their entire life in Puerto Rico and in Alexis' case has adopted the Puerto Rican Sports nationality should be classified for what the state they are, Alexis has stated on several ocassions that he considers himself Puerto Rican and is proud of representing Puerto Rico in international competition, in the cases of people of American parents that are born on another country as a matter of chance we still classify them as American, thus it is generally acepted that nationality is determined by more than just birth place. - Caribbean~H.Q. 18:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
You say that Rios has adopted the Puerto Rican Sports nationality and Alexis has stated on several ocassions that he considers himself Puerto Rican. That is fine, but is he Puerto Rican? Does he hold Puerto Rican citizenship? There is Puerto Rican citizenship correct? If he does and that can be sourced, then I would be in total agreement that this information belongs in the lead sentence. --70.109.223.188 (talk) 18:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Also, I have asked this elsewhere, but if both your parents are Puerto Rican, does that automatically grant you Puerto Rican citizenship, nationality? If so, and both his parents are Puerto Rican, this discussion basically ends here. Sorry for all the drama, but I just trying to get this right and edit bios accordingly. Thank you. --70.109.223.188 (talk) 18:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
There is a Puerto Rican nationality, my understanding is that like other nationalities if both of your parent are Puerto Rican so are you, but there you should probably look for the response of a user that is more experienced on these matters. - Caribbean~H.Q. 19:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Is there Puerto Rican citizenship? Is there a seperate passport for Puerto Rico or is it a US issued one? Hopefully these will be my last questions :) Sorry for all the drama :)--70.109.223.188 (talk) 19:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Even though there is a Puerto Rican citizenship (nationality) we have the unique case where American citizenship has been imposed upon the people of Puerto Rico (They didn't ask for it nor did they have a say in the matter) and therefore, as "American" citizens do not need a seperate passport to travel from and to Puerto Rico. Tony the Marine (talk) 19:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] All that said

O.K., all that said, I would like to invite you to create your own User Page in Wikipedia. The advantage would be that you would receive full credit for your contributions. I was looking at the Alex Rios, ordeal and I would like for you to avoid getting into an edit-war over a sensitive situation. You are on the verge of breaking the 3-revert rule which can result in an edit block. Remember, that it was suggested that if you were going to place the "American" label to Puerto Ricans born in the United States, you should at least add "of Puerto Rican descent". I want to stress that Puerto Ricans are very proud of the accomplishments of those who are Puerto Ricans and those who are of Puerto Rican descent. The vast majority of those who are of Puerto Rican descent indentify themselves as "Boricuas" or "Puerto Ricans" when asked.

I just don't want you to get all stressed out in a situation that may seem offense to other people, that's all. Take care Tony the Marine (talk) 19:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Tony, this is definately an unusuall situation from what I am learning. I guess what is needed is for me to learn or understand what makes one truely Puerto Rican. Usually, if one is born in the US and is only a US citizen, we reffer to them as an American and do not include descent in the lead sentence unless their ethnicity is part of what makes them notable. I have learned or been told however, that Puerto Rican is not an ethnicity so this is different. I appreciate the pride factor and how people identify themselves, but this is more about MOS. The material about parents being from Puerto Rico or a person's self identification could come under family background ect. I do not want to edit war over this and will try not to and appreciate your feedback. I will not register an account here for reasons I would rather not get into. Thanks again, --70.109.223.188 (talk) 19:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • It has been a pleasure inter-acting with you. If you feel that I can give you any advice in the future do not hesitate to drop me a note. Tony the Marine (talk) 23:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion

Please create an account. Yahel Guhan 19:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] You didn't create this page and you're an unregistered user

If you'll reread the link that you provided in your edit, it says the following:

6.2 See also
Shortcuts:
WP:ALSO
WP:SEEALSO
The "See also" section provides a list of internal links to related Wikipedia articles. Links already included in the body of the text are generally not repeated in "See also"; however, whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense. The section should not link to pages that do not exist. Links are presented in a bulleted list.

Did you catch that? "...ultimately a matter of editorial judgment" so why are you taking the links out of New York City and Other States Nightlife Legislations? You don't understand what I'm doing as, this is a brand new page.--MurderWatcher1 (talk) 17:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Like most things around here, nothing is set in stone, and the above is a general guideline. If the article already has an internal link it is not necessary in the see also section unless there is some good reason. Also, whether I created that page or I am a registered user is not really rlevant, is it? --70.109.223.188 (talk) 17:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Please don't start going around again removing links in See also, unless the repetition is particular egregious (e.g. something repeated many times in the text, or in the lead where the link is easy to find). It really is a matter of editorial judgment, not a "one size fits all" thing. SlimVirgin talk|edits 18:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I am using editorial judgement per the guideline. Is there a specific edit you don't agree with? --70.109.223.188 (talk) 20:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I already gave you the reason to your question: "can you provide a reason for going against a guideline here?" Why are you edit warring on this matter. It says "Editorial Judgment". I want someone to quickly go on the page, NOT look for links in the article but just go down quickly to the See also section as, I suspect many people will be interested in this page, which is why I created it in the first place!--MurderWatcher1 (talk) 23:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

That is not the purpose of the See also section per MOS. My understanding is that this section provides a list of internal links to related Wikipedia articles. Links already included in the body of the text are generally not repeated in "See also". The links should be worked into the article and then removed.--70.109.223.188 (talk) 13:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
When I last looked at it, the guideline didn't say "links should be worked into the article and then removed." You're right that links shouldn't be repeated unnecessarily and gratuitiously, but if an editor specifically wants to highlight an important link that is not in a prominent place in the text, he can do so; the guideline says that "editorial judgment" may be used. Similarly, if there is a related article that isn't related enough to go in the text, then it belongs in See also. No one should be going around removing these links systematically. It causes bad feeling, as you know. SlimVirgin talk|edits 15:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
ok. It just seems that some articles have very large See also sections so I have tried to edit those and reduce their size. It seems that most FA don't have See also sections? Don't want to hurt feelings or make this into a drama. Thank you. --70.109.223.188 (talk) 17:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Please see WP:LAYOUT for a discussion that you could contribute to. The above is by no means the only view on this issue. In addition, if you believe that some articles have overlarge See Also sections, nobody can have any objection to you trimming those as long as you defend your choices on the article talkpage. See WP:BRD. Thanks, and consider getting an account! --Relata refero (disp.) 20:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable, thank you. --70.109.223.188 (talk) 12:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The edits you have made were not large sections but small links to direct competitors. AS they were not overly large, your edits constitute a wholesale removal which is not part of the policy. Please stop as these are not indiscriminate collections of links but are relevant to the article. They are not already in the body as they are not about the specific topic itself but related subjects in the general field of casual dining restaurants.

Also, please sign up for an account, as you appear to be a concerned editor who wishes to make a positive contribution. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 20:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Boris Pribich

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boris Pribich (2nd nomination) ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] William Shockley

Please be more careful when calling things copy edit. It might be considered misleading when you actually change the content of the article. I don't agree that what you removed wasn't covered in the source, please discuss it on the talkpage before removing it again if you have any objections. Apis 16:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The citation does not currently match the material in the article and is original research. Is this material even relevant to the article? Are there more sources to back this up rather than the one given? Thank you. --70.109.223.188 (talk) 19:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I've responded on the talk page. Please don't remove any more content before we have discussed this on the talk page! --Apis 22:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] April 2008

Welcome, and thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test on the page Physical attractiveness worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment further, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Dorftrottel (bait) 19:42, April 29, 2008 19:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make any unconstructive edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant warnings.

[edit] Physical attractiveness

Re: link to cuteness: Indeed, you're right. Sorry for reverting. Dorftrottel (harass) 13:50, April 30, 2008

No need to apologize, i didn't leave an edit summary so I deserved that. --70.109.223.188 (talk) 13:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Martha Logan

You're correct again. However, the earlier edit was grammatically wrong. Then again, since this is a fictional character, the in-universe portion of the article should be written in present tense. Dorftrottel (troll) 14:04, April 30, 2008

I am a math teacher so my grammer is lacking. I will defer to others. Thank you. --70.109.223.188 (talk) 14:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
How about this? Not sure though, still feels a bit awkward. Feel free to adjust it as you see fit. Dorftrottel (bait) 14:11, April 30, 2008
Looks fine. --70.109.223.188 (talk) 14:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Bramlet Abercrombie

Please see this case as you are mentioned. Thanks, SqueakBox 14:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Welcome

Hello! I've noticed that you have edited Wikipedia without logging in to an account. It's great that you've been contributing; however, I urge you to create an account. Here is a list of the benefits of having an account:

There are no cons to signing up for an account. In fact, you can find even more pros at the "why create an account" page! Signing up is completely free and you don't need to enter any personal information! Plus you can have a user page, which you can use to show your interests, style, or nearly whatever! So, unless you can think of a con, please sign up for an account right now! CWii(Talk|Contribs) 20:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, but I would rather not have an account right now. --70.109.223.188 (talk) 17:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nice Work on Gail Collins Pappalardi

Thanks for taking a hand in cleaning up what was, before, a godawful BLP nightmare of a page David in DC (talk) 21:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)