User talk:Katefan0

Please leave new messages at the BOTTOM of this page.

Template:Catneeded

This article needs more cats. Please help Wikipedia by adding more cats to articles, especially this one.

Talk archive: 1 2 3 4 5 6

Have you realized...

....that resistance is futile. You must join the cabal. That is all. -JCarriker 20:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Blorp. · Katefan0 ^(scribble)/poll 21:49, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

History and Edit summary usage

If on contributions and edit history pages, when using monobook, you have no extra tabs...I am not sure what to say. Your monobook is identical to mine. Try a browser cache purge, and look at javascript console if it doesn't work.Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 16:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

protection of today's FA

I'm just letting you know I reversed the protection of Swedish allotment system, being today's featured article, it shouldn't be protected (see last paragraph under 'uses' on Wikipedia:Protection policy). -Obli (Talk)^? 17:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi

I saw you on the Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/FloNight |RfA]] page of FloNight and felt like saying you a big and nice hello. Let us continue to build the Better than the Best global encyclopedia. Thank you and regards. --Bhadani 16:04, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

rfa

I wanted to stop by and thank you for your constructive criticism of my RFA. It's helped, and is helping, to improve me as a wikipedian and an editor. I look forward to gaining your support in the future. Until then, keep on keepin on. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 19:32, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Vince Young

All I know is that pro draft day means we are one day closer to college football starting up again... Seriously, I don't know how the Texans passed on Bush, Young AND Leinhart. I don't get it. Johntex\^talk 19:51, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I guess, but why not trade the pick, or take one of those 3 and then trade them? Semms like you could get 2 or 3 good linemen. Johntex\^talk 20:38, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Texas!!! [1] Johntex\^talk 23:37, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

No and "cleanup"? (re: request for semi-protect)

You don't see a problem with how that was handled? •Jim62sch• 02:01, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't. The request was up for quite some time, long enough for many administrators to see it and choose not to say anything contrary to my decision. I'm sorry you disagree. You're free to post a new request, but I don't think the reaction will be any different. · Katefan0 ^(scribble)/poll 02:11, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

My point was that you respond "no" and then delete (clean-up, as it were) the item (along with others, yes). I just gives a bad impression, probably not one you intended, but the impression is there nonetheless. As for a new request, that will be up to the rest of the people on the page, as for the result, we'll see -- these things can be hard to predict as they are to an extent subjective decisions. •Jim62sch• 12:36, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi

People are making edits to the Justin Berry article that I think you might want to handle. I've reverted it once, and want nothing more to do with it. Corax 02:47, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Stats

I did a quick history analysis of Langley Grammar School. Two of the stats read: 141.454 edit(s) per day (since last active) and 28.291 revert(s) per day (since last active). WOW! Good think you protected that one :).Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 01:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Maryland

I have a newbie who does not understand sourcing or NPOV policies on wikipedia. She is User:Joan53. She has been consistently reverting good faith edits on the Maryland wikipedia page....note her contributions and subsequent arguing on other entries. She needs to understand the rules and also calm down. Her agenda is obvious and agendas/bias of any kind has no place here. She does not deal in verifiable info or facts in general. WillC 02:22, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Milk Needed

I copied your "catneeded" template to my talk page and modified it...I thought you might be amused. P.H. - Kyoukan, UASC(Talk) 00:01, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Persian people

I'm just letting you know so that there isn't any 'wheel warring' jazz, but I'm going to reprotect this page. The user that requested unprotection is currently on the verge of being sanctioned by the ArbCom and proceeded to [dozens of users] trying to get them to revert things he's not allowed to due to his current ArbCom injunction. If you think I'm in the wrong here, feel free to unprotect the page again, but I think this shows that more discussion is needed here. --InShaneee 17:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Absurdity

Á á Ć ć É é Í í Ĺ ĺ Ń ń Ó ó Ŕ ŕ Ś ś Ú ú Ý ý Ź ź À à È è Ì ì Ò ò Ù ù  â Ĉ ĉ Ê ê Ĝ ĝ Ĥ ĥ Î î Ĵ ĵ Ô ô Ŝ ŝ Û û Ŵ ŵ Ŷ ŷ Ä ä Ë ë Ï ï Ö ö Ü ü Ÿ ÿ ß Ã ã Ẽ ẽ Ĩ ĩ Ñ ñ Õ õ Ũ ũ Ỹ ỹ Ç ç Ģ ģ Ķ ķ Ļ ļ Ņ ņ Ŗ ŗ Ş ş Ţ ţ Đ đ Ů ů Ǎ ǎ Č č Ď ď Ě ě Ǐ ǐ Ľ ľ Ň ň Ǒ ǒ Ř ř Š š Ť ť Ǔ ǔ Ž ž Ā ā Ē ē Ī ī Ō ō Ū ū Ȳ ȳ Ǣ ǣ ǖ ǘ ǚ ǜ Ă ă Ĕ ĕ Ğ ğ Ĭ ĭ Ŏ ŏ Ŭ ŭ Ċ ċ Ė ė Ġ ġ İ ı Ż ż Ą ą Ę ę Į į Ǫ ǫ Ų ų Ł ł Ő ő Ű ű Ŀ ŀ Ħ ħ Ð ð Þ þ Œ œ Æ æ Ø ø Å å Ə ə – — … [] [[]] ~ | ° § → # ≈ ± − × ¹ ² ³ ‘ “ ’ ” ¢ £ € ¥ Α α Β β Γ γ Δ δ Ε ε Ζ ζ Η η Θ θ Ι ι Κ κ Λ λ Μ μ Ν ν Ξ ξ Ο ο Π π Ρ ρ Σ σ ς Τ τ Υ υ Φ φ Χ χ Ψ ψ Ω ω ʈ ɖ ɟ ɡ ɢ ʡ ʔ ɸ ʃ ʒ ɕ ʑ ʂ ʐ ʝ ɣ ʁ ʕ ʜ ʢ ɦ ɱ ɳ ɲ ŋ ɴ ʋ ɹ ɻ ɰ ʙ ʀ ɾ ɽ ɫ ɬ ɮ ɺ ɭ ʎ ʟ ɥ ʍ ɧ ɓ ɗ ʄ ɠ ʛ ʘ ǀ ǃ ǂ ǁ ɨ ʉ ɯ ɪ ʏ ʊ ɘ ɵ ɤ ɚ ɛ ɜ ɝ ɞ ʌ ɔ ɐ ɶ ɑ ɒ ʰ ʷ ʲ ˠ ˤ ⁿ ˡ ˈ ˌ ː ˑ - Johntex\^talk 02:35, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Request for opinion

A little while ago, you responded to User:Xino's attempt to protect this page in response to a miniature edit war between us. Because of your prior interaction with Xino (however tiny), I was wondering if you could take the time to check out Talk:ApeXtreme#Cleanup and the associated request for a third opinion - I'd be very grateful if you'd weigh in on this one, too. Thanks for your time. :) RandyWang 02:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• Based on Xino's conduct here, and in previous disputes, I've submitted a request for comment. I'd appreciate it greatly if you would comment, either on the RfC (this is the first time I've ever done such a thing, so I'd like to know if this action was a valid one), or on the argument itself. Thanks in advance. :) RandyWang 12:55, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Request for assistance

Could you please check out a dispute I am involved in on the article Montgomery Academy. An anonymous editor has an issue with stating that the school was founded as the result of desegregation. While other editors examined the issue and said the article was balanced and provided references, to be safe I added even more references to support the article (including an article in a respected newspaper quoting the school's current headmaster as saying the school was formed b/c of desegregation). I have repeatedly asked this anonymous editor to provide a reference, any reference, to back up her claim but she says she can't do that. Despite this, she keeps changing the article and arguing on the talk page and has caused another editor to say this must be taken to mediation. Could you check out the issue and state what you see? In my opinion it is not reasonable to ask for mediation when one editor won't even abide by the most basic tenets of Wikipedia (no original research and provide references). Obviously I'm frustrated and since you've proven to be such a calm editor in the past, I'm asking if you could check this out. Thanks.--Alabamaboy 21:20, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Azerbaijani people

Did you intend to unprotect this page? [2] It appears that you did, but the page is still semi-protected. Aucaman^Talk 03:51, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

KarateKid7

I noticed that you removed this from request for page unprotection? How will I get my real account unbanned, if it is permenantly banned and protected from editing? --TheKarateKid7 03:09, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for helping me to understand more about Wikipedia.

The American Civil War page is an important page to me, and to the English Wikipedia, and while I'm aware I don't maintain it alone, I feel a responsibility to make sure that at the very least the page reflect that of the contributors, not the vandals. I try to focus on smaller articles myself, but seeing the trevails of the ACW page is a different sort of a priori learning experience which teaches me a lot about the process, and gives me some sense of responsibilty about what I otherwise might view as writing exercise. BusterD 18:54, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your assistance on WP:RFP. Sometimes I get the feeling my English isn't up to the task of getting my meaning across :( Lectonar 19:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Request for further assistance

Thank you for the earlier reply on the talk page of the requests page re: removal of semi-protection on an article. Could you please return to see why the problems still remain. Really need some further assistance here. Thank you. --Gentility 21:22, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom

Hi there. I submitted a reopening request here [3] Any advice/feedback is appreciated. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 23:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for placing this on the wrong page. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 23:34, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

No problem! · Katefan0 ^(scribble)/poll 23:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Kate - can Merecat/Rex respond during his block? It would be unfair for him to be listed and unable to respond. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 00:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

He can post to his talk page, and of course it's possible for him to email a response to the arbitrators. I'd be happy to lift his block though, so he can deal with the case now that it's filed. · Katefan0 ^(scribble)/poll 00:16, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I think you should, but that's just my opinion. Whatever the situation is, it wouldn't be right to prohibit him from a 'public' response. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 00:19, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. I went ahead and lifted it. Thanks for being classy. · Katefan0 ^(scribble)/poll 00:21, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! That having been said, check out his response to the question. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 00:37, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Brophy

They can learn to ask nicely. :) I say leave it protected. It's gotten nothing but vandalism for ages. They can submit valid changes if they like. --Golbez 01:38, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Dominus Nihil

I tagged this for speedy deletion, and you removed the tag. The consensus so far in the discussion is that speedy deletion is appropriate. It's quite common for articles to go to AfD and then get tagged for speedy deletion when it becomes obvious to a number of other users that speedy deletion is appropriate. Would you consider putting the tag back to get this obviously deletable article taken care of quickly? Brian G. Crawford 03:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

John Moore

Considering John Moore's (subwayjack) track record, should we give credence to his statement in the following edit to the Houston McCoy article?

This is John Moore, Power of Attorney for Houston McCoy. After discussions with Jimbo Wales and Brad Patrick, Wp's Attorney, I am correcting the McCoy Page and McCoy talk page only! Do not Revert!)

I'm inclined to take the above with a grain of salt. Especially as Moore provided no proof of discussion with either Wales or Patrick. jareha ^(comments) 17:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not really here - just communicating from another dimension. Maybe we should post a message on to the user and/or article page to ask them to cite their sources? If they are basically saying all the usual sources are wrong - then why don't they write a letter on John Moore stationary and GFDL it to Wikisource - then they could cite the letter? We could still cite other sources that give a different account. Then both sides would be represented and backed by some sort of documentation. Johntex\^talk 12:55, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

He's a banned user. So everything he posts can and should be reverted. --Woohookitty^(meow) 13:33, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Without the support of Wales or Patrick, from whom Moore has claimed authority, I agree with Woohookitty and will start reverting now. jareha ^(comments) 17:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Johntex's isn't a bad idea. It does seem unfair that the minorly-notable subject of an article has to get something published before he can refute already published claims in a way Wikipedia can accept. On the other hand, I'm personally thoroughly through with dealing with Subwayjack, so I'm not going to involve myself much further. My last communication with Brad Patrick a few weeks ago indicated that he was going to be ignoring Subwayjack's emails going forward. I doubt that's changed but anything is possible. · Katefan0 ^(scribble)/poll 19:01, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I consider Johntex's suggestion worth looking into. That said, hopefully I wasn't hasty in reverting 68.187.204.214's edits. jareha ^(comments) 20:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

He's now sending emails supposedly from Jimmy and then telling me that somehow it means that we should unlock the McCoy page, as if Jimmy couldn't do that himself...and it's not "locked"! --Woohookitty^(meow) 20:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Absinthe FAC

You have showed interest in the absinthe article and I thought I would let you know I have decided to put it up for Featured article nomination. FAC Absinthe Ari 00:36, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete section from Prison?

Hi, another editor commented that the section "Women in Prisons in the United States" in Prison seemed hopelessly unencyclopedic. I vote for deleting the section entirely, but I wanted a really reliable editor's judgement. Would you look at it? Thanks Simesa 02:21, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Shez 15

Shez 15 has left this lovely comment[4] on Zora's talk page.

He has been warned at least once in the past[5] and is currently listed on WP:AN/3RR.Timothy Usher 04:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe Shez 15 must get banned from editing in wikipedia for his uttermost rudeness. Please have a look at [6] as well. --Aminz 07:07, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Merecat

I request you review your decision to indefinitely block Merecat. Since november the only evidence of sockpuppetry is the use of anonymous IP for vote stacking/spamming and that IP/Account was blocked for 48 hours. The rex account has not edited since November. This is apparently more of a case of creating a new identity and not sock puppetry. In any case, it would be more approriate to block the Rex account and let the Merecat account continue as this is the more current user. The arbcom ruling that may have been violated only stipulated a penalty of 1 week ban. A week has already passed. Merecat has been editing in good faith and has over 2000 edits. --Tbeatty 19:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Protection of articles

Apologies for suggesting Biff Rose be unprotected. It was my mistake. --Sunfazer | Talk 16:02, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Userpage unprotection

There was a small bug in the script for "{usertalk-unprotect}" because the script was missing a "u" so it split the page after something that did not exist[7]. It was using .split instead of .replace as well (probably happened when I was shortening the script length a few days back). ".replace" requires less code and never acts buggy. I just fixed it.Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 14:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Romano Prodi

Hi Katefan0,

I wonder if you'd consider changing the protection at Romano Prodi to semi-protection. The problems have been almost entirely with anons, and Prodi is set to become prime minister very shortly, which means the page will need to change substantially. My intuition is that the troublemakers will dry up and blow away rather than register an account (or log in if they already have one). --Trovatore 20:53, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Response on my page. --Trovatore 21:22, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Not resolved

Please revert the changes and protect the page. It has not been solved at all! Just because we were busy with lag b'omer it doesn't mean its resolved. ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 15:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep up the good work

I just went to remove the protection from a page I protected a couple of days ago only to find that you had beaten me to it by a couple of hours. Good work staying on top of the whole protection thing. --GraemeL ^(talk) 15:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

The Texas Observer

Katefan0, thanks for expanding the Texas Observer article. Now I'll do what benchwarmers like myself do best: copyedit. :) jareha ^(comments) 15:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Sure thing, I always admired the Observer, and I've met Nate Blakeslee, the guy that broke the Tulia story, a few times; Ronnie Dugger too. I wish I could find more information on Dugger, I'd like to write a short bio on him. He's been published a ton, but I haven't found any real profiles of the man himself. · Katefan0 ^(scribble)/poll 16:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I also have great respect for the Observer. They take politicians to task.

My Observer ties are through Molly Ivins. Robert Moore, the founder of The Chinquapin School (my alma mater), taught Ivins at St. John's. When Moore passed away, Ivins spoke at his funeral. jareha ^(comments) 16:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Cool. I met her once at a Poynter Foundation writers' workshop. Very nice lady, even if she isn't a native Texan. ;) · Katefan0 ^(scribble)/poll 17:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Assistance requested concerning Virginia Military Institute

Hi there. I came to you because you have experience in protecting articles to resolve disputes and vandalism. I have a question of policy for you. The article Virginia Military Institute has been undergoing quite a bit of conflict in the past weeks, though not enough activity to warrant a protection. An informal Mediation request was filed at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-04-22 Virginia Military Institute, though as is evident by the last comment, little progress has been made.

Basically, the issue first revolved around the use of {{citationneeded}} notes on bits of information concerning the institute. The citation needed notes are constantly being removed by people. However, the issue on that page has now spread to the inclusion of a sourced passage ( see diff here concerning a supreme court case about cadets being forced to eat in the mess hall. Apparently some have interpreted Marshall3's continued removal of this passage as a non-npov move to protect the reputation of the school. I'm not affiliated with the school at all; I was merely one trying to settle the dispute in the mediation case.

I came here to ask you what procedure you think should be done for such a situation, especially since the comments by Marshall3 were a wake-up call that there was still a heated debate.

My first thought was the administrator's noticeboard, but this activity doesn't necessarily warrant a block, either. So, if you could enlighten me as to what procedure should be followed for this problem I would appreciate it! Thanks Oh yes, and here's a kitten.

Cowman109^Talk 19:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for for your comment in the talk page! I had a request for comment filed in mid-April but I think it got lost in the backlog, so your efforts are appreciated. Cowman109^Talk 20:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Vandalizing the Frank Hamer article

User:Katefan0 Hey Kate, can you lock the Hamer article from vandalism? if you look at the history, someone, probably MyTwoCents, vandalized it in whole, from an ip address rather than signing in, can you protect the article, while any disputed facts are raised here, or in a peer review, if someone wants one? Thanks! old windy bear 23:59, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Remarks from User:70.128.224.128

Katefan0, I moved this from your Userpage to your talk page. --Zpb52 01:43, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry; I was moving this as well but edit conflicted with Zpb... Joe 01:44, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how to get this issue taken care of, but there are countless factual errors in the frank hamer article by old windy bear, and though I have provided him with specific example that he can not refute and that I have the documentation in hand and cited, he does not seem willing to acknowledge and correct these serious factual errors. apparently he has an agenda and he is sticking to it, as some of the past dicussion reveals. I will include my original notes and my reply to his comments below. You will see the seriousness of his errors. This site has a reputation for allowing bogus info to be posted (lot of bad press this past year) so I am sure you will address this issue promptly.

Thank you

Warning to readers!!!

There are countless factual errors in this article. Who ever wrote it did very careless research, if any at all. There are so many that I do not have time to correct them at this time, but I will attempt to in the near future, as I will collect and post citations for all facts that I expose as misleading or false. Most of the errors are common mythology that has surfaced over the years regarding Mr. Hamer.

One obvious example is that he was NOT commissioned as a Texas Ranger when he tracked down Bonnie & Clyde, but he was in fact commissioned as a state highway patrolman ("I'm Frank Hamer" (c)1968) Also check the Texas State Library & Archives, you can see his records online. They disprove what the writer of the article below claims, even though he/she references them.

And for the record, Frank never wrote an "autobigraphy", as he passed away in 1953, and the aforementioned book was written by H. Gordon Frost and John H. Jenkins with the permission of the Hamer family in 1968. Ask his son Frank Jr., if you dont believe me. Or try actually reading the book.

BTW-The family successfully sued Warner brothers for that farce of a movie starring warren beatty for copyright infringement.

PS - Bonnie Parker was implicated by eye-witness in the cold blooded assasination of two highway patrol officers in grapevine texas on April 1st 1934. She Walked up to the one survivor and shot him point blank, then proceded to desecrate the corpse in an unmentionable fashion. She was anything but innocent, as she was suspected in numerous other murders & robberies, reveled in being photograped posing with guns, and sported a tatoo memorializing her 1st marriage to a man who was serving a life sentence in prison.(the eye-witness is named and his account provided in the aforementioned book, however the desecration I referred to was so vile that it is not included there, or in any publication)

To whoever posted this bogus info, please do your homework first, or don't post anything at all. It is a grave dis-service to the public.

His full given name was Francis Augustus Hamer.

I am willing to accept that the gross errors you made in the Frank hamer article may have been made in good faith on your part, but the fact remains that they are indeed errors.

Significant errors such as the example I gave that you are completely unable to refute. You didn't even try.

Go to the texas State Library & archives website and actually review Hamer's entire file like I have, the read the entire book, "I'm Frank Hamer" that you erroneously referred to as an autobiography, then talk to me. You are wrong on those facts I noted and many, many others.

Please be assured, I will not let this go until you correct those mistakes. This was my first experience with this site(very disappointing, to say the least), so I will have to learn the protocol, but you will save yourself much grief and embarrasment if you make these corrections yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.128.224.128 (talk • contribs)

Here are some more specifics, as he continues to cite incorrectly without actually reading what he cites. first here is the link he provides to defend his claim that hamer had a ranger commission in 1934....

http://www.tsl.state.tx.us/treasures/law/hamer-warrant.html

BTW - you need to take a closer look at the document that you provided the link to below.....the dates are 1931 - 1933.....When were B & C killed?.....1934......once again, attention to detail would save you much embarrasment

I suggest you open those books and read them then. He DID NOT have a ranger commission. If you really are a historian, your colleagues will be ashamed because they have been aware that that popular myth is false for 30 years! OPEN THE BOOK if you actually have it, page 210....do I really have to spoon feed it to you like this? Let your agenda go and report the facts, that is what REAL historians are supposed to do. Got to the state library and archives website like I suggested, 3-4 times now. YOU ARE WRONG! Deal with it and make the corrections.

I can't mediate on this article; sorry. Go through the normal channels of dispute resolution. · Katefan0 ^(scribble)/poll 02:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

efan0 Sorry Kate, I am not asking you to mediate, just order him to present factual disputes properly and stop vandalizing - he needs to list these alleged "errors" on teh talk page, or request a peer review. He obviously does not know the history, Hamer still had that commission in 1934 when he was hired by Lee Simmons of TDOC to hunt down Bonnie and Clyde. Why do I feel I have to deal with fools constantly on these articles? This person vandalized the article, my user page, your user page, and never once posted facts that are not refutable. Hamer's PERMANENT RANGER COMMISSION is posted online at http://www.tsl.state.tx.us/treasures/law/hamer-warrant.html He needs to present factual disputes properly and stop vandalizing - he needs to list these alleged "errors" on the talk page, in order, or request a peer review. He obviously does not know the history, Hamer still had that commission in 1934 when he was hired by Lee Simmons of TDOC to hunt down Bonnie and Clyde. Why do I feel I have to deal with fools constantly on these articles? This person vandalized the article, my user page, Kate's user page, and never once posted facts that are not refutable. Hamer's PERMANENT RANGER COMMISSION is posted online at http://www.tsl.state.tx.us/treasures/law/hamer-warrant.html Also go read Texas history online -http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/HH/fha32.html saying "In 1932 Hamer retired from active duty but retained his commission." His lack of knowledge is embarrassing!The highway patrol fallacy - long ago discredited. Oh well, another night in wikipedia, with nameless vandals, lol old windy bear 02:19, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

To User:Katefan0

Will you take a moment to look at Old Windy Bear's own citations that refute his own claims. The link he keeps providing shows that Hamer's last commission ended in January 1933, a year and a half before the Bonnie & Clyde job. This error of fact is particularly important because your writer goes on to make some far-out claims based on that factual error.

And as for his criticims of the "I'm" Frank Hamer" book, he is so ignorant that he refers to it as an autobiography even though hamer died 15 years before it was written by John H. Jenkins & H. Gordon Frost, two highly esteemed Texas historians of their generation. You can verify their reputations with the UT-Austin History department if you like.

And furthermore, his claims about the timing of the book are erroneous as well, as is his claim that the settlement the family received was insignificant. The terms of the settlement included a confidentiality clause, so make him provided documents to rpove that claim as well. I do know this, the first payment came at the signing around 1970, a suitcase full of wrapped stacks of $500.00 bills. Frank Jr still has the suitcase and wrappers if you would like to see them.

And finally, your writer cites a self-described NOVEL, the one by shelton, as if it were a work of history. He might as well cite the warren beatty movie then!

I have reviewed his discussion pages and see that he has been REGULARLY criticized for his factual errors and obvious bias when writing articles. Perhaps it is time that your company ban him altogether and remove any & all articles that he has posted in order to spare yourelves further embarrasment in the media?

To User:Katefan0

Will you take a moment to look at Old Windy Bear's own citations that refute his own claims. The link he keeps providing shows that Hamer's last commission ended in January 1933, a year and a half before the Bonnie & Clyde job. This error of fact is particularly important because your writer goes on to make some far-out claims based on that factual error.

And as for his criticims of the "I'm" Frank Hamer" book, he is so ignorant that he refers to it as an autobiography even though hamer died 15 years before it was written by John H. Jenkins & H. Gordon Frost, two highly esteemed Texas historians of their generation. You can verify their reputations with the UT-Austin History department if you like.

And furthermore, his claims about the timing of the book are erroneous as well, as is his claim that the settlement the family received was insignificant. The terms of the settlement included a confidentiality clause, so make him provided documents to rpove that claim as well. I do know this, the first payment came at the signing around 1970, a suitcase full of wrapped stacks of $500.00 bills. Frank Jr still has the suitcase and wrappers if you would like to see them.

And finally, your writer cites a self-described NOVEL, the one by shelton, as if it were a work of history. He might as well cite the warren beatty movie then!

I have reviewed his discussion pages and see that he has been REGULARLY criticized for his factual errors and obvious bias when writing articles. Perhaps it is time that your company ban him altogether and remove any & all articles that he has posted in order to spare yourelves further embarrasment in the media?

At What Point

Can an article, such as Frank Hamer, be "Frozen" to avoid vandalism such as the recent edits? Many pulp authors churned out inaccurate accounts following the movie in 1967 to cash in on the bonnie and Clyde craze, such appears to be the case with "Im Frank Hamer", which someone takes serious enough to quote in their revisions randazzo56 03:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Articles are protected to prevent edit wars; you can request a protection at WP:RFP. · Katefan0 ^(scribble)/poll 03:47, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey Katefan0 , Hi randazzo56 Technically this was not an edit war, it was a case of an unnamed user replacing the article with his "warnings" about it's alleged flaws based solely on "I'm Frank Hamer" - which is considered considered historically to be the worst of the "Bonnie and Clyde" books, and useful only for some trivia in his early career, because practically everything in it is self serving and wrong. Hamer's family rushed it out in 1968 to try to take advantage of the movie and sue. (it was settled for a relative pitance to avoid nuisence litigation!) But the book is terrible - For instance, the ghost writers (Hamer is dead and does not have to explain his horrific actions after the ambush, etc.) "forget" to mention that Bonnie was not wanted for anything other than aiding Clyde in the interstate transportation of a stolen motor vehicle - no one wanted her for any murders, period. The highway patrol shootings this unnamed person babbles about? He should read Treherne, or Ted Hinton, or talk to Hinton's son, who says online in an article Bonnie was asleep in the back seat. Treherne found she approached the dying officers to try and help them after Methvin started the killings. Hamer's ranger commission was permanent in 1934, I have cited the state of texas's historial site, which lists him as retiring (he was actually forced to resign over political differences) but had enough political pull to be allowed to keep an active ranger commission, which was in force when Lee Simmons of the Department of Corrections -not the highway patrol - hired him to hunt down Bonnie and Clyde. Point to all this, (other than driving Kate crazy with more Frank Hamer trivia), is this really was someone who did not have a clue about the history - witness his insistance this one, self serving, rushed out after death book in order to sue a movie company, overrides the official archives of the state of texas! old windy bear 09:48, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

To User:Katefan0

Will you take a moment to look at Old Windy Bear's own citations that refute his own claims. The link he keeps providing shows that Hamer's last commission ended in January 1933, a year and a half before the Bonnie & Clyde job. This error of fact is particularly important because your writer goes on to make some far-out claims based on that factual error.

And as for his criticims of the "I'm" Frank Hamer" book, he is so ignorant that he refers to it as an autobiography even though hamer died 15 years before it was written by John H. Jenkins & H. Gordon Frost, two highly esteemed Texas historians of their generation. You can verify their reputations with the UT-Austin History department if you like.

And furthermore, his claims about the timing of the book are erroneous as well, as is his claim that the settlement the family received was insignificant. The terms of the settlement included a confidentiality clause, so make him provided documents to rpove that claim as well. I do know this, the first payment came at the signing around 1970, a suitcase full of wrapped stacks of $500.00 bills. Frank Jr still has the suitcase and wrappers if you would like to see them.

And finally, your writer cites a self-described NOVEL, the one by shelton, as if it were a work of history. He might as well cite the warren beatty movie then!

I have reviewed his discussion pages and see that he has been REGULARLY criticized for his factual errors and obvious bias when writing articles. Perhaps it is time that your company ban him altogether and remove any & all articles that he has posted in order to spare yourelves further embarrasment in the media?

Frank Hamer

Since you've had to deal with sundry Hamer postings today (what isn't made better by the site of a cat?), and in view of your request supra, I thought I ought to give you a picture of the cat with whom I live:

File:Blackandwhitetuxedocat.jpg

Saluki

You should feel free, of course, to move/remove it as you see fit. Joe 03:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Classy Cat

Joe Well, the cat is the high point of all this, frankly! If kate doesn't want it, hell, move it to my talk page.old windy bear 09:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Chuckle Chuckle Chuckle

My talk page is deathly silent. Yours isn't. Mwahahahaha! :) It's because I haven't been doing much on WP. This is probably my lowest level of involvement since I started. Just needed a semi break. But the silence is beautiful. --Woohookitty^(meow) 12:40, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Hey there, thanks for catching that vandalism to my talk page. Much appreciated. — Laura Scudder ☎ 04:45, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Moves

I updated the revert stuff a tad, so you may want to purge your browser cache.

Add Rvaluejsadmin = something ; and Mvaluejsadmin = something; to your monobook where "something" is your choose if you want to set the password (to stop people around you from being asses or to stop any accidents).

If you have to deal with page move vandals, go to their contribs page, click "show all moves" and then from there click "revert all moves". This uses the later password. "Delete over page?" pages may still appear as normal, since I did not autoconfirm that aspect, those are the windows you should close, since the page that must be deleted is more than a redirect. Have fun!Voice-of-All^Talk 20:36, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Russo-Turkish War, 1877–1878

Could you please unblock the page? 83.5.219.182 01:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

It will be unprotected when editors who have been in dispute come to a resolution. · Katefan0 ^(scribble) 03:25, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

How is it possible to come to a resolution when the protagonist (ghirla) refuses to read my talk page comments, and reply to them? It takes two to tango...Suicup 03:53, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

It appears that he has answered you, you simply disagree with his answers. If you can't come to a resolution, use dispute resolution. · Katefan0 ^(scribble) 04:18, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Where are his answers to my comments made on the 18th May - the ones which aren't 'complaining' but rather provided further evidence? It seems like i wasted my time looking up those other journals. It is not possible to have a constructive discussion with this user.Suicup 12:35, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Then use dispute resolution, please. Your dispute won't be solved by posting here. · Katefan0 ^(scribble) 14:18, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

OKSuicup 08:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Well stop making false statements and giving other users unfair privileges- is that how you make use of your admin rights? Im afriad Ghilra completely ignored Suicup's comments, yet you defend Ghirlandajo. Real rich on your part. 83.5.187.142 22:58, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

You're wasting your time trolling here. Use dispute resolution. · Katefan0 ^(scribble) 00:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

VandalProof 1.2 Now Available

After a lenghty, but much-needed Wikibreak, I'm happy to announce that version 1.2 of VandalProof is now available for download! Beyond fixing some of the most obnoxious bugs, like the persistent crash on start-up that many have experienced, version 1.2 also offers a wide variety of new features, including a stub-sorter, a global user whitelist and blacklist, navigational controls, and greater customization. You can find a full list of the new features here. While I believe this release to be a significant improvement over the last, it's nonetheless nowhere near the end of the line for VandalProof. Thanks to Rob Church, I now have an account on test.wikipedia.org with SysOp rights and have already been hard at work incorporating administrative tools into VandalProof, which I plan to make available in the near future. An example of one such SysOp tool that I'm working on incorporating is my simple history merge tool, which simplifies the process of performing history merges from one article into another. Anyway, if you haven't already, I'd encourage you to download and install version 1.2 and take it out for a test-drive. As always, your suggestions for improvement are always appreciated, and I hope that you will find this new version useful. Happy editing! --AmiDaniel (talk) 02:50, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Red_Bastard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I think thats an indef {{usernameblock}}... Rather than a 24hr one for 3rr... --Cat out 15:23, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree but I ain't overruling the katester. :) --Woohookitty^(meow) 15:29, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, you're probably right, come to think of it. · Katefan0 ^(scribble) 15:27, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, come to think of it, I don't disagree. But, I'll give him a chance to think about it before lowering the boom. ;) · Katefan0 ^(scribble) 15:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Fine with me, though you might want to tell him to change his nick ^_^ --Cat out 15:36, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Can you stop my allergy attacks too? --Woohookitty^(meow) 15:34, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Not at all, but I can make them lots, lots worse... (currently surrounded by cats). · Katefan0 ^(scribble) 15:35, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

The Verdict on Camridge/HeadleyDown

Here is the verdict on Headley and Camridge. I'll email you privately on it in a minute or so. --Woohookitty^(meow) 15:36, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

PROTECTION

SO YOU THINK YOU CAN STOP ME FROM EDITING THE LIST OF COMPUTER GAMES AND VIDEO GAMES BY PROTECTING IT HUH? WE WILL SEE ABOUT THAT MR.PIECE OF SHIT! HAHAHA Pika88 21:45, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

You are one ugly dude, kate. ;-) --Woohookitty^(meow) 00:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

That's one statement I'm proud to endorse. ;) · Katefan0 ^(scribble) 00:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Lol. —Khoikhoi 01:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Nazanin Mahabad Fatehi

Can you please change the type of protection to semi-protection? Much thanks! --K a s h ^{Talk | email} 22:55, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

A case for arbitration

Hi again,

You probably remember the RfC that was submitted for the conduct of User:Xino some weeks ago, which you commented on because of your previous involvement with this user (and maybe because I asked you to nicely :) ). The case has since been referred from Mediation to Arbitration, and can be found here. If you have anything to add to the request, or would you like to comment on any user in the dispute, I'd be very grateful for your input. Thanks in advance. RandyWang (^raves/_rants) 09:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

3RR

Appreciate your comment about 3RR. I'm aware of the guideline and respect its intent, but understood that reverting apparent simple vandalism was not included in the count. On VMI, a user twice stripped all headings, formatting and links from within the article. (see VMI1 and VMI2.) Would you not agree that fixing that level of change, which was possible an editing mistake, does not fall under the 3RR guideline? Rillian 16:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

There are content differences between the versions along with the missing headings, citations, text formats, but other than a revert to the last good version, you're saying the Wikipedia expectation is that I would leave the content changes but individually add back ten headings, dozens of wiki links, etc? That hardly seems practical. Rather a revert back to the last good version and then all users edit from there, which is what has happened, seems a better solution. Regards, Rillian 17:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

We may have to agree to disagree. To be specific, I'm refering to two edits: VMI1 and VMI2. When a page has been changed to essentially plain text, e.g. VMI1, and every wiki link has been removed, every Heading tag has been been deleted, and all text formatting and spacing has been eliminated, a revert to the last good version, in my opinion, is the appropriate response, even if there have also been content changes. I don't think wikipedia consensus is that a change on that scale can avoid being revert-worthy simply because it also has some content changes. Regards, Rillian 17:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

At the risk of sounding rigid, there's really nothing else to discuss. If you continued reverting in that fashion, I would have blocked you for 3RR. It was not simple vandalism, and when it is not simple vandalism it doesn't matter how "right" your edits were -- 3RR applies regardless. · Katefan0 ^(scribble) 18:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Where did I claim that my edits were "right"? That would be placing a value judgement on edits. My position is that the purpose of the revert feature is enable editors to easily undo changes to a page that result in articles that don't conform to Wikipedia standards. The two edits that created VMI1 and VMI2, whether on purpose or by accident, essentially made the page useless from an interactive Wikipedia perspective with no wiki links, deleted citations (several of which you have now added to, no headings, no formatting, -- just one long string of text. Expecting editors to not use revert in this situation is quite perplexing. Sorry if I sound testy, but after months of trying to prevent the VMI article from being filled with unsubstantiated claims and rampant POV content while facilitating discussions on its talk page, initiating a peer review, posting comments on User pages regarding edits, etc., a warning posted to my Talk page that I'm in danger of violating 3RR (a policy of which I am well aware and attempt to scrupously follow) rubbed me the wrong way. But that's my problem. Thanks for all your efforts in making Wikipedia a better place. Regards Rillian 20:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I understand your frustration, but none of this changes the fact that reversions that undo another editor's work when it is not simple vandalism under this definition are subject to the 3RR. Please don't take offense at my caution -- I've never encountered you before and was trying to head off either of you getting blocked. · Katefan0 ^(scribble) 20:26, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to try and wade in here, as calmly as possible. One of the problems is that there are a number of references and links to those references that have flat out been removed, basically making the page less verifiable. Quite a number of articles have gone to the new refs style that creates superscripted reference numbers, and an organized references section (similar to footnotes or endnotes), yet references which WERE in the VMI article have been stripped out. This, coupled with wording from a few editors (some who were involved in the Ring issue) makes assuming good faith hard to do. At this point, it seems like anything which contradicts a POV of VMI as the best that ever was is removed. For example, being listed as number one for PUBLIC liberal ars colleges, but 215 among ALL liberal arts colleges; claims to be the only military school in the US to have gone to war when there are citations for other schools having done this as well; the ring claims etc ad nauseam.--Vidkun 16:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that there has been some problematic editing, and claims that need to be sourced better. But edit warring isn't really the way to go about it. Of course your main antagonists don't seem much disposed to discussing things, which makes it more difficult. I'll go through the article myself and see what I can do. You may want to open a request for comments from other editors as well. · Katefan0 ^(scribble) 17:35, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Appreciate your efforts to review the page. I previously intiated a peer review which got some good responses. Regards, Rillian 17:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Gibraltarian has probably struck again...

This time as 212.120.237.137 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - just look this IP's contribution to WP:RFP, which, at the time of my writing, has yet to be touched. Please look at it and take it out if it matches G's behavior. (I have had so many unpleasant interactions with G in the past that I would probably fall mood-sick if I were to read and remove it, so I'm asking you to help me solve the problem and avoid sinking my mood at the same time.) 17:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Tiresome. I've removed it. Thanks for the message. · Katefan0 ^(scribble) 17:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Request to block a user

I found that this user Elephantus was exposed as a falsifier (see [[8]]. To my best knowledge, such a user shall be blocked indefinitely.

Best regards,

--64.18.16.251 12:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

3RR

Hi, can you please help with the 3RR backlog, we have quite a few outstanding cases.  /FunkyFly.talk_   16:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Ante Pavelic

Please, elaborate where do you see the disputes related to this article. Who disputed it and how?

Best regards, --Purger 17:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

If it's removed once more without consensus, that editor will be blocked. Can someone please delineate here what they feel is biased about this article? NPOV templates must be placed along with explanations of what the placer feels needs improvement. · Katefan0 (scribble) 16:27, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

First thing first - I do not want to deal with this user Elephantus for finding him as a falsifier (see [[9]]). Are you going to block him/her indefinitely? Yes or no?--Purger 18:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what you're talking about. The first thing to do is allow people to explain why they think the NPOV tag is needed. · Katefan0 ^(scribble) 20:29, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes you do know it very well! After reading the [[10]], for sure. Go to the 'About Elephantus' title on that page. Tell us what is there.--Purger 20:46, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I have no idea what you are talking about. Giving me a link to the talk page doesn't exactly help. I just read through the "About Elephantus" section and it's pretty much meaningless to me. I don't know anything about the subject of the article and am not here to try to adjudicate disputes between you and another user (use dispute resolution for that), only to ensure that there's no edit warring at this page. · Katefan0 ^(scribble) 21:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, if it is so terrible for you to understand what is there - I'll help you simplifying the issue this way. A man trying to prove his claim (whatever it might be) copied a page of a book, altered its text using a fotoshop tool - claiming originality of the forged copy. In plain spoken language that act is called forgery. Bad thing is that that man has some Wikipedia contributions. My point is - any Wikipedian must be an honest man and I could deal with honest men only. It appeared that you are an ardent supporter of the man I wrote about. Why?--Purger 02:52, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, if that's what happened then that's certainly not all right and violates our NPOV and NOR policies in several ways. But, I had no way of knowing that was what happened from the text you pointed me to on the talk page; also I tried to look at the picture this evening but they've been deleted. I'm not an ardent supporter of anything but Wikipedia, so please don't make assumptions or cast aspersions that have no basis in fact. I'll be happy to watch contributions on that page going forward, as I have been doing. · Katefan0 ^(scribble) 03:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)