User:Katefan0/Talk6

Rush (band)

Just to let you know, Rush (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is up for FA status. Seeing as how you are a fan, it would be nice to have you look over the article and improve it! I really should have remembered to include you when I started the peer review, but alas, my brain didn't think of you and your ridiculous poll until it was mentioned on a prod for a Rush subarticle. Cheers, and thanks for any help on the article. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 04:42, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Galveston pics

The weather wasn't fully cooperative, but my sister's finally getting out of med school there, so I figured I needed to get my pictures while I was going regularly. I tell you, that island has really grown on me, and it kinda makes me sad that I'll be spending inordinate amounts of time visiting elsewhere over the next six years instead. — Laura Scudder ☎ 17:20, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Look

Awesome!. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 06:49, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

HI Kate!

User:Katefan0love Galveston; used to go there every weekend when I lived in Pasadena! Would you go look at the dispute on Bonnie and Clyde? My2cents bears a suspiscious resembalance to other folks I have known at that site, and wants to make wholesale deletions, including all mention of:

• the limited involvement of Bonnie in real life as opposed to the public perception -- he leaves out all the sourcing, and pretty much eliminates the major controversy historians have been examining the past half century!;
• the incredible horror of the ambush scene, particularly well pictured by Milner on page 147 of his book, which by POV he deletes in toto;
• In addition, he deleted all mention of the relatively new controversy about Ted Hinton posthumous revelations concerning the bargain Hamer allegedly made with Methvin's father. (and considering Hinton's reputation, such charges have to be taken seriously!).

We need an editor who knows the material - that is you! - and can fairly take over and end the dsipute. My2cents is not an editor, I don't think, and even if he is, he is making changes with no sourcing, no discussion, no historical context - and that is plainly wrong. Anyway, I thought I woudl appeal to you. By the way, he also wiped out all of your work on the Frank Hamer article, simply deleting what you did on the aftermath. And did it without discussion, or questioning the historical accuracy. I returned it to your last version. Please come and deal with this person, who, if you look at his user page, is having these problems with every article he destroys with his POV edits. old windy bear 12:11, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Note

Hello, I noticed you edited a Hip Hop related article. If you wish you can join the new Hip Hop Wikiproject. Thanks for your time. Tutmosis 22:59, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

User warnings

Consider just clicking the "w","v"...ect tabs...its much faster to warn taht way. And you can always customize the warnings.Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 00:09, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Expectancy violations theory attempted renomination

Hi, I think an obviously wrong result was reached in the first AfD (no conclusion); see talk page of this article. If you know how to renominate an article, plez rewrite the official explanation instead of leaving a message on my talk page, since I've already spent way way more time on this than it deserves. No reply neccesssary, since I'm so peeved that noone has bothered to keep such fundamental WP instructions up to date that I don't even want to discuss it any more. TIA ---CH 17:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism by 209.68.96.107

Shouldn't this user have been blocked on March 17th, which was the next time after a last warning was given? Shouldn't the user be blocked now? Esquizombi 20:12, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your work re: [Joseph Sobran]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rogerman (talk • contribs)

Swishing us forward

Thanks for moving us forward, Katefan0. I don't mind that the swish line is in need of clarity. We can sort that out in later months according to literature and consensus.

I have made some more suggestions to reinstate the views of scientists such as Beyerstein, Dreyden, et al. If you think it is too much to handle for the whole group (ei if it is spreading the effort too thinly) then please suggest a section for us to focus on as a group. I respectfully suggest that we begin with the smallest (Dreyden). Once Greg's and Comaze's objections have all been answered again, I'm sure the others will be happy to make their improvements to the article. ATB. Camridge 05:07, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar, OTR & PUA Review

FYI. You may want to look and comment here: Wikipedia:Barnstar and award proposals/Proposed Changes. For your reference, the guidelines are referenced here: Barnstar Proposal Guidelines. Thanks -- evrik 18:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Template:Good article

Template:Good article has been listed for deletion and has defaced the Houston article because of it. Please vote to keep this template at Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_March_25#Template:Good_article. The {{good article}} template places a small Good Article symbol () in the top right corner of an article to indicate that it is a good article on Wikipedia. —RJN 10:46, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you so much for supporting me in my recent RfA, which passed with a final tally of 56/1/0. I want to give you a Texas-sized thank you for your confidence in my abilities. If you ever need anything or find that I have made an error, please let me know on my talk page. — Scm83x hook 'em 21:11, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks.

Many thanks for blocking the lamer troll user ok he's a troll. — natha(?)nrdotcom ^{(T • C • W)} 03:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Whoops

I surrender, you got me, I did it, "Fat Carl" and me are one in the same. But now, how do I kill him off? Does this place me on Wikipedias list of sock-puppets? What now?randazzo56 02:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I dont understand, re-direct fat carl to whos pages?randazzo56 03:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your helprandazzo56 23:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Demkina

I was wondering when it would get protected. You know, you protected The Wrong Version. Makes me glad I'm not an admin yet. JoshuaZ 03:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Katefan0, thanks for stepping in and preventing even "wronger" versions. :-) It was getting pretty tiring repelling the Vandals. Askolnick 13:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Skolnick, she didn't protect it for you, she protected it to stop the edit warring. JoshuaZ 21:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Please don't use my talk page as some kind of venue for your fight. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 22:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if it appeared that way. I'm somewhat on Skolnick's side here, but I thought he should be aware of what your most probable motivations were so he didn't interpret it as an endorsement. Sorry for bringing this over to your page. (and one other clarification, my initial comment about the wrong version was meant as an attempt at humor). JoshuaZ 22:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I always appreciate invokation of The Wrong Version. =D · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 22:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Protected pages

Yes, you're right. I usually add a bunch to WP:PP at once. Which ones did I miss? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for adding Sildenafil to the list at WP:PP. Best regards, Hall Monitor 21:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Most of them are related to the 149.99.xx.xx vandal, though one of them is an Alberuni. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

You hang out in some nice places. =D · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 21:41, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. BrokenSegue 21:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your helprandazzo56 00:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Katefan0^(scribble)/poll, thanks for the support at Rind et al. (1998). Normally, I don't edit war. But recently I had to wade into a cesspool of external links with sexual explicit drawing of child-adult sex. Since then, my frustration discussing this topic has grown. How do you reason with people that object to what is obvious to most people? FloNight ^talk 04:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

More wise words. : ) I made the decision after a couple of months at WP to adopt a 1RR. I agree with your idea that WP is a long term project. Eventually the community will make the right decision. I rarely do more than make a few comments and and move on. The exception is copyright violation, libel, or other legal issues.

This dispute is part of a larger debate at WP:PAW. During past months, there has been an attempt to define pedophilia using the most restrictive medical definition. And then insist that child should be used to only refer to prepubescent children on child sexual abuse related articles. This mostly happened before WP:PAW became active. I joined WP:PAW to challenge this idea. The discussion is really just starting. Your level-headed comments are very welcome. FloNight ^talk 13:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

WP:PP

Hey, Katefan. I actually did list the page on WP:PP when I protected it, but it was subsequently moved from Eternals to Eternal (comics). I didn't realize that I needed to relist it after the move. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:06, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Do you still have the (sp),(fp) and (up) tabs? They make protection a lot faster.Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 20:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Chad "Corntassel" Smith

As you have (thank you!!!) taken an interest: Its back. See diff. I'm still at 3RR and without anyone stating clearly whether they consider this a content dispute or vandalism, I am keeping my puppy nose clean. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Mixed messages

I wonder what sort of messages it sends the kids at User talk:66.240.35.137 when I give them a stern last chance message and then you follow it with the much sweeter welcome warning. (Me, I think the fact that there are four to six levels of warning is a hole in our conceptualization of how to build a dictionary, but there ya go) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

User talk:209.181.10.153

Hi,

When you added a new warning to User talk:209.181.10.153, you deleted all of the other warnings (four or five months' worth) that were already there. I just wanted to give you a heads-up about that. Please be a little more careful next time.

Thanks,

Hbackman 02:01, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

locking articles

Do you guys ever lock an article when the white users and black users differ and it is the black perspective which is upheld pending further investigation, or do we always have to lock an article when the black contributors ideas are first removed from having the final say until the investigation. Just wondering. The sphinx issue wasn't resolved with compelling reason before the lock and my position is far more compelling than the other's. --Zaphnathpaaneah 06:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Please. I didn't even look closely at the different "versions," all I needed to see is that there was significant and unproductive edit warring going on with both sides claiming a consensus. I protect articles in the state in which they are in when I find them; that's always been my policy and won't change because of spurious accusations of racism. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 13:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Explanation

This the block log and the contribution history lead me to firmly beleive that this user has created the account merely to vandalise, harass and defame. I acted accordingly. Feel free to reduce the block if you have a different opinion, I have no attachments to my blocks (although I apopreciate communication so thanks). But I will not.Gator (talk) 14:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from and I appreciate your worries. Go ahead and reduce the block if you'd like. Like I said, I won't take offense.Gator (talk) 14:20, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello : ) I started working on the Chad "Corntassel" Smith article when Johnc1 was blocked the first time. The article subject is not familar to me, but I like fixing up biographies of living people. Since we are going with Plan B (regarding his block), I'll wait a few days then contact him. I'll leave a message on Johnc1 talk page explaining specifically the best way to add content to the Chad "Corntassel" Smith article. I don't mind helping him adjust to the Wikipedia way. Articles are usually better if they reflect two perspectives. The article started out a more a campaign ad that an encyclopedia article. We'll see if Johnc1 can provide some constructive criticism. regards, FloNight ^talk 21:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The site at John's Website] is run by United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians members. They have about a dozen folks they are mobilizing to vandalize that article. Just to let you know to expect vandalism and postings from several ranges from these folks. They have three active folks behaving as meatpuppets to vandalize the article. I tried to reason with them today (I doubt you folks speak Cherokee but I do and tried to restrain them) to no avail. The UKB Chief is apparently using this group for POV pushing to hide the embarrassments of the prosecutions and other materials. Just to to be a little bird and let you know what's up here. They are Cherokee so they won't stop. You need to go to indefinite blocks are it will just continue. 67.169.249.44 02:04, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Abuse of the rollback facility

I'd like to draw your attention to this revert. You may not have agreed with the edit, but that isn't sufficient justification for performing a rollback, which is reserved for dealing with vandalism. That edit clearly wasn't an act of vandalism, and your use of a feature restricted to administrators serves only to further the perception that administrators constitute a class of elite editors, when the reality is that you have been issued with a 'mop and bucket' by the community, not a set of weapons to be wielded in content disputes. Please be more careful next time. Thanks. 86.136.1.31 21:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The edit changed Declaration of Independence to Declaration of independence, which looked to me like that edit would've been breaking a wikilink. I didn't assume it was vandalism, just a newbie error. The rollback button is used to make reverting obvious vandalism (or obvious errors) easier; no point in not using it for the purpose for which it's designed. I don't revert significant content changes with my rollback button. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 22:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation. I disagree that it was an obvious error, however, as I was making that redirect consistent with those at Bill of Rights, Supreme Court, Electoral College, and the articles at Congress, President, Constitution etc. 86.136.1.31 22:09, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

It certainly seemed that way to me -- I wasn't looking over your contributions to know what else you were changing. I was doing IP changes patrol and at that time I was reverting quite a lot of vandalism; that one caught my eye amid a sea of other edits. Again, this didn't seem to me to be vandalism, just an ill-considered change. Regardless, as long as it's not breaking a wikilink I have no personal opinion about whether it should be capped or not. Please remember to assume good faith. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 22:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks. I would rather it not be an office protect, so as to avoid attention and controversy. Danny 22:40, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Chad "Corntassel" Smith

Hello, I combined all the related incidents at this article already at AN/I. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:65.69.154.91 at Chad "Corntassel" Smith Could you look it over and see what you think is going on? See you already blolcked the most recent attacker. FloNight ^talk 19:03, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Lolicon

You were involved with the protection of this page. Please review recent actions on both the talk and article page for this protected article. Thank you. Hipocrite - «Talk» 23:31, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Beer Categories

Hi Kate. It has been suggested by User:BrianSmithson that the Beer and brewery categories should be renamed. The proposal has been supported by User:Syrthiss, and supported and expanded by myself. The notion is that the regional categories should follow the format of "Beer and breweries in Africa" /Europe/Asia/North America/South America/Oceania. "Brewers and breweries" could also be renamed "Beer and breweries by region". And all the countries should also be renamed (and merged if needed) as, for example, "Beer and breweries of Germany", "Beer and breweries of Britain", "Beer and breweries of Poland". The word in each case would be beer rather than beers to allow for general articles on beer culture in each region as well as individual beers.

Comments, suggestions, objections and simple votes to Wiki Beer Project SilkTork 14:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

vandalism

Please read up on Irony —This unsigned comment was added by OldManSin (talk • contribs) .

"At Wikipedia, editors are expected to treat one another with civility and respect."

LOL, very good. I guess I asked for that! You're the first American I've come across to understand Irony! I salute you :p OldManSin 09:23, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Indef block user name?

Dicksdick (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Not from my new friend, but no good nevertheless. 100% edits are to one article. Indef block per inappropriate user name? FloNight ^talk 22:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks FloNight ^talk 20:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Strabane

Hi Katefan0. Thanks for the {{sprotect}} of Scanger earlier. I note you have been involved in the issues going on with Strabane. There has been a revert war being waged for some weeks now. Could you possibly take a look with a view to arbitration? I'm stepping back right now as WP:3RR has been exceeded and the editor in question refuses to negotiate. I've posted mediation requests to WP:IWNB over this page previously. I will not be reverting any more tonight in the interests of fairness. Can you help? - Ali-oops^✍ 00:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

File:LaughterTears.gif

Confirmed and banned

You've got to admit that was pretty funny. --Guess Who? 02:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Bleh sorry...

Our external internet was down at work so I just got your note on my talk page, and it looks like Sam already handled it. :/ --Syrthiss 20:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Tomkurts appears to be violating his block

Hey, thanks for taking care of the Tomkurts guy yesterday - however, last night 88.154.219.104 showed up, making the exact same edits as Tomkurts - starting with removing the AfD notice on Dragon Ball (film) - I think we've got a sockpuppet... have at him... :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRealFennShysa (talk • contribs)

Thanks again - you may also want to take a look at 88.155.213.170, 88.153.92.187, and 88.155.190.227, all of which are very similar IPs and have been used to add or delete the same information as Tomkurts and 88.154.219.104... TheRealFennShysa 14:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

User Triage

Hi again Kate, I'd appreciate it if you could leave a comment on this user's page regarding civility and politeness. I've done my absolute best to reign in my sarcasm since returning from the break and this user, despite seemingly popping out of nowhere (since there are no edits/contributions to any pages regarding Aiken or Paulus in the user's history), has been ridiculously rude and inflamatory. And just now he/she left the remark that I should refer to him/her as "Sir" when speaking. I'm doing my best here, but I won't tolerate being spoken to that way. - mixvio 23:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

User Mixvio

Katefan, could you please read the recent discussion on the Aiken page, and consider talking to Mixvio. He is way out on a bender or whatever - yelling and screaming and telling folks off. And if I had been a guy and Mixvio and condescendingly addressed me as "Dear" - I would certainly not have been so civil as to simply indicate my gender. There is only one person on that page that has been consistantly rude and inflamatory, and it is Mixvio. I really think that he needs to be reprimanded. 69.19.14.18 00:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, from the context you can clearly see I didn't mean "dear" to be condescending. Up until that point I was trying my damnest to get along with everyone to pass a solution. The order that I refer to Triage as "Sir," however, was not an indication of his gender, it was a command implying he was in control of me and it was rude beyond measure. And as far as "yelling" goes, 6 is the queen of bold and is really in no position to criticise my usage of the triple quotes. - mixvio 01:40, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration

I've filed a request for arbitration regarding the Paulus issue here. If it is accepted by the admins you can present your side of the dispute there. - mixvio 01:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Question about RfA

I see Mixvio asked for arbitration. What happens if the rest of us don't agree to it and he's only presenting his side? We went along with the mediation which got us nowhere and was a waste of everyone's time. Sorry to bother you but I really do not know the answer. - Maria202 03:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Adding to this. We'd like to carry on. Does his request obligate us to stop working on a resolution until there is a decision whether the arbitration will be accepted? Would you mind adding a comment to the "talk" page stating your understanding of what we should do? Thanks! And, BTW, wasn't it nice of mixvio to continue the argument within that request by attaching a comment to my statement? -Jmh123 14:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• In re: your request, I'd be more than happy to drop it if I had reason to believe I won't have to reinstate the request in a few hours because Maria and Jmh can't get over "solicit." I feel I have gone well above and beyond reasonable to accomidate everything they've demanded and I'm tired of it. I'll point out in case you haven't noticed that they've been going around petitioning admins related to the arbitration case with flat-out lies in order to tarnish my personal character, when I specifically didn't bring the arbitration against THEM, rather the issue. I didn't want to make it a personal dispute that would result in personal penalties. Regardless, they aren't being exactly nice or friendly to me either. - mixvio 21:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome :-)

I went ahead and fixed the links going to Katherine Hepburn to make it so they go to the correct spelling instead. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 09:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Islamism

Dear Katefan0,

I appreciate your involvement in the Talk:Islamism page. However, reversion is hardly the only or even the main problem here. This page has suffered from egregious violations of WP:NPA and WP:SOCK, which user(s) User:24.7.141.159 and User:MuslimsofUmreka have ignored and flagrantly violated. Further, the two reversions I made last night were based upon WP:RPA - and as you will see there are a good deal of violations which I did not erase. It’s not ideal, but I’ve pointed the relevant policies to both violators and their various alias to no avail. Additionally, User:Hrana98, acting on behalf of (to put it charitably) User:24.7.141.159, was himself deleting and altering the comments of User:67.188.110.197 which, while unusual, did not clearly constitute personal attacks.

In and of itself, there is generally no reason to revert a talk page, and I’ve not made a habit of doing so, so I’ve no problem with this rule. However, merely freezing the page or banning reverts doesn’t solve the problem. I request that if you are to be involved that you also enforce WP:NPA and the use of sock puppets to violate WP:NPA. Your consideration is appreciated.Timothy Usher 19:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Dear Katefan0,

I invite you to view what is going on in the etiquette section you started on Talk:Islamism, and how the user behind User:Hrana98/User:24.7.141.159, who dragged you into this to begin with, is proceeding.Timothy Usher 07:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

The 'no' of 3RR

Your points about De Gaulle are well taken but moot to me. I am officially asking you to reconsider your blunt 'no.' in light of my most recent comment and original objections to his reversions. Maybe I counted wrong, if so, then I stand corrected if you could as a more experienced editor point out how. The dispute at the 'Laissez-faire' page started when he simply deleted most of my material. This was not done in some sort of vacuum. See my User page for background. If he had requested {fact} that would of been OK and relevant for response. Thanks for looking into the situation, anyhow. - On another note, if it is true, quite an interesting history of your links to the past. Spies for Washington? Way to go! Well, the best. --Northmeister 20:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Why was my change reverted?

Hello,

Although I am a frequent user of the Wikipedia, I had never made an edit until I spotted something which was misleading, if not inaccurate, in an article about UAMS, the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences.

The text stated: "UAMS is the largest medical school in the State of Arkansas." I changed it to read "..the only medical school..." This change was later reverted. Why? Because I did not create a user account?

Thank you.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 144.30.38.152 (talk • contribs) .

Pretty much. I was doing recent changes patrol through IP edits and noticed this change made by an anonymous user, without any sourcing. Often IP vandals make these sorts of changes intending to actually make the article inaccurate. This sort of "sneaky vandalism" happens very often with articles about universities -- changing statistics so as to puff up one's alma mater, so to speak. Because it was a change to say "the only" on an article about an academic institution, and since it was made without any supporting documentation (in the form of a link, etc.), as a prophylactic I reverted it. Feel free to add it back in again, though, as long as you can support it with a link! · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 15:32, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Chad Smith and Johnc1

Hi KateFan0, User:Johnc1 is back and posted defamation in the article again. You may want to take a look at his edits. Sint Holo 19:29, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

KateFan0: by way of background, you may find this thread from the "blog" informative: http://www.network54.com/Forum/237458/message/1144111446/Chad+Smith+Re-election+Supporters+Needed -- talks_to_birds 23:56, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry About

Sorry about the protection tag thing. I did not know that an admninistrator could put it on. The other user reverted it back to the old version. I think the current version has more citations and sources and the editing should begin from that one. The article is mostly fine. Except that it needs citations for most off it. The old version was just too POV in the opening introduction. The old version I am refering too is the one before all the major changes were made too it about 4 or 5 days ago. The current version just needds to be organized better and reworded and sourcing needs to be done for about half off it. MuslimsofUmreka 21:30, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Kyaa the catlord

Kyaa the catlord keeps reverting the Islamism article back to the original one from like a week ago. Please get her or him to stop. MuslimsofUmreka 01:57, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

MuslimsofUmreka has repeatedly launched an edit war and is calling for your aid, please jump to his call. I'm certain he'll be very appreciative. Kyaa the Catlord 01:59, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I blocked Kyaa the Catlord for 24 hours for disruptive edit warring, and MuslimsofUmreka for 48 hours for personnal attacks. Please review and change either if you think it's appropriate. Tom Harrison ^Talk 02:21, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Dear Katefan0,

I find it most outrageous that User:Kyaa the Catlord was blocked at all. There is a general consensus on this page, and User:MuslimsofUmreka is on the other side of it. Kyaa’s “vandalism” consisted of 1) restoring dispute tags that MuslimsofUmreka continued to remove and 2) restoring an introduction that all the other editors save perhaps User:Hrana98/User:24.7.141.159 seem to agree is much better than MuslimsofUmreka’s obscurantist gibberish.

While I note the different periods of supsension, it is most unfair to draw any sort of equivalence between Kyaa and MOU’s conduct. In my view, for whatever it’s worth, Kyaa was doing this article a great service by reversing MOU’s vandalism and should be restored toute suite so we can get back to work on making this a decent article.Timothy Usher 02:37, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

They were both edit warring unproductively; I support these blocks rather than protecting the article. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 02:56, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Rather than fighting with MOU again, please check Islamism and verify that MOU has returned as user:Eastern section of the Nation Kyaa the Catlord 14:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Chechypaw

FYI, Chechypaw (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)'s only edit is adding text to Sex scandal about Clay Aiken. I reverted it. Going to watch this new user. Could you put him on your watch list, too. Want to nip this problem in the bud. FloNight ^talk 16:07, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I actually came over to thank Katefan for being willing to get into the morass again and helping to guide things to a fruitful conclusion, so Katefan, thanks for that. I wish I had a cat for your page. On my watchlist are several other users with limited edits and the same agenda, possibly the same individual, as well as eight different Wikipedia pages where the same topic has been introduced, almost all by a participant in the debate (most now deleted). Given the fuss, I'll stay away from reverting for awhile. Thanks to both of you. -Jmh123 17:01, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm staying away from Sex scandal--I regret getting involved this morning. Just FYI, most of the sources Rabinid cites did not mention Paulus by name, or make any sort of specific reference other than to "gossip". I believe the only one on his list that does use Paulus' name is the NY Post Page Six (enough said). Thanks again and again. -Jmh123 19:34, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Please watch the Joe Byrd article - related to Chad Smith

JohnC1 vandalised it. I have reverted it. Vryl 07:24, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

MuslimsofUmreka

He was pretty transparently editing as Eastern section of the nation (talk · contribs) and from a couple of IPs, so I reset his block to one week from today, and blocked his other account for a week also. I didn't block the IPs, but I did sprotect Islamism. I don't like sprotecting the page, but it seemed like that was better than blocking all of Rutgers' IPs. As always, if you want to change anything, that's fine. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:22, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

please use the Talk pages

Hi, I saw that you undid my removal of an erroneous addition on a policy page without commenting. Likely you didn't understand what happened. Anyway, please use the Talk page instead of edit-warring, thanks! Harald88 19:19, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Charlotte Bloomberg

I understand your opinion, but I disagree. Being the mother of a politician is not in itself an assertion of notability. A person should not automatically get a WP article just by being closely related to a major politician. - the.crazy.russian τ ç ë 19:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok. I understand the difference between AfD and CSD precisely. But tell me, katefan0, what does it take to make an assertion on notability deficient? If it's unverified (Charlotte is the president of Bangladesh) it's still a good assertion, right? What if it's bizarre (Charlotte is the first extra-terrestrial to mingle with humans) - also sufficient to pass A7? I think the assertion "CB is the mother of MB" is uncontroversially deficient, i.e. no reasonable observer would buy that as an assertion of notability. Isn't that the only way to construe A7 that would preserve editor and admin sanity? - the.crazy.russian τ ç ë 20:19, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. - the.crazy.russian τ ç ë 20:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

User Corax

Why are you attackign User Corax for placing "fact" templates on Matthew Shepard? Citations always improve wikipedia. Our experience on Ann Coulter is that nothing can go uncited, why is Shepard any different? Justforasecond 20:45, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[1]

May I interrupt? This matter began when Corax and I had a disagreement about NAMBLA. He was asserting that no evidence has ever been found that NAMBLA promotes illegal behavior. I asked him to provide a source for that assertion, he replied that it was impossible to source a negative, so I told him that if it couldn't be sourced or verified it shouldn't be in the article. In response he went to two articles he had never edited before, but which I had just edited, and slapped virtually-random {fact} templates next to facts which no one had ever disputed. A couple of editors at Matthew Shepard were unhappy about it. Thus, Corax was acting, not to improve the encyclopedia, but rather to illustrate a point about citing sources, and he did so in a disruptive manner, a violation of WP:POINT. Furthermore, he was uncivil in the process, as Katefan0 mentioned. -Will Beback 21:30, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Aha. All I saw was Corax getting a little heated and thought I'd offer a gentle reminder. It's completely spurious to suggest that "Easy. Remember civility" was in any fashion an attack on Corax; I'm sure Corax himself would agree. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 22:39, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, agreed. But it is OK to ask for citations, correct? Justforasecond 22:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

If it's a good faith request, then of course it's OK. -Will Beback 23:17, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Well when is it not OK? Any article lacking citations needs citations, no? Justforasecond 23:49, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

If you add fact tags to things that are obviously true (the sky is blue, George Bush is president) or that you have no reason to believe are untrue (or, even worse, know to be true) just to make a point, that's not all right. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 23:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

So these would be OK? however, under current federal United States law and Wyoming state law, crimes committed on the basis of sexual orientation are not considered hate crimes. {{fact}} Shortly after the murder, President Bill Clinton tried to push legislation through Congress adding sexual orientation to the hate crimes law. The measure was defeated. In 1999, the Wyoming Legislature, amid widespread discussion of this crime, also attempted to pass legislation defining certain attacks motivated by victim identity as hate crimes, but the measure failed on a 30-30 tie in the Wyoming House of Representatives.{{fact}}

Justforasecond 01:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what you're trying to accomplish, but it won't be won here. Don't use my talk page as a venue for some sort of grudge, please. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 04:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

You asked Corax to adhere to "Civility", but if you looked two lines up you might have seen he was uptight because WillB removed his "fact" templates, which were legit. I guess it was just an oversight. Justforasecond 21:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I didn't notice and didn't particularly care about the substance of their disagreement. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 21:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Republic of Texas

I'm not trying to cause trouble, I'm trying to ensure that fairness and equal treatment is applied. Republic of New Hampshire is being treated to a double standard that Republic of Texas is not being held to, and if you oppose double standards and are for fair dealing, I hope you will help me with the vote in favor of keeping Republic of New HampshireCitizenposse 00:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments being removed again on Talk:Islamism

I've tried to restore the discussion regarding the anti-Islamic bias of the Islamism article from the archives only to have it removed by User:Pescher and User:Timothy Usher. I've now added my own comment on the topic and am waiting for these editors to remove my comments again. (forgot to sign) 24.7.141.159 09:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Dear Katefan0,

The user above, whose abusive activity and sock puppets are discussed on WP:ANI, just wrote "It looks like a few journalists have been contacted by MOU (or some other editor) who are very intereste in how we in Wiki land are handling Islam-related articles. It is in our collective best interest to follow every policy and tread carefully."

How does that read to you?

If you, like me, think that sounds cryptically threatening, this is par for the course for this user as seen in his previous edits to this page, and most especially in his sock puppet Deuterium - check before his most recent "minor edits" to see how this page looked before it came under scrutiny on WP:ANI.

I would just revert him again, but learning from recent events I am not going to pursue an edit war.Timothy Usher 10:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Just a note of thanks

Thank you for your help with protecting the Proof page. Your help was much appreciated. Jogabbeyjr 19:16, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

-Lumière user conduct RFC

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/-Lumière FeloniousMonk 23:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Seeding the Aiken story continues

Kate, can you take a look at this please. Next_Magazine_(New_York_City) - Maria202 16:28, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Kate, someone removed it yesterday for being POV. - Maria202 13:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Rugsnotbombs

Hi Katefan0,

You blocked Rugsnotbombs (talk · contribs) for a month on April 6. I would like to inform you that he/she is currently evading it as 68.71.99.45 (talk · contribs) --Khoikhoi 21:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

He seems to be up to the exact same behavior that you blocked him for in the first place. :( --Khoikhoi 06:53, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Clive Bull

KateFan0!! Help, the problems with Clive Bull are back. Minglex continues to add the new version with no consensus. Everyone is calling everyone else a sockpupet. Could you please fully protect the original version asap. Then we can put the new version if there is consensus. 66.90.73.96 12:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I amended the article to include living people. Could you PLEASE protect the page before things get like last time? 66.90.73.96 14:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Personal Computer Industry deletion

• What's the deal-- I was just mobilizing an effort on this very new stub and you've deleted it per WHAT GUIDELINE? Can't you read text? You also thereby create a redlink in a FAC article. Please undo your negligence. FrankB 22:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: Your very kind message

Like the irony--but amusing me isn't going to stop me from being pi%#%#d Off!

• Your answer, on my talk, cross posted here. Please answer here for thread so others can reference if need be.

Looked like a test article to me -- certainly not encyclopedic content. If you don't want to see a redlink off a potential FAC article, then remove the bracketing. Feel free to re-create the article, as long as it's substantially different than the old one, which was nothing more than a notice that the article would eventually be created. For articles that will eventually be created, it's best to work in a sandbox article in your userspace (i.e. User:Fabartus/Sandbox, then move it to the main space when it's ready. Not before. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 23:05, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

1. The article noted that it was a placeholder, i.e. a title, but also had correct categorization and stubbing with a link to the target body— effectively a sandbox or scratchpad start on that side of it. Examination will show you why: User:fabartus/Personal Computer Industry, which clearly does not belong in article space.
2. That and this contained an invitation for anyone that wanted to start without me, to do so. Your strict adherence to some law you've failed to cite makes me question your judgement and qualifications as an admin.
3. Shall I take this up to Tony Sidaways or such, or do you want to give people time to create content that you seem bound and determined to tear down without even the courtesy of an inquiry? That last says little good about you right there. Get your ego out of the way-- it's overblown.
4. I'd initially created as a redirect. Then revised as you should have seen by consulting history of it — which I'm confident you did not do — as it hides the cats, stubs, et al, which might interest others in the project.
5. Lastly, I see no reason to re-edit good articles that have been essentially reworked as far as I care or need to go.
6. As it is, I would have probably placed something in it this evening, but you have taken away that option and have wasted my time since. I suggest you take a long look at my contributions, esp. to diffs on article space before you go against this civil request.
7. I'm going to catch some dinner, starting with cooking it for the family. You do what you think is right, so long as you are correct — and so will I.

FrankB 23:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to recreate the article with a real article, not a link to something in your userspace (or if you want to make it a redirect to something else, that's fine too). If you feel I've been naughty then take it to WP:AN/I, otherwise please stop making empty threats. Either create a proper article, or don't. Simple, and entirely in your hands. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 23:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

• Belated added post (postmortum): I thought the above was condescending, and more 'tough- deal with it' in your face talk. (I percieve now that it can be read in a better light. FrankB 06:09, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Off the reservation we go

• Would you care to educate me what was a threat? Of course I can recreate it, but the point is you unilaterally without a single courteous act discarded something that took at least a few moments of a volunteers time lending their expertise and knowledge to this effort; moreover, it's patently clear you didn't bother to check what links here, the type of contribution I normally make nor to stop and think. Neither of those is an acceptable performance level in someone charged with managerial responsibility. If you had done some elementary checking (I trust you'll grant me it certainly wasn't something typical of a kid or a vandal?), you'd have noticed that at least five articles have been started by me in the last two weeks in a similar rough state, and all of them are now of decent quality. From my POV, your action was at best, rash. Perhaps if you contributed more time to expanding the encyclopedia and less time being an important egotistical busybody, you'd allow a little time for someone to get back to something when a system problem stopped all access for quite a while. Wow- three or four actual edits in a whole month. You're really hot stuff! Ha! FrankB 02:54, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I have no doubt that you created the article in good faith; regardless, the essential problem is that it was an article with no content save a link to your sandbox. Why is this a problem? Becuase it's not complete -- if a person hits the random article button and sees nothing more than a link to your sandbox article, it's potentially confusing to very new users, and could make Wikipedia look unprofessional. So it's better to not create articles in the namespace until they're "ready for prime time," so to speak. I'm genuinely sorry if my deletion seemed harsh, but I acted in what I thought was Wikipedia's best interest. There's really no need for this level of vitriol, and I hope you'll reconsider the tenor of your comments. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 03:11, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

• Belated added post (postmortum): Just on statistical grounds, the random page user (a rare bird I conjecture) would be likely to land over a million other articles. All articles have to start somewhere— it was not something I was going to let stand; the real problem here as I noted on SlimVirgin's talk page is the ultra-fast CsD timing allowed no further remedial action on my part— something I was starting to do before dinner, not all that long after creating that stub as is evidenced on my talk above your initial reply— I was writing that when I noticed the missing page, and generated my first post to you. One can only edit so many things at once and keep them all straight, I'd matters that needed closed, and then the system stopped taking edits for a while. I did a download, read two emails, and returned to find the article gone when I dealt with the first wikimessage. Doesn't do a lot for the equinamity to find admins attacking your work. FrankB 06:09, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
• Belated added post (postmortum): And another, your apology above didn't register. Belated Thanks, I missed that.FrankB 06:09, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

That oldtime vitrolic musak

If I seem vitrolic, you might take a few moments to diff contribs and see the normal tenor of my remarks to others, and take the hint as to how far out of line your bias towards (self-professed yet! How professional.) out of hand deletionism is. Now stop bugging me, I'm trying to add to the project, as you should be doing, and I have no time for a lightweight like yourself. btw- the thread is on your page. Obviously 12,000 'alledged' edits hasn't taught you to read and comprehend much of anything, including looking at time stamps before deleting things. Just say 'See answer on mine if it's a rush. Otherwise, I'll check, though your attitude hardly seems to make that worth my time. This is how it's done: "See my answer user talk:fabartus. (But don't bother, it's above too, in it's thread). FrankB 03:27, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure I don't need to say this, but this is really completely uncalled-for. Have you read Wikipedia's civility policies? And I'm a woman. Don't bother answering unless you can be cordial -- if you leave me more insulting messages, I'll simply revert them. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 03:35, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Frank, wow, please review NPA and CIV. The stub really wasn't appropriate for the main namespace and someone put a speedy delete tag on it, so Katefan0 did as it asked. I think you owe her an apology. It didn't take you long to create it (yes, I take your point about being a volunteer, but even so, and we all are), and it won't take you long to create a proper stub. Heck, I'll create one for you if it'll help to sort things out. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:34, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

WIKIHUGS. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 03:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll take the real ones, babe! · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 04:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

From me too, if you don't mind a hug from another lightweight. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:05, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely, hot stuff! =D · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 04:12, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Apologies, I got carried away

Okay- Apologies for a little venting, but I teach my kids when you point a finger of blame three fingers point back at you. I still feel the matter is one of courtesy... equate that with WP:CIV. If you're sure you're a gal and not a guy, I'm not going to argue with you— I'd gotten a male impression off your user page—no offense intended there. I apologize for using a blunt intrstument and such are needed for some guys in particular but I've also had a few queries on similar starts simply because someone had bothered to take a look at the contribs record, and as it happened when they rang the phone I was editing the problem away, as I would have today had time permitted and the page been in existance.

So additional apologies for letting a pile of frustrations unload on you. I recognize you were doing your job per se, but in my world view, there is Ok and professional grade. Professional grade would have said "Ok, I'll undelete it if you promise to turn it into a real stub." If you look back at our initial exchange, it should be clear that's what I wanted. It would also be 'PG' to have admitted the trigger was pulled a tad hastily and 'PG' to usually included an attempt to find out what was going on and plans for same. Obviously, you aren't a lightweight for doing your tasking as an admin, so I should have pulled that punch. I also teach my teens that others perceptions are their reality by which they'll judge you. My perceptions are that it was just another thing to cross off, and further that you were satisfied to say 'tough buddy', deal with it! Well, I responded in kind, whether that perception or any of them is the 'real' you, is generally moot. It's want presented. I don't look too great here either obviously, but I'm used to That! (Trust me <G>) Think about it, and I'll remember not to bite the admins acting in good faith. No matter how discourteous they may seem. We've all got a lot on our plate, and now I'm drained. Loosing a nights work is enough of a lessen not to repeat this fiasco. So be well. Now let's all get back to work, OK? Sincerely, FrankB 05:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

btw- I'd give you a wikihug too, but don't want slapped! <G> I'm not sure what got into me tonight, so again, sincere apologies. I'm not normally this grouchy! Best of all kinds— sounds like you have an exciting job. FrankB 05:32, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

• Post Sectionalizing and late adds (postmortum): The worse thing about this is it's 2:00 am, and somewhere in the bit bucket I lost a four point post to SlimVirgin that has just vanished, I look like a fool I am a fool, and I wish I'd never visited that darn Commodore 64 or the PC articles! Not a rewarding days struggle. Best regards, again, sincere apologies. FrankB 06:09, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

If I can trouble you for a little feedback

On burying the hatchet... re: Request some 'peer review' (Talkpage sections detailing concerns)] on new article: Arsenal of Democracy This post is being made Friday 14 April 2006 to a double handful (spam?) of admins & editors for some reactions, and advice (Peer Review) on this article, and it's remaining development, as I'd like to put it to bed ASAP. (Drop in's welcome too!) Your advice would be valuable and appreciated. Replies on talk link (above) indicated. Thanks! FrankB 18:08, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

• You go Girl! Thanks and likewise. I'm not usu. that grouchyFrankB 18:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Unprotection of Persian Gulf

Things are not exactly "cooled down" over there. The person asking for the unprotection just wanted to go in there and revert back to his favorite version. Aucaman^Talk 23:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

First of all, the user above was put on a revert parol [2], perhaps he is busy so he can't engage in an edit war thats why he wants to get it protected. Secondly, there is discussion in the talk page. -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 23:56, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

The article's been protected for an awfully long time. I'm going to leave it unprotected, but if edit warring starts again, just ask that it be protected again. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 00:18, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Special characters

I noticed that the delist script occasionally can't find and article because a character in what it is searching for, like "ł", ends up like "Å". If this happens to you, just tell me what the mix up was, and i'll add a .replace() corrector for it.Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 21:58, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

NOR

I responded on Slimvirgins talk page, but she has twice archived my responses.

Here is my response on NOR...I am not presently engaged at the NOR page even though smear has been spread by the above user..because I made a promise to another editor two wait it out two weeks. I keep my word, so I am doing nothing there at the moment. Below is again my response after another editors post agreeing with you in principle and the genesis of the problem...Now this user wishes to change the rules so that her edits in the future can't be challenged. How nice.

"If consensus forming was followed in the first place on April 10th by this user Slimvirigin, there wouldn't have been a problem. The point is really moot. Limiting this to admins is interesting but also wrong. Policy is not set in stone; it changes with Wikipedia and consensus. However it should not change on the whim of the few and changes should not occur without proper procedure. Procedure was not followed, people objected, they were called names and mistreated rather than have their objections treated in good faith. My proposal, for Arbcom to decide disputes or for a special committee to be electd by the community to decide them when they arise was removed by Slimvirgin to her archives. I think that is far better than allow any admin to edit policy changing it at their whim to suit their needs as this user here has be charged as doing by other editors. --Northmeister 22:48, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SlimVirgin/archive28" --Northmeister 23:14, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Aryan Nations Article

Can you please unlock the Aryan Nations article, I don't know if you just locked & forgot you did it or what but we need to fix all the fraudulent claims in this article. Or atleast remove the link to & anything in referrance to that Jonathan Williams fraud that was just deleted from the wikipedia website. Thanks 66.165.126.12

Wikipedia reports all verifiable information, whether this person's claims are fraudulent in your eyes or not is irrelevant. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 04:41, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Al-Ahbash

Katefan0, would you be willing to take a look at the Al-Ahbash article? I've never visited it before just now, and I know what they say about the "wrong version", but...well, take a look. It's a one-sided, mean-spirited religious rant against this sect, and un-WPish in the extreme, last posted by a sock as usual. If it's to be locked, I should think it ought to be in the previous version which did not contain the rant.Timothy Usher 00:18, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

May I take your kind attention to this Request for Check User which is pertinent in due course. McKhan

Please take a look at McKhan's most recent comments.Timothy Usher 01:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Timothy, Are you trying to get me banned? McKhan, I agree with your comment way back in the talk page, "However, Al-Ahbash / Habashies / AICP don't appreicate that nor the fact that if I will write that page according to my wishes, that page will NOT be somewhat NEUTRAL like the way Tearlach has written."Timothy Usher 02:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC) - McKhan

I NEVER wrote the complete version of Al-Ahbash. Tearlach wrote it. All I did is to include that table and I invited all the knowledgeable parties to get involved. Lets be honest and fair here. I suggested to you many times, on the Talk page of Al-Ahbash, that please go and educate yourself about the subject (in this case: Al-Ahbash) before contributing to Wikipedia Islam-related pages. Rather taking my suggestion seriously and sincerely, you are simply trying to offer your arguments which constitutes to POVs under Wikipedia guidelines. And on the top of that, you are trying to get me banned which is NOT only inappropriate but also uncivil as you are trying to force your POVs over the POVs who are directly affected and have some know-how of the subject. As far as, the knowledge of your wherabouts is concerned, It was listed on your own User Page sometime ago. It is perfectly normal and legitimate to see through the History of Wikipedia pages. How does it constitue to violaiton of Wikipedia guidelines? Even the Administrators do that. And last but not the least, as far as Al-Ahbash is concerned, Tearlach's version, a NEUTRAL, non-Muslim and non-Al-Ahbash party, continues to meet the Wikipedia NPOV guidelines - than - Al-Ahbash / Habashies' partially and promotionally written version which does NOT only lack balance but also elminates all the contrary elements. It is disservice and blatant violation of Wikipedia NPOV-guidelines to support a partially and promotionally written version. McKhan

Let's stop making so many accusations. Comment on article content, not on other editors' motivations. From a cursory glance there does appear to be some tendentious editing going on, and there are many statements that need sourcing, but I don't know enough about the subject to help. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 15:09, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Re:Skinmeister dilemma

Thanks for your help. I'm going to put a CheckUser request up. Btw, not sure if you've noticed but I heeded your advice and added the AIAV page to my watchlist. :) That's how I ran into this account. Not sure if you looked at the contribs but not only was this a sock but it was a highly abusive one. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 16:47, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi, about 86.128.222.36... it appears blocked in the block log, but it continues to edit. Did something go wrong? Melchoir 01:46, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Happy Spring celebration / Easter (as your preferences and beliefs dictate)

Here's hoping that if the bunny leaves you any beans they're this kind! ++Lar: t/c 15:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

User Randazzo56 strikes again

I wonder if you could assist me. User:Randazzo56 vandalized and personally attacked me on my User Page as seen here, shortly after I reverted his vandalism of Bill Ford's page [3]. He then proceded to add other vandalism elsewhere [4]. I think his behavior is exceptionally bad, and really needs to be investigated and possibly banned for a longer period. He is a habitual offender, and I see you have dealt with him (apparently as an administrator) previously. Warnings do not seem to have any effect on him - he just comes back with more of the same. I do not want to enter into a reversion and vandalism war with him - especially since he claims to have "Bipolar disorder" and is apparently proud of it. I am afraid to confront him because he is clearly dangerous, and a repeat offender. I was going to put up the standard anti vandalism warnings on his page, but this has not changed him in previous vandalisms of other User Pages and articles. I figured, based on his past behavior, he would simply continue to attack my User Page, and vandalize the articles I try to maintain, even more so. I have let some time pass to let the dust settle, and he seems to be "done" for the time being, but I do not want to engage him any more, and would prefer to never hear from him again. Is there anything you can do to stop this guy? He is obviouly trolling and looking for bites, and I was his latest victim. Articles he vandalized today: William Clay Ford, Jr., Talk:William Clay Ford, Jr., User:T-dot, Talk:Ford Pinto. I have stopped reverting his vandalism, to avoid confrontation and aggravating him to further vandalism. I left the latest vandalism alone, except for that on my User page. Thanks for anything you can do. --T-dot 23:47, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

John Cornsilk strikes again

Hey KateFan,

John C and his goons at [5]] are at it again, this time on Cherokee and United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians and content related to Joe Byrd (Cherokee Chief). His anonymous IP's were blocked for 24 hours by another admin, but they will be back in force and are not going to stop. Just to let you know. Also, John Cornsilks is not Waya Sahoni. Waya is a Cherokee associated with Jeff Merkey from Texas named Tom Archer. To be honest Waya made some excellent contributions and was run off WP for some pretty stupid reasons, but life goes on. Sint Holo 02:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

NLP sockpuppet theatre

Dmcdevit asked me to check these: Medius Maximus (new account) = JPLogan (NLP-involved) = DaveRight. There may be other throwaway socks involved, email me if you have a list. Unfortunately, they guy is on an ISP with fast-changing DHCP addresses, so blocking names won't stop the edits or throwaway socks; I strongly suggest blocking/reverting on characteristic behaviour as the only way to stop it (a netblock would likely involve a bit much collateral damage). The good news is that Flavius vanillus is a different person entirely. Yay. - David Gerard 08:13, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

User 66.254.235.11

I think you already saw, but it looks like another Brockemeyer sockpuppet. See the Miami Hurricanes Football page. AriGold 13:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Joe Sobran

Now that we have had a pretty long cooling-off period, would you mind unprotecting Joe Sobran? Dick Clark 17:08, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Done. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 17:13, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Dick Clark 17:16, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Skinmeister is back

Skinmeister seems to be causing more trouble under Skinmeister (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), his original account and a different IP 86.128.221.224 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). He is repetatively removing the advert tag from List of shock sites without discussion and labeling it as vandalism. Whether or not the article conforms to Wikipedia's policy of no advertisement/promotion is currently disputed, and the tag should stay there for now. - Conrad Devonshire 18:47, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppets of Waya sahoni

Since you asked for a checkuser against Waya, you might want to take a look at the current list of his sockpuppets being maintained by Friendly Neighbour. I was very surprised to see you express suspicion that Johnc1 was one of his sockpuppets and I very much doubt those suspicions. — MediaMangler 21:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

EX-Yugoslavian Edit War in Wikipedia

The only serbian user wich is traing to finde the slution is User:PANONIAN the rest is OR sock puppet OR Serbian Goverment Propaganda. You must talk with the ather administrators and burokrats--172.174.77.138 21:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Talk Ex-Yugoslavia

Talk:Kosovo#2 Administrator for Ex-Yugoslavien articels in Wikipedia--172.174.77.138 00:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Carthage unprotection request?

Why was the request to have Carthage moved from full to semi protection "cleaned up" here without answer or comment by you? - Vedexent 00:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

OK - I think it looks like an accidental erasure. I'll wait until hearing back from you before re-inserting it though - Vedexent 00:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

So it won't stay semi-protected long... what do you suggest for rabidly-reverting anonymous editors then? - Vedexent 00:39, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Quite content to "wait and see". The "editor in question" however tumbled their IP daily - some times in the middle of an edit spree. But we'll sit, wait, and see for now. Thank you for SP'ing it :) - Vedexent 00:44, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Amazing Racist RFPP

A while back, I listed Amazing Racist on the requests for page unprotection list. I did so on behalf of users posting at its talk page, who believe the subject is notable and want a chance at recreating it. I'm not sure I agree that the subject is notable, but it may be ([6] [7]), and the people requesting the unprotection seem to be acting in good faith.

Since you removed the request from the list without comment [8], I was wondering if you would elaborate on your reasoning. I think the people lobbying for unprotection deserve some response, even if that response is something along the lines of "proper Wikipedia process has determined the subject is non-notable, and nothing has changed to contradict that." Vslashg (talk) 00:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

WP:PP

Yeah, I know. I did about 80 unprotects over the course of two days, and so many weren't on WP:PP that I abandoned spending time on the list. When CAT:SEMI is smaller and more manageable, I usually try to remember. -Splash^talk 10:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

NLP Page

Hi there. I'm writing to request some guidance on the way the NLP page is being handled now.

For example, I see masses of references, but nothing in the way of evidence. That is to say, we get someone's version of what XYZ has said - not the original material. Having spoken to a few of the NLP critics, and searched around the Net, it appears to me that many of the references are not really accurate. Moreover, there is no evidence that the person whose work is being referred to actually knows much about NLP.

In some cases I have dealt directly with the people being referenced, and know for a fact that their knowledge of NLP is erroneous and/or incomplete. Like Mr Garry Platt, who has been attacking NLP on various chat groups, etc., around the Net for years, compiling lists of sites which supposedly provide rebuttals of NLP, but which have in fact included sites that deal with, for example, Natural Language Parsing! Mr Platt is a senior trainer with a business training company in the Midlands (UK), with little or no expertise in NLP, yet he and his lists are presented, by implication, as a reliable source.

If I find the original material cited in one of these references, and I believe that it is in fact invalid for whatever reason, what can I do to get the reference removed/edited/whatever?

Thanks for your help. Andrew Bradbury — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.97.96 (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia's threshold for inclusion in an article is verifiability, not truth. Meaning, if something is published in a reliable publication and makes an argument about something, we may quote that argument as long as it's properly attributed as someone's opinion/research and properly cited. We don't get into the business of verifying whether X, Y or Z's opinions are in fact true. Read Wikipedia's policy on verifiability, neutral point of view and reliable sources. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 13:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Help

<title>I don't understand</title> Your user name or IP address has been blocked from editing. You were blocked by Katefan0 for the following reason (see our blocking policy): "Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "Randazzo56". The reason given for Randazzo56's block is: "Vandalism of userpages, inflammatory rhetoric, and altering others' talk page comments"." Your IP address is 205.188.117.68.

ShmileyJones 23:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

8./-I think im still blocked, everytime i try to create the page User:ShmileyJones/monobook.css it gives me that message. do i need permissions to create pages or can i do it as a newly registered user?--ShmileyJones 23

• 37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

A recent edit on [Talk:Islamism]

User:User247, a.k.a. User:24.7.141.159/User:Hrana98/User:Deuterium, has taken another editor’s comments (so they surely were) [9]...and interpolated his own to alter the passage's intent [10]

Unsigned, naturally.

Normally, I'd have reverted, but seeing as you locked the page last time at his request, and that since then he's been carrying on about how I "censor comments by editors critical of my position" (even posting this on Slashdot with a helpful link to my user talk page), I thought I'd run this by you instead.Timothy Usher 00:40, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protection

After re-reading the semi-protection criteria, I'm not sure whether I should've requested protection for my userpage. So far the userpage has only been vandalised once, around April 11th (unlike the talk page, which was hit repeatedly). I assumed that the vandal would shift back to the userpage when the talk page was unavailable to them, and accordingly requested protection for that too. But in hindsight, it occurs to me that that might be considered pre-emption, since one old edit on its own wouldn't be enough to warrant semi-protection.

If it looks like pre-emption to you, I have no objection to unprotecting the userpage unless & until vandalism becomes an ongoing problem on that particular page. If it's OK to leave it protected, that would probably save the bother of re-protecting it in the near future; as of a couple of hours ago[11][12], the vandal's still attacking just about anything related to Xtra. Thanks --Calair 22:30, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Regarding 420 (cannabis culture)

As I stated in the RfP, I was the one who put the {{sprotect}} onto the page. Although I knew that the page would not actually be protected by the tag, I hoped it would deter vandals until the page was officially protected. I apologize if my hasty action was wrong. P.H. - Kyoukan, UASC 20:41, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

MOU is back

Help us at Islamism please? Kyaa the Catlord 22:09, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

John Charles McQuaid

Is there some logical reason why you rv my edits (w/o even reviewing them) on the John Charles McQuaid wikipage??

I hope this is not pre-emptory censorship!!

216.194.3.89 04:23, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

oh noes!!! · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 15:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Michael Moore

Judging by your message to me regarding your removal of my edits, it is clear that you did not read the page. The picture shown in the link says "Davison city limits - City of Michael Moore". Please check the link again and see for yourself: http://themayorofsimpleton.blogspot.com/2006/04/happy-birthday-michael-moore.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevin mckague (talk • contribs)

Yup, I misread it. I have answered at your talk page. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 15:40, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

South Dakota reproductive rights controversy

I'm curious to know what page you were looking at, but the correct page is this one. Thanks, hook 'em, and sorry, I have no cat to contribute at this time, just an old Sheltie. Struct 18:03, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

It is not content dispute

How can the altering of sourced numbers time and time and time again be content dispute. He dosent give any sources he often reduces Axis casulties but adds Soviet casulties. Also he often reduces the the axis starting strength of each battle and increases the Soviet one. This is vandalism or as wiki says it

1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources. 2. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be removed by any editor. 3. The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.

So it is not content dispute it is pure vandalism, and if you keep on doing it over and over and over again then you must be a vandal And it is not content dispute (Deng 20:31, 24 April 2006 (UTC))

This in no way fits the definition laid out in Wikipedia:Vandalism. Don't repost your request at AIV please. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 20:40, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh really let me ctrl C ctrl V for you

Sneaky vandalism Vandalism which is harder to spot. Adding misinformation, changing dates or making other sensible-appearing substitutions and typos (e.g. [1] which was reverted because the source material is easily available). (Deng 20:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC))

The difference is that "sneaky vandalism" has to be done in bad faith. FOr instance, someone has to be deliberately making information wrong. Kurt obviously believes his information is right, so it can't be considered vandalism. That you disagree with his information does not make it vandalism, it makes it a content dispute. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 20:45, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I dissagree because the numbers that have been placed are sourced and I my self can look at the sources and have looked at them. This is pure sneak vandalism just as he did at the battle of Kursk and many other articles. He changes numbers because he wants to maximize allied losses and minimize Axis one. Not once has he ever given a source but he continues to change numbers as he sees fit. Just because he "believes" something dosent make it right and if you would read what I posted a few lines up you would see that wiki demands

1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources.

2. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be removed by any editor.

3. The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.

And above all that he has been convicted of sneaky vandalism before. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_investigation/Archives/2006/04

It is not content dispute but pure and aboslut vandalism when you time and time again change numbers without any sources what so ever and it is spreading of misinformation

Also you make it sound that it is just between him and I when in fact almost all his edits get reverted when ever he has changed numbers just because he has felt like it. People almost always revert them back. So I say it again if you keep on changeing numbers just because you feel like it and you always minimize axis losses and maximize allied losses then it is vandalism and not content dispute.(Deng 20:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC))

Deng, open up a request for comment on Kurt if you do not like his behavior. Posting to AIAV is not the way to go. --Woohookitty^(meow) 21:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm very sorry that you disagree, but there's not much else to say here. It is not an issue of vandalism. It is an issue that you two cannot agree. Use Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, take your complaint to WP:AN/I or simply try to work things out. But you've exhausted this avenue. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 21:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok let me translate it for you how about I go in to articles that matter to you and change every september to januari and every october to july, wouldnt that be sneaky vandalism? But changeing numbers in military articles without stateing any sources what so ever that is just fine. So you are telling me it is just fine to change every january to march and every december to june as long as I believe it is correct. And if I do it in every article in wiki then it is still ok.? That is pure sneaky vandalism just as the constant altering of sourced numbers. (Deng 21:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC))

If it's the case that he is stalking you and harassing you in that manner, then it's an issue for WP:RFC or WP:RFAr, far beyond my simple rights as an administrator to adjudicate anyway. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 21:17, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

He isnt stalking or harrsing me he is changeing numbers in every ww2 article that he sees without stateing any sources and often MINIMIZING AXIS LOSSES AND MAXIMIZING ALLIED LOSSES have you even read what I have typed. I just made an example that you could understand. That is pure vandalism that is why I posted it on the vandalism page and that is why I am saying it is not content dispute. You removed it from the vandalism page because it was content despute and I have no shown why it isnt content dispute cant be content dispute and never was or never will be content dispute. It is pure and absolut vandalism and nothing else. And therfore it belongs on the vandalism page and can not be removed from the vandalism page by claming that it is content dispute(Deng 21:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC))

I have given you several options. You're free to pursue them or not. But please stop spamming my talk page. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 21:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

This is not spamming, look you removed it because you said it was content dispute I have explained how it is not content dispute. The only question that remains is if I post it again on the vandalism page will you remove it again and claim that it is content dispute. And if that is the case please explain why I am wrong in my reasoning. How in fact that altering numbers without any sources is content dispute and doing it in numerous articles is content dispute always without stateing any sources and always minimizing axis losses and maximizing allied losses. Explain to me if you will how my reasoning is flawed and how his constant acts of sneaky vandslim as said here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_investigation/Archives/2006/04 is in fact not sneaky vandalism but as you say it content dispute. I have through my so called "spam" messages on your page explained how it is vandalism and not content despute. Now you can "spam" my page if you so wish and explain where and how I am wrong. Because the only reason I posted on your page was to explain how it is not content dispute. (Deng 21:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC))

Yes, I will remove it again. Please use one of the other options I pointed you toward. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 21:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

But this is vandalism and vandalism should be posted on the vandalism page. You can not explain how this isnt vandalism because it is vandalism and rather then trying to explain the impossible how it is not vandalism you just say, well post it somewhere else. It would be much more straight forward if you would just say: "I dont like you so tuff". But you cant say that so you choose to ignore my rock solid reasoning and let a vandal contiune with his acts of vandalism. But I am quite certain that any person who is neutral and reads my reasoning would at the very least look into it. And thus my "spam fiesta" or "my proving of how it is not content dispute", which ever version you prefer, ends (Deng 22:08, 24 April 2006 (UTC))

Be civil and assume good faith. Not sure why you *always* assume the worst. It's never just a disagreement with you. It's always "bias". Most every request you've ever put on AIAV has been denied because of "content dispute". So what? All admins who patrol that page are biased? --Woohookitty^(meow) 22:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

It is very intressting that you choose to post when I am forbidden to respond on your own page and you force me to respond on another page where I might get blocked for "spamming". Also you totaly avoid my reasoning because you know you can not despute it. And do you really want me to show you how many times I have posted on the AIAV and who has removed it and why. If I were to do that you would just ignore the solid hard facts like you have ignored my sound and correct reasoning here. You can not respond to my reasoning so you choose to focus on other things and divert the attention from my reasoning. And let us look at the AIAV I only count 2 sperate requests that have been denied and both times my explinations were ignored. So you will ignore this fact as well. Face it you can not respond to my reasoning you can not debate it the only thing you do is block me. Or try and divert attention to something else. (Deng 23:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC))

You are not forbidden to respond on my talk page. And as for you being denied on AIAV, we have this, this, this, this, this, this. That's more than 2. It's 4 if you include just Kurt. 6 if you include your previous dispute with ksenon.

Is that the best you can do you are truely grasping at straws. Any person who looks in will see that the first 2 are just one post where I forgot to sign number 3 has nothing to do with anything the stalin pic had been changed to a commical version post 4 and 5 are the same one removed by this persons who owns this talk page and as anyone can see I have explained how it is not content despute and number 6 is the second seperate post on the vandal page by me. So you have proved my point I only made 2 seperate posts on the vandal page. (Deng 15:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC))

Do us a favor, Deng. Follow the proper channels. Calmly try to talk it out with Kurt, which you haven't really tried. All I see is yelling on both sides. If that doesn't work, go to WP:RfC and open a request for comment on Kurt. If you do not want to do that, then stop wasting admin's time with this. Why you continue to refuse to follow our most basic policies is a mystery to me. What I don't get is that you haven't really gotten anywhere with "your way". You go to AIAV and it's removed. You go to Requests for investigation and it's basically ignored...ditto checkuser...ditto AN/3RR. If you use the proper channels (request for comment or calmly talk it out with the user), you might get somewhere. But I think you refuse to do that because you don't want to make it look like you are actually listening to someone else. Instead, you claim that people are biased and are against you instead of facing the fact that you just aren't using the proper channels to resolve your dispute. I have 22,000 edits here. I've been through many many more disputes than you have. I know the process. Listen to me or kate or johntex. We aren't out to get you. We aren't making any of this up. Who would know our processes better? Experienced admins or you? I agree. Something should be done to stop this war between you and Kurt. But you've yet to use the proper channels. Start with CALMLY talking this out with him and then if that doesn't work, open an RfC. You are not going to get anywhere until you do those things. --Woohookitty^(meow) 06:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

PS. I do much more than just block you. I've discussed things with you over and over again. Please stop making it out like I'm out to get you. I'm not. --Woohookitty^(meow) 07:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

• Hello, Deng. Katefan0 said "I have given you several options. You're free to pursue them or not. But please stop spamming my talk page." As Woohookitty points out, WP:CIV and WP:AGF are policies. Continueing to post these accusations here is uncivil. I encourage you to take this dicussion to one of the forums she has mentioned. Johntex\^talk 01:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

re your message on my talkpage

you wrote: "I have denied your request to protect Lauren Slater -- for the second time in two days. There's a good consensus on the talk page, looks like to me. You'll have to swallow your pride and accept it. And please stop using venues like WP:RFP and WP:AN/I to try to get one over on someone with whom you're in a disagreement. That I have never collaborated with you on an article and yet know who you are is telling -- your actions are becoming very tiresome. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 18:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC)"

There is no consensus on the talkpage. FloNight has suggested she has no strong opinions either way. Thus she would accept my view without demur. The behaviour of SlimVirgin in deleting stuff she doesn't like, doing so without discussion, and even altering talkpages is well known. Your logic on collaboration with me is a complete non-sequitter. The standard of adminship on WP leaves a lot to be desired.Mccready 07:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Homey's unblock

Hey Katefan0. When you unblocked Homey and suggested he could still edit the Talk: page, did you think those comments would include violations of WP:CIVIL that make various negative insinuations about editors who differ with him? I'm suspecting that you didn't... Jayjg ^(talk) 02:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Whitman

A reincartion of SWJ now having been through an anger-management course, or no? I'm having difficulty telling, I mean he lacks a WikiPage (same as SWJ did), he has few edits outside this article, and is taking issue with the same facts (Whitman's drug use, McCoy's name being linked, pop culture references - and in the usual combative stance that it's the editors conspiring against him. (Let's form a cabal!). He even refers to us all by name, which just inches that eyebrow further to the top of my forehead. Anyways, he's not nearly as abraisive as SWJ was, that's why I was curiuos whether you had any thoughts on the matter. (I'll also point out when I headlined his complaints "SWJ Jr" he made quite a show of (feigning) misunderstanding, asking what on earth I meant...whether theat's a strike for or against, I don't know :P ) Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 17:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

New tool

When you go to a history page, there is now a "statistics" tab. It can give some useful numbers.Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 04:53, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Press cntrl F5, then go to any history page.Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 16:51, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

You should have a statistics tab...I'll look into later.Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 17:17, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

As Paul McCartney might say, "Help!"

...or was that one Lennon? Anyhow, you have the great misfortune of having been the only Wikipedian that I saw SWJ mention in relation to an attorney, so I figured I'd give you a heads up that I just got the following eMail:

Date Thu, 27 Apr 2006 14:52:25 GMT

To (me)

Subject Wikipedia e-mail

From "BradPatrick" <bpatrick@halcyon.com>

Contact me immediately. bpatrick at fowlerwhite.com

You know what this is about, and you know who I am.

Bradford A. Patrick, Esq.

Fowler White Boggs Banker

501 E. Kennedy Blvd.

Suite 1700

Tampa, FL 33602-5239

(813) 228-7411 main

(813) 222-3336 direct

(813) 229-8313 fax

bpatrick@fowlerwhite.com

I can only assume that this is related to the damned Charles Whitman thing, though I was a tad giggly over seeing Brad Patrick sign his name esquire, but not only using the Wikipedia "send an eMail to this user" feature, but sending it from Halcyon.com, his ISP. Since he includes an actual eMail address at the bottom, this just suggests that bpatrick@halcyon.com is his Wikipedia eMail address. Not to mention the fact he writes like a 12-year old having a playground fight (watch the eyebrow, it's inching further up my face!). Any chance you could do me a favour and deal with this sorry WPian for making legal threats?

I'm operating that by not replying, he won't even have my eMail address (not that Google isn't a top tool - but any other suggestions you can offer me would be appreciated. Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 16:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Just a note – it seems like you may be thinking otherwise, but, as far as I know, User:BradPatrick is the outside general counsel to the Wikimedia Foundation. (see Meta:User:BradPatrick) — Rebelguys2 ^talk 16:15, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Even more odd, guess I'll at least reply in that case. Thanks for the heads-up ^.^ Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 16:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea what halcyon.com is, but bpatrick at fowlerwhite dot com is definitely the address of the foundation's lawyer. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 16:48, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, tapped off a reply to the fowlerwhite address, at the very least it'll allow me to sidestep the possibility of someone impersonating him. Cheers. Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 19:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)