From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Another new stub awaits your improvements...

Littlefield Fountain - which goes to show there is more than one way to make use of a picture. Johntex\talk 20:37, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

You are the best! That is a fantastic new article. Did you see the picture is also at Pompeo Coppini? Johntex\talk 21:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Tours

Katefan0[[User talk:Katefan0|Sorry I failed to properly remove comments I regretted making on your page. I understand now not to. Kate, would you and Johntexwould you go look at Pig's latest nice comments about me on the Battle of Tours talk page, and please, archieve them, or him, or whatever. Whatever my faults are -- and I am learning I have more than I thought! -- I at least sign my name! old windy bear 01:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC),,

  • Hello Kate, I looked into Talk:Battle of Tours. An anonymous user did indeed say some horrible things about Oldwinderbear. I deleted those comments and blocked the anonymous user (who had made only 1 other Wikipedia edit, also to a talk page) for 24 hours. Johntex\talk 03:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for looking into it -- I just now logged onto WP and saw Oldwindybear's message, and was headed over there myself. (Have been watching bad reality TV this evening =D) Thanks for being a good shepherd! I'll add the article to my watchlist in case the anon decides he wants to cause more trouble after the 24 hour block expires. Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 03:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Katefan0Hi Kate! When you get time, would you look at the changes I made on the Frank Hamer article? Mt stepson is taking me to the library fo congress this week to get more, but I tried to do two things that you found needed doing: 1) make the language far more neutral, and merely report facts as recorded; 2) add specific sources -- for instance, the specific instructions to kill Bonnie and Clyde without warning were Frank Hamer's, and some of the other posse had questioned that, according to the book by Ted Hinton, one of the posse, (and probably the one who wrote the best account fo the ambush itself) SO I added Ted Hinton in the article as the source for the shoot to kill plans, and Hamer's shouting "shoot!" (when the car drove up, and others had asked aloud about a surrender) Anyway, I would appreciate your looking at the article, and seeing if it is improved. Thanks! Hope you have having a good day! old windy bear 14:11, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Katefan0Kate, I am delighted to report that Doug removed the tag from the Battle of Tours tonight, and promised to leave me a list of suggestions for some remaining language changes. I will take care of that immediately. I have not heard from you on the Tudor article -- was my section addition okay? I liked it, but the really important question is: did you? In the interim, is there anything else I can help with? More changes have been made to the Hamer article, removing language that could not be sourced with exactitude, et al. It is coming along. I am working with Palm dogg on some battle boxes. If you have anything else you think I could help with, I would welcome the work. THANKS, old windy bear 03:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


you might want to check the definition of consensus....

A consensual agreement or win-win outcome of collaborative problem-solving and conflict resolution. A consensus implies that debate has taken place, the solution is generally accepted rather than a grudging compromise, and that agreement is deep-rooted enough that it can stand for some time without need to revisit the issue. [1]

Justforasecond 04:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

consensus check

"Consensus reached" does not mean "majority spoken". The idea is to make an article that won't have a seemingly-neverending debate on it. I've tried to propose a means for reaching a consensus -- a simple, objective test for what should be included.

As for meeting the consensus definition...the SLA removal was

  • never generally agreed upon
  • not deep-rooted enough to stand for some we're revisiting already :)

Cheery-o Justforasecond 05:06, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying to find a test for what should go on a page. A practical, objective test. Isn't that reasonable?

Justforasecond 05:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

It is sometimes useful... point people to Wikipedia:Consensus. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


Mr. Skywalker is gearing up to gather together all the people who have ever disagreed with me into one big disorganized lump to write up what appears to be either RFC or RFAr. I thought you should be made aware. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I give up. Working on user conduct RFC. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


He is stalking me, following me wherever I go. All I was doing is opening for suggestions on Hipocrite un-willingness to compromise and being a NPOV warrior is hampering the efforts of many. He goes around claiming NPOV to everyone and is very hostile and aggressive. I provided sources and he still is claming NPOV. He keeps Revert all of m,y work for no reason. I'm going to get in touch with the administrators board. Anakinskywalker 15:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm requesting a lock on the University of Ottawa article page until the there is a settlement on the outstanding issues. Hipocrite is being biased again, and forcing statements into the article, and with no negotiations. He is not willing to negotiating at all ,and I want a block on the page please, and for it to be referred for arbitration or the administrators board.

Anakinskywalker 15:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

3RR Block

Hypocrite has made 3 reverts of material and I'm requesting a block. The University of Ottawa article history is the source. Anakinskywalker 19:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

You are playing favourites. I'm calling you on that. I have provided proof. Unless you guys sources to back your claims, what case do you have? Anakinskywalker 19:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

You won't do it because you are playing favourites. Don't worry, I know how it goes around here. People who edit alot and group together and support one another. Don't worry, I'll just leave wikipedia. It's funny ...I'm going into my masters at McGill, and you guys will be here ganging up on other users. Bravo.... Anakinskywalker 19:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Yet another new UT article

I have started Main Building of the University of Texas at Austin, and it awaits your edits. With all of the new UT articles popping up recently, what do you think about the possibility of organizing a WikiProject or collaboration about the University? Please let me know! — Scm83x talk Hookem hand.gif 10:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you so much for contributing to this article! I'm really excited about the possibilities for this and all UT articles. With all of those news stories about the Tower on that page in the external links, I think there is enough content for a fantastic article. See you out there... Hook 'em! — Scm83x talk Hookem hand.gif 20:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Abramoff vandalism again

Hi, sorry to bother you. If I recall, you protected the Jack Abramoff page by not letting anonymous users edit it. This was fantastic. (Is it still in effect?). Can you now do the same for Jack Abramoff lobbying and corruption scandal? And, while you're at it, check out the edits of, who's been vandalizing other pages, too, with profanity, etc. Thanks! Sholom 15:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Your RfC

Hi, Katefan0. Thanks for your friendly message on my talk page before my wiki-break. Unfortately, I'm not making many apple turnovers even for myself, as I'm following the programme of a very strict nutritionist. I haven't had any chocolate or coffee since October, and although I made this at Christmas, I wasn't allowed to eat any!

I would have signed Robert McClenon's response to your RfC (I note that you didn't write a response), but after oldwindybear said that you were right, I didn't think it would be very nice to do so, and would be unncecssary — a bit like piling on the oppose votes! It was I who removed the link from the RfC page. The 48 hours have passed now, so I could delete it, but I thought I'd ask you first, as I know that sometimes people have chosen to have uncertified RfCs archived rather than deleted. I know that it's not considered proper for the subject of an RfC to perform the deletion him/herself. Let me know what you'd like me to do. Cheers, AnnH (talk) 21:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Check Your E-Mail, Please

I left you a message that I need some help with. Thanks. --badlydrawnjeff 23:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the help! --badlydrawnjeff 03:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Jack Abramoff

In response to your comment: Please don't add messages to this or any other article that make it appear that it's been protected against editing when it in fact has not. Thanks. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 01:10, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry? ...appear that it's been protected against editing when it has not.. ? According to protection log for Jack Abramoff, the page it was protected until: 22:53, 19 January 2006, my notice was added 06:49, 19 January 2006, several hours before you lifted the protection. Please delete the talk page you created on my user page. -sf 13:04, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


...for the fix on the vandalism. My only regret is he/she never got the chance to fully format the picture/caption properly, so I could see what it was supposed to look like in its final form. Maybe next time.

Have a great day,

Paul (sorry my sig ain't workin' too well)

Kate, apologies for misusing protect page

But there has got to be somewhere I can go with this complaint. can you advise? I requested protection of a specific version because it was being blanked and redirected while it was under discussion at deletion review. The same admin was was doing the blanking and redirecting then protected the blank and redirect version. Can't someone do something here? Phantasmo 20:19, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Houston, Texas

Please come to the talk page of the Houston, Texas article. There is an ongoing discussion as a user is challenging the neutrality of the article. Thanks! RJN 00:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Few new articles you may want to nominate or improve

Just thought you'd want to know. Care ... Benjamin Gatti 05:44, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Peter Camejo

Wonder if I could ask you a favor? The newly added criticisms section in this article is a bunch of unsourced assertions with no POV balance. Strangely it's all criticism from within the Green Party (i.e. Cobbite), and hardly any of the criticism from the right, which would be his main political opponents and most vehement detractors. I'm betting most of it should be taken to with a chainsaw, but I politely asked the contributor for some sources a few days ago. Much of it reads like a personal essay. All I got was a slightly worse rewrite with inline links to another article he wrote, no references, (not even for the direct Reagan quote). I hear I may be a little busy in the coming weeks, so I wonder if I could burden you with this instead of me? :-) Thanks. Dmcdevit·t 07:12, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. :) Dmcdevit·t 07:10, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


can you e-mailour e-mail ? Thanks, Zeq 07:23, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

RfA Thanks

Please accept my embarrassingly belated thank you for supporting my RfA, which much to my surprise passed 102/1/1, earning me minor notoriety. I am grateful for all the supportive comments, and have already started doing the things people wanted me to be able to do. And hopefully nothing else... Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 12:12, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


userKatefan0 Hi Kate, more work on Frank Hamer, more sourcing, sent for yet another book, it will be done in the next week or so though to your satisfaction. Tours - Palm dogg worked with me -- is completely rewritten, and the complaining user has not answered repeated requests to look at it, for removal of the tag. Remember that he agreed completely with the conclusions, just wanted them reworded to be more factual, and if you look, it is completely rewritten, reworded, and reorganized, and I think you will be able to remove the tag. Did you check my section on Margarat Tudor's life on her time as Regent, et al? I think it really changes the tone of the article. Palm dogg and I are also working on battleboxes (I make up the lists, he puts them in the box!) for Charlamagne, Belisarius, and Subutai. Anything else you think I could work on right now? I put in for the military coordinators project, but just don't have the votes. I wish I had had them, I believe I could have helped. Oh well, I will find things, or ask you to direct me to things, to help with! Hope you are having a good weekend! old windy bear 20:35, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I also have begun work on a draft on Mary Tudor, on her political activities, and I think you will find it interesting, and hopefully helpful in expanding on her as a person, and one who was more active than the present article leds one to believe in the politics of England. She definately attempted to intervene and influence not just the royal family, but the events of the day - I should have the information, which can be put in a couple of paragraphs finished by thursday or so, and you can review, and hopefully it will expand on her as a person, and a person of place and power other than who she married, et al. I would also, at some point, like to do something similiar with the Mongol Empire. After the deaths of Mangu, Ögedei, and Guyuk there were all regencies which were, as I recollect, under women. The regency of Toregene Khatun, the widow of Ogedei, lasted almost 5 years! Yet there is relatively little about her in our history of the empire, though during her regency Europe was spared Mongol conquest because of the recall of Batu Khan in the standard recall of all Princes of the Blood for a kurultai to elect a new Khan. Since most fo the Princes tended to take most of their armies with them -- by then there was already infighting and great distrust! -- Europe was spared. The point I am trying to make is that I think all too often we unjustly define women solely by their marriages. Sometimes this is accurate -- medevial rulers tended to use daughters as poltiical tender! But in the case of Toregene Khatun and others, (including to some extent Mary Tudor!) this is simply not so. Hope you are having a good day, and will like what I am putting together on Mary. old windy bear 01:52, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

userKatefan0 thanks for the words on the complaint on the Battle of Tours. I am NOT engaged in any personal arguments - he forgot he was doing the same at the time -- and am dedicated to real contributions only. I wrote a massively sourced reply, but have more. That battle is in my realm of expertise, and I can source every word in it, literally. I did apologize to him for offending him, as I am determined to make a real and meaningful contribution, with no arguments. By the way, I got my Tudor book, and will be putting something on that site tomorrow. Did you know during her regency in Scotland how the nobles tried to get rid of her, (and did at the first excuse) for espousing english interests over Scottish. It is that kind of real political involvement I think you are looking for to show she was more than the wife of three men, and the pathway by which kings were born, lol.old windy bear 22:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Trigger happy?

I realize it is not easy to simplify and clarify NPOV, but I rather liked my version. The section I want deleted is redundant. How about an explanation? Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view Bensaccount 23:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


Sure the breakfasts are a dollar, A DOLLAR! but there's no napkins, at all!

Reminded me of a story I heard about how McDonalds' kept opening restaurants (so they call 'em) in Lappland, and they kept on going bust. Until somebody figured out that the Sami didn't like finger food. The next McDonalds' to open gave out plastic cutlery with the Big Macs, and all went well...

Economics416 is Anakinskywalker

Note that this new user is editing with exactly the same style on User Ardenn’s talk page as User:Anakinskywalker used to use on the University of Ottawa talk page. He is also POV pushing the same stuff on the University of Ottawa page. David D. (Talk) 23:17, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Lost, LOST, etc.

Thanks for protecting the pages Lost and LOST. Even though the anon's comment was snarky and hostile, I suppose that the mere fact that he or she made a comment is a sort of progress over the silent edit war we had beforehand.

One small thing — you redirected LOST to Lost (disambiguation), which is itself a redirect to Lost. Did you mean to create a double redirect, or was that a mistake? —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 06:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Please unprotect LOST, you have NO basis for doing so. Tskoge 10:00, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Looks like the consensus is to have the disambiguation content at Lost and have LOST as a redirect to Lost (TV series) — just like it was before all this mess started. I guess it's time to unlock the pages and see if the anon has gotten the message. —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 01:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


Thanks for the block – that was getting tiresome.

Here's a cat for you

           .                .                    
           :"-.          .-";                    
           || :-"      "-; ||                    
           :;              :;                    
           /  .==.    .==.  \                    
          :      _.--._      ;                   
          ; .--.' `--' `.--. :                   
         :   __;`      ':__   ;                  
         ;  '  '-._:;_.-'  '  :                  
         '.       `--'       .'                  
          ."-._          _.-".                   
        .'     ""------""     `.                 
       /`-                    -'\                
      /`-                      -'\               
     :`-   .'              `.   -';              
     ;    /                  \    :              
    :    :                    ;    ;             
    ;    ;                    :    :             
    ':_:.'                    '.;_;'             
       :_                      _;                
       ; "-._                -" :`-.     _.._    
       :_          ()          _;   "--::__. `.  
        \"-                  -"/`._           :  
       .-"-.                 -"-.  ""--..____.'  
      /         .__  __.         \               
     : / ,       / "" \       . \ ;          
      "-:___..--"      "--..___;-"

Tonywalton  | Talk 17:35, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Welsh Wikipedians' notice board

I've created a fairly simple Wikipedia:Welsh Wikipedians' notice board (shortcut WP:WWNB) to try to get things started. Please have a look and consider signing on, adding it to your watchlist and helping to make sure any users with an interest in the subject know about it. Also please feel free to add things and to change anything you feel needs changing – I'm not under the impression that I own it! Rhion 19:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

unprotection of computer science

why did you unprotect computer science against a strong concensus on the talk page to keep it protected? Cheers, —Ruud 23:19, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

from Charles Whitman

Help me understand this Kate


At least he's ... creative. He's been sending me hateful stuff too, if that makes you feel any better. He's blocked right now for 2 weeks; personally, I think that if he comes back and continues behaving this way I will consider blocking him indef and submitting it to the community for review. There is precedent for the community to indef block someone without going through arbcom, if the case is egregious enough, which this one might be -- depending on how he behaves when he returns. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 02:33, 13 January 2006 (UTC) Haha, I suppose we have have to give him credit there. He follows this stuff pretty closely, though; he's the interviewee from the Daily Texan article here. Looking forward to two weeks from now! Hook 'em! -Rebelguys2 02:38, 13 January 2006 (UTC)subwayjack 01:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)S

It means I was of the opinion that you are a disruptive user, but was giving you the benefit of the doubt going forward, depending on how you behaved after your block expired. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 02:38, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

That opinion may be a fair one, depending of course, which side of the fence you are on at this moment. But would it be fair of me to have the opinion that since your Alma Mater is UT, you might be bias in your opinion? Would it be fair to say that corresponding in another UT users talk page about me and the potential indef block based on an uncommon precedent may be interpreted as collusion? Would it be fair of me to have the opinion that you wield your power in favor of UT contributors and dismiss others by being on the fence? Would it be unfair of me to say that a "Vanity Book" with limited scope and personal motivation, by a self-published author from Texas gets preferential treatment and inclusion over a self-produced CD publication that deals strictly with the UT Tower and Charles Whitman? Help me out with these dilema's Kate, it's hard balancing the fairness up on this fence!subwayjack 05:29, 29 January 2006 (UTC)S

I'll be glad to discuss article content with you. I have nothing to say to the rest of it. If you still feel the need to continue this line of discussion, please use my talk page instead of dumping this kind of thing here. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 05:46, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

No thanks! The "dumping" reference tells me what I can expect. Thanks anyways!subwayjack 06:31, 29 January 2006 (UTC)S

Since you actually work along these guys...

You might be interested in reading what's going on in the Administrators' noticeboard. And by the way...

You need more cats?

Titoxd(?!? - help us) 02:10, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


[2]. It's a tool that shows the articles that are semi protected. Awesome. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 04:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Oi. Apparently there's a few articles that were SP but that didn't have a tag. Sigh. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 05:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


Pat has just been through motorized bicycle adding {fact} tags to a dozen or so paragraphs plus added two more top-level tags to it. This has gone beyond a joke, he is clearly in violation of WP:POINT but since I'm in active dispute with him I won't block him. Have a look how he left it this time: [3]. My reserves of patience are temporarily exhausted. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 16:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


This edit was almost too amusing to revert. *Sigh* The burden of responsibility. Johntex\talk 18:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)



He's concerned about your Wikistress. He thinks that you should go and play with Smokey and forget about the stupid humans. Guettarda 01:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


Not quite sure why you protected lolicon now, edit war is over a year old and we ARE trying to work it out in the talk. (not that it is getting anywhere...) I'd suggest u unprotect since the version you protected is in fact the one LEAST likely to get consensus. Mikkerpikker ... 16:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

THE WRONG VERSION, KATE! DID YOU HEAR ME! THE WRONG VERSION! Actually, in this case, I think that ones the most likley to get sign off from all parties in about a week. Hipocrite - «Talk»
I'll try. Everyone seems much more stable this time. Please hit me over the head if I fuck up.Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your message Katefan, I'd still urge unprotection, but, whatever... we'll see. As for all parties signing off on "this version" right, because Hipocrite is an expert on that having edited lolicon for a whole of 1 days now [4] & talk:lolicon for 2 days [5]. Mmmmmm... Mikkerpikker ... 17:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
As one of the many assholes involved in the Lolicon Edit War or LEW for short, I requesteth unto ye to make one small change: the second picture (the Hiyashibara manga cover) should be placed on the left side because the sections are a bit out of joint and don't wrap correctly in their current state. Thank you. Sweetfreek 23:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


Sure thing. It was only after posting that that I realized comments had been made that they were effectively done selecting, for now. But they did indicate a few more had been approved and not yet activated, so we'll see. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 21:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


You're very welcome. Tonywalton  | Talk 17:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


As to the Lolicon article, would you feel it wrong if I added Gothic Lolita and Lolita fashion in the 'see also' section? The change is unrelated to the conflict at hand. As an admin, I can edit it; however I'm still interpreting the policy, and won't proceed until I am certain. I'm trying to fill the gaps in my knowledge as an administrator and am curious as to what your thoughts might be on this. --DanielCD 22:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Pardon me for butting in, but I don't see the connection, except for the term "Lolita". Neither of those articles link back to "Lolicon". -Will Beback 02:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
That's fine. I'm still curious though. I'll add a link to Lolicon and see if any sparks fly. --DanielCD 02:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
There is a connection, if somewhat superficial. Commercialization of children's sexuality, perhaps. Seems like it would work to me (and pardon me for butting in, as well).--Sean Black (talk) 02:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
My interest was mainly in protocol regarding editing locked pages. I think I've gotten my answer though: if it's a minor edit, it can probably just wait. This kinda differs the decision to the individual (regarding minor changes). --DanielCD 02:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Ah, but I never pass up the opportunity to post on someone else's talk page. :)--Sean Black (talk) 03:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Woo! Party on my talk page! Daniel, my impression is that it probably ought to just wait, unless it's something glaringly wrong like a typo, vandalous information, or strange formatting error. After all, "regular" editors can't do small edits to protected pages. It's not nearly as big a deal as, say, editing some sort of disputed information with your administrator privileges, but it still broadcasts an inequality that probably isn't the best thing to convey. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 03:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, that's kinda the conclusion I came to. BTW, the Lolicon link was snatched off the Gothic lolita page. --DanielCD 15:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


Howdy. I've read that you had blocked this account from editing:

I've blocked you both for five hours for violating 3RR while edit warring with one another. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 21:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC) [6]

I believe you were mistaken when you applied the block to me for 3RR violation. It's been more than 5 hours, so it may seem like a moot issue to you -- but it is a matter of principle to me. I was very careful to not revert more than three times. I was also very careful to engage the other party in discussions on the Talk page with each of my edits on the article. When the other editor continued to revert the article a 4th time, I did not do likewise. Instead, I continued the dialog on the Talk page in an attempt to resolve differences and didn't touch the article page anymore.

Could I impose upon you to please spend a moment of your time to verify 1) I did not revert more than three times, and 2) I did stop reverting, yet continued with Talk page discussions even after the other party made a 4th revert. Thanks, 03:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Ooops, almost forgot... any of the edits done on the Winter Soldier Investigation article and Talk page over the past 72 hours were done by me. You probably already knew that, but just in case... 04:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Butting in again, I'd like to note that you are not "entitled" to three reverts per 24 hours.--Sean Black (talk) 04:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
You are very correct, Sean Black. I was not reverting because I could. I was reverting because I had met the requirements of the other editing party. My 3 reverts and his 4 reverts were nothing more than applying and removing a "Disputed" tag. He would request that I explain something before removing the tag, so I would give him his explanation and then remove the tag. Then he would reapply the tag and request sources before I could remove the tag, so I provided the sources for him and removed the tag. Then he reapplied the tag and said that he had a problem with the conclusion of one of the sources... this went on and on. I stopped bothering to remove the tag (reverting) once I noticed the other party was insistent upon keeping the tag on the article regardless of whatever hoops he was making me jump through. He continued his reverts beyond three times; I did not. I agree that I am not "entitled" to three reverts, but you must also agree that I did not "violate the 3RR" either. Why am I making such a fuss about a 5 hour block that has already expired? Because I take this very seriously; I try to respect the spirit of the policies and not just the letter of the law. 04:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
The three-revert rule is not an entitlement, but an "electric fence"; the 3RR is intended to stop edit wars. It does not grant users an inalienable right to three reverts every 24 hours or endorse reverts as an editing technique. Persistent reversion remains strongly discouraged and is unlikely to constitute working properly with others.
If you find you have reverted a page more than even once in a day, it indicates there may be a problem and you should try dispute resolution, starting with the article's talk page. The fact that users may be blocked for excessive reverting does not imply that they will be blocked. Admins are under no obligation to block a user for breaking the 3RR, for instance if they see that the problem has been resolved in another manner.
There are very plainly four reversions on the article page by 165.247*. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 05:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I would disagree, based on the definition of reversion: "A revert is to undo all changes made after a certain time in the past. The result will be that the page becomes identical to how it used to be at some previous time." Only the last three reverts qualify, while the 4th edit isn't a revert at all, but contains several new edits. I know, I know, you would point out to me that under the definition of the Three-revert rule there is an exception in this special context, stating: "Reverting in this context means undoing the work of another editor. It does not necessarily mean going back into the page history to revert to a previous version." Ok, so that 4th edit also includes the removal of the "Disputed" tag, and that is why you are calling it a revert. But wait, that was the tag *I* reinstated myself (months ago, check the history) after thinking the other editor might just have a valid issue - so I was reverting my own tag, and not "undoing the work of another editor." I made only 3 reverts. The defense rests?
Actually, I'm not going to fight it. I'll take the dishonor of a 5-hour block, tuck my tail between my legs, apologize and chalk it up to a lesson learned for cutting it too close to the wire in any case. 00:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Kate, just so you know, despite his pleas that he "tries to respect the spirit of the policies and not just the letter of the law", Rob has been found to be flagrantly abusing articles by repeatedly inserting copyvio into them and is currently part of a RfArb. DTC 22:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Kate, just so you know, despite TDC's claims that "Rob has been found to be flagrantly abusing articles...", I'm not Rob. TDC is presently part of an arbitration in which there is a unanimous vote to ban him from editing the article for a year (same article from which you blocked us.) 00:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


Don't assume that a not-logged in user doesn't have an account. The Cunctator 05:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

WTC collapse talk

Talk:Collapse of the World Trade Center Please have a look. (at the major reversion on the talk page) There is definitely a problem. SkeenaR 11:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry to have bothered you, don't worry about it. I see now that the proper place is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents SkeenaR 11:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

That's funny, because she doesn't at all mind when I bother her!--Sean Black (talk) 20:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
It's all about what you bother me with. =D · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 01:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Katefan0, I am coming to the conclusion that making legitimate progress through discussion on Talk:Collapse of the World Trade Center is an effort in futility. I think that the proper course of action here would probably be to solicit some outside opinions. Would you be so kind as to have a look? It would be much appreciated. SkeenaR 20:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


Could you please consider my request on Gallery of sovereign states coat of arms unprotection? User:Pirveli

Considering now. Oh, and patience is a virtue.--Sean Black (talk) 20:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
What are you, her personal secretary or something, to know what she's considering? (I just popped in here for some other reason which has now completely escaped me, thanks a lot) ++Lar: t/c 20:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Abramoff Page

We want to be able to edit the Abramoff page\just the way it says on the WIK main page. That ANYONE can edit it.

We want to edit out the Jew references. The Jew baiting, Jew hating, Antisemitic inferences. 22:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that. If you want to contribute something that isn't vandalism, that would be most welcome. Thanks. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 22:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Kate, We were contributing. And our edits were resonable. At some point in the discussions STUFFOFINTEREST AND MP4wav decided to change the status quo and an editing war ensued. They then went to heavy guns bringing in Admins who would shut us out altogether.

We are being treated unfairly when, and you can see this in the history, our edits were just one word: Jewish, in the "early Years" section and we changed some of the conjecture in the "organizations" section without changing the basic meaning.

Look, I read through your personal page. Anyone that plays the fiddle and likes the music that you do can't possibly be an antisemite. Isn't there ONE admin who will read through the history and take our side? ONE? 22:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

  • It should, but I'm confused: Why does fiddle-playing automatically make it so that one is not an anti-semite? That seems like an odd criterion. Though maybe...--Sean Black (talk) 23:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm definitely no anti-Semite, but I confess I was a little confused by that as well ... maybe ... Fiddler on the Roof? · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 01:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm imagining Hank Williams Jr. in a yarmulke. - brenneman(t)(c) 10:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Why is Katefan0 so active the last few days? (and other philosophical questions)

Does he or she get paid to alter wiki? Is Katefan0 a Washington DC lobbyist? Because he or she seems to be deleting quite a few popular posts lately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Hmm, intersting theory. To adress your points, in turn: She is a she, she does not get paid, as far as I know (I'd certainly like in on it if true, incidentally), and she does, as a matter of fact, live in DC. Lobbyist or no, I couldn't say, but I'm hazarding a guess no, and I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "popular posts". Additionally, she has been active the last few days. So have I. Activity level is a poor thing to base your conspiracy theories on, I would think.-Sean Black (talk) 08:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
You left out the fact that Wikipedia is not "Wiki." It is a wiki. Just as encyclopedia is not "book," as if the name of the medium were the name of the product in question. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 18:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Eh? If I'm supposed to be getting paid, could somebody please fix that?  ;) I'm certainly no lobbyist. I'm a reporter. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 15:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
They pay in beer. Haven't you been getting yours? Friday (talk) 16:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Damn it. I KNEW I shouldn't have missed the last cabal meeting. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 17:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Beer? Where? Actually, that's a good idea. It's Friday, after all. Guettarda 17:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Can I get paid in caffeinated beverages? I'm a teetotaller. :) Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 18:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

On another note, why is it some people who want to force their way seem to think that having a relatively large level of activity on the net in general or Wikipedia in particular constitutes a detrimental personal attack? I once read someone's feedback on ebay who had failed to deliver goods he sold or to respond in a timely fashion, and his response to his customers was, "I don't spend all day on the 'puter like you. I have a life." (For that matter, why do people think personal attacks is a way to prove a point at all?) Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 18:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Jdavidb, I have utterly no idea. Most baffling to me is that my level of activity hasn't varied at all! · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 19:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Ahah!! Now we have you! That is patently untrue. January of 2006 was your busiest month ever on Wikipedia. Finally, we have conclusive proof that the cabal is evil!!! Johntex\talk 20:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • And if you continue at the pace you have set for yourself over the last 3 days, you will hit a career total of 10,000 edits this month!! Johntex\talk 21:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
<blush>It is my pleasure to expose you anytime you like.. </blush>Johntex\talk 21:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Don't get me started!! ;) · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 21:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
What it exposes is tha fact that you do most of your editing during the day, when you're supposed to be working/! Guettarda 21:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Hey, I'm working! I can't help it if people won't call me back. =) · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 21:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Oooh, expose? I've never had the pleasure, unfortunately.--Sean Black (talk) 22:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

You must not be doing it right. For me, wonderful things happen when I fall asleep at my keyboard from looking too hard at WP:RC. That is when all my good visions visit me!! Johntex\talk 23:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Oh sure, I've had fantasies- who hasn't? But it's slightly less satisfying, if you catch my drift.--Sean Black (talk) 23:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Wait a minute. Beer? When do I get my beer? I've earned it, I'm sure. Does only the Cabal get beer? Is it Cabalbeer (say it right, it sounds like cavalier) that I don't get mine? KillerChihuahua?!? 00:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Anon users from the Abramoff page

Dear Kate. Shalom. We want to answer your message. Hi -- listen, the way you're going about things right now isn't working, and won't ever work. Blanking pages and inserting a screed or substitute article text isn't going to cut it. Instead, why don't you try discussing rationally whatever it is you feel needs changing? Wikipedians are, on the whole, a kind, intelligent and fair-minded bunch. You'll find a much better reception if you try engaging folks as human beings, instead of behaving like schoolyard thugs. Please. I'd like to know what your real concerns are, minus all this saber-rattling vandalism. But I can't listen to your concerns if you won't stop blaring a horn in my ears. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 22:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

We would prefer to do this privatly.

As you already know by virtue of our ip addresses, we are Israelis and Jewish. Please excuse my spelling and grammar mistakes as I am not a Native English speaker. Most of my English is from literature, television and text books. Though I do get the chance to speak with students or tourists now and then. Or is it now and again. I'm not sure which.

We want to relate to your message in the hopes that you really are sincere.

We feel that we were relating to you as human beings and that some of you as stated in the post above this one unilaterally began adding the JEWISH content when they got "fed up" with discussing the issue civilly. If you look back through the history of the last couple of days you will see that this is true. AND it is the reason that we are so upset. There was a staus quo and it was broken. We feel that the individuals who broke it are anti-Semitic.

We see no need for the word Jewish to be present on a page where the man accused is a criminal. We have heard all the arguments about it being biographical but we still feel that it would be better to leave it out.

We feel that anyone interested in promoting "GOODNESS" would understand our concerns.

We are not sure what to do since we have discussed this issue ad nausea and to no avail.

We do not like the conjecture that is written in many areas of the page but realize that this is a current event and people have the right to write about it.

It is the Jewish issue that we are concerned with BECAUSE it hurts us.

So again I say. Please allow us to revert the page in a manner that does not insult and hurt us. We are asking you for this assuming that you care about our feelings.

These are our real feelings Kate. 09:56, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Pardon me for butting in but I have to ask: do you dispute the facts in the article (namely that money went from Abramoff to a Jewish settlment), or do you believe those facts are correct but that they should not be in the article? Johntex\talk 00:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

It hasn't been proven. It might not be true. The FBI is investigating it but the results are not conclusive at all. In fact they claim to not have a clue. Everything is going by some email massages between Abrammoff and a friend and for all we know it might just be a money laundering scheme. Thats we we edited it in a way which stuck to the facts. Its conjecture. There is no proof. 09:56, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

  • I do believe it's the former. Also, I've taken up residence here, and three's a crowd, thank you very much.--Sean Black (talk) 01:08, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
We can all sit around the cozy fire.
  • Am I being invited to leave? I hope not becuase it is warm and cozy here. My talk page is vacant today and I don't feel like going home to it. Johntex\talk 01:23, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • There's a reason it's warm here, if you catch my drift.--Sean Black (talk) 01:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Ah, yes: Terribly romantic, wouldn't you say, Kate?--Sean Black (talk) 06:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Wow, I like what y'all have done with the place! =D · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 06:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

That really looks good! especially since it's cold and rainy in Israel right now. And the weather forecast says it might snow this week. So there will finally be skiing on Mt. Hermon in the Golan and all the kids in Tel Aviv will be taking that 40 minute bus ride up to Jerusalem in order to actually feel cold wet ice. 09:56, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

  • So Kate, whats up? we see that the Abramoff page is unprotected agiain. We want to revert the changes that were made. 09:56, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Its us again with another ip.

We left a nice message on the discussion page. We then reverted the paragraphs to how they were before and got locked out by ALKIVAR and Stuffofinterest. We are sure that they have a anti-Jewish agenda. Alkivar wrote that he was reverting our changes because they were anti-jewish/ Not quite sure why he wrote it that way. He should have said anti-anti jewish. Anyway.The war is back on. Thats sad. 13:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Kate, here's a link that we thought you would like.


Hi, I just wanted to let you know that you left a message on Talk:Pirveli and not on User talk:Pirveli. So now the article talk page is orphaned, but I don't know if you want to repost the message to the correct talk. (you are an admin, so you can clean it up;) ). Renata 17:53, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Katharine Hepburn

Please see Talk:Katharine Hepburn Quarl (talk) 2006-02-05 08:50Z

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Benjamin Gatti

A final decision has been published in this case.

For the arbitration committee. --Tony Sidaway 18:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Survivor Panama Exile Island

Please help settle the dispute over external links on Survivor: Panama

Protecting Policy pages

Thanks for your intervention at WP:NPOV. Please check also WP:V where we are having a simnilar problem with two editors. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ t@ 16:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

help with a vandal!

Hi Kate! Hope you are well and happy. I am still working on Bonnie and Clyde and Frank Hamer, though most of my time is being spent in the military project with Kirill. I wanted to ask you to look at the edits of which are all, each and every one, vandalism. This user is not adding anything, but adding garbage and vandalism to each article he/she visits. (probably a man, women have more sense). Would you take a look, and if you agree, deal with it as an editor? THANKS, and if i can research anything for you, hollar! By the way, you never did tell me if you liked my edits on Margaret Tudor? old windy bear 20:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

While in general I agree with removing old warnings, I'm not sure that warnings from January should have been removed. Especially as this user has been blocked twice already. I'm not going to restore them but I'll let you decide what you think is best. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 21:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
That's twice in 24 hours I forgot about non-static IP's. The four computers I edit from all use a static IP, which is interesting as the contract agreement says they are not. Perhaps we should be archiving vandals talk pages. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 21:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Blockin of User:Dustimagic is a Nazi!!!!!!!!!!!

Thanks for blocking this user. I think it might actually be a fellow classmate of mine trying to be funny as it is from my school's IP. Nevertheless, thank you for taking care of this "fan" of mine. Dustimagic *\o/* (talk/contribs) *\o/* 22:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

War of 1812

Please put the sprotect back, the vandalism is starting again. Thank you SirIsaacBrock 01:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Neuro-linguistic programming

You are a mentor! Please familiarize yourself with the case and conflict. I've posted notices to the article's talk page and AN. You may want to introduce yourself to all the parties (though that's a lot). Again, thank you. Dmcdevit·t 10:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Bonnie and Clyde's article

Katefan0Hi Kate! I went into considerable detail on the discussion page on the allegations made on that article, I also reworded a couple of sections to reflect direct quotes from sources. I am at a loss how some of the critics blame you for any alleged error - i asked them if they have a source, or an error, bring it to me, and I will correct the article at once, in other words, if you have real information, tell it, instead of attacking the poor editor who is just trying to keep this professional! If you ever got to read Margaret Tudor, was my addition okay? I got two books on her, and really resourced the added section. As to Bonnie and Clyde, I have every book ever written on them -- if someone wants to dispute something, do so, and we will research it, and resolve it -- don't attack you! I addressed their legitimate concerns by rewording the sections in question, and heavily sourcing, by direct quotes and even page numbers! If they have further concerns, I have asked Tru nicely to bring the info to me, and I will take care of it. Hope you are well! old windy bear 14:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Radio Maryja

I was unhappy when you blocked both myself and Ksenon for reverts on the Radio Maryja article since I was asking for the page to be protected. Ksenon has pretty much chased anyone interested on writing an unbiased article about the controversial radio station Radio Maryja, away. I tried including his "counter criticism", which is unsupported by anything. You blocked us both when I asked for the page to be protected, and after being unblocked Ksenon went ahead and reverted the article back to his version without trying to incorporate anything anyone else has done on the article. Please either protect the page or block Ksenon from working on the page, I don't feel like fighting to keep the Radio Maryja article accurate anymore.--Milicz 18:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

The radio draws criticism, but to introduce the station as controversial right up front would require a new policy where any concept or entity that draws any criticism (99.9% of articles out there), big or small, to be labelled as such. All criticisms are included in the article. Milicz is basically trying to shift the delicate NPOV balance towards the controversial side, totally ignoring the radio's real message and, perhaps unknowingly, participating in a smear campaign against the station. And the blocking part... well, isnt that true Wikipedian spirit? Ksenon 06:54, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Ksenon has now started to revert the page as users and which is sockpuppetry and is prohibited by Wikipedia policy, I've also gone to the Mediation Cabal, I posted the article for user comments, I've asked for protection or semi-protection but the article is just descending into a revert war. Ksenon is breaking 3RR and now employing sockpuppetry.--Milicz 00:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

NLP discussion

Thankyou for agreeing to mentor the NLP article editors -- I appreciate your time, and will agree to assist the mentors in whatever way I can. Could you take a look at this post, [8]. I really don't know how to handle this one because the first step in dispute resolution involves attempting to talk with the editor via private message, to find common ground or atleast agree to disagree. I don't want to inflame the situation so I'm more than happy to engage the mentors assistance to resolve any outstanding issues. --Comaze 03:04, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

KatefanO. You just "archived" constructive repeat discussion and explanation from editors that were made over the last few days. After a few clicks, I cannot find it. Return it to the present talk page as soon as possible. I have some reading to do, as per mediator's recommendation. HeadleyDown 02:12, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

OK I found it. A clean slate is on its way as requested! HeadleyDown 02:51, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

The Nation

Hey Kate, I'm wondering if you might want to offer a vote, or at least a comment, regarding the issue of whether "The Nation" name space should be the article about the U.S. periodical or a disambiguation page. You can contribute your thoughts here: Talk:The Nation#Article title. Thank you and take care. --Howrealisreal 02:14, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Edit War between Appleby & Endroit

Hi, I hope you remember the Edit War last week, that resulted in Appleby getting blocked for 72 hours by you. Well I believe Appleby still continues to Edit-War again today, trying to edit so as to evade the 3RR. I managed to stay out of it this time. But I would like you to review his edit patterns today in East Sea (disambiguation). He did his edits before discussing anything with the other editors, and proceded to revert others as well. I believe it to unfair that you told me to NOT edit-war and I followed, while Appleby proceeded to edit-war again without any self-restraint. Can you please let me know what your thoughts are? If I need to file Arbitration or Mediation, I'll do it. Please let me know. Thank you very much.--Endroit 10:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Anon corrections

After careful discussion, deliberation and exhaustive reading and rereading of the entire history of the writing and editing of this page we will accept the article as it stands now. We don't feel that the article is totally unbiased toward Jews and Israel however since we are dealing with different degrees of anti-Jewish/Israel sentiments this is probably the best we can get, short of really hacking the site which you all should know was a viable option but unacceptable to us. You can't destroy an entire encyclopedia because of a few bad sentences.

You speak about assuming "good faith" on this site but much of the things that you have written about this man are caustic and seemingly vengeful. We wonder what the real agenda is. Is Jack "Shylock" are you Jealous. We wonder about what thoughts and emotions are driving you to write this page. One only has to read the history of the page to see what we mean by "degrees" of Antisemitism. One writer would write a sentence containing conjecture and spite and another, more intelligent writer realizing how bad it sounded would edit the sentence in a clever manner, without really changing the meaning. We'll sit back and monitor for now. 11:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


Look at my user page. I did it for subwayjack, zen-master, BigDaddy777 and all of my other fans out there. ;-) Taken last weekend by the lovely Jennifer. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 12:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Let's see. Jennifer, katefan0, my mom...all need your eyes checked. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 14:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


Bottle of Shiner Bock.jpg
10000 This user has over 10000 edits on the English Wikipedia.

Reaching this milestone would not be nearly as big a deal if your edits were not also of such high quality and character. Wikipedia is lucky to have you! Johntex\talk 16:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh I don't know about anticlimatic. Hitting 10K during an effort to end an edit war makes your achievement all the more noble and inspiring. By the way, I wanted to get you something in celebration of your achievement, but I didn't have any money, so I stole this beer from Bbatsell. Free beer!!! May I suggest you pair this beer with some brisket from the Salt Lick? They do mail order now - which, in my book, is proof that despite all the things wrong in the world, that life in general just keeps getting better. Enjoy!! Johntex\talk 17:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Wow, that's rich. I've got to say, there is something just a should I say this... *wrong* ...about formalwear at the Salt Lick. I'm fully with you on that one. If I start an article on the best Barbeque joint in the Buda/Driftwood/Dripping Springs tri-plex, will you upload a photo of you in your shirt to illustrate the article? Johntex\talk 17:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Ah, Gilley's. Sad-to-say, I never made it there before it burned down. Cool belt buckle, though. Johntex\talk 20:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Ack! Shoo, Johtex, shoo! *reclaims territory*--Sean Black (talk) 20:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Sean, er, hey! I didn't know you were here, you're supposed to be on a wikibreak. We weren't doing anything, honest. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 20:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes that's right - I was just plying her with beer and complimenting her on her shirt and belt buckle. Speaking of the belt buckle, I think it should make its way to some more places. How about bar and belt buckle? Also Advertising, Public relations and Brand. In addition, Promotional item aka schwag and tchotchke would be good places. There's room for one more at Logo as well. And of course, let's not forget Country music!!! Johntex\talk 21:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
In other news, I see that the regents approved the North end zone expansion of Darrell K. Royal-Texas Memorial Stadium. Johntex\talk 22:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Belt buckle. Belts. Pants. I know what you were thinking. Now shoo, shoo!--Sean Black (talk) 23:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Congrats Kate! Hope you enjoyed my beer. —bbatsell ¿? 00:00, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

NPOV, DFtT & other FLA

Priceless, isn't it? I laughed so hard it hurt the first time I saw it. FeloniousMonk 20:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


Thank you, I will treasure it always :-)

I understand

my bad 04:49, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


Did you know that you have 4 articles on your Cleanup desk? Shame! :) --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 12:07, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

This will give you a laugh

User talk:JzG#Vadalism (sic), part of Pat's latest crusade to have a referenced source for every fact on the project, including, apparently, the existence of a 2006 Winter Olympics :-D Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 19:46, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh fuck me, he's only gone and nominated the medal tables from every single Olympic games since 1872 for deletion as uncited! You couldn't make it up. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Olympic games medal count Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 20:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Clay Aiken

Can I just say that I find it mildly amusing that the last time there was a big fat edit war on this article, you and I (among others) were criticized for allowing any mention of speculation about his sexual orientation into the article, now we're being criticized for not allowing more speculation? My, how times change. Hermione1980 20:24, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Help please on Mark Levin page

I wonder if you might stop by the Mark Levin page. Anonymous user (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) is reverting at will to a version of the page rife with advertising links, extremely POV edits, and is deleting links that are anything less than pro-Levin propaganda. He has filled the Talk page with invective, rants, slurs, and threats. For that, he has been given 3RR and vandalism warnings, but is dismissing them. Any comments or help you could provide would be much appreciated. Eleemosynary 16:55, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the page protection. Eleemosynary 18:39, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Tours

Katefan0Hi Kate, I see you are working your way through Frank Hamer -- pretty good so far, though I had to wince -- I read all those books, and put all those quotes, and there they went! But it look very fair, and hopefully we can keep in the horror after the ambush, when Hamer allowed people -- it is in Bonnie and Clyde's article, quoted from the coroner who arrived to see Hamer allowing people to cut off Bonnie's hair, pieces of her dress, for souvenirs! And there is NO QUESTION -- Hamer admitted it himself repeatedly, and it is in every account of the ambush -- that they had decided to fire without warning! Anyway, I hope the main point, that Bonnie was not wanted for murder, and no crediable claim was ever made she even shot anyone, and thus should not have been shot down like a dog, stays somehow... ON to Tours! We have a new user who has reverted edits made. Do I revert back, or refer it to Kirill since it is the Military History Project? I have learned not to engage in revert wars! Take care, and what did you ever think of my work on Margaret Tudor? old windy bear 21:43, 13 February 2006 (UTC)


CaneMan (talk · contribs) is a new addition to Category:Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets of Brian Brockmeyer. -Will Beback 07:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Block of TheRingess

User:TheRingess is looking for some explanation about their block. I've spoken to them, but maybe you are more familiar with the case.--Commander Keane 15:03, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Despite the absense of the two you blocked, the war continued to rage - this time with User:ChessAndCookies and User:TeenAngst. I think protection is needed - but am happy to discuss futher.--Commander Keane 15:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Oops! You were actually thanking me and supporting my action, for some reason I read it the other way. Thanks for the thanks.--Commander Keane 16:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Happy Valentine's day, dear Katefan!

Happy Valentine's Day, my sweet dear Katefan!

Bonnie and Clyde

thanks Kate for editing Pig's latest cute comment. Could pig be Jerry Dorsen? I was genuinely surprised by his attack. If he has information he thinks shoudl be in the article, to paraphrase you, FIX IT. hope you are okay, I am hanging in there == ask Kirill, he is pleased with my work over in Military, Kate, I do think I am making a positive difference...Thanks...old windy bear 01:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Katefan0Kate, could Pig really be this 15 year old? Amazing. I am at the point of not knowing who is what, except I trust you and Cycle Pat, and Kirill. I just don't understand these people using various aliases to attack people. WHAT IS THEIR PROBLEM??? Thanks for being a thoroughly nice human being, and trying to do a good job as editor. old windy bear 03:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Katefan0 Kate, I have been over on the Frank Hamer article, in between working on Tours and Charles Martel, and the Mongol Empire Series, (just rewrote Berke's stub into an article) - which have really turned into great articles. On Hamer, I took out the word "murder" altogether referencing the ambush, and have simply stated that increasingly historians question the legality of the ambush. This is documented, and true. I have tried to follow your example in simply stating facts, in an encyclopedic manner, and allowing people to draw their own conclusions. When you get time, see if you approve of the revisions, and thanks!old windy bear 14:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

User: Katefan0(scribble) I am challanging the tagging of the Bonnie and Clyde article without specifics of fact and law, or sourcing of same. How can a nameless im tag an article without citing what precisely is wrong, citing sources and references for same! It is more of Pig's shenanigans...old windy bear 22:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Please stop trolling.

SaltyPig 01:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Really. This campaign of trolling must stop, Kate. I think it's time for an request for arbitration, personally ;).--Sean Black (talk) 02:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

A 15 year old kid has been saying he is a retired lawyer and administrative law judge? or is that yet another sock puppet? Amazing. Why all the lying and phony names? If you are smart enough, whoever you are, to invent all this, why not make a positive contribution instead of vandalizing, and harrassing people?old windy bear 19:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

(talk)out of curiousity, are you the various im's that attack people with all the lying and phony names? Or just a supporter of same? I checked Dorsen -- he does not exist in real life -- bet none of those people are real. Amazing....Kate, you have my sympathy for putting up with these cretins.old windy bear 05:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

a month?

that's far too long for us to be apart, kateschlam! Salty. 03:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC) [ (talk · contribs)]

We'll manage somehow. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 07:25, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
I admire your stiff upper lip. Smile.png SlimVirgin (talk) 07:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Katefan0 Thank Kate, I won't miss his unending lying and attacking people. Why all the phony names? Sad thing is he is intelligent enough to actually help quite a bit and wastes his time, and ours! He must have a real problem to lie so much. Oh well, what a happy month this will be! :)old windy bear 19:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging for Image:Katharinehepburn1.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Katharinehepburn1.jpg. The image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to indicate why we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the image qualifies under Wikipedia's fair use guidelines, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use. If you want the image to be deleted, tag it as {{db-unksource}}.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of image pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you have any concerns, contact the bot's owner: Carnildo.

My mistake

Hi Katefan0. My mistake, I thought D's request to 'keep going' was a request for comment on Comaze's suggestion. Camridge 03:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


The protect on this article might be groaning under the weight of time. I don't know what the situation is, but I didn't want to remove the protect without asking if you feel the problems have passed, or if they need more work to be resolved. If so, I might help out a bit. Just a reminder.

I'd like to tinker with the article a bit, and would certainly also like to see the issues resolved. My kind regards. --DanielCD 17:39, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Wow. LoveMonkey is just pacing and licking his chops waiting for that protect to come off. I'm kinda sorry I took this on... lol. --DanielCD 04:51, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


Something very funny is going on with American Civil Rights Movement (1896-1954), and American Civil Rights Movement (1955-1968) -- user Mitchumch on February 4-6 added "key event" info to those articles, at least one line of which was bogus -- that editor is no longer on Wikipedia, for some reason (I posted to his discussion page before, which is no longer there). Also, on February 1 user Mrpresident2006 completely rewrote Montgomery Improvement Association, which is referenced by Mitchumch's entries -- editor Mrpresident2006 has no entries on his home page or discussion page.

I have had discussions on the talk page with Mitchumch, asking for sources for his posts that weren't backed by Wikipedia articles. He agreed to come up with them.

Ben knows I put together Timeline of the American Civil Rights Movement. User Mitchumch e-mailed me, but I insisted on replying only on his discussion page. Now Mitchumch has disappeared. Could well be Ben. Simesa 02:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

User Mitchumch's blank home page and extensive discussion page come up now - I can't explain why now and not an hour ago. I will post to it. Simesa 03:11, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Not Blocked?

Re Hi, perhaps you should see my talk page history to see what the guys up to? Clearly wants attention/fight, I would have thought it looks like someone who has been in ths mode before? SatuSuro 15:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that. SatuSuro 16:00, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Removing CSD tag from article Brandongardiner

I must disagree with your removing the CSD tag from the article Brandongardiner. Even though the article has been nominated for AfD the article is clearly a hoax and is eligible for CSD. Adding the speedy tag to an article on AfD is acceptable and has been done many times in the past. James084 16:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


  • User has violated the 3RR despite being warned against vandalism. His/her edits create a POV fork on Hyles-Anderson College to remove criticism to the AfDJack Hyles Controversy page. User voted twice on that AfD to keep the POV fork. User has also been warned against POV and blanking on article talk pages and user talk pages. Thanks. Arbustoo 03:09, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

re: block request

You removed the block request saying the person has edited twice today. If you look at the diffs cited here you'll see that both of those edits from today are vandalism (the same "push it to the limit" meme that's been plaguing Limit (mathematics) for weeks). See the recent edit history for Limit (mathematics) for dozens more instances of the same vandalism. There is no way to interpret's two edits from today as good faith edits. Phr 21:20, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for blocking that person and I'm sorry to have re-listed when he/she was already blocked. The confusion was because User:Moe Epsilon was also editing that entry. See User Talk:Moe Epsilon and User Talk:Phr for discussion.Phr 21:33, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


I really dislike your judgement on the block of this anon. Although he/she did vandalize, there was a lack of conversation between users and this anon. No warnings or anything. This user also only made 2 edits today which I don't believe warrants a block. Moe ε 21:30, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I understand. ;-) Had no idea he just came off a week-long block for vandalism of the same nature. It's better to block like that for persistant vandals like that. Thanks! Moe ε 21:36, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

question about accusations

Hi KatefanO. Just a query on nipping conflict in the bud on the NLP article. I noticed that Comaze is still drawing attention to or implying personal attacks [9]. He has been extremely successful in provoking conflict using this method. I believe a lot of progress has been made on the current workshop, but persistent "acting like an arbitrator" seems to have cropped up again. Do you think something should be done about this? Camridge 03:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

re: push it to the limit

It's a YTMND meme. See List_of_YTMND_fads. There's probably hundreds of those edits. I notice Safety is now sprotected because of it. Phr 09:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Please Intervene re:Jack Hyles & Hyles-Anderson College

Katefan0 - please intervene with regard to the Jack Hyles and Hyles-Anderson College controversy issue. The problem I have is that these "controversies" were basically an attack by two men who had a personal axe to grind against Jack Hyles. They have literally dedicated a major part of their lives to degrading this man's ministry and to a great degree have succeeded in twisting facts and magnifying their own false charges so much so that the two entries on Jack Hyles and Hyles-Anderson College are now simply an advertisement for their grievances. It's not that anyone is trying to "whitewash" the criticim; rather, it's that the criticism needs to be in its proper proportion and perspective, when compared to the overall ministry of Jack Hyles and the college. When there are literally thousands upon thousands of people who have been helped by Jack Hyles, and when you contrast that with this small handful of attackers, it does not seem right that the majority of words on these Wiki entries deal with their anti-Hyles grievances. Those who have tried to "write for the enemy" have seen all their work wiped out by vandals who insist that their minority viewpoint take center seat to a more reasoned and NPV writing style on the subject. I'm not confident that this can be resolved without your help. For the most part, the anti-Hyles editors have three things going for them that will ensure that these Wiki entries remain an advertisement for their grievances - 1) they seem to have a great amount of free time, 2) they are filled with a great desire to see this man's ministry degraded and impuned at any cost, and 3) they themselves (or their friends) have the power to ban from Wikipedia IP address of those with whom they disagree, making their opponents out to be "vandals" when the opposite is true. Please help - I don't know what the answer is.-- 16:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Katefan, could you edit/clean up the College per the consensus posted on the talk page? (The consensus being the criticism section[10])Arbusto 01:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

requesting help & advice

In order to avoid a spitting contest between unregistered user rabinid and myself, I'm asking you (and Will Beback) for help with the John Paulus entry that he has added to Wikipedia. I tried to give it a more neutral angle (not perfectly), but he has reverted most of my changes. If you check his history, you can see that his singular goal is to publicize Paulus throughout Wikipedia. I hate seeing Wikipedia used in this way, and do not believe it should be what this encyclopedia is about. Would you check this particular entry and let me know what you think, and make changes if you see fit? Thanks. -Jmh123 03:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

First, I'm not unregistered. I have a legitimate Wiki account. As well, I'm not seeding this info throughout Wikipedia as accused. I have many other Wiki edits and a long history under a different account. I created this one strictly for this particular info because of the feelings associated with it. That said, I loathe sourcable on-topic info being removed or denied inclusion simply on the basis that it may be perceived as disparaging to a subject. In this case Jmh123 is an avowed Clay Aiken fan who has made it her mission to only "seed" wiki with what she believes is positive information on Aiken. It's her right to do so, but only if that info is NPOV, on topic, relevant and sourcable. In particular with the info removed from John Paulus], I did not revert all of her edits to the entry, only the ones that were non-sourcable, as well as summaries of content that was already supplied in the form of links to the MP3s of the actual content. These are all legitimate NPOV edits, sourcable and on topic. I would urge you to double check my work --Rabinid 09:37, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Phaistos Disc

The request was for semi-protection, and imho not even this would be warranted. The edit war is conducted by a single anon, and the 3RR is well capable of containing it. regards, dab () 13:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

The original request for semiprotection was made when the anon was using several IP's, so 3RR was not applicable. This may well have been a dynamic IP. Septentrionalis 20:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
of course. he is not being shouted down, and there is plenty of discussion on talk. But with his history on Usenet (four years of flamewarring), there is little hope of reaching a reasonable consensus, so we will have to rely on procedures that make WP more stringent than Usenet. I am done with the article for the moment, so I don't mind it being protected for a few days, but this guy's determination has been going for half a decade, so it really won't matter if you unprotect now or next week :) dab () 14:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
See my response at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Kadmos 18:37, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Briefly, no, there are no favorable scholarly reviews of Faucounau's decipherment, as far as anybody can see. Details on Talk:Phaistos Disc. Septentrionalis 20:10, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me please. This is my first side protection. What happens now? Is there any solution apart from accepting all desires of 80.90.xx.xx, in order to get the side unprotected. Kadmos 23:54, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


Thank you for protecting the page. If the IP decides to engage us on the talk page, I'll request unprotection. JJ 22:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Why was the page unprotected again so soon? I am sorry ifI come of whining, I am not claiming it was wrong, I am just curious as to the reason. Oh, and the 'vandals' are still at it, only with a new IP address. Lundse 22:12, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


By all means you should remove autoblocks if it really is you and not an impostor. The block wasn't aimed at you, just at the "impostor". -- Curps 02:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Another vandal

Hi Kate, when you have time, please check == not on bonnie and clyde, but on their other edits, which were pure vandalism. Hope you are well...old windy bear 03:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Your fellow T-sips have been busy


We look forward to your edits, as always!! Johntex\talk 06:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

John Paulus

Thanks Katefan0. I am sort of stumbling through this delete process thing. Could you please go state an opinion on the Articles for Deletion page. Thanks Michigan user 22:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

3RR policy negotiation

Would you please try to negotiate. There are valid points to the 3RR. The reverts you have done have only prolonged the process itself. What you may not see useful others may. I don't know why you want to edit war. Do you think you would loose something if you try to negotiate? — Dzonatas 23:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

What you're seeking to do is not supported by me or the community. I'm sorry, but there's nothing to negotiate. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 23:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
From what I see, you don't even understand what I have tried to do. The entire community is not involved, so please don't try to speak for everybody. We can try bring about central discussion to implement changes. Which should have been done for other changes done to the 3RR page. — Dzonatas 00:06, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


I appreciate it. And say thanks to Smokey too for the good advice. Guettarda 03:06, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

A public apology

Just wanted to say, that I'm sorry about snapping at you in some of the emails we exchanged. I was out of line, you deserve more respect from me.

TheRingess 06:09, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Bonnie and Clyde

What's the story? The anon IP has added the {totallydisputed} tag to the article, which is unprotected, but can't leave comments on the Talk page because it's sprotected. Sounds like an interesting tale :-) Just zis Guy you know? 10:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Katefan0Hi kate, did you see our old friend Pig is back with yet another anonymous alias playing his same games with the Bonnie and Clyde article. By the way, I checked with the Texas bar association, and guess what? There is no Jerry Dorsen. What a surprise, yet another lie. I admire you Kate - I don't see how you deal with Pig on a regular basis. I am lucky - you edit most of his cursing, ranting, threats to me out of the content, for which I thank you, (my grandkids read wikipedia!). The bottom line to me is that you told him long ago, in his Dorsen personna, that if he was that unhappy with the article, fix it. He won't. He knows that the existing facts, presented as an encyclopedia should, are that no warrant was ever filed on Bonnie Parker for murder, nor a sworn complaint. Thus, in recent years, legitimate historians have begun to ask if her death was murder. Certainly the one reviewer of Frank Hamer's book I cited on that talk page was right when he stated "if the same officers committed that ambush today they would be prosecuted." Oh well, once he wrote on Pat's page, I knew it was Pig. It had that arrogant attempt to use multisylable words to hide a miserable agenda: hinder, hamper, destroy, any articles you can, while trolling, attacking, and harassing those users, and editors, he doesn't like. Well, it gave me a chance to say hi to you and Pat, anyway! Have you read any of my work for Kirill over in the Mongol Empire series? I am finishing that up, and beginning work on Rome. I would like to see the tag lifted on Bonnie and Clyde if Pig won't give Pat the list of alleged errors, as it is, the tag is just a way for him to circumvent your banning him. old windy bear 20:40, 24 February 2006 (UTC)