(less the few sections that are obviously unrelated to him).
 Some contributions in it either 
 have been suggested to have been made by sock puppets, or 
 are discussions of whether they were (or should be so regarded). 
 Further, two (reverted) edits on it by User:259 are claimed to be unacceptable edits.  
 Its history provides evidence on both the sock-puppet claims and the improper editing ones. (And that history is most likely to be used in those connections; it is for that reason that the history was carried along to that page by page-move operations, while other parts of Talk:Carleton College were cut and pasted to a new and historyless page.)  Further editing of it would fall a bit short of tracking mud into a crime scene (because editing does not destroy history), but a sufficient number of edits make access to early history progressively more onerous and error prone. Therefore, in this editor's opinion, such edits must be regarded as irresponsible.  Editors who do edit may, at the least, be mentioned pejoratively in a proposal to protect the sub-sub-page against further editing.  Please make any comments you may have to offer on its content on the next-listed sub-sub-page. 
(More prosaically, the sub-sub-page is approaching the 32K limit, and freezing its content also will avoid facing the problem of how to refactor it.)
 Talk:Carleton College/Re M..e C..h/Comments on 2004 Jul 28 content.  It is intended to accomodate any further discussion of that content as it relates, or purports to relate, to User:Mike Church and/or Ambition (game).
 Talk:Carleton College/Re M..e C..h/Charges of unacceptable edits by 259.  It states, and offers a place for further discussion of, User:Jerzy's charges that User:259's (essentially identical) edits of 2004 Oct 7, 23:50, UTC and 2004 Oct 8, 17:24, UTC are serious offenses against WP.

(t) 06:41, 2004 Oct 11 (UTC)