User:Katefan0/Talk2

Hope you had a nice vacation. Now get back to work! Cheers, -Willmcw 19:45, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

What he said. Shem^(talk) 19:49, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I appologize ahead for clogging up your talk page with this.

Recently, User:Ed g2s keeps on changing the Texas template to a plain version and won't explain why. I need you guys to support me to keep the Texas template that has been active.

This is the Texas template that has been active, before that user erased it, see below:

I want you guys to have some input and decide which one is best for Texas. Like I said, I support the colorful template, but Ed g2s has been reverting it without explaination and has threatened to block me if I revert again to the colorful one. I think the colorful one is more aesthetic looking. Ed g2s doesn't seem to think so and keeps on erasing it to a plain version. Also, he's not even from Texas, he's from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Let's have a vote on this on Template talk:Texas. Thank you for everyone's time. – UH Collegian 19:35, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

It appears, from Ed Poor's discussion page, that he believes he is being booted from being a sysop and admin. This leaves us with no Mediator for Price-Anderson.

By [1], the numbers have changed for Price-Anderson - coverage for facilities and activities licensed before 2026, required primary insurance to $300 million each, and secondary assessments to $95.8 million each. These numbers should go into the article - but I hesitate to start the edit-warring again. Katefan0 and Woohookitty, advice? Simesa 20:23, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply - I'll support whatever you do. In PAA I made the changes to the numbers only, and to add a citation - surprisingly, there's been no overnight action in PAA, nuclear power or Energy Policy Act of 2005. Simesa 10:28, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, Swedes are sometimes surprised that Dixies and Cajuns eat crawfish as well :). There is an old tradition of eating crawfish in Europe, but it is in Sweden that the eating takes enormous proportions.--Wiglaf 07:32, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

No worries. --Briangotts (talk) 13:44, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

If I read all the policies under Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, do you feel I have the insight and tact to participate in an RfC? Simesa 10:31, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Katefan0, do we have solid numbers for any of the below?

• ?.? Billion Energy Effeciency measures (18 billion Estimate from 2003 bill)
• 4.3 Billion for Nuclear Detailed 2005 breakdown
• ?.? Billion for clean coal
• ?.? Billion Hydrogen
• ?.? Billion Ethanol
• ?.? Billion Oil and gas (2.1 billion Estimate from 2003 bill)
• ?.? Billion Freedom Car initiative (1.7 billion 2003 CATO estimate)

Simesa 01:36, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply in Energy Policy Act of 2005 - I'm going to have to get you a real barnstar! Simesa 13:24, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm taking my daughter camping with Mensa over this weekend, so don't be surprised if there's a flurry of edits late Sunday night (although I hope not!). Simesa 13:24, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I definately agree with you in that it wouldn't be prudent to fit all of Congress'es quotes, and although I disagree in that they are all relevant(especially Stabenow considering the Great Lakes slant drilling issue), transwikiing to Wikiquotes is a good idea. However, I've never edited there, and couldn't find a great place to put quotes on the subject. The bill seemed a little too mundane for the things being talked about in the politics section. I'd appreciate your advice, thanks in advance. Karmafist 20:00, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Gotcha. I'll try to get around to it eventually, the rules of this place almost seem irrelevant at times. Have fun on your vacation! Karmafist 17:29, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry about posting this on your userpage, but I'm afraid of starting a war on the Rangers talk page. Hope this is alright.

I glanced at your page and saw that you are a hedonist and Washington political reporter. Good for you.

I hope I didn't give you the wrong impression - I am an anglo. But like a lot of Texans, much of my extended family is Chicano. Honestly, my thinking on this issue wouldn't be any different if I didn't have this family. It's just a very nasty and sensitive part of history, and one that a lot of people would rather not think about.

I am going to be accused of being a revisionist, and perhaps in some sense of the word I am. The reason that I am talking to you is that I have no currency in journalism, and I am leaving town and hopefully the wikipedia for a little while and won't be able to defend my edits.

So, here goes. The article in its present form (and the official [DPS page]) shows the Rangers much in the same light that 'Birth of a Nation' depicts the Aryan Knights. I know that sounds extreme, and I don't usually make statements like that, but this can be backed up (I swear I'm not a crank). There was an undocumented war in 1911 near the border. The Rangers functioned as a lynch mob during this period. Rangers were essentially political appointees, given comissions in return for political favors. There are photographs of Rangers posing with one foot on bodies of murdered chicanos. They waged a terror campaign, sactioned by the governor. Families of murdered men never returned to land they fled in terror, and this land was then procured by wealthy connected families (note that these exiled families in many cases had lived on this land since the 18th century, hence the difference between the terms Tejano and Mexican). This was only a few generations ago: grandfathers remember talk of lost husbands and homes. This is still very current to a lot of Chicanos living in Texas. And none of this is really in dispute.

Some sources and leads:

• [Texas Matters on TPR], show #253, July 1, 2005.
• [HNN Roundup] Mentions documentary aired on PBS that I can't seem to find

Revolution in Texas: How a Forgotten Rebellion and Its Bloody Suppression Turned Mexicans Into Americans by Benjamin H. Johnson, Yale University Press

The Texas Rangers And The Mexican Revolution: The Bloodiest Decade, 1910-1920 by Charles H. Harris III, Louis R. Sadler, New Mexico University Press

In summary: A paragraph probably won't cut it. It would reflect badly on the wikipedia community if this article reached feature status without addressing this history. Again, apologies for all this crap on your talkpage, but you seem so totally qualified to tackle this, both as a journalist and UT alum. (Please feel free to cut and paste this back to my talkpage if you wish.)--demonburrito 11:03, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Tell me, what is so special about homosexuality over zoophilia that exempts it from being identified as a paraphilia? If homosexuality is a sexual orientation, then surely all paraphilias based on the characteristics of the attractile are sexual orientations?

Don't worry--it isn't some coordinated campaign. A Toronto on-line paper copied the Wikipedia entry pretty much word for word in a promo for Thursday's concert, which has led to some discussion on the fan boards. Some attempted deletes are inevitable. It'll pass. I think it would help if you didn't think of these folks as "the enemy"--just folks who don't agree with the paragraph being there, and aren't familiar with how Wikipedia works. And why am I not here reverting? Because I'm over there trying to explain how Wikipedia works, so maybe there'll be fewer problems over here. -Jmh123 22:24, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I got an interesting communication today, relating to the deletions that led to the edit war. It reinforces what I'm trying to say about this negative attitude towards those who delete that paragraph:

I just wanted to let you know that on that Wikipedia thing - I was the anonymous editor that kept deleting the Gay reference.

HONESTLY I was not trying to cause problems - I just did not have a clue how the thing worked. I had added the last 2 paragraphs about Clay going to Banda Aceh and Uganda, and testifying in congress at several times during the prior months and they just left them - so I didn't realize that you were supposed to talk to anyone about it first.

Heck - I stole the code for the Discography and updated the whole end part anonymously - no problem.

Well - by the time that I figured out what was going on - I was totally embarassed that they thought that I was trying to create trouble - so I just stayed out - LOL.

Thank You for following through on it when I didn't.

Referring to these edits as vandalism, or saying things like "here we go again," IMO, is making unkind assumptions. Why assume that everyone knows how this very complex site works, or assume that an edit to that paragraph is, prima facie, an attack? As you can see by this woman's comments, she was intimidated out of contributing to Wikipedia further by the vehemence of the reaction to her edits. -Jmh123 01:38, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Man, do you ever do easy jobs on here? :-) GluttonForPunishment should be your name. --Woohookitty 04:11, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Katefan0, would you consider looking over Hubbert peak theory as much as I would personally like to see the end of cheap oil, this page is a pure and unadulterated tinfoil hat cult classic masquerading as a serious bit on a (somewhat) serious site. Note - I am asking you for help, think of how much that hurts, and then go have a swing will ya? Benjamin Gatti

Pardon me for butting in - I saw the comment. The "Peak oil" folks are hardcore believers indeed (referring to no one specifically). Often, in my experience, they also have a survivalist or apocalyptic orientation. I encourage anyone with the interest and fortitude to try to bring their articles towards neutral. Cheers, -Willmcw 21:06, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Well, since Katefan0's on vacation, and since I've read a bit about the topic - I'm taking the plunge into (or would that be "past"?) the peak problem. Johntex 21:37, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Gentlemen, I think I will appreciate all the help I can get on this one! I haven't quite left yet (physically anyway -- that'll be Monday morning), but this one is going to require some boning up on that I won't have time for before I leave, I fear. See you over there when I get back. · Katefan0^(scribble) 21:43, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Hi, the image Image:Inichorechurch.jpg you posted a long, long time ago doesn't seem to have information on its source and license. Would you like to fix this? Thanks! –Mysid (talk) 07:26, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Recreation, sand, sun, surf, leisure, relaxation, tourism, jungle, rain forest. Do your research. -Willmcw 08:34, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Have a great time on the volcano. Take lots of pictures, but remember - no original research! -Willmcw 03:59, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

I have nominated you for adminship, cheers. Dragons flight 17:35, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Reading the joint resolution you mentioned in Austin's talk page, it looks like the condition is to allow up to four new states "in addition to said State of Texas". Perhaps that's what you meant, but when people are saying "split into five" I think they mean total. Deh 21:33, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Lost cause. It's not why he's here. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:53, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I presume Hipocrite is referring to your comments for BigDaddy. I don't know what to do about that fellow. He initiated an e-mail conversation with me; not uncivil at all but his mindframe is such that I don't think he'll ever be able to properly work with people on this project. I've never started an RfC (and don't know if one has been started for him) but it might be needed here. Marskell 17:06, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

You may both be right. But, I wanted to try to steer the conversation toward article content instead of mudslinging. He can always ignore the rejoinder, but at least it's been made. · Katefan0^(scribble) 17:27, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

Don't get too attached. I really felt that progress was being made, but then I somehow got added to the list, and devolution happened. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:39, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

QED. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:02, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Been made and not taken well. If either of you agree on RfC I will help--I don't know much about it and now he's bugging me. Though, he may actually enjoy the opportunity to rant.

Nice user page incidentally. Ah, beer. I'm going to start in on five or six in about 15 minutes and then we'll see how smart BigDaddy is. Marskell 18:28, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Please make all further rejoinders and conversations with BigDaddy about his uncivil behavior on his talk page. This aids a possible User-Conduct RfC in the future, which may be where this is heading[2] 68.199.46.6 04:18, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

By the looks of things, you will soon become one of Wikipedia's newest Admin. I just wanted to be the first one to congratulate you — so congrats it was well deserved :)

^{Journalist C.  Holla @ me!}

Well now I've tried Fin du Monde. Awful. I mean good beer but awful that I'm usually waving the bottle around at the end of the night talking about the end of the world. Sleeman's (the parent company) has a very nice product and they've really grabbed a good part of the market in Canada. It's sit-by-the-lake beer and people don't mind paying extra. As for U.A.E., just your predictable imports—Heineken, Foster's, Bud; I've not even seen Molson here. They do have liquour stores but technically it's illegal to buy from them without a permit and the only time I went it was a lot of low-end European stuff I'd never heard of.

I've often thought of a "drinking beer globally" article. Costs, availability and culture compared—just afraid it would be too anecdotal. Maybe Worldwide Beer Prices at least? Hm. Marskell 08:02, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Check it: [[3]]. I could see this going VfD in short order but I think it could actually be useful. If you can think of a better way to format please do. Marskell 11:52, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

I'd rather not be accused of wasting your time in a revert war. I bet you agree that a more neutral tone is necessary, but I don't see any research supporting the current text, and my research is being deleted. That isn't cooperation in my book. Benjamin Gatti

As an occasional editor of NAMBLA, you may be interested in also watching Rind et al. Some recent edits to that article appear to introduce a particular POV. I'll admit that this obscure topic is beyond my interest or knowledge, but it could use attention from a good editor. (PS, I'm also posting this note on a few other editors' pages). Cheers, -Willmcw 19:24, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

You're an admin! Check out the free advice if you want. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:32, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Congrats. --Canderson7 20:28, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations and good luck as an admin! Andre (talk) 21:36, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Congrats. I didn't even know you where up, but I would have voted for you. nobs 21:39, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Congrats! I'll always support you. Always always. You can count on that! --Woohookitty 21:52, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Congrats dear! I'll spare you the duty of reaching my name in the list at your RfA, lol :) You deserve it! Posting sixty-something thanking messages must be a hard work, I bet! Just one more tease for you: we're in September now, you Miss "I-became-an-admin-in-August" ;) *Hugs!* - Shauri Yes babe? 22:19, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations from me too. Watch your stress levels over the next little while; it isn't easy being an admin.-gadfium 22:23, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Felicitatons! (Just needed a change.) I'm mostly away but I couldn't resist replying to your provocative note. See, you have to be a little drunk some of the time to stay sane. Btw, me? I haven't made a single consequential contribution yet. You, on the other hand, could have been an admin months ago! Now go kick some butt. Dmcdevit·t 22:25, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Congrats. K1Bond007 22:28, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Re:Your message (I didn't want to break up this message): Your welcome, I am happy to support anyone who can benefit the community. Congratulations, too. Molotov (talk)   22:29, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome, and congratulations! May you wear it well. User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:30, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations! Jayjg ^(talk) 22:40, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Strongest possible support. OK, so it's a moot point.  :) You are gonna love what I call the "history eraser button." Vandalism goes bye-bye with a couple of clicks of the killer mouse! Congratulations!! - Lucky 6.9 00:49, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Getting a little buzzed with new found power is a fine thing. How else would we ever find people crazy... foolish... helpful enough to deal with complaints at WP:AN/I? Enjoy. Dragons flight 02:24, September 13, 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome - but the true Thank You is to you for helping make Wikipedia a better place. Good luck with your new power responsibility! Johntex\^talk 04:33, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations on your overwhelming support. However Wikipedia is the real winner- we're lucky to have you as a participant. Thanks for taking on additional responsibilities. -Willmcw 08:25, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

At the risk of sounding repetitive, I would like to congratulate you on receiving your adminship! It was about time. :D Hall Monitor 22:26, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Congrats Katefan0! I'm sure even buzzed, you will do a great job. Maltmomma ^(chat)   20:12, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

 

Welcome to the cabal. Here is your cabal toaster. --Phroziac ^(talk) 22:48, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

I also welcome you to the cabal. You will lead blue team. It is your job to stay up late finding reasons to oppose RfA's to make the cabal remain exclusive. ;) Redwolf24 (talk) 22:51, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

"I may occasionally be slightly buzzed with power, but never drunk." Never? O'cmon. If I couldn't edit wiki drunk it would be pointless. Plz, if you have the time to give an admin opinion is the Beer prices worldwide article a waste of time? --Marskell 22:52, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Maybe you haven't heard this already, but administrators must be alcoholics. I'm afraid I'm going to have to request a de-sysop. Acetic'^Acid 23:05, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Ah, yes. Did you like the last book? Me, I have some issues, but I want to know what you think. Hermione1980 23:08, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

{{spoiler}}

Well, I'm a Harry/Hermione shipper, so I wasn't happy with the Harry/Ginny and Ron/Hermione thing, for one. I guess that's probably my main issue. I wasn't happy with the nice little ending surprise, for another thing. I've just thought this book and Order of the Phoenix both lack something. On the other hand, I like the fact that she developed Draco's character more. I thought the fact that he couldn't kill Dumbledore showed there's still hope for his redemption. Other than that, I really don't know what I think about it — I had an exam in Spanish today and I'm still chanting the different forms of the verb ser in my head. Cheers, Hermione1980 23:34, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations on being made an admin! I thought you might like to know of a javascript tool that may help in your editing by giving easy access to many admin features. It's described at Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups. The quick version of the installation procedure for admins is to paste the following into User:Katefan0/Talk2/monobook.js:

// [[User:Lupin/popups.js]] - please include this line 

document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="' 
             + 'http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Lupin/popups.js' 
             + '&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></script>');

popupShortcutKeys=true; // optional: enable keyboard shortcuts
popupAdminLinks=true;   // optional: enable admin links

There are more options which you can fiddle with listed at Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups. Give it a try and let me know if you find any glitches or have suggestions for improvements! Lupin|talk|popups 23:54, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi again! I just took the liberty of editing the Texan Wikipedians page. I hope you don't mind... but hey, we have a new Texan admin after all ;) *Hugs* - Shauri Yes babe? 15:45, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! I thought no one was reading it. Anyway, it's a good reminder to me sometimes of how to treat newbies. And oldies too. moink 21:53, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Kate, what you are telling me is that I must now come here and monitor this entry every day to see if it is being vandalized. And if it is I must go through this same silly procedure to get it back to what it is now. A tremendous waste of time which serves the purpose of the trolls perfectly. You say I can deal with the vandalism myself? Not so. I am not an administrator. I had an account with you last time this happened, but you closed it down. To me you are just passing the buck and ducking the issue AGAIN! When you let these trolls publish the names of my friends, their lives are placed in danger. In my first post on this issue I quoted you a line where they bragged about videotaping some of my friends at their homes. That is STALKING! I don't know why you don't think that rises to the level of warranting you to click one icon and save a human life instead of clinging to some ridiculous procedure where a page must be vandalized a thousand times in a single week before you will do anything. Next, I can't for the life of me understand why you won't discuss this privately instead of making me repeat it all in public a hundred times. More silly procedure. Your rationale for not protecting this page, and the page itself with the names on it, have all been shown to the local authorities who assure me that if any of my friends have to set the dogs on any of the punks who creep up on them, that you can be held criminally liable for publishing the addresses. Seems to me any sane person would want to protect themselves from such an embarassment, and possible even prevent it with a single click of the mouse. Rather than continue to act like a lame lawyer who thinks the splitting hairs means anything to criminals. I deeply resent having to come here and embarrass you again and again. That alone should show you the wisdom of just doing the right thing. There can be only one reason why you refuse to make this simple accomodation- BECAUSE USING MY NAME BRINGS PEOPLE TO YOUR SITE, even if it puts me and my friends in jeopardy. That's is pretty sad, Kate. There is no reason that anyone else would keep up a webpage that the subject of has repeated asked be taken down. And, as I have shown with good reason. If one of my friends gets killed in his sleep by some pumped-up, steroid-raging UFC wannabee, worse yet, if one of my friends has to kill one of these punks, I hope you can live with yourself.

Ashida Kim

I prefer to deal with this quietly. It should be clear to you that I, as a newbie who does not know ALL the rules yet, was being baited by someone who deleted my comments, then tried to set me up. The rest of this saga is in my email. This is a very serious situation in my book and I hope you deal with the offending party. I was merely protecting myself from unilateral and unconscionable attacks. I will not back down from people who think they can push me around because they don't agree with my politics. The person in question has a LONG history of doing exactly that to others. Just read their comments... Big Daddy 04:55, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

I have done no such thing. I stand by my edits and by my conduct, and have NEVER made a personal attack anywahere near the kinds you make as a matter of course. I cannot wait until you are blocked permanently from the Wikipedia - not as revenge, but as a response to your behavior. Your behavior thus far makes that a very likely outcome... you have a long history (including your 3RR vio and an RfC), of repeated, blatant personal attacks. Numerous editors have commented on it, it's not about my conduct. It's about yours. Kate - please help - this user is systematically disrupting articles in the interests of his POV. And claims he's a 'new user' are at this point irrelevant... he have had ample time to conduct yourself as an adult, and have instead made 'unilateral and unconscionable' attacks on others from the outset. The fact that I oppose his conduct does not mean we are equally at fault in this conflict. My behavior and his are nowhere near in the same league. I have edited and respected others consistently - and BD has not. The record is clear. -- RyanFreisling @ 05:06, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Ryan doesn't like my politics. Therefore she tries to get me banned.

Everyone can read the comments Ryan has made to conservatives and the dismissive tone she uses. It's a long established pattern. To suggest that I'm trying to interject POV would be uproariously funny if I didn't think Ryan actually believed that. The fact of the matter is that the Karl Rove article was HORRIBLY biased. I have made several substantive and helpful changes that have brought much balance. No one has thanked me. No one has shown one whit of appreciation over the hard work I put in. But I've gotten plenty of grief over it. Warning...threats, anonymous reverts...I could write a book on the unconscionable way I have been treated since I arrived. "I cannot wait until you are blocked permanently from the Wikipedia!" Does that sound like assuming good faith?

I've also enforced founder Jimmy Wales edict that sources be IMPARTIAL. Ryan had been working on the Karl Rove article LONG before I arrived on the scene. And in that regard Ryan shares some of the responsibilities for it being so egregiously biased. And for Ryan to defend the condition it was in and to fight me...every..step..along the way of trying to bring a nPOV to this article says all anyone needs to say. Sorry, but wishing someone is banned is hardly consistent with Wik procedures of 'don't bite the newbies' and 'assume good faith.' Anything but. In fact, I think your very own words and actions, especially the unilateral deletion of my comments because you didn't agree with them says more about your motives than anything else I can add.

I have ALOT more work to do on the Karl Rove page. I will continue to do what I've ALWAYS done which is to submit my suggestions to others for comment before making changes. And then eliminating the bias. That's ALL I'm interested in doing. And I think it's worthwhile work. Sure, it would be easier if people didn't ANONYMOUSLY revert my edits without ANY COMMENT WHATSOEVER. And it would be easier if I didn't have to defend myself from silly personal attacks all the time.

I didn't instigate this revert fight tonight. That was Ryan. But I won't back down. Not from some tawdry stunt and CERTAINLY not from working my hardest to make Wik the best nPOV encyclopedia ever. Big Daddy 05:29, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

The fact that I have been working on the article for a long time, and that I haven't been RfC'ed, or committed 3RRs, or made personal attacks, etc. proves my point. We can all get along, whatever our politics - unless we resort to personal attacks, as you have done from the outset. I have never personally attacked you, or any other editor - editing and issues get pretty hot sometimes, but I've never crossed that line. You, however, would pretend the line can be lifted and placed wherever you like. -- RyanFreisling @ 05:37, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Kate, if you look at just what ryan has written in the FEW MINUTES since she was reprimanded, you'll find her constantly getting in my grille, stalking my every post, and making snide cheap and insulting comments. I'm simply trying to get on with the editing of the Karl Rove article and am totally ignoring any other side shows. Look and see if you don't agree. I think it'll vindicate my position from the beginning.Big Daddy 06:08, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, please look and see if you don't agree. -- RyanFreisling @ 06:25, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Please, everybody take a deep breath. It won't do any good to argue on my talk page. BigDaddy777, if you feel like you've been so wronged, why not try following some of the suggestions in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution? That's what they're there for. I see that you've already had an RFC opened on you -- it's an awfully negative response so far considering that you haven't even been here three weeks yet; without passing judgment, to me this suggests that you maybe ought to reconsider how you're conducting yourself here. · Katefan0^(scribble) 16:14, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

"It's an awfully negative response so far considering that you haven't even been here three weeks yet;" that's how they try to silence conservatives in here. That and falsely accuse us of vandalism. But don't worry Katefan...I can see based on you blaming last night on me and dredging up this bogus RFC that you're not being fair either...Big Daddy 19:10, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

There are 3 certifiers (one who I don't even know) and 13 users aggreeing with the originators of the RFC. There are 4 users who said that the RFC shouldn't have been filed - whic reads, in part "Bigdaddy is rough around the edges and certainly tends to get hot under the collar," another of whom said "I don't think Bigdaddy has any excuse for bad language or getting nasty. He should be warned," a third who said "I appreciate Kizzle's concerns; they are valid, and they should be addressed". There is another opinion, which reads "After his admittedly poor start on Wikipedia BigDaddy777 and I have engaged in a conversation by email in which he has remained perfectly civil and taken on board my comments and suggestions about how he can improve his editing and his relations with other Wikipedians." That's not the response you get to a bogus RFC. You need to read the RFC, respond to it, and change your behavior to follow the policies and guidelines of this project. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:25, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

BD has just vandalized the article again [4], decrying a source for a section, then deleting it despite the addition of numerous 'notable' and 'reputable' sources. This is a downward spiral. -- RyanFreisling @ 17:44, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

NOTE FROM BIG DADDY: I'm embarassed that I would have been so naive as to think you were a fair broker here. Do you mind if I DELETE my pleading below. It just doesn't seem right seeing my honest appeal for help on YOUR page. I realize now I was just wasting my efforts.

Respectfully,

Big Daddy 07:19, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

I thought there was some rule about not reverting an edit 3 times. Well an edit I was made has been reverted over and over and over again.

I explained NUMEROUS times PRIOR to my edit why I would make such a change and NO COMMENT. No one factually responded. They just changed or reverted my edit without comment.

So you see, in my ten days here I've been subejected to what appears to be a massive campaign to silence me. And sorry, my confrontational tone cannot be blamed for ALL of it. There's something deeper here. And last night topped the cake when, of all things, my talk comments were deleted by someone and you basically blamed me for the incident! And I will point out that Ryan has accused me of 'vandalism' simply because I, with thorough attribution, removed biased sections of the article. Did you reprimand Ryan for that? I'm asking for decency and fairness and not to be singled out as a 'troublemaker' because perhaps you don't agree with my politics.

Anyway, I'm trying to handle this right:

The article in question is Karl Rove, the subject is smearing him with the McCain black child push polling incident in SCarolina in 2000.

The most authortative voice on this subject, although not entirely partial, is the McCain campaign itself. The director wrote an op ed piece in the Boston Globe (again, none of this is particularly impartial) and yet, despite the 'stacked deck' - a disgruntled campaign manager perhaps with an axe to grind, writing an opinion piece in the liberal Boston Globe...he still says this about the 'push pollng':

"We had no idea who made the phone calls, who paid for them, or how many calls were made."  He says the calls were made anonymously. That's compelling evidence. All the 'evidence' that Karl Rove was behind it are unsubstantiated rumors. And I've eliminated this piece at least a half dozen times.

Yet this piece keeps getting put back in, presumably by hippocrite who, along with the revert, cheap shots me and does not provide substantive reasoning for it's inclusion. Here's what hip said: "You are being needless combattive." And basically REFUSED to deal with the substance of my argument. It's like she's got her hands on her hips standing at the breach and, irrespective of Wikipedia rules and regulations is unilaterally trying to keep a smear in because of personal animus against me.

Now, I've put a lot of work into this and have done a lot of research and there is NOTHING....NOTHING that substantiates Rove's involvement. Same with this idea that he 'bugged' his own office. Just rumors. No proof.

So why do these useful corrections for which I did the legwork, and that I should be applauded for, keep getting reverted? Big Daddy 19:01, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

If people view you as a troublemaker, Big Daddy, it wouldn't be because of your political views but of your demonstrated preference for hostilities in dealing with other editors. I believe that since the RfC has been filed, you have gotten better and while you express your frustrations at your perceptions of liberal bias, at least you're no longer personally attacking people.

Two things: One, can you point out where it says that sources must be impartial? Reputable, yes. Notable, yes. But I don't believe partiality is a significant criteria in selecting sources. Even if it was, if your true goal is NPOV through only impartial sources, why is the word of campaign manager of McCain dismissed because he has an "axe to grind" while Karl Rove's word is taken apparently by you as "impartial"?--kizzle 19:27, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad to see you noticed I'm 'getting better.' I am still quite new afterall and didn't know what to expect although my initial gut feelings have all been confirmed. Big Daddy 23:15, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

I kept out of that long diatribe that alleged far more than a 3RR. I left it to the community to respond. Sometimes, the behavior of tweo parties in a dispute is NOT the same. My posts have nowhere near reached the kinds of attacks that have been lobbied against me - I've not personally attacked, I've not violated 3RR, I've not disrupted the piece to prove a point, I've not vandalized.

I only responded once, but with your comment you've in essence barred me from more responses there. I don't think it's fair or reflective of the balance of behavior in this dispute to do so - it's my only post on the entire 3RR entry, and there's a long thread of attacks that I ignored, in good faith, knowing the admins would look and make their own best judgment. I know as an admin you need to keep your focus on impartiality and improving Wikipedia - but sometimes, the behavior of each side of a dispute is NOT equal, and an equal response to both parties is unfair. Nonetheless, I do appreciate your efforts to remain neutral and 'above it'. I hope you'll continue to 'look at the facts', and assess behavior accordingly - rather than attributing equal blame as a default. -- RyanFreisling @ 15:49, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi there - I'd prefer to 'leave it lay', and try to avoid the constant return attacks underway. We'll see how that goes. The disproportionate disruption caused by each of the three editors (me, BD, PK) in this process should be readily available to those who are interested. For me, a mere 5 edits are in question - and for the editor whose edits I reverted, weeks and weeks of personal attacks are there. Arbitration seems inevitable. Thanks for your objectivity. -- RyanFreisling @ 20:08, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Katefan0,

Thanks for your refereeing last night and today. It's a great learning process for me, and a lot of fun. I'd like to let you know some of my thoughts, as a sort of "afterwards."

• First, I must make it clear that I have never requested or even hinted that I wanted anyone blocked or punished. I placed my report on that page because it was the place to place it. I think I did an admirable job juggling a debate with several people simultaneously. I kept on point, I cited policy.
• I also want to point out that I warned Ryan very early to start counting her lightning speed reverts. She was fast on the trigger, fast, fast, fast. Too fast, it turns out.
• Last night was my first 3RR report. I take complete responsibility for it, and stand behind every word of it, but also am learning how to do it better next time.
• The whole thing about how the page getting protected sort of ended the dispute was news to me -- I think I understand that now, so the actions that were taken make more sense, in that context.
• It was also news to me that a lengthy discussion on that page was not really necessary, or perhaps even warranted. For what it's worth, it caused me some confusion.
• Of course, I was expecting -- not hoping -- that the actions I was reporting would be evaluated and that a conclusion would be drawn, not punitively, but factually. I never hope someone gets nailed. I just hope that in the future the tactics I've identified are more easily identified.
• If at any point I seemed to call your actions into question, it may have been due to my confusion on some of the above points, and my misunderstanding of what you were and were not doing, and why. I respect admins, and I know they have a thankless job. But I don't kowtow, nor do I withhold questions or criticism, even in a dispute. I just try to make them fair, respectful, and on point. Please don't take it personally. I told Dmcdevit I thought his remark to me was overly harsh -- he and I sorted it out, and we both feel better. I didn't even know he was an admin -- they rarely identify themselves a such when entering into a conversation. If you feel the need to speak with me about anything I have done, you are most welcome to.

Regarding BigDaddy, I have promised Kizzle that I would try to mentor him. He is improving, and softening to my instruction, but he still has several behaviors I would like to see completely wiped away. I coach him privately on this, out of respect for his feelings, and because he is already getting piled on here. I don't want my coaching to provide others additional material -- beieve me, there are some who would do something so ugly. BigDaddy is learning fast. I think he is going to surprise a lot of people.

One of the "pilers-on" is a one-week anonymous IPer. I need you, in the interest of fairness to BD and respect for the community, to keep on eye on this person. He was trolling from page to page last night, aggressively soliciting material to use against BD. He was also piling on more complaints about BD on his RFC page. I have left some remarks on his page, here: User_talk:69.121.133.154. I would be interested in your thoughts. When I called him on his or her trolling, he suddenly stopped, but never replied. I am evaluating his comments in order to determine whether he is a sockpuppet. No one who has been around for one week is that familiar with procedure here. He clearly has an axe to grind.

Thanks for listening, kate, and for your hard work. paul klenk 21:07, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

BTW, I followed your instructions re the links, and it was very easy - it worked perfectly. Thanks for your training. paul klenk 00:33, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I added the RfC comment to talk pages in which BigDaddy was involved in controversy. It is not "trolling" by any means. All of the evidence I added to the RfC is perfectly valid. One of them is even BigDaddy accussing me of being Hip's sockpuppet on my own talk page. I Deeply Resent your accusations of Sock-Puppetry[5] not to mention your baseless assertion that I have "an axe to grind". I have no intention of Ever responding to your trolls on my talk page and the only reason I've even left those offensive remarks up is to document your behavior. 69.121.133.154 06:52, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Kate, to keep your page free, I have moved the above comments to the talk page this user shares, and addressed them: User_talk:69.121.133.154. I again invite your comments. paul klenk 07:36, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi Kate! I just wanted to let you know that I've finished the massive work I had planned on the Texas Rangers article. Enhancements are in order tho, and I'd really like you to have a look at it and improve it in any way you deem necessary. As I told you, "I have a dream that one day", we can get to see the Rangers at the Main Page ;) *Hugs*, Shauri Yes babe? 01:11, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Katefan-I'm not sure where to leave this, however I'm leaving it here. If it's the wrong place on your page, sorry about it. Regarding your comment on the Ray Nagin talkpage about my statement, I was trying to simply reinforce the idea that things can't be added without consensus. There are people on here who will add things to make it as POV as possible. The Nagin article has chronic problem with putting anything they wish without gaining consensus. That is why is, if you look at the history there are about 1000 reverts (ok, maybe not quite that many but it's getting close). Yes, I yelled at someone. I believe I can have someone banned, even though I can't (literally) do it on my own. I was simply trying to make a point to some of the idiots that consistantly vandalise the page. Maybe the method wasn't the best way to yell at them, but it shows how irritated I am. Anyway, I thought you might want to hear it from my perspective. Davidpdx 9/18/05 5:38 (UTC)

"Your response is typical of the claims raised on your RfC. You avoid the patently obvious, flippantly accuse and reverse the onus of proof, and incorrecly cite policy..."

(Why is that kind of personal attack left unrebuked (especially in light of all that's happened?)

If anyone thinks I'm gonna take the bait, think again. I'm reporting it here first to give you a chance to prove my questions about your partiality wrong. But this kind of rhetoric clearly crossed the line in an already heightened atmosphere. Big Daddy (on the road)

If you took that as a personal attack, I apologize - but in my view, that was an accurate description of your prior post, in which you did exactly as I said. Again, if you took it personal attack, I apologize. I did not, however, intend it as one - and I do believe it to be a factual summary of your conduct, currently under RfC. -- RyanFreisling @ 20:45, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

That's not what she just wrote on the Karl Rove page. There she wrote: "It's not a personal attack - it's describing your bad behavior, which continues. That is not a personal attack. And I am finished feeding the trollfor now. -- RyanFreisling @ 20:33, 18 September 2005 (UTC)"

Kate?? I am not responding with anything back. One thing I've learned it to report not retort and that's what I'm doing. But if I don't get any justice, then what am I supposed to do.

Is it acceptable to call someone with whom you disagree a TROLL on wikipedia? And is it something you're gonna just characterize as Ryan being 'naughty' as you have in the past and just let go? How many times does one have to endure personal attacks before one gets a remedy? And please don't suggest this is 'us two going at it again.' It is not. I have refrained and have focused on the facts at hand. Sure, we disagree. And I could have accused her of everything she's accusing me. But I am taking the high road. Just because one disagrees that doesn't mean they should be attacked like this, does it? Big Daddy (on the road.)

Blocking for personal attacks is generally discouraged unless the attack is particularly offensive, harmful or egregious (on the level of racial slurs, physical threats, etc). Feel free to open an RfC on RyanFreisling's behavior, per Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. · Katefan0^(scribble) 21:18, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Kate, I didn't suggest any particular remedy. I merely asked if you intended on doing something about this.

If an RfC is the appropriate forum for dealing with personal attacks, do you think her repeated attacks, especially in light of the fair warnings we've ALL been given (directly from you in some cases) justify opening one? And if so, will you? Big Daddy (on the road)

What else would I possibly do but block someone? And you have my answer to that suggestion. Feel free to open an RfC, since you obviously feel mistreated. Will I open one? Of course not. I have nearly 1,000 pages on my watchlist and an armload of other tasks. I haven't personally been affected in any way, so it's not really my place to do such a thing. You must be your own advocate. · Katefan0^(scribble) 21:37, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

You have 1,000 pages on your watchlist but enough time to pick a silly fight over my characterization of the WH Press Corps. Enough time to tell Ryan to give me enough rope to 'hang myself', enough time to accuse me of 'gaming the system', enough time to advocate for Ryan when she asked for your help (even though she instigated the incident by deleting my talk comments), but not enough time to help out someone brand new against the personal attacks of someone you directly admonished? If I didn't know any better, I'd...well never mind. I'll think I'll find someone who actually thinks civility is worth defending at Wikipedia. Big Daddy (on the road.)

I have helped you out by explaining to you that your next step should be RFC. I can't help it if you don't like the answer. If you think I've acted inappropriately, feel free to file an RFC on me. Otherwise, I'll thank you to stop impugning my character. · Katefan0^(scribble) 22:15, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi Kate. You asked me not to misrepresent the 3RR Paul Klenk entered on me, and I've made every attempt to describe it correctly. I'd like to point out he is doing the very same thing, in this case misrepresenting it as 'clear' and your behavior as 'chastisement', etc. Any advice is welcome, but no response is acceptable as well - this is just a heads-up. Thanks -- RyanFreisling @ 00:02, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• Ryan is, however, the 2nd endorsee of the RfC, and she has been piling on every possible quote she can find of BigDaddy777's to "prove" evidence of bad behavior after the dispute was filed. She loves to throw around the word "attack" when it does not apply -- she clearly either does not know what the term means, or is deliberatey misapplying it. She learned the meaning of the term vandalism the hard way; I hope she now stops using the word attack in every other edit. I watch her behavior closely: She is very fast to accuse, then play the victim. If she wasn't in the beginning, she is now part of this RfC, and she contributed to many of the incidents involving BD after this RfC was filed. [6]

• It was not s 3RR, it was a clear 5RR in less than 19 hours, justified by you, of course, based on your false allegations of vandalism. Yes, you will point out that you "were not blocked," but that was only because the page had to be protected (making a block unnecessary), due to the edit war which you fueled, and for which you were chastised by at least one admin'. You really have some nerve calling my motives into question. Stop calling every statement you don't like an attack. [7]

Kate, I am sorry to answer this here, but Ryan has already stated she would not respond to me. Please note the following:

1. 1. All of my comments above are true, reasonable, and fair.
   2. My comment to Ryan was a response to her accusation that my 5RR report on her was "retribution." It was not; it was in good faith, she fueled an edit war that got the page blocked; I stand behind my report. The page's edit history speaks for itself.
   3. I never mentioned your name; it was Dmcdevit who chastised her.
   4. All comments I have left on Ryan's page, she has blanked out -- once with the words "complete bullshit" in the edit summary, once calling them "offensive" but not explaining how they were offensive.
   5. Ryan has never responded to me on my talk page, however; although she is welcome to.
   6. And yes, she does like to call everything she doesn't like an "attack." It is rhetoric, nothing more.
   7. When Ryan loses an argument, she says "I will not respond to you," making it impossible to have a reasonable discussion.
   8. Ryan is welcome to address me directly, on my talk page, any time she wishes. If she does, I will respond.
   9. If Ryan still disputes that she made 5RR in less than 19 hours, if would be happy to discuss it with her. If she stops bringing it up, I will. If she continues to mischaracterize it as "retribution," I will respond. paul klenk 00:22, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Enough. Please don't use my talk page as a venue for squabbling between the three of you. As for whether I chastised Ryan, yes, I did -- in the exact same breath that I chastised BigDaddy777. I called them both "naughty" for edit warring. And..... so? I wish you'd all just drop the personal stuff and instead concentrate on resolving content disputes. It's tempting to get into a tit-for-tat over this kind of thing, but take a step back. Go do something else for a day, get some perspective. It's just not worth this amount of squabbling. Go have a glass of wine, watch a movie, then come back and drop the personal stuff. Keep the ultimate goal in sight (making a good encyclopedia) and focus on content disputes instead. · Katefan0^(scribble) 01:57, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

You're stupid ;) --kizzle 02:21, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Pbbbt! · Katefan0^(scribble) 02:40, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Just a note to let you know how much your contribs are valued around here. You say you're a political writer for a DC paper: is it the Post? Neutrality^talk 03:24, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh, sure thing. It's really cool to have a national political writer at Wikipedia. Happy editing.--Neutrality^talk 03:45, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Like I said on your nomination, you are a model to us all. Bravo! Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:48, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I headed here to leave a very similar comment myself, but seeing as one already exists I thought I'd agree with it instead. I've been doing my own digging around as part of my endorsement to an RFC and have seen a lot of your involvement in contentious discussions and I wanted to say that I admire the patient and fair way you deal with people. --Sanguinus 18:38, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Congrats on achieving admin status. —thames 02:42, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Wow, a blank page. I cannot resist the urge to edit it. I hope you have a wonderful day today! Johntex\^talk 16:41, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't blame you -- I could barely resist myself! =) So far so good. Got to interview the Discovery crew this morning; a personal highlight. Hope yours is good too! · Katefan0^(scribble) 16:52, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I just noticed - Congratulations on the adminship! Simesa 21:59, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

You wrote: "Danny, since I'm functioning as an admin on this page I can't really get into weighing in on content disputes myself. · Katefan0(scribble) 21:51, 20 September 2005 (UTC)"

What does this mean exactly? Does this mean other admns. can or cannot weigh in on content? DannyZz 22:52, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I merely wanted to drop by to thank you for your interest and the effort you're putting in perfecting our Texas Ranger Division article. With your aid and that of other users who have taken interest in the project, we'll hopefully have won another Featured Article for Texas soon  .

Have a great day! (or should I say, "another" great day? Interviewing the Discovery crew?? Beat that!) Shauri Yes babe? 00:26, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

--Calton | Talk 03:18, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

P.S: I assume they mean "released by campaign" is insufficient.

Earlier you stated in an edit summary that you had reverted a text move in the talk page I had done because "(Hipocrite, I appreciate that you want to corral the discussion, but please don't erase other users' comments; not the way to achieve that end. Reverting)." If you review the two diffs - [8] [9] you will see no text was removed - that I had mereley moved some items above the line. Paul Klenk is using your edit summary as evidence in an attempt to get me somethinged on vandalism in progress. I had just assumed that because you had not reverted my second move, this was an error on your part, and let it go, but now I'm going to have to ask you to clarify - were you accurate in your first edit summary? Thanks. Hipocrite - «Talk» 11:30, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

You want better sourcing than a local TV anchor and an AP photo? If you were to take a closer look at my sourcing, you'd see I have provided 2 national network (not local) news anchors who are both veterans - NBC's Lisa Myers and ABC's Dean Reynolds. I have also provided excerpts with links from official government documents, and I have provided clear photos from 3 sources - AP, Reuters and Wikinews. While your criticism of Aquillion's DailyKos blog source is somehow absent. Did Wikinews make all my other sources invalid?;0) --JimmyCrackedCorn 22:54, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

By "yes" are you saying my use of Wikinews as a source poisoned all the other sources, or are you acknowledging my rundown of the 6 sources as factual? Where did you get the idea I had only a local reporter and one AP photo, anyway?

Someone, not I, has consolidated the discussion over the Venona documents and how to represent them (prompted by the tect written by Nobs on many pages) onto a single page: Talk:VENONA project. This discussion currently centers on Bentley. I hope you will join us in trying to resolve many of the issues that keep cropping up across Wikipedia in this matter. Thanks.--Cberlet 13:01, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome note Katefan. I am still gingerly trying to figure out how to use this place - but the concept is EXCELLENT. Let me know if I really mess anything up. LOL. Michigan user 16:53, 22 September 2005 (UTC) OK - I am really messed up - it was Journalist that left the note <sigh> - but Hi anyway!!

Thanks for afd removal. It wasn't an article I had any intention of writing, but its original stub was such a mess I got lured in - quite interesting in the end! Dlyons493 22:58, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Ben is again declaring that we're post-mediation, and introducing strongly POV statements.

I'm inclined to agree that we need a new mediator, as Uncle Ed has resigned his bureaucrat status and seems to be less involved overall. Simesa 14:47, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Ben radically changed the paragraph you wrote on the historuy of Price-Anderson. Would you like to tackle it or shall I? Simesa 00:48, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Bear in mind - while arguing with the facts asserted in that paragraph, that the Supreme Court is the final trier of fact in the United States, and that is their finding - verbatim. I thought it was better written and clearly neutral (with respect to the three of us). I'm open to mods, but I'd like to see a strong case made for why "Kate"s version has more credibility than the third branch. Benjamin Gatti

You haven't been questioned on a afd yet. You must be doing something wrong! lol --Woohookitty 11:02, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

But now you have a RfM against you. One up on me. Mwahahahahahahahahaha! MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! *Cough*. --Woohookitty 19:24, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Yep I looked. Hopefully we can get it archived or deleted. Doesn't belong there. Can you imagine if we could ask for mediation on every edit? God the horror. --Woohookitty 19:37, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

So time to create the category Libertine Wikipedia Editors  ??

Were you aware that AlexLinsker filed an RfM against you? Simesa 14:23, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Er, no. Who is that? · Katefan0^(scribble) 16:33, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I also just noticed that when they filed it, User:Alexlinsker@gmail.com filed it over User:DKorn's RfM against Gorgonzilla and others (especially me), as well as over the template inclusion for one involving Sam Spade [10]; they apparently just took the top RfM on the page and edited it into the RfM they wanted it to be. Nobody else seems to have noticed or cared. Hrm. --Aquillion 22:31, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I can't say I'm especially eager to restore an RfM whose text consists primarily of a rant against myself, especially given that the dispute it's related to seems to have been mostly resolved and even the person who filed it didn't notice it was gone. I doubt they're going to be especially eager to pursue an RfM based around others accusing them of sockpuppetry at this point in any case. But restore it if you must. --Aquillion 22:42, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm hoping better late than never applies here!!   SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:31, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

66.167.253.162 17:11, 26 September 2005 (UTC):Please go here and express your opinion on whether Category:Handbook of Texas citations should be deleted. Your membership in Wikipedia:WikiProject Texas makes your opinion on this topic particularly valuable.

Could you please reply to my query at Talk:Rind et al. (1998)#Reverts? 24ip | lolol 18:10, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I have this image, released in a news release by a university, that I need for two articles. I'd like to load it to Commons. I'll e-mail you the file and the details, and can you tell me how to load it? Thanks, Simesa 19:45, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

hello, im not sure if you have been keeping up to date with the homeopathy section but I really think that the entire page should be taken into some kind of arbitration because the situation is out of control. There has been a recurring set of edit wars which usually ivolve user:aegeis and another member of the talk:homeopathy group reverting each other repeadtely. I think the diplomatic route is being blocked by just general lack of agreement on idealogy and a lack will to compromise. What can be done? PhatRita 13:25, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

K, in case my response to you on BD777's page got went unnoticed in the long thread, I thought I'd let you know I copied your question to my page and answered it there. paul klenk ^talk 21:36, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you, but I wonder if you double check this deletion decision. By my count there were 17 votes to delete, 8 to keep, and 1 to merge, which does not meet the general 2/3rds minimum for deletion (remember that merge is a form of keep). Moreover the article in question was greatly expanded during the course of the debate more than doubling in size, and the later votes on this new article were overwhelmingly to keep. - SimonP 18:36, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm not going to list it on VfU, as it is a fairly minor article, but I am somewhat concerned about your attitude. We are not looking for "close enough" to 66%, we are instead looking for consensus, which I find difficult to find in this instance. The 2/3rds has always been not a threshold that must be met, but rather a minimum that must be surpassed. Remember the one part of the Deletion guidelines for administrators that is bolded is "when in doubt keep." - SimonP 19:13, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for closing off the Preston Street (Ottawa) VfD with a move. Since the other dozen Little Italies on Wikipedia are named "Little Italy, CITY" (see Little Italy for a list of them), I've moved Little Italy (Ottawa) to Little Italy, Ottawa. I thought I'd leave you a note so that it doesn't catch you off guard. Hopefully by the end of the weekend there'll be an article on Little Italy there, unless it's really good motorcycling weather. — mendel ☎ 19:04, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

If you happen to know Alicia Ault of the Washington Post, would you mind directing her to Acu-gen. She might be interested to know about NPR's story today. Thanks! Johntex\^talk 22:19, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

BTW - I've now posted this article for {{peerreview}} because I want to make sure it is NPOV. Feel free to take a look if you have time. Thanks, Johntex\^talk 13:55, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi Kate, thank you very much for the compliment on my user page, for the help with Acu-gen, and for the help on Red River Shootout! It is amazing how much great work you do here! Best, Johntex\^talk 17:30, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, for one thing, I've never been nominated... :-) It would be a very high honor if I were to one-day receive that opportunity/responsibility. Johntex\^talk 17:51, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

• Hello! Wow, you always have so many things going on over here. I have no idea how you keep up with it all. I wanted to let you know that I think I have now acted upon all your suggestions concerning the Acu-Gen article, which has now moved to Baby Gender Mentor. I think I have also incorporated all the suggestions from the peer reveiw. If you get a chance to breeze back over there and offer more advice or make changes, it would be great. There is no urgency as I know you are very busy. All the best! Johntex\^talk 22:00, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Hedonistic, Deleting Administrator ( yes, I read your User page ). Greetings from a "Discriminating" Hedonist ( I draw "some" lines ), New Guy, practicing deletions. HAHAHAHA, or learning how to use and enjoy this new Wikipedia world that keeps me up until 0200 in the morning! Hey, have I been chewed out for not following a rule one day. Wanted to let you know however, that I deleted your SR-71 Blackbird addition about Astronaut Wings....see the discussion page explanation, but bottom line is that it just didn't happen.....the great Blackbird just couldn't get that high! Now on the ground we fliers might have tried with some of that beer you love, but nope, the vehicle couldn't make it.

David Dempster 23:30, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Katefan0, I see you used to work at The Daily Texan. I started an article on it because it was driving me crazy to see the red links. Can you check it and add or change anything as you see fit? Thanks! Maltmomma ^(chat)   02:48, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Per community consensus, Arbitration has been requested against BigDaddy777. Please add any details or comments you feel are appropriate. Mr. Tibbs 04:31, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Hello Kate, i'm wondering why you cleared the IP moderate list of the Wikipedia:Vandalism_in_progress list. The User i reported yesterday hasn't been blocked yet or no actions have been taken against him/her. --Husky 10:28, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi Katefan0;

I've moved for work, and I was unable to explain the importance of DFQ to the artistic community of Southwestern Michigan. DFQ is a part of an organization that periodically hosts region-wide photographic exhibitions at numerous locations, at least 100 venues in the year 2000. The handbook published by Detroit Focus, for finding all of these venues is now a collectible, and the contents a rosetta stone for unlocking photography in southwestern Michigan. I am concerned that we have lost valuable cultural references with this deletion.

Sincerely,

William Juntunen Royal Oak, Michigan

Wmjuntunen 15:29, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you Katefan0 for you kind and swift reply. I appreciate your volunteering to handle administrative duties on Wikipedia, and I will return to your talk page to mark it with four tildes.

It is my understanding that Wikipedia is not a democracy, and deletion isn't always carried out on basis of vote counting. In certain cases, the merits of one argument can win over multiple votes, or at least stay a deletion for additional discussion. And if the author of an article is a Wikipedian in good faith, as I feel I am, it is perhaps unsound to delete his article without providing notice to that author in good faith. Perhaps deletion without representation is tantamount to taxation without representation?

It is easy to continue to document how Detroit Focus Quarterly is a reference periodical for any art critic interested in coming to terms with the Cass Cooridor Art Movement. I believe that its collection by libraries of art history sufficiently warrants its inclusion in Wikipedia. After all, Wikipedia is attempting to benchmark other scholarly sources, such as Encarta. I expect that Detroit Focus Quarterly will be easily found in OCLC.

Online Computer Library Center, Inc. www.oclc.org/

Sincerely

Will Juntunen Wmjuntunen 15:31, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Dear Katefan0:

Thank you for the generosity of your replies. Wikipedia is constantly fine-tuning itself. A deletion notice, as a separate feature from the watch-list, might strike one of the Wikipedia commitees as a robust addition. Wikipedia is a gentleperson's pursuit, and direct email notification is jolly good sport. And surely, the deletion of DFQ strikes me as not entirely cricket.

The technology to email a notification is clearly easy to implement. As an analogy, if I am to be called into court, I can be called into court with a posting to a public newspaper. That's like a watchlist. However, the court is extra fair by sending a court officer to serve a subpoena at my door, into my hand. That's like an alert email. And even though I can't afford time to check Wikipedia, I always check my email.

Wikipedia allows stubs in artistic categories; this deleted article had a short history of DFQ as well as a link to the newest incarnation of DFQ, the Detroit Focus website. That's a pretty good stub. More, DFQ is listed in library collections, and thus it was a valid stub. Wikipedia will grow stronger by benchmarking OCLC and scholary works of bibliography, at least in stubs. More, as the Wikipedians who googled DFQ and still voted for deletion might have noticed, most of the entries on Google are from artists who include DFQ on their vitas, hallmarking a critically acclaimed artistic career. Indeed, I learned of DFQ when reviewing the archives of a rather famous local artist.

Stubs are valid because that's how Wikipedia announces a valid catergory about which more information is wanted. I had emailed the current president of this organization in order to find a member willing to maintain the entry. I will document these email conversations in the talk sections in the future, so people reviewing the article can write themselves, if their wish for scholary rigour motivates.

My continued conversation on this topic has potentially great fruit. What is available to you, in terms of strengthening your career as a Wikipedian, by looking up DFQ in OCLC and then reversing your deletion decision? Or at least, placing the matter into an ombudsman or mediation process? As for the idea of my re-writing the article, I might do so, but not when incomplete scholarship has too much power. Actually, I will rewrite the article once I have a list of all the artists who have been documented by DFQ.

With the greatest respect

Wmjuntunen 16:25, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the direction to the town pump. Would you also direct me to the process for requesting undeletion. I believe my entry in talk is sufficient, but please guide me on this.

Again, my concern is to fine-tune Wikipedia. If Wikipedia can delete an entry upon DFQ with five votes, with very little discussion of art history, then Wikipedia is going to miss valuable content. More, can an intellectual decision be rendered without one response from the angel's side? An unanimous decision is great in a democracy, but in a deliberative process is egregious. Wikipedia is a deliberation, not a democracy. Deliberation requires a voice from all sides, and even goes to the point of finding the voice of the other side. Was there an effort to find an angel's voice for DFQ, if not mine? For example, in the sainthood process, an angel's advocate and a devil's advocate is appointed.

With deepest appreciation of your willingness to engage this discussion.

Wmjuntunen 16:50, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your compliments and kind words! They're greatly appreciated. Also, congrats on the fine work you do around here, and a (belated) congrats on your adminship. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 02:05, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

How long do you think it'll take before it gets accepted? And doesn't a separate page get created besides just the listing on the RfA page? --kizzle 05:15, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for reverting the vandalism to my User page. That's the first time that has happened...I didn't even notice until I looked at the history, thanks to you! --C S 09:18, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi, sorry to drag you into this but we seem to have run into an especially problematic impasse on the Ann Coulter page and could use some outside help. Basically user:Eleemosynary and user:Guettarda together have decided that myself, User:64.154.26.251, and User:BigDaddy777 are sockpupets of the same person and are basically refusing to work with us at all (all of our changes get reverted with accusations of vandalism and 3rr violations). They also refuse to discuss the matter. Do you have any ideas for how to get past this kind of thing? perhaps provide proof through outside communication with a mediator? 67.124.200.240 13:46, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

btw I have created this account which I use from now on, though it may confuse things further, just in case being anon is a problem in itself. 67124etc 14:06, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

well regarding blocks there was Eleemosynary's 3rr violation. [11] Is calling other editors sockpuppets really a valid excuse to do that? but I was mainly hoping you had a suggestion as to how a sockpuppet accusation could be debunked. 67124etc 16:06, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi Katefan. I removed from the noticeboard the section started anonymously by banned User:Skyring as part of his continued attack on nixie. Your reply was also removed (sorry!). If this bothers you, let me know and I'll put it back. Thanks, --Cyberjunkie | Talk 16:29, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I've never heard anybody criticise the excellence of user:petaholmes' research, but clearly she needs to work on her spelling and grammar, because it detracts from otherwise impeccable work, especially if it remains uncorrected. Hence my question. Obviously user:Cyberjunkie thinks there is something malicious going on, but fails to nominate a solution that doesn't ruffle anybody's feathers. Perhaps you could help to keep an eye on her edits — nobody is going to accuse you of wikistalking. However, may I remind you of WP:NPA? Thanks!

No, you may not. Thanks. · Katefan0^(scribble) 20:02, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

So is there somewhere where I can read up on conventions for WP:VIP? If I investigate a vandalism attempt and decide it isn't vandalism, do I post a comment right there or delete the entry. If I post a comment, how long do we keep the entry for such non-vandalism? And is there a good way (other than WP:AN?) to coordinate with other admins, like letting people know I rolled back a bunch of vandalism by some user but expect it to continue? My apologies if this is spelled out somewhere where I should have caught it already. Jdavidb 23:19, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! See you on VIP. Jdavidb 16:34, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I think we need some kind of template set to place on the talk pages of users who report on WP:VIP:

"Thank you for reporting vandalism on WP:VIP. Administrators have taken action to stop this. Keep up the good work! Wikipedia needs editors like you to help keep a watch for this kind of stuff." (We could even award some sort of "mini-Barnstar" or something.

"Thank you for reporting vandalism on WP:VIP. WP:VIP is for persistent vandalism. The policy on the page states that before listing, a vandal should have been warned with the appropriate templates. Since the vandalism you reported has not been persistent and the vandal has not been previously warned, no action has been taken. We do encourage you to continue to help fight vandalism."

"Thank you for reporting vandalism on WP:VIP. However, this is a content dispute which you and the other user(s) involved will need to settle on the article's talk page. If the participants are unable to come to consensus on what the article should say, here are some links to Wikipedia's dispute resolution policy."

and so on. Jdavidb 19:27, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

 

Hi there! Thank you so much for the lovely words, Kate! In fact, I intentionally made no campaigning for me at all. More than once, my fingers burned to let you and other friends know I was up for RfA, but if I was to be supported, I wanted to be on a fully objective basis. It would have been easy for me to msg all my friends and tell you all to come and vote, but I would have felt dirty. Hey, all's well that ends well, and I'm a Cabalist thanks to the community as a whole, just like you are, and proud of it! ;) Hope you're doing great, hun, and if you need me, just make sure to whistle, k? Hugz! Shauri   smile! 20:44, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry about any misunderstandings were may have had over in the Ray Nagin discussion. You're right, my additions were just musings and didn't add much but hot air. I'm center right politically but have supported Nagin's stance on this entire affair for a variety of reasons, and I'm just tired of the anons and sockpuppets pushing anti Nagin claptrap. See you around.--MONGO 08:22, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Katefan0, many thanks for your kind words and for your obvious confidence in me! Yes, I am interested in trying for adminship in the not too distant future, but I want (a) to reach at least 1500 edits, and (b) to have finished my Open University exams (19 October) before I try, because I might be too busy to answer potential criticism. Also, I'd like to make myself a little more familiar with Wikipedia policy, and even some basic "how-to" (e.g. merging pages, inserting images, etc.). I definitely expect to try before Christmas! Thanks again. Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 10:33, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Hello Katefar0 - I think you were a bit quick to protect the Apollo moon landing hoax accusations page. I had no intention of violating the 3-RR rule - though I can't speak for anyone else on the page. I was hoping that User:Astronaught would see that his edits were not being reverted by just me but that they were the judgement of the community. It seems that he also made many anonymous edits to this page that have also been reverted in the past. Protecting the page is a rather phyrric victory. That said, I am not pushing for the page to be unprotected - others should make those requests since I have been involved with this dispute. Cheers --PhilipO 23:25, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

You're definitely right that quotes are often used as a way to circumvent the NPOV policies. Check out this egregious example: Anti-globalization and Anti-Semitism. Kaldari 18:59, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Has a Wikipedia editor ever persuaded you that you were wrong, and he or she was right by telling you that you were outnumbered? patsw 00:29, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I am a primary driver behind the site, and I do not remember creating the page, because I read the Wikipedia guidelines saying "don't create your own page". It said it was deleted in part because of self-promotion. Also, I just figured out what "copyvio" means, and that makes me more curious. Finally, although I would not wish to self-promote our site to the point that it irritates someone, I would of course be pleased if it could have a Wikipedia page. Since I do not remember knowing of the existence of the page, I never saw the debate to delete.

I wonder if I could at least see the text of the deleted page, to see what might have happened? Perhaps you could leave the text on my user page or something? It's not urgent, but I am curious. If that is inappropriate, I'd appreciate any advice you might have. Perhaps if it looks like it wasn't me that created it (and I don't recognize the creator IP offhand), I might submit an undeletion request. Thanks in advance. dfrankow 02:40, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Have one on me.

Take care, Molotov (talk)   06:52, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your help on Benjamin Urrutia. I hope that the current version is stable. --goethean ॐ 18:51, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

...you didn't just go on MY TALK PAGE and capriciously edit out MY POST

Ever think of asking ME about it before you barge into MY talkpage and started deleting stuff? I never authorized you to do anything of the sort. And now, instead of an apology, I get my intelligence insulted with this disingenous attack "But you have been so quick to judge me for an act of concern." Nice touch.... Big Daddy 03:03, 8 October 2005 (UTC) By what authority did you engage in this act? Thanks. Big Daddy 01:50, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Ever think of asking ME about it before you barge into MY talkpage and started deleting stuff? I never authorized you to do anything of the sort. And now, instead of an apology, I get my intelligence insulted with this disingenous attack "But you have been so quick to judge me for an act of concern." Nice touch.... Ps I see now that you were genuinely confused. But, I just don't see how you felt you had the freedom to do this. First of all, the post is very consistent with my sense of humor. Secondly, I would have sooner or later, gotten to my page. And, as can be documented by all my witch-hunters, I'm more than capable of editing out nonsense. In this case I was making a point about how IRRATIONAL all these sock puppet charges were. I see you were sincerely confused. I just wish you would have used a little more discernment and patience.... Big Daddy 03:03, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Kate wrote on my Talk page: ":I don't need your permission to edit your talk page; that's what it's here for. I particularly don't need your permission when what I was doing was answering your insulting assumptions about what amounted to an act of kindness on my part. · Katefan0^(scribble) 03:05, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh really? Can you show me in the rules where you can just go in and do whatever you want to MY talk page?

I'd like to see that in the rules and regulations.

You're comment on the DELETION of my post from MY talk page merely said "commented out odd comment." Nothing about a stalker, hacker or any other nefarious act. Can I just go into people's talk pages and delete what I feel are 'odd' comments? Or do you have to be an admin to enjoy that special privilige?

Ps I love the fact that instead of apologizing for jumping the gun, you're still trying to TWIST this into me being the bad guy. And I haven't forgotten how, when I asked you to discipline Ryan's trollery, you told me you were too busy because you had HUNDREDS of pages on your watchlist. Apparently MY TALK PAGE is number one on that list, huh? Big Daddy 03:11, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

You can keep being ugly all you like. I have nothing else to say. · Katefan0^(scribble) 03:16, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

• hugs* No one "owns" their talk page. In fact, no one "owns" any of the pages on Wikipedia. I really think someone should do a Wikipedia: article on it. --Woohookitty 06:10, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I think there is actually. Wikipedia:Ownership of articles · Katefan0^(scribble) 06:12, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Whoops, sorry. --Woohookitty 06:14, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Three things I want to tell you:

1. Go check this out.
2. Katefan0 did not delete anything from your talk page. No deletion occured. What Katefan0 did was instead to put comment characters around the section she was worried about and then go ask an authority (Fred Bauder) about it. The comment characters clearly indicate that her intent was to temporarily hide the information while finding out what to do, not delete it.
3. You asked "Can you show me in the rules where you can just go in and do whatever you want to MY talk page." Here are some links to rules: Wikipedia:Talk_page#User_talk_pages, Wikipedia:User_page#Ownership_and_editing_of_pages_in_the_user_space. Here are some quotes:
   • "As a tradition, Wikipedia offers wide latitude to users to manage their user space as they see fit. However, pages in user space still do belong to the community"
   • "Other users may edit pages in your user space, although by convention your user page will usually not be edited by others." (Your user page will usually not be edited by others. Other pages in your user space, such as your user talk page, may be edited by others. Nobody needs permission, and you can't ban anyone.)
   • "Actively erasing personal messages without replying (if a reply would be appropriate or polite) will probably be interpreted as hostile. In the past, this kind of behavior has been viewed as uncivil, and this can become an issue in arbitration or other formal proceedings."
   • "keep in mind that your user talk page has the important function of allowing other editors to communicate with you. People will get upset if they cannot use it for that purpose."

Jdavidb (talk) 04:32, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Whoops; I got confused looking at one of BigDaddy's posts and thought I was responding on his talk page. Copied there.

I will respond to your second comment to me over on my talk page. Jdavidb (talk) 04:52, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

For your reference, I responded again. Jdavidb (talk) 05:14, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I'd give anything to get the whole situation defused. I guess I just keep trying and trying again... Eventually it'll all be settled, one way or another. Jdavidb (talk) 04:46, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

You are required to dance or gobble all carrion you don't like? I thought you knew that peacock! :P --Woohookitty 06:01, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I agree (and thought I would follow that excellent advice). :) Dmcdevit·t 06:16, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

LOL! I needed that laugh. --Woohookitty 06:35, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

A move for a temporary injunction has been filed to prevent BD from altering or removing comments on his talk page. Please support. --Woohookitty 07:59, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

PS If you don't want to get involved, I understand. I understand your views on this. You can thank dmcdevit for the idea. I never even thought of it. --Woohookitty 07:59, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I move we reject this brain-dead proposal. (I'm only trying to help WoohooKitty) Ps This is me. Not a hacker.Big Daddy 08:56, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I've copied this here from my Talk page, where it was left in error. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:38, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your detailed comments about the page deletion! It looks to me like one of my users probably took some text from the WikiLens site description, which is definitely not worded as an encyclopedia would do.

I believe I could write a more encyclopedia-style article. However, the one objection I can't precisely respond to is "notability." Frankly, we are still a fairly small site (100 users). On the other hand, I've encountered several articles that are what I would consider "niche" articles for a small audience that I have nevertheless found useful.

Perhaps I will try rewriting the article. I must admit, I am uncomfortable with marketing but also would find a Wikipedia entry for WikiLens satisfying and helpful. If you have any thoughts about how notable something should be before being included in Wikipedia, I'd be happy to hear it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dfrankow (talk • contribs) 18:36, 10 October 2005

Hi. You closed this afd as delete, but don't seem to have pushed the button on the article itself. —Cryptic (talk) 07:26, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I saw your comment on Ann Coulter's page, and was just wondering what sort of policy we could even come up with. How could we write a policy that might limit the wiki nature of this? I agree that we should try to find consensus by individual articles, but there really should be some limit on quotes. A "real" encyclopedia would never have simply a long list of quotes in their articles. That is what WikiQuote is for, right? I would be interested in maybe working with you on something in this realm. Just let me know if you are really planning on going ahead with this, and I will be able to help, if you deem me necessary. I would be interested in your ideas. Thanks. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 14:47, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't personally curse people, I have others do that for me, sorry. But seriously, are we living the same life here? I too am fairly busy this week, but would be willing to help out later. I'll hunt around and try to find articles that may have had issues with quotes. I remember on the archive page for Ann Coulter someone had made a list of authors, political people, and others with quotes. I'll start there I suppose. I'll let you know what I come up with. Cheers. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 15:04, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Q1werty was improperly blocked due to the fact that four administrators blocked this user infinitely four times. This is a minor notification that his block has been appropriately fixed. If it hasn't, then there's a bug in the MediaWiki system and should be reported. When I checked the logs on this person, I found that there were four infinite blocks on this user:

• 23:11, 10 October 2005 Rdsmith4 blocked "User:Q1werty" with an expiry time of indefinite (Vandal)
• 23:24, 10 October 2005 Redwolf24 blocked "User:Q1werty" with an expiry time of indefinite (Vandalisms!)
• 23:42, 10 October 2005 Katefan0 blocked "User:Q1werty" with an expiry time of indefinite (Page move vandal)
• 09:48, 11 October 2005 The Anome blocked "User:Q1werty" with an expiry time of indefinite (vandalism-only user)

One thing I noticed is that there was no notice on this particular user's talk page stating the user was infinitely blocked. Anyway, just letting you know what happened. --AllyUnion (talk) 09:17, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Hello,How can this picture be PD ? Best regards, Petrusbarbygere 15:38, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi my dear Kate! I simply wanted to let you know that, at long last... (drums roll) I've finally submitted the article for FAC. Since it's both your baby and mine, I'm sure you'd like to keep an eye open and see what happens there. Needless to say that, if you want to retouch it, you just have to be bold and proceed. Warm hugs, Shauri   smile! 19:59, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

what's wrong with calling child molesters chid molesters?

Thanks for your request for mediation. I will be taking the case. See Talk:Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act. Ral315 W_S 03:55, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Just curious, but for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Effect of the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake on Hong Kong, where there are 8 votes for and 2 votes against its deletion, I am not too sure why it concludes with a "no concensus" tag. May i just get an idea of how this decision is made for the sake of better understanding in the AfD process? Because Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy perhaps?--Huaiwei 20:39, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I see. I would have thought that a redirect vote actually amounts to a delete vote, since the information move will still be the same. But that is alright, as afterall, we may perhaps just merge them since we already have an 8 vs 2 vote on that one! :D--Huaiwei 21:00, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Alright I shall heed your call and attempt not to be lazy. ;) Will attempt to the get the rest of the community to help as well. Whatever the case, thank you very much for the extensive clarifications.--Huaiwei 21:15, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news Katefan, but I was alerted today by a fellow webtraveler that the link to Clay Aiken's Wiki page and an accompanying cry to rally the troops over here has been posted on his fan club message board. I suspect that the page may need to be protected again. Checking the history I see a few skirmishes on October 7, but I have a feeling it's about to start again. Just wanted to let you know. WebTraveler 22:20, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Woohoo to the rescue! AGAIN!! :-D Kidding. It's been on my watchlist all along. I'm pulling your pretty chain. Ooooh...such a pretty chain. --Woohookitty 11:18, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Willmcw and SlimVirgin has been accepted. Due to the length and complexity of the original request it has been placed on the talk page. Please make brief statements regarding the issues at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Willmcw and SlimVirgin and place evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Willmcw and SlimVirgin/Evidence. Fred Bauder 14:39, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rangerdude has also been accepted and the cases merged into Rangerdude although the page Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Willmcw and SlimVirgin remains in use Fred Bauder 15:48, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Kate, we haven't spoken in a while.

I took a browse at R-dude's RfA just now. Some parallels caught my eye.

First, with respect to the Rangerdude parallel, I limit myself to content, not behavior; further, none of this is aimed at you. So then: I have noticed one striking similarity between what R-Dude is being accused of and what many conservative and conservative-friendly editors have accused "liberal" fellows of doing.

The Rove and Coulter articles get absolutely dumped on with every single shred of rumor, innuendo, allegation, negative criticism, exaggeration, speculation, ad nausuem that can be scrounged from the Internet. But when purported conservatives take this approach to the Sheila Jackson Lees (sp?) at WP, they are criticized for it. When conservatives say they aim to "balance," they are lectured that "balance" is not what WP is about; but then liberals turn around and demand "balance" when it suits their ends.

A little BirD has told me (and I have not checked this, but may well) that, discounting the absolutely blithering crackpots at WP, disputes that make it as far as an "accepted RfA" are disproportionately aimed against conservatives, especially ones that work on articles protected by liberals. Articles like Communism are protected against cons. criticism; the Roves et al are protected against balance and the removal of the glut of unencyclopedic negativism.

Further, in my experience, no matter the behavior of an editor, most edits by conservatives that are not spelling and punctuation, etc., are reverted eventually or immediately. And attempts to engage the other side are, in the end, fruitless. My behavior at talk pages is been very civil 99.44% of the time. But my edits have been treated exactly like BD's.

Unlike BD, I am pretty much protected here at WP, and always will be, whether I decide to work on disputed articles or not. This is because I temper myself, I'm nice to people, and even when I vehemently disagree, I don't lose control. I make no enemies, and I collaborate well. I can admit when I'm wrong and I don't edit war. I dont' jump to revert everything I don't like. Unlike BD, I am a superior wordsmith, and have made countless quality edits that are rock solid in every respect. I author well-sourced new articles, sometimes with great speed; I significantly augment existing articles, and edit a broad range of topics. I work on interlingual projects, with contributions at de, hu, and es wikis. I solicit many high quality photos for our library from professionals -- some notable ones -- and usually get what I ask for. I also do a lot of mop and bucket work like proofing countless random articles for minor errors and deletion candidates; when I choose to nominate something for deletion, it usually is deleted. I welcome new editors whenever I get the chance. In case you think I'm praising myself too much, I am my own worst critic and take criticism even when it hurts, and often eviscerate my own work, learning from my mistakes. I am the opposite of BD.

But for all that, when I edit a disputed article, my edits are reverted, usually like lightning. When I work to engage others, I get rhetoric, lectures, condescension, snide and ugly accusations, or just plain ignored ("gee, too long to read..." "Well, I just disagree, but I won't tell you why...."). I have been bullied, lied about, and spit on, and often I just quietly take it. Many at Club Coulter and Rove have proven to be singularly ungracious, uncollaborative, and thuggish. That's my opinion/experience, subjective as it may be.

I love it here because I know it doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things if Ann Coulter's article at Wikipedia is actually slanted or of low quality; if it is, most who read it will see it immediately. But I do keep my eyes and ears open, and I can pick up patterns and tells that support the claims that WP leans left in certain areas, and that conservatives are treated like dirt by a vocal and demanding minority of POV-pushing editors (and I'm a registered Democrat). The best thing for me is, my mind isn't totally made up on this matter, because if I am proven wrong, I'm not "out" an agenda or axe to grind; I'll continue merrily editing and will be glad that I was wrong.

But I do hope others keep their eyes and minds open about this. If my instincts are correct, we have a problem at WP.

Thanks for listening, as always. paul klenk ^talk 17:26, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

The user John Henry seems to be our old friend LJS returned. Same MO, looks like he is trying to remove as much stuff on Abramoff as possible this time. He is obviously going to continue to vandalize until he is banned. Strongly suggest a CFP --Gorgonzilla 04:07, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

What is going on there with the copyvio/speedy templates? I am baffled by the talk page and the edit summaries. Can you clue me in? Thanks. Guettarda 04:10, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Him. I was just going to explain to him what {{db}} and {{copyvio}} were all about and what appropriate use was, but I've had my interactions with (what is probably him) on Amazon Rainforest. I realise now that it's not worth the trouble of talking to him privately - the talk page is good enough, it's not worth dealing with him if he is/maybe JCC. I'll keep an eye on the page. Thanks. Guettarda 04:21, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

A few weeks ago you blocked user:Aegeis and myself over a revert war on the Homeopathy article. As I explained at the time, Aegeis has been doing POV rewrites of huge chunks of the article (or more often reverting to his old edits) and has ignored requests to discuss changes on the talk page. He has resumed editing the article and seems as intent as ever on introducing his POV. Since he stills seems unwilling to collaborate, is it possible to block him from this article or is there some other action that the other editors of the article should take? --Lee Hunter 01:30, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure how "Evidence regarding Katefan0" fits into Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rangerdude/Evidence, but there it is.

You blocked User:Peter Isotalo as an "imposter". Who do you claim this to be an imposter of? Karmosin claims that he is merely changing his user name. Kelly Martin 14:55, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of that so quickly. Kelly Martin 15:32, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I often wonder what happens to people after I "welcome" them. It's good to know at least one turned good! ;-p -- Francs2000   00:55, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Despite many warnings on his/her Talk page, 193.112.136.21 continues to vandalize. I saw this user vandalize Hurricane Katrina. Is asking an admin to put him/her on Moderation the correct next step? Thanks, Simesa 14:14, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Kate, I thought about what you said at Price-Anderson. It sounds like you're making a distinction between the Executive Branch and the Legislative Branch.

Agencies which are controlled by the executive branch report to the President through the various Secretaries, which are typically political appointees. Although some of them require Congress to consent to their appointment, the president can always fire any of them at his sole discretion.

Agencies which are controlled by the legislative branch are generally regarded as being non-partisan. We never even hear about who runs them: not being political appointees, they never make it onto the media radar screen.

Do you agree with all that? Uncle Ed 18:58, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Woodroffe_Avenue. Thank you. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 18:59, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Hey, thanks. I swear I was going to leave you a message on your talk page thanking you for your support, but I've had to deal with real life today! Yes, the shiny new buttons. ::rubs hands together in fiendish glee:: As soon as I get through the list of thanking people for voting for me, I think I'll go close some AfDs. Sounds like fun, ya know. :-) Hermione1980 23:25, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Kindly restore the deleted page you and your colleague destroyed .... you should have your facts together before deleting someone's article. Why don't you ask questions first instead of being so high and mighty. What is to say that your colleagues page is not a vanity page .... no ones cares if he played baseball. Your acceptence of pages is a little slanted, some articles you allow and some you don't based on if someone is listed somewhere. Sometimes some people are notable even though you can't find any information about them. You should do the right thing an correct what you and your colleague did!

The Japanese emperor double redirect that you fixed will actually be correct, once all of the articles themselves have been moved to the proper titles (about 100 out of 125 have already been moved). Anyway, there are a lot of such double redirects for the Japanese emperor articles, and I just want to make sure you don't waste any time on them unnecessarily. Thanks -Jefu 14:00, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Jimmy Lin Chih Ying clearly seems to just be a bio of some high school kid. I'm pretty new, shouldn't that be a speedy delete?Gator1 19:07, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Nevermind, I get it now. Thanks.Gator1 19:10, 20 October 2005 (UTC)