Misplaced Pages

User talk:Katefan0/5: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< User talk:Katefan0 Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 07:19, 17 September 2005 editBigDaddy777 (talk | contribs)1,362 edits →Ok KateFan, how would you handle this one?← Previous edit Latest revision as of 23:17, 24 June 2022 edit undoWOSlinkerBot (talk | contribs)Bots158,826 editsm Fix font tag lint errors 
Line 1: Line 1:
==Image Tagging for ]==
{|style="border:3px solid black;" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0" align="center"
Thanks for uploading ''']'''. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Misplaced Pages's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days.
|style="background:#99CCFF"|Please leave new messages at the BOTTOM of this page.
|}


For more information on using images, see the following pages:
'''Talk archive: ]'''
*]
*]


This is an automated notice by ]. For assistance on the image use policy, see ]. 10:43, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
== Welcome back ==


==Image Tagging for ]==
Hope you had a nice vacation. Now get back to work! Cheers, -] 19:45, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading ''']'''. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Misplaced Pages's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days.
:What he said. ]<sup>]</sup> 19:49, 9 August 2005 (UTC)


For more information on using images, see the following pages:
==Texas template==
*]
*]


This is an automated notice by ]. For assistance on the image use policy, see ]. 13:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
I appologize ahead for clogging up your talk page with this.


Recently, ] 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.


== 202.7.166.168 ==
This is the Texas template that has been active, before that user erased it, see below:
Removing this, I used the wrong IP address. The right one was banned and the other has been warned. Thanks!!! ] 05:50, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


== Your 3rr proposal ==
<!-- <br clear="all" />
{| class="toccolours" style="clear: both;"
!bgcolor="lightgrey"|]
! style="background: red" |<font size=+1>State of ]
|-
!bgcolor="lightgrey"|''']'''
|bgcolor="lightsteelblue" align="center" style="font-size:100%"|]
|-
!bgcolor="lightgrey"|]<br>''']'''
|align="center" style="font-size:90%"|]&nbsp;| ]&nbsp;| ]&nbsp;| ]&nbsp;| ]&nbsp;| ]&nbsp;| ] | ]&nbsp;| ]&nbsp;| ]&nbsp;| ]&nbsp;| ]&nbsp;| ]&nbsp;| ]&nbsp;| ]&nbsp;| ]&nbsp;| ]&nbsp;| ]</font>
|-
!bgcolor="lightgrey"|]<br>''']'''
|bgcolor="lightsteelblue" align="center" style="font-size:90%"|]&nbsp;| ]&nbsp;| ]–]&nbsp;| ]–]&nbsp;| ]–]&nbsp;| ]–]&nbsp;| ]&nbsp;| ]–]–]&nbsp;| ]&nbsp;| ]–]&nbsp;| ]–]–]&nbsp;| ]–]&nbsp;| ]&nbsp;| ]–]&nbsp;| ]&nbsp;| ]–]–]&nbsp;| ]&nbsp;| ]&nbsp;| ]&nbsp;| ]&nbsp;| ]–]&nbsp;| ]&nbsp;| ]&nbsp;| ]&nbsp;| ]&nbsp;| ]
|}
<br clear="all">


I fear it has come to that. I accept your proposal. ] 21:09, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
This is the template that ] (that he made) and has been reverting to, see below:


==natalie portman vandalism==
{| class="toccolours" style="clear: both;"
i'm really bad with this wikipedia stuff so i originally posted this in my own talk page:
! ]
! style="font-size: larger; background: #ccccff; padding-right: 80px;" | State of ]
|-
! ''']:'''
| ]
|-
! ''']:'''
| style="font-size: smaller;" |
]&nbsp;| ]&nbsp;| ]&nbsp;| ]&nbsp;| ]&nbsp;| ] | ]&nbsp;| ]&nbsp;| ]&nbsp;| ]&nbsp;| ]&nbsp;| ]&nbsp;| ]&nbsp;| ]&nbsp;| ]&nbsp;| ]&nbsp;| ]</font>
|-
! ''']:'''
| style="font-size: smaller;" |
]&nbsp;| ]&nbsp;| ]–]&nbsp;| ]–]&nbsp;| ]–]&nbsp;| ]–]&nbsp;| ]&nbsp;| ]–]–]&nbsp;| ]&nbsp;| ]–]&nbsp;| ]–]–]&nbsp;| ]–]&nbsp;| ]&nbsp;| ]–]&nbsp;| ]&nbsp;| ]–]–]&nbsp;| ]&nbsp;| ]&nbsp;| ]&nbsp;| ]&nbsp;| ]–]&nbsp;| ]&nbsp;| ]&nbsp;| ]&nbsp;| ]&nbsp;| ]
|} -->


''ok then, but personally i thought that repetitive paragraph that was added a while ago could ammount to vandalism. it was unessecary. perhaps in an article so subdivided it would be useful to have a longer introduction that just "israeli-american actress" but that one was unessecary and misleading.''
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 ]. Thank you for everyone's time. &ndash; ] 19:35, 10 August 2005 (UTC)


but i didn't just delete stuff, i'm not sure if you just assumed cos it was an anon edit, but i relocated the important stuff to the section on her beliefs. I know it's been discussed a bit on her talk page, but will anything actually be done about the repetition and innacuracies therein? <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->`
== Uncle Ed and Price-Anderson Mediation ==


==frank Hamer==
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.
]hi Kate,I understand your edits on the frank hamer, (you did a good job), but I hope and appeal to you to leave enough of the aftermath section so that people understand the horror of Hamer letting people cut her bloody hair and dress, and the fact that the posse was unhappy = and argued with him - on firing on Bonnie without warning. But whatever you decide, I accept. ] 21:40, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


]hi Kate, I just read your edits of the aftermath - '''very fair. Thank you. I think you did, in a very professional way, raise the issues which have become more and more public, while not doing so in a way that raises issues outside the biography of this man. Good job,''' and I hope my work helped at least a little...] 22:02, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
By , 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? ] 20:23, 10 August 2005 (UTC)


== This article needs more cats... ==
: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. ] 10:28, 11 August 2005 (UTC)


Sorry, but it needed to be said! ]+]: ]/] 02:04, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
==Crawfish==
:Lar, you're dead to me. ;) &middot; ]<sup>]</sup>/<small>]</small> 04:17, 25 February 2006 (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.--] 07:32, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
::Put up or shut up.. How many cats you got? We have 4 so I think I speak from personal experience. You ever get 4 cats to do the same thing at the same time? (Heck, you ever get 4 wikipedians to do the same thing at the same time?) 'nuff said. Grin. ]+]: ]/] 06:35, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


== Unprotection of Hyles-Anderson College==
:No worries. --] ] 13:44, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
I apologize for unprotecting the page the way I did. It was mistake to supersede the ongoing discussion. ] - ] 05:12, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


== Ayn Rand unprotect request ==
==RfC work==
Please take a look at the additional text I wrote at . ] 06:00, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
If I read all the policies under ], do you feel I have the insight and tact to participate in an RfC? ] 10:31, 11 August 2005 (UTC)


==University colors==
==Expenditures of ] by Industry==
With regards to a you've made, ] colors are indeed focal orange and white (this was new to me). Source: . ] 06:13, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Katefan0, do we have solid numbers for any of the below?
*I've done some research into this. Please see ]. ]\<sup>]</sup> 23:39, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
*?.? Billion Energy Effeciency measures (18 billion )
*4.3 Billion for Nuclear
*?.? Billion for ]
*?.? Billion Hydrogen
*?.? Billion Ethanol
*?.? Billion Oil and gas (2.1 billion )
*?.? Billion Freedom Car initiative (1.7 billion )
] 01:36, 12 August 2005 (UTC)


] HI John, long time, no talk to! I have working on the mongol empire series, and trying to wrap up Bonnie and Clyde, before beginning working on the Roman Republic wars. Kirill is a joy to work for. Kate and Cycle Pat, another two good folks, are working with me on B & C. How are you?] 00:58, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
:Thanks for your reply in ] - I'm going to have to get you a real barnstar! ] 13:24, 12 August 2005 (UTC)


== About the 9/11 report ==
==Going Camping==
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!). ] 13:24, 12 August 2005 (UTC)


did you check the accused's contributions? {{vandal|UF}} He did in fact vandalize the 9/11 article and related articles with conspiracy theories repeatedly. Sorry if you did in fact check it out. Please don't hurt me.--] 06:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
==Re:Energy Policy Act of 2005==
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. ] 20:00, 13 August 2005 (UTC)


== WNRI ==
: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! ] 17:29, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
== Texas history ==


Thank you for protecting ] against the vandalism of ]. He is indeed a WNRI employee (I've met him personally), but it is definitely obvious that he's removing inconvenient facts like the "18 watts nighttime power" bit. He was also trying to add fabrications, such as saying that the station belongs in the Providence market. That station does not cover Providence whatsoever.
Sorry about posting this on your userpage, but I'm afraid of starting a war on the Rangers talk page. Hope this is alright.


The reason he's removing inconvenient facts and fabricating new facts is because he wants the station to look good to advertisers. Having 18 watts of nighttime power and not covering Providence does look good to advertisers. What he fails to realize is that Misplaced Pages does not exist to help WNRI sell advertising. Thank you again! --] (]) 13:51, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
I glanced at your page and saw that you are a hedonist and Washington political reporter. Good for you.


The reason I am editing the article is because I don't want to get my ass fired! And why have you targeted me? Why have you not targeted other stations?
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 ]. 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.
--Jerry G. Sweeton Jr.--


==Bonnie and Clyde==
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.
] ] Hi Kate, Hi Pat, it is day 3 since Pig tagged the Bonnie and Clyde article, and Pat asked him to list his issues, on Pat's discussion page, and he refused, other than to misstate the Frank Hamer article - I did go back and worked hard on that article, and you then edited it appropriately (but Pig forgot that, as he always forgets the positive!) Since he refuses to identify his issues, as Pat asked, refuses to edit anything to correct these unnamed errors, and there is consensus among everyone else that it is a fair article, (other folks have made some nice edits 2 days ago!) may we remove the tag that a banned user put on there, and refused to justify on the talk page as required? hope you are well, and thanks...] 15:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


]Hi! if you were referring to the bonnie and clyde article, and have an edit that would help, PLEASE make it! Most of us really are anxious to achieve a consensus, you seem intelligent and informed, so if this is the article you were referring to, (not the one below!:)) then please make the edit, it would be MOST welcome. We truly want a consensus. Take care! And if I have the wrong article, forgive me!] 00:12, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
So, here goes. The article in its present form (and the official ]) shows the Rangers much in the same light that ']' 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.


==My thanks on the Jesus article==
Some sources and leads:
*], show #253, July 1, 2005.
*] 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


That edit war was getting old :/. The funny thing is, even though the wording you've locked in isn't as agreeable per consensus, something I don't think the other side realizes is that it's not increadibly important at all, so thanks for ending that war. Though it would of ended for today with one more revert, ah well. ]
''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.'')--] 11:03, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for unprotecting. I have imported the text produced at ], which includes the compromise and several improvements not involving Faucounau and the revert war. I am responsible for about a third of them, but the actual history is at the sandbox. Is a history merge worth doing? If so, some admin will have to do it. ] 22:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


==3RR for 80.90.xx at ]==
== Homosexuality ==


3RR report for 80.90.xx is done. See ]. ] 20:31, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Tell me, what is so special about homosexuality over ] that exempts it from being identified as a paraphilia? If homosexuality is a sexual orientation, then surely all ]s based on the characteristics of the attractile are sexual orientations?


== Clay Aiken == ==Research==
I can't think of a better way to get me to do good research and cite references. ]\<sup>]</sup> 17:06, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


== Oi ==
Don't worry--it isn't some coordinated campaign. A Toronto on-line paper copied the Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages works. And why am I not here reverting? Because I'm over there trying to explain how Misplaced Pages works, so maybe there'll be fewer problems over here. -] 22:24, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
]. Please comment on the talk page about it. I feel like it's just more work for us and we already have the editprotected template. And I just don't like piecemeal stuff like that. Can you imagine if we really don't have consensus when we make these changes? Anyway, your opinion is welcome as always. --]<sup>]</sup> 15:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


==We Did it!!!==
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:
] ]\<sup>]</sup> 23:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
*Geeze, would you clean-up your images here? I mean really. Seriously, I knew I could get your attention! Oh, and you might want to take something for that cough. See you at the train station, woo, woo ]\<sup>]</sup> 04:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
*I...am...dense...I just now remembered what you do as your day job (although that is not an accurate label since you are on here all day long anyways) and got the meaning of your post.
:<grovel> I certainly didn't mean *all* media </grovel>
:<supergrovel> I mean, there are a lot of really great people in the media that would do a really great job of covering this story </supergrovel>
:<extremegrovel> In fact, I know this one reporter who is really, really, neat and I hope she knows I think the world of her! </extremegrovel> ]\<sup>]</sup> 04:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
::*Sheesh. This guy has the nerve to come in here and flounce all over your talk page, and then insults your profession like that. Honestly. <bats Johntex away with a broom, squeezes Katefan0 to protect her from the savages>--] ] 23:21, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
:::I do have nerve! I make no apologies or denials about that! ]\<sup>]</sup> 00:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
::::Back, savages, back! <growls>--] ] 00:46, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
:::::You're just mad because '''I''' brought her the millionth article first. ]\<sup>]</sup> 01:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
::::::Stop pushing me, pal. I'll fight this out if I have to.--] ] 01:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
:::::::Look at all the pretty gold on that gleaming one million... mmmm... shiny... ]\<sup>]</sup> 01:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
::::::::Alright, look. We can settle this. You, shoo, go find another talk page. There, settled. Whee.--] ] 01:48, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


== RFPP ==
::I just wanted to let you know that on that Misplaced Pages thing - I was the anonymous editor that kept deleting the Gay reference.


What is with all of the people requesting unprotection for articles that are not even protected?''']'''<sup>]|]|]</font></sup> 22:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
::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.
:Good luck with WLH!:)''']'''<sup>]|]|]</font></sup> 23:01, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
::Hmmm...here we go .
::I didn't know that this was so much of a problem...its like when you turn over a seemingly innocent rock, and all of these bugs become visable and run everywhere...''']'''<sup>]|]|]</font></sup> 23:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


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


Hi. Thanks for your explaination. I assume, as an administrator, you have since protected the page then..? Cheers. --] 23:29, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
::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.


OK no problem. Thanks again. --] 23:44, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
::Thank You for following through on it when I didn't.


Just bringing to your attention the revert war that has re-started with the article ]. --] 06:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
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 Misplaced Pages further by the vehemence of the reaction to her edits. -] 01:38, 24 August 2005 (UTC)


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


Thanks for unlocking the page. The anonymous user who was reverting at will wrote nothing on the Talk page during the block, although he did attempt to have the previous version restored, and the page frozen again. Hopefully, he won't continue his antics. If he does, the page may need to be frozen again. But thanks again. ] 23:55, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
== Hubberts Peak ==


==] article==
Katefan0, would you consider looking over ] 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? ]
Thank you for the swift unprotect. ] 20:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


== LOST ==
:Pardon me for butting in - I saw the comment. The "]" 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, -] 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. ] 21:37, 25 August 2005 (UTC) Could you please add a comment to ] and show me where this consensus is? I don't see much discussion of where ] should redirect to. Most of the voting is about ] in normal case. Thanks. ] 21:48, 6 March 2006 (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. &middot; ]<sup>]</sup> 21:43, August 25, 2005 (UTC)


== ] ==


==Course of action==
Hi, the image ] 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! &ndash;] ] 07:26, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
Hello Katefan0. I noticed that Comaze's use of 3 different labels has led to other editors believing that he is 3 seperate editors. I also suspect that this was his intention. His actions also seem to me to be wholly uncooperative and conflict provoking. What do you suggest as a course of action? ATB ] 08:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


==Permission for Comaze to replace overly large text back to the article==
== ] ==
Hello again Katefan0. I would like to make a request on Comaze's behalf. Can he have permission to replace all his excessively large and numerous text moves back to the article? This will make it easier for editors to focus cooperatively, and clearly it may make it easier for mediators/mentors to work also. He was on the verge of placing half the article into the discussion page and to argue for its deletion. I believe giving him permission to cooperate will help enormously. ATB ] 09:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


:I have responded to Camridge on this matter eg. "''I'm willing to co-operate with you but I am not able to reinstate any "text moves" because we need to check the facts, and reach consensus first. Also this will be the job of the mentors. I'm sure if you reword some of the propose for NPOV - the mentors will reinstating the text. If you want to work on one or two lines, please let me know what 2 lines you would like to work on so we can work together on this. --] 06:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)''" --] 09:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ]. Do your research. -] 08:34, August 26, 2005 (UTC)


::Hello again Katefan0. Comaze,C,SC, has taken many and large amounts of text, and from diverse places on the article. In doing so, it makes it extremely hard for other editors to take parts from the article, and to make a proposal, as the article has been so chopped about and because Comaze has claimed them for deletion already. In order for other editors to have a fair chance of taking texts from the article, Comaze,C,SC, needs permission to reinstate those excessive, and diverse text moves. Additionally, Comaze's text moves are almost entirely about arguing for the deletion of facts that have been misattributed or have no page numbers (usually due to reversion wars). We all know that Arbcom wants those details added, and we have already stated that commitment. I know we all wish to move forward from this rather awkward situation. ATB ] 10:16, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
:Have a great time on the volcano. Take lots of pictures, but remember - no original research! -] 03:59, August 28, 2005 (UTC)


== Welcome back ==


I have ], cheers. ] 17:35, September 5, 2005 (UTC)


==Your blocking of me was unjustified==
== Texas annexation: 4 vs 5 ==


It says on the blocking page instructions to first take up ones complaints with the admin who blocked.
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. ] 21:33, 6 September 2005 (UTC)


You blocked me for these reasons
== Why We're All Here? ==


which continues a pattern of attacking, incivility and disruptive tendentious behavior. Please reconsider the way you are conducting yourself on Misplaced Pages. &middot; ]<sup>]</sup>/<small>]</small> 23:31, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Lost cause. It's not why he's here. ] - ] 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. ] 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. &middot; ]<sup>]</sup> 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. ] - ] 17:39, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
:::QED. ] - ] 18:02, 7 September 2005 (UTC)


So we have a few diffrent items here
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.


-continues a pattern of attacking
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. ] 18:28, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
-incivility and disruptive tendentious behavior


So lets start with the first thing which is the page you refer to, that version only exsisted for a few houers before I changed it.
: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 ] 04:18, 8 September 2005 (UTC)


On the blocking page you listed a none exsisting page, Why is that?
==RFA==
By the looks of things, you will soon become one of Misplaced Pages's newest Admin. I just wanted to be the first one to congratulate you &mdash; so congrats it was well deserved :) </sup/><p style="font-family: Bradley Hand ITC, Comic Sans MS;"><font size=2.5>'''] '''</sup>''' ]'''{{flagicon|Jamaica}} ''']</sup></span></span></span></p>


-continues a pattern of attacking, show me the patern . Just because you say something dosent make it true.
== Unibroue ==


-incivility and disruptive tendentious behavior, show it. Just because you say something dosent make it true.
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 ] at least? Hm. ] 08:02, 8 September 2005 (UTC)


And the finally you said the block would last for 72 houers it lasted for longer. Why is that?
:Check it: ]. 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. ] 11:52, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
(] 07:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC))


== Looting ==


And dont remove things from my talk page without tellig me.
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. ]


(] 11:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC))
== ] ==


As an occasional editor of ], you may be interested in also watching ]. 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, -] 19:24, September 12, 2005 (UTC)


A week has passed and still no reply from you (] 19:31, 16 March 2006 (UTC))
== Congratulations ==


== Looking for articles to work on? ==
You're an admin! Check out the ] if you want. ] Co., ] 19:32, 12 September 2005 (UTC)


Hello, Katefan0. I'm ], a ] that helps new members contribute to Misplaced Pages. You might like to edit these ] based on things you've edited in the past. Check it out -- I hope you find it useful.
:'''Congrats'''. --]''']''' 20:28, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
Also, please tell me how to make suggestions better and whether you'd be okay with suggestions put directly on your talk page. ] Thanks. -- ] 15:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


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


I replaced ] on this page pending some clarification. The protect log shows the protect reason as "edit war," only, and the talk wasn't clear about the ] authority of the block, am I missing a post somewhere?
:Congrats. I didn't even know you where up, but I would have voted for you. ] 21:39, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
:Thanks for the link to ] reagrding this. I replied to your comment on Danny's page as well, my unprotect was done in good faith, and it's status freeze under WP:OFFICE policy was not very clear, I took the message from Jimbo on the talk pages to mean that this should be semiprotected outside of the ] guidelines, not indefinantly. Perhaps a talk page template should be used for protections placed under this policy? ] ]<span style="color:#888888;">/</span>] 03:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


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


As someone who just joined the fray in the Clay Aiken gay/not-gay fangirl/boy war just wanted to say I read through the archives of the talkpage and I have immense humor for how you stuck it out. Go girl. ;) - ] 01:38, 10 March 2006 (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!* - ] <small><font color="green">]</font color></small> 22:19, 12 September 2005 (UTC)


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


Can you close out the discussion on ], since the question is now moot? Thanks. ] 04:09, 10 March 2006 (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 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 ]. ]·] 22:25, September 12, 2005 (UTC)


==Oklahoma Infighting==
:Congrats. ] 22:28, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
This is a great diff with a great edit summary. ]\<sup>]</sup> 08:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


==Impersonation==
: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. ] ] ] 22:29, 12 September 2005 (UTC)


Be warned, the user ] impersonated you on my talk page! -- ]]<sup>]</sup> 08:23, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
:You're welcome, and congratulations! May you wear it well. ]|] 22:30, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
:I blocked him for 3 hours after a couple of warnings by others. --]<sup>]</sup> 08:54, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


== Training ==
:Congratulations! ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 22:40, 12 September 2005 (UTC)


I'd like to to teach you some of my malicious rollback strategies, but I suspect you have the wrong personality style. One recent editor has said of "the Will BeBack character" that:
:'''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!! - ] 00:49, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
*''Personality style indicates that he is the wrong type to have any kind of power over another on a wiki, he's a real martinet and quite a loose cannon not really improving Misplaced Pages with his admin powers--instead his pattern of behavior is reversion to incompleteness with a personal bias on where he does this. ''
Sorry Kate, loose cannon martinets are born, not made. However I will be conducting a class on how to "defactualize" articles through cloaked micro-edits. It's for unprofessional and arbitrary admins who want to be promoted to rouge admins. -] 02:28, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


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


==Image copyright problem with ]==
:You're welcome - but the true Thank You is to you for helping make Misplaced Pages a better place. Good luck with your new <strike>power</strike> responsibility! ]\<sup>]</sup> 04:33, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading ]. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The ] is very careful about the images included in ] because of ] (see Misplaced Pages's ]).


The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Misplaced Pages are ], ], and ]. Find the appropriate template in ] and place it on the image page like this: <code>{&#123;TemplateName}}</code>.
:Congratulations on your overwhelming support. However Misplaced Pages is the real winner- we're lucky to have you as a participant. Thanks for taking on additional responsibilities. -] 08:25, 13 September 2005 (UTC)


Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you. ] 05:45, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
: At the risk of sounding repetitive, I would like to congratulate you on receiving your adminship! It was about time. :D ] 22:26, 14 September 2005 (UTC)


:I went ahead and put the pd-self tag on the image. If that's wrong kate, change it. :) --]<sup>]</sup> 07:10, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
:Congrats Katefan0! I'm sure even buzzed, you will do a great job. <font face="Comic Sans MS"><font color="FF0000">]</font> <sup><font face="Comic Sans MS"><font color=#1F85FF>]</font></sup></Sup> ] 20:12, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
::Yes, thanks. Good grief, I tagged it with gfdl-self; what else is needed? &middot; ]<sup>]</sup>/<small>]</small> 14:32, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
:::Maybe that tag got lost? When I saw it (and yes, you are cute, but is that cat hair in the corner of the picture?? Eww!) it had none. ]+]: ]/] 15:52, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


== Cabal == == Filibustering ==


Hi Katefan0. Thanks for mediating the NLP page. It looks like a tough job. I hope you don't mind me sharing that I'm feeling frustrated with progress. I thought it might be useful for you to know, as a mediator,
]
Welcome to the cabal. Here is your cabal toaster. --<span style="color:red">]<b> <sup>(])</sup></b></span> 22:48, September 12, 2005 (UTC)


I've expressed about progress that I'd like you to be aware of. I think a game of ]ing is unfolding. I'm asserting that some editors are creating deliberately incredulous objections to stock-standard NLP material and using only a vague pretense of staying on topic to keep raising new objections. Now it's got to the stage that editors feel they can comfortably start positing as sources for the article, I really have to start drawing the line for myself and how much time I'm prepared to waste. I'm honestly trying to ''assume good faith'', but I'm also trying to ''contribute positively'' to the progress of the discussion.
: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. ;) ]]] (]) 22:51, 12 September 2005 (UTC)


I'd like to feel reassured that the workshop can become productive for all contributors. I've liked the pro-forma discussion mechanisms and would like to see more, and tighter versions of these pro-forma discussions. I'm not sure if there's anything a mediator can do to help the discussions progress without fallacy, so I have no specific expectations.
== Be honest ==


Be well and happy. &#2384; <small><i>] ]</i></small> 06:10, 12 March 2006 (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 ] article a waste of time? --] 22:52, 12 September 2005 (UTC)


== Drunk Admins == ==Croatia==
Thank you for your reply in ]. You were right, I was being inconsiderate. Since then, both sides have presented their arguments in a reasonably civilized way, but there's still no consensus. Moreover, the exact same issue appeared in ] and could spread even further. Therefore, I have a request. Please, would you accept to act as an independent third party mediator? --] 19:50, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


==About the Ecuadorian-Peruvian dispute==
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. ]]<sup><font color=FF8247>]</font></sup> 23:05, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
Hello there! But I believe that the option of preventing editions to that article is not a good idea. The article has one of the two (and more) versions that are disputed, so I believe that it's better if you could revert it to a version that is way before the whole rv war started.
Also, someone already put some words in my mouth, claiming that I doubt of your impartiality or wisdom. Rest assure that I'm not the one that uses that words. Another ways to solve this conflict must be use in order to avoid creating a much more bigger problem than the one that we already have over there. So far, a number of wikipedist are also attempting to achieve compromise, and I'm confident that we will reach a conclusion. Thanks. ] 04:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


== Harry Potter == ==Re: Civility==


While I can understand the need for politeness in Misplaced Pages debates, throughout this I have been the subject of attack by Claymate fans, first by accusations that I was being paid for my interest by John Paulus/Michael Lucas, then that I have some ridiculous quest to destroy the reputations of celebrities worldwide by proving they're all homosexual. My personal website, which has no bearing on the debate, has been brought in and quoted several times without my consent or approval. I had to restrict comments on my site because no sooner did it appear in the discussion than I got thirty angry comments from Clay Aiken fans attacking me personally. However, I don't bring this up to complain, because unlike others involved I am actually an adult and capable of taking criticism, personal or otherwise. But please don't act as if I'm the only one frustrated and upset. My edits on the talk pages have been deleted, moved to the bottom of the page, rearranged so no one would notice them. I'm sarcastic, yes, but I'm always civil. My "you must be blind" remark was because it's clear from the flash poll the number of votes on each side. Thanks. - ] 18:49, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Ah, yes. Did you like the last book? Me, I have some issues, but I want to know what you think. ]''']''' 23:08, 12 September 2005 (UTC)


:: On at least two occurances the anon IP address who's most involved in the debate quoted and linked to my personal website in an attempt to "prove" my ulterior motive in this is to out all celebrities in existance. I can't figure out how to link directly to her comments but they're towards the bottom of the "Discussion on whether or not the John Paulus story should be included" section. - ] 19:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
{{spoiler}}


::: I appreciate it. Thanks. - ] 19:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
: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 &mdash; I had an exam in Spanish today and I'm still chanting the different forms of the verb ''ser'' in my head. Cheers, ]''']''' 23:34, 15 September 2005 (UTC)


== Popups tool == == Charles Buk article ==


I've agreed to remove the link. The reason I got so worked up on the article is that ] has a lot of rabid fans who have made it difficult over the months to keep the article NPOV. I understand that you didn't mean anything by the smell test (thanks for saying that) but it was irritating that you came into the discussion without mentioning that justfred and an anonymous IP were making nasty accusations. As a result of this and your comment, you seemed to join them in piling on me. Still, I have no desire to make an enemy so lets put this behind us and move on. Also, my apologies for any assumptions I made about you.--] 01:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
{{User:Lupin/popups-ad|position=an admin}} ]|]|] 23:54, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
:Thanks for the nice message. Yes, everything is cool. I'll drop you a line in a week or two when I get time to write that critical section. Best,--] 14:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


==Hook it over here==
== ] ==
]<br>
and<br>
]<br>
We need you!!! ]\<sup>]</sup> 03:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


== No kidding... ==
Hi again! I just took the liberty of editing the ] page. I hope you don't mind... but hey, we have a new Texan admin after all ;) *Hugs* - ] <small><font color="green">]</font color></small> 15:45, 14 September 2005 (UTC)


] --] 21:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
== How I became a Wikipedian ==


== Ha! ==
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. ] 21:53, 14 September 2005 (UTC)


I'm quick on the tri..., er, watchlist. :) &mdash; ''']''' ] 22:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
===]===


== Many thanks. ==
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.


You have my thanks for banning the vandal/attacker that was just now going after me, calling me everything under the sun.
Ashida Kim


I know it's your job and all, but just some extra thanks for doing it.
===You've got mail from...Big Daddy===


<gallery>
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... ] 04:55, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
Image:Choco_chip_cookie.jpg|A cookie for you.
</gallery>


- ] ] ] <b style="font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:navy; font-size:small;">]]] <sup>(] • ] • )</sup></b> 23:14, 16 March 2006 (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 Misplaced Pages - 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. -- ] ] 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 Misplaced Pages!" 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. ] 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. -- ] ] 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.] 06:08, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

:Yes, please look and see if you don't agree. -- ] ] 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 ]? 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. &middot; ]<sup>]</sup> 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...] 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 Misplaced Pages 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. ] - ] 19:25, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

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

===Ok KateFan, how would you handle this one?===

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,

] 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 Misplaced Pages 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? ] 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"?--] 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. I was especially disappointed to be falsely accused of 'gaming the system.' That is an unconscionable slur against me and, in my view, the worst of all the personal attacks I've had to endure (and there's some stiff competition in this category!)] 23:15, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 23:17, 24 June 2022

Image Tagging for Image:Cornisgreen1979.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Cornisgreen1979.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Misplaced Pages's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see User talk:Carnildo/images. 10:43, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging for Image:Cornisgreen1945.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Cornisgreen1945.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Misplaced Pages's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see User talk:Carnildo/images. 13:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


202.7.166.168

Removing this, I used the wrong IP address. The right one was banned and the other has been warned. Thanks!!! Kntrabssi 05:50, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Your 3rr proposal

I fear it has come to that. I accept your proposal. William M. Connolley 21:09, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

natalie portman vandalism

i'm really bad with this wikipedia stuff so i originally posted this in my own talk page:

ok then, but personally i thought that repetitive paragraph that was added a while ago could ammount to vandalism. it was unessecary. perhaps in an article so subdivided it would be useful to have a longer introduction that just "israeli-american actress" but that one was unessecary and misleading.

but i didn't just delete stuff, i'm not sure if you just assumed cos it was an anon edit, but i relocated the important stuff to the section on her beliefs. I know it's been discussed a bit on her talk page, but will anything actually be done about the repetition and innacuracies therein? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.122.23.101 (talk • contribs) `

frank Hamer

User:Katefan0hi Kate,I understand your edits on the frank hamer, (you did a good job), but I hope and appeal to you to leave enough of the aftermath section so that people understand the horror of Hamer letting people cut her bloody hair and dress, and the fact that the posse was unhappy = and argued with him - on firing on Bonnie without warning. But whatever you decide, I accept. old windy bear 21:40, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Katefan0hi Kate, I just read your edits of the aftermath - very fair. Thank you. I think you did, in a very professional way, raise the issues which have become more and more public, while not doing so in a way that raises issues outside the biography of this man. Good job, and I hope my work helped at least a little...old windy bear 22:02, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

This article needs more cats...

Sorry, but it needed to be said! ++Lar: t/c 02:04, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Lar, you're dead to me.  ;) · Katefan0/poll 04:17, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Put up or shut up.. How many cats you got? We have 4 so I think I speak from personal experience. You ever get 4 cats to do the same thing at the same time? (Heck, you ever get 4 wikipedians to do the same thing at the same time?) 'nuff said. Grin. ++Lar: t/c 06:35, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Unprotection of Hyles-Anderson College

I apologize for unprotecting the page the way I did. It was mistake to supersede the ongoing discussion. Superm401 - Talk 05:12, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Ayn Rand unprotect request

Please take a look at the additional text I wrote at . Alienus 06:00, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

University colors

With regards to a recent revert you've made, The University's colors are indeed focal orange and white (this was new to me). Source: Traditions of Longhorn Band, Orange and White. jareha 06:13, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Johntex HI John, long time, no talk to! I have working on the mongol empire series, and trying to wrap up Bonnie and Clyde, before beginning working on the Roman Republic wars. Kirill is a joy to work for. Kate and Cycle Pat, another two good folks, are working with me on B & C. How are you?old windy bear 00:58, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

About the 9/11 report

did you check the accused's contributions? UF (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) He did in fact vandalize the 9/11 article and related articles with conspiracy theories repeatedly. Sorry if you did in fact check it out. Please don't hurt me.--Vercalos 06:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

WNRI

Thank you for protecting WNRI against the vandalism of User:J.sweeton@wnri.com. He is indeed a WNRI employee (I've met him personally), but it is definitely obvious that he's removing inconvenient facts like the "18 watts nighttime power" bit. He was also trying to add fabrications, such as saying that the station belongs in the Providence market. That station does not cover Providence whatsoever.

The reason he's removing inconvenient facts and fabricating new facts is because he wants the station to look good to advertisers. Having 18 watts of nighttime power and not covering Providence does look good to advertisers. What he fails to realize is that Misplaced Pages does not exist to help WNRI sell advertising. Thank you again! --Analogdemon (talk) 13:51, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

The reason I am editing the article is because I don't want to get my ass fired! And why have you targeted me? Why have you not targeted other stations? --Jerry G. Sweeton Jr.--

Bonnie and Clyde

User:Katefan0 User: CyclePat Hi Kate, Hi Pat, it is day 3 since Pig tagged the Bonnie and Clyde article, and Pat asked him to list his issues, on Pat's discussion page, and he refused, other than to misstate the Frank Hamer article - I did go back and worked hard on that article, and you then edited it appropriately (but Pig forgot that, as he always forgets the positive!) Since he refuses to identify his issues, as Pat asked, refuses to edit anything to correct these unnamed errors, and there is consensus among everyone else that it is a fair article, (other folks have made some nice edits 2 days ago!) may we remove the tag that a banned user put on there, and refused to justify on the talk page as required? hope you are well, and thanks...old windy bear 15:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

HomestarmyHi! if you were referring to the bonnie and clyde article, and have an edit that would help, PLEASE make it! Most of us really are anxious to achieve a consensus, you seem intelligent and informed, so if this is the article you were referring to, (not the one below!:)) then please make the edit, it would be MOST welcome. We truly want a consensus. Take care! And if I have the wrong article, forgive me!old windy bear 00:12, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

My thanks on the Jesus article

That edit war was getting old :/. The funny thing is, even though the wording you've locked in isn't as agreeable per consensus, something I don't think the other side realizes is that it's not increadibly important at all, so thanks for ending that war. Though it would of ended for today with one more revert, ah well. Homestarmy

Phaistos Disc

Thanks for unprotecting. I have imported the text produced at User:Kadmos/sandbox, which includes the compromise and several improvements not involving Faucounau and the revert war. I am responsible for about a third of them, but the actual history is at the sandbox. Is a history merge worth doing? If so, some admin will have to do it. Septentrionalis 22:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

3RR for 80.90.xx at Phaistos Disc

3RR report for 80.90.xx is done. See Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. Kadmos 20:31, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Research

I can't think of a better way to get me to do good research and cite references. Johntex\ 17:06, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Oi

Oi. Please comment on the talk page about it. I feel like it's just more work for us and we already have the editprotected template. And I just don't like piecemeal stuff like that. Can you imagine if we really don't have consensus when we make these changes? Anyway, your opinion is welcome as always. --Woohookitty 15:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

We Did it!!!

Johntex\ 23:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Geeze, would you clean-up your images here? I mean really. Seriously, I knew I could get your attention! Oh, and you might want to take something for that cough. See you at the train station, woo, woo Johntex\ 04:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I...am...dense...I just now remembered what you do as your day job (although that is not an accurate label since you are on here all day long anyways) and got the meaning of your post.
<grovel> I certainly didn't mean *all* media </grovel>
<supergrovel> I mean, there are a lot of really great people in the media that would do a really great job of covering this story </supergrovel>
<extremegrovel> In fact, I know this one reporter who is really, really, neat and I hope she knows I think the world of her! </extremegrovel> Johntex\ 04:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Sheesh. This guy has the nerve to come in here and flounce all over your talk page, and then insults your profession like that. Honestly. <bats Johntex away with a broom, squeezes Katefan0 to protect her from the savages>--Sean Black 23:21, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I do have nerve! I make no apologies or denials about that! Johntex\ 00:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Back, savages, back! <growls>--Sean Black 00:46, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
You're just mad because I brought her the millionth article first. Johntex\ 01:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Stop pushing me, pal. I'll fight this out if I have to.--Sean Black 01:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Look at all the pretty gold on that gleaming one million... mmmm... shiny... Johntex\ 01:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Alright, look. We can settle this. You, shoo, go find another talk page. There, settled. Whee.--Sean Black 01:48, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

RFPP

What is with all of the people requesting unprotection for articles that are not even protected?Voice-of-All 22:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Good luck with WLH!:)Voice-of-All 23:01, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm...here we go .
I didn't know that this was so much of a problem...its like when you turn over a seemingly innocent rock, and all of these bugs become visable and run everywhere...Voice-of-All 23:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Protected page

Hi. Thanks for your explaination. I assume, as an administrator, you have since protected the page then..? Cheers. --Mal 23:29, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

OK no problem. Thanks again. --Mal 23:44, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Just bringing to your attention the revert war that has re-started with the article Anti-French sentiment in the United_States. --Mal 06:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Mark Levin

Thanks for unlocking the page. The anonymous user who was reverting at will wrote nothing on the Talk page during the block, although he did attempt to have the previous version restored, and the page frozen again. Hopefully, he won't continue his antics. If he does, the page may need to be frozen again. But thanks again. Eleemosynary 23:55, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Jesus article

Thank you for the swift unprotect. Arch O. La 20:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

LOST

Could you please add a comment to Talk:Lost and show me where this consensus is? I don't see much discussion of where LOST should redirect to. Most of the voting is about Lost in normal case. Thanks. Rhobite 21:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


Course of action

Hello Katefan0. I noticed that Comaze's use of 3 different labels has led to other editors believing that he is 3 seperate editors. I also suspect that this was his intention. His actions also seem to me to be wholly uncooperative and conflict provoking. What do you suggest as a course of action? ATB Camridge 08:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Permission for Comaze to replace overly large text back to the article

Hello again Katefan0. I would like to make a request on Comaze's behalf. Can he have permission to replace all his excessively large and numerous text moves back to the article? This will make it easier for editors to focus cooperatively, and clearly it may make it easier for mediators/mentors to work also. He was on the verge of placing half the article into the discussion page and to argue for its deletion. I believe giving him permission to cooperate will help enormously. ATB Camridge 09:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I have responded to Camridge on this matter eg. "I'm willing to co-operate with you but I am not able to reinstate any "text moves" because we need to check the facts, and reach consensus first. Also this will be the job of the mentors. I'm sure if you reword some of the propose for NPOV - the mentors will reinstating the text. If you want to work on one or two lines, please let me know what 2 lines you would like to work on so we can work together on this. --'c' 06:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)" --'c' 09:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Hello again Katefan0. Comaze,C,SC, has taken many and large amounts of text, and from diverse places on the article. In doing so, it makes it extremely hard for other editors to take parts from the article, and to make a proposal, as the article has been so chopped about and because Comaze has claimed them for deletion already. In order for other editors to have a fair chance of taking texts from the article, Comaze,C,SC, needs permission to reinstate those excessive, and diverse text moves. Additionally, Comaze's text moves are almost entirely about arguing for the deletion of facts that have been misattributed or have no page numbers (usually due to reversion wars). We all know that Arbcom wants those details added, and we have already stated that commitment. I know we all wish to move forward from this rather awkward situation. ATB Camridge 10:16, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


Your blocking of me was unjustified

It says on the blocking page instructions to first take up ones complaints with the admin who blocked.

You blocked me for these reasons

which continues a pattern of attacking, incivility and disruptive tendentious behavior. Please reconsider the way you are conducting yourself on Misplaced Pages. · Katefan0/poll 23:31, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


So we have a few diffrent items here

-continues a pattern of attacking -incivility and disruptive tendentious behavior

So lets start with the first thing which is the page you refer to, that version only exsisted for a few houers before I changed it.

On the blocking page you listed a none exsisting page, Why is that?

-continues a pattern of attacking, show me the patern . Just because you say something dosent make it true.

-incivility and disruptive tendentious behavior, show it. Just because you say something dosent make it true.


And the finally you said the block would last for 72 houers it lasted for longer. Why is that? (Deng 07:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC))


And dont remove things from my talk page without tellig me.

(Deng 11:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC))


A week has passed and still no reply from you (Deng 19:31, 16 March 2006 (UTC))

Looking for articles to work on?

Hello, Katefan0. I'm SuggestBot, a Misplaced Pages bot that helps new members contribute to Misplaced Pages. You might like to edit these articles I picked for you based on things you've edited in the past. Check it out -- I hope you find it useful. Also, please tell me how to make suggestions better and whether you'd be okay with suggestions put directly on your talk page. Leave SuggestBot feedback here. Thanks. -- SuggestBot 15:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Pauley Perrette

I replaced SEMI on this page pending some clarification. The protect log shows the protect reason as "edit war," only, and the talk wasn't clear about the OFFICE authority of the block, am I missing a post somewhere?

Thanks for the link to PP reagrding this. I replied to your comment on Danny's page as well, my unprotect was done in good faith, and it's status freeze under WP:OFFICE policy was not very clear, I took the message from Jimbo on the talk pages to mean that this should be semiprotected outside of the WP:SEMI guidelines, not indefinantly. Perhaps a talk page template should be used for protections placed under this policy? xaosflux /CVU 03:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Clay Aiken War

As someone who just joined the fray in the Clay Aiken gay/not-gay fangirl/boy war just wanted to say I read through the archives of the talkpage and I have immense humor for how you stuck it out. Go girl. ;) - mixvio 01:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

McWhinney

Can you close out the discussion on Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Will_McWhinney, since the question is now moot? Thanks. Calwatch 04:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Oklahoma Infighting

This is a great diff with a great edit summary. Johntex\ 08:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Impersonation

Be warned, the user user:4.249.150.186 impersonated you on my talk page! -- ConDem 08:23, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I blocked him for 3 hours after a couple of warnings by others. --Woohookitty 08:54, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Training

I'd like to to teach you some of my malicious rollback strategies, but I suspect you have the wrong personality style. One recent editor has said of "the Will BeBack character" that:

  • Personality style indicates that he is the wrong type to have any kind of power over another on a wiki, he's a real martinet and quite a loose cannon not really improving Misplaced Pages with his admin powers--instead his pattern of behavior is reversion to incompleteness with a personal bias on where he does this.

Sorry Kate, loose cannon martinets are born, not made. However I will be conducting a class on how to "defactualize" articles through cloaked micro-edits. It's for unprofessional and arbitrary admins who want to be promoted to rouge admins. -Will Beback 02:28, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


Image copyright problem with Image:Katefan0baby.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Katefan0baby.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Misplaced Pages because of copyright law (see Misplaced Pages's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Misplaced Pages are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you. Stan 05:45, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and put the pd-self tag on the image. If that's wrong kate, change it. :) --Woohookitty 07:10, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, thanks. Good grief, I tagged it with gfdl-self; what else is needed? · Katefan0/poll 14:32, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Maybe that tag got lost? When I saw it (and yes, you are cute, but is that cat hair in the corner of the picture?? Eww!) it had none. ++Lar: t/c 15:52, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Filibustering

Hi Katefan0. Thanks for mediating the NLP page. It looks like a tough job. I hope you don't mind me sharing that I'm feeling frustrated with progress. I thought it might be useful for you to know, as a mediator,

I've expressed some more feelings about progress that I'd like you to be aware of. I think a game of filibustering is unfolding. I'm asserting that some editors are creating deliberately incredulous objections to stock-standard NLP material and using only a vague pretense of staying on topic to keep raising new objections. Now it's got to the stage that editors feel they can comfortably start positing online shopping websites as sources for the article, I really have to start drawing the line for myself and how much time I'm prepared to waste. I'm honestly trying to assume good faith, but I'm also trying to contribute positively to the progress of the discussion.

I'd like to feel reassured that the workshop can become productive for all contributors. I've liked the pro-forma discussion mechanisms and would like to see more, and tighter versions of these pro-forma discussions. I'm not sure if there's anything a mediator can do to help the discussions progress without fallacy, so I have no specific expectations.

Be well and happy. ॐ Metta Bubble 06:10, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Croatia

Thank you for your reply in Talk:Croatia#History. You were right, I was being inconsiderate. Since then, both sides have presented their arguments in a reasonably civilized way, but there's still no consensus. Moreover, the exact same issue appeared in Talk:History of Croatia and could spread even further. Therefore, I have a request. Please, would you accept to act as an independent third party mediator? --Zmaj 19:50, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

About the Ecuadorian-Peruvian dispute

Hello there! But I believe that the option of preventing editions to that article is not a good idea. The article has one of the two (and more) versions that are disputed, so I believe that it's better if you could revert it to a version that is way before the whole rv war started. Also, someone already put some words in my mouth, claiming that I doubt of your impartiality or wisdom. Rest assure that I'm not the one that uses that words. Another ways to solve this conflict must be use in order to avoid creating a much more bigger problem than the one that we already have over there. So far, a number of wikipedist are also attempting to achieve compromise, and I'm confident that we will reach a conclusion. Thanks. Messhermit 04:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: Civility

While I can understand the need for politeness in Misplaced Pages debates, throughout this I have been the subject of attack by Claymate fans, first by accusations that I was being paid for my interest by John Paulus/Michael Lucas, then that I have some ridiculous quest to destroy the reputations of celebrities worldwide by proving they're all homosexual. My personal website, which has no bearing on the debate, has been brought in and quoted several times without my consent or approval. I had to restrict comments on my site because no sooner did it appear in the discussion than I got thirty angry comments from Clay Aiken fans attacking me personally. However, I don't bring this up to complain, because unlike others involved I am actually an adult and capable of taking criticism, personal or otherwise. But please don't act as if I'm the only one frustrated and upset. My edits on the talk pages have been deleted, moved to the bottom of the page, rearranged so no one would notice them. I'm sarcastic, yes, but I'm always civil. My "you must be blind" remark was because it's clear from the flash poll the number of votes on each side. Thanks. - mixvio 18:49, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

On at least two occurances the anon IP address who's most involved in the debate quoted and linked to my personal website in an attempt to "prove" my ulterior motive in this is to out all celebrities in existance. I can't figure out how to link directly to her comments but they're towards the bottom of the "Discussion on whether or not the John Paulus story should be included" section. - mixvio 19:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
I appreciate it. Thanks. - mixvio 19:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Charles Buk article

I've agreed to remove the link. The reason I got so worked up on the article is that Charles Bukowski has a lot of rabid fans who have made it difficult over the months to keep the article NPOV. I understand that you didn't mean anything by the smell test (thanks for saying that) but it was irritating that you came into the discussion without mentioning that justfred and an anonymous IP were making nasty accusations. As a result of this and your comment, you seemed to join them in piling on me. Still, I have no desire to make an enemy so lets put this behind us and move on. Also, my apologies for any assumptions I made about you.--Alabamaboy 01:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the nice message. Yes, everything is cool. I'll drop you a line in a week or two when I get time to write that critical section. Best,--Alabamaboy 14:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Hook it over here

Portal:University of Texas at Austin
and
Misplaced Pages:WikiProject University of Texas at Austin
We need you!!! Johntex\ 03:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

No kidding...

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Syrthiss --Syrthiss 21:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Ha!

I'm quick on the tri..., er, watchlist. :) — Rebelguys2 22:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks.

You have my thanks for banning the vandal/attacker that was just now going after me, calling me everything under the sun.

I know it's your job and all, but just some extra thanks for doing it.

  • A cookie for you. A cookie for you.

- File:Ottawa flag.png nathanrdotcom 23:14, 16 March 2006 (UTC)