User:Katefan0/Talk4

Thanks for you input a few days ago while I was tweaking the UT article. I'm thinking about putting it up for peer review soon, and I'm planning on continuing work on it until it gets featured article status; after all, there aren't too many education-related FAs, save for the UMich article. However, I recently removed the 'impact on Austin' section, and merged the RTF content into 'Student life.' I'd like to see if this is okay with you, or if you had any other suggestions before I take the next step. Thanks, and hook 'em! -Rebelguys2 16:20, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Please note that user:Flavius Aetius have violated the 3RR in his deletion of the discussion of the Ken Mehlman talk page. Can you please report him? --Asbl 20:11, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

• 20 lashes with a wet noodle for Katefan0, however, for violating one of my new pet peeves.  :) Wikibofh 21:39, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Hey Kate, I noticed recently that Johntex hasn't edited any articles since Nov 11th, 3 weeks time. JW if you knew anything. I sent him an email a few days ago, but he didn't respond. Let me know. We could really use him for this University of Texas at Austin review that we're doing. -Scm83x 23:11, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I really do hope he comes back sometime during the (I'm sure soon to begin) PR for UT Austin. Have you heard the spoken article reading that Rebelguys2 did for Hook 'em Horns? -Scm83x 23:33, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Hey Kate. I started the peer review process for the University of Texas at Austin article. I've totally redone the history section, and Scm83x and I just went over the entire article with a fine-tooth comb. Thanks. -Rebelguys2 12:29, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Hiya K! You might not have noticed but the St. John Lateran is located at the Italian version of its name, thanks to a four person vote in April, even though English speakers worldwide (except in the US) don't use the Italian version of the name. I've proposed a vote to move the page back to its original location. It is at Talk:Basilica di San Giovanni in Laterano. Please drop in and vote FearÉIREANN \^(caint) 05:22, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

You are going to have to revert me. I reverted to zen master after you went back to consensus. Sorry. Happened at virtually the same time. We might need protection again. I'm getting confused as to which version is what. Make this end. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 20:52, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I didn't see it until I found the neat tool that shows all of the pages in someone's userspace. And then I went "poll". Frankly dear, if you can make you know who go away from P-A (no not that one. the other one), I'll do anything you want. ;-) My head is going to explode. So. painful. lol --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 22:44, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Dmcdevit needs a hobby. ;-) --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 16:26, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Guarenteed laugh. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 22:46, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Kate, I need your administrative help with the Charles Whitman article. Subwayjack (talk) has started blanking anything he doesn't agree with and has now blanked the main article.

I'm turning to you because civilty has failed.

Oh, and it's also very possible that 68.187.194.251 (talk) — a user that has repeatedly vandalized the article — is Subwayjack. This I don't know for sure, though. jareha 18:55, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Heads up: Subwayjack has once again blanked sections throughout the article. jareha 18:31, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

And again. Apologies for bringing this mess to your plate Kate. jareha 18:50, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Can Subwayjack and 68.187.194.251 blank their own talk pages? I imagine not, but am not entirely sure. (Subwayjack's user talk blanking. 68.187.194.251's user talk blanking.)

Also, Subwayjack has blanked Talk:Charles Whitman. At the minumum shouldn't that page be archived? jareha 07:21, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Oops. Thanks for pointing that out! - Trysha ^(talk) 20:19, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Wowsers! [1]. What I find funny is that Jimbo often gets comments on his talk page saying that he never interacts with the community. It's like...ummmm...it's about all he does. :-D --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 03:03, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

And I wonder. Does Jimbo have admin powers? ;-) --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 03:47, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Are you an alumni of Space Camp? Or were you just reminiscing about the movie? - orioneight (talk) 18:08, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, yes I attended Advanced Space Academy twice. Man those were good times! One year I was a pilot and another year I was a Mission Specialist. We did the SCUBA training in the big tank which was fun, since I'd never done SCUBA'd before. We also did a really long mission (like 6 hours?) which was even more fun. *sigh* miss those days. I made a lot of friends down there though, and a lot of them I still talk to today. — orioneight (talk) 18:18, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Just letting you know that I opened the RfAr on Benjamin Gatti. Please comment so we can get this case opened ASAP. Comment here. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 12:33, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

And don't worry about me. Wikiproject Syntax is live again so I'll work on that when things get rough, which they will. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 12:51, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Hey Kate. I hate to seem like I'm running to the nearest admin, but there has been a 3RR violation at Texas A&M University by User:70.122.115.2. Please see diffs here, here, and here. I have attempted to get this user to comment about the matter on the talk page to no avail [2] [3]. Thank you for any assistance you may be able to lend in this matter. -Scm83x 17:49, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry to bug you. This is the first time I've dealt with 3RR. I've already made two reverts, so do I need to wait for someone else to revert his edit? I will let you know if he changes it again. Thanks. -Scm83x 17:55, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi there. Can you please take action against User:207.217.218.1. It seems like as open-and-shut a case as we're going to get with an anon user, but anyway, you decide. I posted more info at Wikipedia:Vandalism_in_progress/IP_Moderate#December_2005, though I think they'll have to set fire to the Wikipedia server room before they get notice taken there :) Fourohfour 23:38, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

PAA was unprotected this morning. Dmcdevit knows. Simesa 13:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for sticking around to help keep Charles Whitman half-way respectable, appreciate it when people don't just voice an opinion and run off. I can't even tell how many anonymous and IP-only users we're dealing with, and while subwayjack has calmed down somewhat, egad...he has a violently different image of the event than the "mainstream", it seems. Anyways, just wanted to let you know your work is noticed and appreciated :) Sherurcij ^{(talk) (bounties)} 20:56, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

If you'd like, you can wikilink hook 'em from your user page. We have an article on it. :) --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 16:32, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I linked it for ya. You're welcome. :) --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 16:37, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

It's in the gestures article too. :) --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 16:55, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Recent changes have been made to this template that are not clearly explained on the discussion page and whose purpose is unclear. (I understand you have an interest). The main issue for me is that the changed format now trashes the licence information which defeats the purpose of this template. I dont want to get into an edit war with the originators. I have found a work around in the format {{Template name | Licence details }}. However in my view somebody needs to put some instructions into the template to indicate this work around for people want to use it. --Sf 14:41, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Ms. Katefan0,

In re: personal references to Lavergne. I would have preferred that it be deleted from all pages in the history, but if that is the best that can be done, Thank you anyway.

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Benjamin Gatti has been accepted. Please place evidence on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Benjamin Gatti/Evidence. Proposals and comments may be placed on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Benjamin Gatti/Workshop. Fred Bauder 03:58, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

This page is still protected? I have a cat rename. Buffaloans -> Buffalonians . At your convenience. -- Fplay 08:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Would appreciate your help dealing with a troll, since I see you're online at the moment, and I've reached my personl 3RR limit on Beslan school hostage crisis where User:Absent (check his userpage) insists on ignoring consensus and logic, and claiming that the Chechens are "Islamic Jihadist terrorists", citing the fact that Bashayev has a beard similar to Osama bin Laden and Khomeni, and other nonsensical arguments. I've reported him for breaking 3RR, but since that's only a 24 hour block, I would appreciate if you were also able (As a SysOp, which perhaps will add some weight) say something on the talk page, or otherwise deal with it. Sorry to waste your time, I promise not to turn you into my pet admin :P Sherurcij ^{(talk) (bounties)} (see also his Contributions, of which every single one has been reverted as spreading POV, or worse, lies, about Islam...anyways, not sure whether "troll" is a bannable offence or not)

Kate:

Thank you for your comments. I apologize if I offended you or made the situation worse than it already was. That was never my intention and I like to think I learned a great deal about Wikipedia from that experience and am a better Wikiepdian for it. I made mistakes and for that I am sorry. No hard feelings for your neutral vote. It was very well articulated and I was not surprised that it came up (see my answer to number 3). Thanks again and have a good one!Gator (talk) 18:14, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Oops, maybe I should have read my talk page before responding. Thank you for notifying me personally that's decent of you. Once again, I understand your hesitation. I knew that that whole debacle was my biggest obstancle for becoming an admin and I've been trying hard to prove that I've learned and changed from the experience. Thank you for not voting oppose and if you need more time for me to prove myself for you to ever vote support, that makes perfect sense. Thanks again!Gator (talk) 18:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks again for reverting vandalism on my talk page. I appreciate it.Gator (talk) 00:16, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

It seems SoM, 65.98.21.69, DrBat, 65.110.6.40 and Rsffblcb from Hell didn't feel like talking about the article. Only Phil Sandifer made his point there. So, end of story? Will the article be unlocked now? 200.162.245.104 20:44, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Now you have other editos advertising your ridiculous poll. (Phil Welch) You really are influential. Cheers. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 21:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you Kate, but I should tell you that I will not be looking to get into conflicts ONLY to prove that I can do well in them. I know I can but won't put myself in uncomfortable situations like that only to become an admin. If I find myself in them I will handle them fine. But you won't fine me prowling around the RFC pages just to jump into a fight. I wont avoid them either. I admit I am a little more gun shy about being bold since the BD thing, but I will get involved if I think I can be of some help. I appreciate your openmindedness and respectful notice. You're a class act.Gator (talk) 21:40, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

New cleanup project! :-) Neglected articles. Maybe we should clone ourselves. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 04:04, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Massrepublican. Oi. Another user with major problems keeping within NPOV. So. Painful. :) --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 18:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I came across this article, and don't know how to tag it. Cleanup? Stub? Simesa 01:26, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

It's a clear copyvio from this site. The question is whether that site has it copyrighted or not... stillnotelf has a talk page 23:39, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

The arbitration committee has reached a final decision in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rangerdude case. Raul654 21:42, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

You are a little late my Texan friend. :) We already had User:Woohookittycat and User:Woohookitty on Wheels! weeks ago. :) --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 15:28, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

[4] Be still my heart. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 19:08, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

LOL! I blocked him on the 10th for a month but apparently that odd software quirk came into play since I hadn't stopped the last one month block. Oh well. Doing 3 this time. I also protected the IP pages. As if he has anything to do with this lawsuit. I know I'm shaking in my shoes. :) --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 19:29, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

...for the excellent CatsNeeded template/ message box. I added it to my own userpage and will soon be personalising it there with a picture of one of my own six cats, but I also wanted to express my appreciation to you for doing the initial work. P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 01:30, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

It just never ends. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 17:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Mistress Selina Kyle keeps on reverting the image that was voted on. --DrBat 19:26, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

It was put to a vote, and those users didn't vote. --DrBat 19:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Everytime I try to reply, I end up deleting the text somehow. :oSince you yourself said that the consensus was to keep the Bolland image, can't you change it? --DrBat 19:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Can I take a moment to point out that DrBat is well aware of the 3RR, since he's been blocked at least twice over it, once over the Zatanna article itself (and was reported a second time over Zatanna for another violation two days later but not blocked) [5] [6] - SoM 19:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. I had actually already blocked him after realizing he'd been blocked a few times before for 3RR. · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 20:13, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

The consensus was to keep Bolland's image. They are not respecting the deal. 200.162.245.104 20:09, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Can't you protect the article keeping the original image (Bolland's) on it? There're just not being reasonable... so they are minority in a consensus and just decide to start all the mess again?? I cannot see where this is fair for majority who discussed and voted. 200.162.245.104 20:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

No. I make no judgment myself on what image is better than the other and I will not reverse my protection. I protected it at the point at which I saw that edit warring was going on again, without prejudice to who had edited last. Now that SoM has made it clear he prefers the other image, the consensus is not as strong as it was before; folks have to now come together to try to find some middle ground. · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 20:33, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

So this it? We gonna have a new discussion so that they can keep their favourite image this time? What if they loose again? A new mess in the article until its got protected again and a new discussion. So it goes on and on? What are we? Clowns? Now I see... the answer to be heard in here is not being reasonable, discussing subjects... but making mess, vandalizing articles, imposing preferences. Great. Do whatever you want, I'm outta here. 200.162.245.104 20:45, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

As you like. My advice to you is to spend your time and energy trying to find a middle ground on the article's talk page instead of griping on my talk page. · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 20:48, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

My advice to you is to spend your time and energy trying to be a better administrator. The users just don't respect your actions. This Foner user -- who seems to be a new Mistress Selina Kyle id -- is trying to difame me in several articles concerning Administrators. And how she's doing this? Evading YOUR block. She just don't give a damn. 200.162.245.104 21:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I can't try to help a situation if I don't know about it. Telling me by saying I need to be a "better administrator" isn't the best way to proceed. · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 21:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes user:Fones is being very disruptive removing tags, alerts, etc. and should be blocked temporarily while sock check is done. Kate is this possible? --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 21:24, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I can't really block this person for being a sockpuppet without definitive proof, and unfortunately there's no definitive proof in the absence of checkuser, which I can't perform. I can look at this user's contributions and see if they've committed any blockable offenses, however, which I'll do now. Thanks for letting me know. · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 21:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Fones has been annoying, but hasn't really violated any policies that would result in a block. The closest he's come is edit warring on the two Zatanna pictures. If he reverts once more it'll mean a block, but not until then. Let me know if that happens, but keep in mind that I'm getting ready to leave for vacation tomorrow morning and will be busy this evening, so don't be offended if I don't respond right away. · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 22:13, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Hey, Kate. Well, ind the end it seems I wasn't that wrong. Take a look at Mistress Selina Kyle. BTW, after all that confusion, Fones just disappeared. 200.162.245.104 22:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

The Libyans apparently have moved the Supreme Court hearing of the Bulgarian nurses up to December 25th (Christmas Eve). If the nurses are executed, it could mean war, and Bulgaria is in NATO now. Trial of five Bulgarian nurses and a Palestinian doctor in Libya. I thought a reporter would be interested. Simesa 20:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

As soon as the first user was blocked the other was created to start edit warring. A sockcheck will be done as they are both likely sockpuppets of a banned user. Thanks. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 21:09, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, I will tell you if anything new happens. Have a good trip. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 22:26, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Based on the technical evidence, it is entirely possible, but not conclusively proven, that Mistress Selina Kyle is Chaosfeary. Fones is not. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:59, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I notice you have blocked him before - Comandante is replacing "terrorist" with "militant" in articles where he doesn't think they go (and subtly biasing), and many have gone undetected. It goes back several months, I may go back and fix many of them. http:https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/index.php?lang=en&q=Special:Contributions&target=Comandante JG of Borg 02:26, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Yipee! GWB is the first article with it applied. For now, all I did was split the "real articles" section into 2 (full and semi) on WP:PP. Should suffice for now. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 08:36, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Btw, just so you know, the new protection interface is a bit funky. :) Just a tip..."default" is completely unprotected. That threw me at first. To unprotect, you have to actually set it to default. Just hitting the button doesn't do the trick. It's great though that the protection log now comes up automatically. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 12:51, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not expecting to be online as much over the next few days so...

User:Francs2000/Christmas

-- Francs2000 09:27, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I would like you wish you and your family a Merry Christmas and all the bets for the New Year. Guettarda 15:58, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Hope you are at peace during this ancient time of hope and celebration. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 16:13, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I noticed that in the RFAr against Benjamin Gatti, you cited wikipedia:Wikiblower protection and his attempts to place an AFD on an AFD as evidence. I think a number of his edits to the discussion page, wikipedia talk:Wikiblower protection are also strong evidence in a case against Benjamin Gatti. Since you're a party to the arbitration already and have already brought up that page, I wondered if you'd like to be the one to pick a diff or two as evidence; otherwise, I've got no problem creating a section and listing a few as evidence. It's all I could contribute, though; I don't recall having had many other dealings with him. The Literate Engineer 05:50, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Happy Holidays, differences notwithstanding. Benjamin Gatti

• hugs* --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 10:36, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Read User:Woohookitty. I've had enough of being told I'm things I'm not. Time for a change. But. Be assured. I'm coming back. And I plan on "tidying up" whatever I've gotten into before I resign my adminship or whatever I decide to do. If you have any thoughts on my post to my user page, email me. Your counsel is always appreciated. I just feel like I'm about to burn out so much that I leave the project. I don't want that to happen. I'm not leaving. Ever. :) --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 10:36, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Btw, could you put my talk page on your watchlist? Friggin' Gibraltarian keeps vandalising it. Not sure why he thinks that if yells at me enough times, I'll unblock him. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 19:54, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Didn't that last long? :) I've made some decisions. The chief one is that I am no longer doing NPOV disputes. They are just too draining on me. I'm taking P-A off of my watchlist as well as anything involving Ben and zen except for the proposed decision page on Ben's arbcom. If people ask me to help with CyclePat or whatever, they are going to get a polite "no thanks". For now I'm just going to do some vandal fighting (though less than I was before) and protection stuff, which I find somewhat rewarding. And I'm going to concentrate on wikifying more, which is what I used to do. We'll see how it works. I don't want to leave. I love the project and I like helping, but I think that NPOV disputes just get me too riled up. I'm too emotional and passionate of a fella for them. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 06:23, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

If you want to know how involved I was in POV disputes, I just went from 58 pages on my watchlist to 28. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 06:38, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Thats too many. I find one is a challenge, but 30? Make sure you enjoy what you are doing. Sandpiper 20:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Fluterst, Either BD777 or Rex. Or a follower of one or the other. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 07:46, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to create an article that discusses the various ways Texas can be classified and why as well as why some areas of Texas object to certain regional classifications as well as the idea that Texas is a region unto itself. It is ceratinly an idea that has relevance to Texans, and while there are some indiduval comparasons and discusion there is no holistic treatment of the subject that I can find. I have been noticing that there are wikipedians who have published works who are allowed to refrerence, cite, and encorporate element of those works into wikipedia articles—most notably Pakistani diplomat Ahmad Kamal's recent edits to cybersecurity citing and incorporating elements of his recently published UN commisioned report on the same topic. I know of a few regional magizines who might be willing to publish an article on the regional classification of Texas and I would like to collaborate with you on writing one. Such an article could be useful to various Texas and US regional articles, and an article on the Regional classification of Texas itself would be an interesting subject given the interplay of politcs, history, culture, and geography. Please let me know soon and have a terrific Texas Christmas with your family. Thanks. -JCarriker 10:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

It will be some time before I can start on the wikiarticle. Please let me know if anything changes in terms of the off-site collaboration, without a degree the only real hope I have at publishing something in a serious publication is by working with someone else. Thanks. -JCarriker 18:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

This little comment turned into a sockpuppet hunt that lasted for over an hour. I'm not even getting into disputes and I still get nailed. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 07:29, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

And now we have this. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 07:17, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Please check out some edits by this anon. He's destroying psychiatry-related articles and being pretty offensive. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 04:31, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Hey Katefan, I am sorry to bother you with this, but I have to because I know you are an expert on the usage of grammar and style. I am trying to explain to User:Fritz Saalfeld that the name of a band is a collective entity and therefore is singular. Since X number of members make up one band. For example, "New Radicals was an American rock band" not "New Radicals were an American rock band." Also the user keeps on saying that it should be plural because the name of the band is plural. I am not good at explaining things so can you help me out by explaining this to him and/or enlighten me further. You can find the conversation at both of mine and his talk pages. Thanks! RJN 18:35, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gallery_of_motorcycle_trikes. Yet another bad faith nomination. He is nominating it for deletion hoping that it fails so then he can recreate Gallery of Motorized bicycles. I believe it's RfC time for Pat. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 03:54, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

And now Ben is going to get an advocate. Good lord. User_talk:Chazz88/Benjamin_Gatti#Prior_Mediation_.2F_RfC. Yeah we need Wikilawyering on this. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 12:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Just out of interest I was wondering what you hope to achieve out of the RFArb against Benjamin Gatti? --Chazz88 22:55, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Happy New Years! Anyway, as for leaving, I have my leaving page all ready. I am just fed up with everything and I'm ready to split. I do appreciate your support and your friendship, but honestly, I've lost faith in the project. I just endured a ridiculous series of attacks by gibnews on AN/I plus CyclePat plus Ben. It just all seems pointless to me. Just completely pointless. I'm not making a difference nor can I. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 06:20, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

According to Singular and plural for nouns "Proper nouns which are plural in form take a plural verb in both American and British English." They even give "The Beatles are a well-known band." as an example being correct in both BE and AE. New Radicals is plural, even if it's one group (compare New York Yankees, The Supremes, The Muppets etc.). Thus, it'd have to be "The New Radicals were" --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 16:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

There isn't really an edit war going on here. It's just that the changes seemed wrong to me - especially as most other articles, even on American topics such as the ones I pointed out above, use these proper nouns as plural with "were" and according to the Wiki article I linked above only "were" would be correct in AE - and I asked RJN why he made them... --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 16:57, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Once again, he has written in other people's evidence sections. I put a request in to Raul to warn Ben. I'd warn him but I'm sure he'd complain that I was abusing power or something. Just letting you know. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 17:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Read your email. :) Just sent ya one. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 17:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Here is Raul talking to Ben about his infractions and of course, Ben is playing Wikilawyer. Sometimes I think he wants to be blocked. I don't get it. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 22:44, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Btw, dmc has put some good stuff on the Workshop page. Comment please. He added Wikilawyering and a couple of other things. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 10:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about archiving current discussion on Kwanzaa talk, thanks for fixing. Herostratus 16:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

24.186.219.3 = 66.254.232.219 = Brian Brockmeyer = Almeidaisgod = Flavius Aetius

It's part of my cunning plan to ensure that only people who really really want to say something to me do so. Plus I can't get over feeling like it's somehow disrespectful to farm people's words off into obscurity. Plus I'm really lazy. - brenneman^(t)(c) 05:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Didn't mean to insult you; You seem nice, THANKS FOR TAKING THE TIME TO EXPLAIN:{oldwindybear responding: actually, yes, darn it, I do understand the necessity when you put it as you have. I have to agree that the rules make sense in the context as you have defined it. Given that, I yield to your superior knowledge on the question involved, and withdraw my "complaint." I have already done so on my veteran's websites. What I am going to do is find somewhere a written and published verification of what i iknow is fact (and so do you, but neither of us can publish it at present on wikipedia), which is that Bonnie was not wanted for a capital offense, and there were no murder warrants out on her. Actually, that is already in a number of books, but the authors did not take the next step, and say that since she was not wanted for a capital offense, adn had not even shot at anyone, no lethal force could be used legally to apprehend her. (probably because none of the authors had formal legal training!) When I have isolated the best wording in the best existing written sources, I will bring them to you, and appeal again that with those, it is acceptable to reword the article on Bonnie's death in the Ranger article. I appreciate a great deal (I, being both older and ill, was asleep!), your taking the time to explain the policy to me, and the reasons for it. I understood both at once, and will attempt to find sufficient written verification to ask you for a reedit. If i cannot, shoot, I will write the book myself! I again thank you, and stress that Inever meant to personally insult you. You are actually rather likable and funny,(even as you were erasing my hard work!) oldwindybear

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Oldwindybear"

Kate, I don't know if you followed the argument between saltypig and myself over bonnie and clyde, he claims authorship fo the entire article, which is ludicrous since I have been editing that site for years. (for instance, he had them as bank robbers, and any historian knows they avoided banks when possible). I deleted all the personal attacks, and ask that we keep this within the wikipedia rules. The article in question was withdrawn, and rewritten, and I am waiting on the site's ruling on republishing. But is there any way == amd I am far from the firt person to complain about this -- that we can stop saltypig's visciouis personal attacks? By the way, congrats on the national championship! Vince Young is the truth! oldwindybear

thanks for intervening. at some point, there has to be an end to personal attacks. that is my chief complaint with this user. oldiwndybear

Thanks again, Vietnam pretty much left me with lots of time to work on meaningful projets, and I see wikipedia as a truly meaningful project! I don't mind debating issues, shoot, you know that,though you win all the arugements, lol. I do mind the personal attacks that saltypigmakes on me -- or anyone else who disagrees with him -- look athis talk page! I proved my devotion to this country a long time ago, and my devotion to the idea of free expression of ideas -- but that does not include, as he does, constant, unending personal assualts if you dare disagree with his theories. Kate, cannot we treat each other with respect -- You know I have accepted administrtion rulings against me, I hope with did so with dignity, I never felt the need to attack you personally, nor would I, my sense of honor forbids it. Why is saltypig permitted to attack msyself and any one else who disagres with him as he wishes? I appeal to you for help. Rule the issue closd, each of us presented -- from the number of emails sent to me, 6, I feel my point was made. Shouldn't we be going on to work on the proejct? I am wheelchair bound from back wounds most of the time, my stepson is taking me to the Library of Congress tueday to do more research. Isn't that our ultimate goal? To present the best information available? Well, will abide by your decision. i prefer to argue history, not callnames. I proved my courage a long time ago, and my devotion to a free press. in a a far away place. I want to contribute, not play stupid macho man. Hope this makes sense! You are a good egg, as we used to say inthe late 60's. Lord, that was a crazy time! Take care, and HOOK EM HORNS! OLDWINDYBEAR

Katefan0< i agree that this constant personal nastiness which Pig specializes in does no one any good. I agree to stop it, and will gladly let you mediate factual differences. Since he immediately used the site to defy you and attack me again, I deleted it. I will delete any personal attack on me by the Pig, and deal only with factual issues, which he seems incapable of doing. Probably his lack of formal education leaves him feeling inadequate, given the number of people he has attacked, and his usual modus operandi, this is not surprising. But I will opt out, won't attack him personally, not even to defend myself -- i will simply delete his attacks. If he wants to dispute facts, then you can mediate, I accept, a neutral and intelligent well versed 3rd party to do so is welcome. But I am not going to let him use this page to constantly attack me or anyone else. it will simly be deleted. Thanks for your offer and the intervention,oldwindybear

Your remark at RfP was interesting. All the caveating in WP:SEMI grew to prevent, and then to discourage, people from slapping semi on an article that e.g. they have on their watchlist that gets hit once a day or on articles generally just because they don't like anons. It wasn't intended to suggest that full-protection might be a better solution to anon vandals than semi. Perhaps we need to look into the language of the policy to fix that problem. Thanks for pointing it out (and sorry if you felt like I was overriding you). -Splash^talk 19:04, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I suppose you Longhorns are now going to be even more proud than usual. Wait'll next year! -Will Beback 06:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Congrats. Guettarda 07:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I still have a feeling that the cow's head is supposed to be the other way round though ;) Guettarda

Bitter? Nah. As for the appeal to regionalism - do you expect me to support a red state school against a blue state school? I only rooted for UT because (i) USC beat us last year, (ii) I know a few people who went there (you're the only non-plant systematist though) and (iii) Austin seems like a really cool town. Seriously though - it does look weird that way round. Which says that Sooners have an unhealthy obsession with UT (maybe it has something to do with the fact that about 1/3 of them are Texans). Guettarda 18:32, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree - I think I would much be in than Norman...and coming from MSU I am quite used to the idea of losing to your arch-rivals almost every year ;) Guettarda 18:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

--bbatsell | « give me a ring » 07:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Ditto on that. Greatest game I've ever seen. Hook 'em. — Scm83x ^talk 00:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Awesome, Awesome, Awesome!!! The Eyes of Texas has witnessed a truly great sight! Hook 'em! Johntex\^talk 21:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Woohookitty_sleeps_with_prostitutes. I don't! Honest! LOL. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 11:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Benjamin Gatti really is trying to serve a purpose which transcends the purpose of Wikipedia. He is spreading the alarm regarding a vital truth while we are only a compendium of published knowledge. Fred Bauder 18:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

The finding does not say this his truth is correct or vital, just that spreading the alarm about the truth transcends our modest aspirations. Fred Bauder 18:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Benjamin_Gatti/Proposed_decision#Service_to_a_greater_good Fred Bauder 19:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Needs reprotection. The POV warrior who demands that he get to decide what it sounds like is wholesale reverting. I don't care if you do the wrong version or not. Hipocrite - «Talk» 04:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I see said POV warrior has landed directly above me. I don't care if you protect "The Wrong Version" or not. I wonder if he does. Hipocrite - «Talk» 04:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey could you please re-protect the page or can something be done about the user Hipocrite. Even though the University of Ottawa page is still in dispute, and in Negations to fix some small wording, "Hipocrite" is deleting and changing huge amounts of the sections of the article that are in dispute before settling it.

Looking at his User contributions, and past User Talk page comments, he has a history of the same types of problems, and it currently accusing other people of NPOV and pushing his beliefs on to others aggressively. It seems he really doesn't want to really solve this and says things like:

"There is no compromise, and no need for me to provide proof.-Hipocrite 13:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)"

Can you please help and settle this because this is going to go on forever.

Thanks!

Anakinskywalker 02:55, 06 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey, can you please revert the last post by [[User:Hipocrite|Hipocrite]before the un-protection, because that was the original article before the dispute and it is still in negotiations. If the page is left this way, then what’s the point for the negotiations? Thanks again.

Anakinskywalker 05:22, 06 January 2006 (UTC)

I understand that, but now the page is full of the massive deletions and edits without any negotiations, how is that fair to all parties then? .-Hipocrite has jsut erased all the disputed sections, plus a ton more that wasn't in the dispute before. I'm asking you to please revert to the one before un-protection so we can go through what needs to be changed. I wan to negotiate with him, but what's the point if the information in the dispute is already deleted?

Anakinskywalker 05:35, 06 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I do feel it has been vandalized by Hipocrite because he deleted willfully information that was part of the dispute without solving through the negotiations he and other multi parties were in. He doesn't want to negotiate, only to have it his way, or the highway. I'm willing to negotiate.

Anakinskywalker 05:45, 06 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, but I'm asking you to please revert the vandalism by [[User:Hipocrite|Hipocrite]. If the page is in dispute and in negotiations, why it is fair for him to delete the disputed sections and have it stay like that? That's not fair at all and it's vandalism.

Anakinskywalker 06:01, 06 January 2006 (UTC)

You say he's "sometimes be an aggressive editor", I would say overly aggressive editor. He doesn't want to compromise and the page will remain like this. He even said " "There is no compromise, and no need for me to provide proof. [User:Hipocrite|Hipocrite]] 13:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)". He won't agree to anything and just say NPOV and he keeps changing his mind in what is in dispute, then he deletes the information that is in dispute and much more information that wasn't even part of the dispute. That is vandalism.

Anakinskywalker 06:06, 06 January 2006 (UTC)

Stop coddling POV Warriors. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:37, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I have very little patience for being wholesale reverted by POV warriors and then have them accuse me of some sort of bias on some random Canadian university page. If there was anything salvagable about the user I would feel differently, but as he has used his agressive style of "prove that it's factually incorrect to say that UoO is THE BESTEST PLACE ON EARTH, and cite sources," to drive two other contributors away from his page I feel very little need to take the first step. If he is willing to discuss anything about his preferred version aside from demanding that I prove that wikipedia is an encyclopedia and should be written like one, then I will happily engage him in discussions. Review the history of the talk page. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:12, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Want to see a nice page? Check out User:Spum. Apparently he's become friends with Viriditas! His original attacks on V is why I blocked Spum for 24 hours at one point. Wonders never cease. I'm pleased as a peacock though. :) Oh and thanks for reverting Gibraltarian. I am going to put an inquiry on AN/I or AN (for the 3rd time). There has to be a way to stop him. He's threatening to do this forever and ever. It's going on a month now. Anyway. Thanks! --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 17:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Yep. A nice surprise. Apparently they struck up a friendship offline and are collaborating on a couple of the healthy diet type articles. Good to see. I wish we had more of that, i.e. people working together and blocks actually doing what they are supposed to do, i.e. reform users. Anyway. Bedtime for me. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 17:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Just to be fair, I strongly feel that the U.S page needs to be semi-protected as 9/10 if an anon user edits the apge it';s vandalism and it's rarely vandalsim for registered users. However, there has been discussion on this before, so I don;t want ot be seen as trying to goa round the consensus on this. I will continue to advocate for semi-protection whenever I see an anon vandal and use that as evidence that I'm right, but I jsut wanted to be honest here. Do as you will. Have a good one.Gator (talk) 18:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok that's sounds good and I support you. I just wanted there to be full disclosure and be honest with you and everyone elseGator (talk) 18:56, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your nice comment Kate. :) Hope I will make a good admin. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 18:54, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

..at your comment here. Thought I'd mention it. Sbz5809 21:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Shows how dim I am. (Note to self: switch on irony-detector.) Sbz5809 22:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I don't want to get immersed in the debacle at that article, but I would like to mention the Sex. orientation material if you'd like to hear of it. I am not sure if it was research or just expert opinion; I'll have to look again this evening. Psychology is a primary interest of mine and I love to discuss it, so sorry if I'm long-winded.

The idea is basically: Many, a large portion, of men pedophiles are attracted purely to boys, but NOT to other adult men, and it seems related to hair on the face or level of maturity. These same men have a weak attraction to adult women that seems to strengthen greatly as stress is decreased on the individual; likewise, as stress increases, refuge is sought in the pedophilic "pacifier" and interest in women decreases (and I mean that "pacifier" soley as an analogy, not a judgement). That means this is possibly a phenomena different from sexual orientation, as sexual orientation doesn't change relative to any known variables.

These kind of measurable variables are rare, and it's unfortunate we can't get more chaste men afflicted with Ped. to come forth and share their experiences. Society blanks out a large pool of information that could be used to stop much human misery among both the adult offenders and children; if only the social atmosphere would let the matter be investigated properly. Almost all the data we have, however, is on convicts, who are obviously under duress and will easily amend the truth to please.

Anyway, this has been filtered through my personal knowledge and and ideas, and as I didn't see any importance in memorizing it, might be off a bit. But LMK and I will look for sources.

I love to talk psychology so sorry I took up so much space. If you are not interested, that's fine; just let it go and move on. I enjoyed writing this, so it's ok. --DanielCD 22:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

______________________________________________________--Hey Kate, jeez, show some fairness, huh? I have respect for your ability, but that wholesale wipeout, you did not do that when Pig was attacking wikipedia, it's users, and everyone else. Please show some fairness!,

Hipocrite is avoiding to prove his claims at all. He won't list any descriptions or sources or any proof for that matter that these are biased, ad-copy, etc. How is this ever going to end? I'm asking him to explain why he deleted them and show proof to his claims, but he has since the start avoided everything. This won't be resolved because he keep's on avoiding me demand for proof to his claims. This shows he is biased. The arbitration board take way too long as well. Please help, I don't know how much more I can take of Hipocrite bulls**t. He's not going to compromise and that's not fair to me. Anakinskywalker 20:01, 07 January 2006 (UTC)

Please review AS's edit history and take what adminstrative actions as you see fit. Hipocrite - «Talk» 04:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Please also review Hipocrite edit history, review. and take what adminstrative actions as you see fit.

I have already apologized for the comment, however, he has been attacking me as well by insulting me, so it's a double standard.

Hipocrite is personally attacking me by saying: "Only if it has been resolved to the effect of "Hipocrite is right." Hipocrite - «Talk» 03:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)"

He made that 4 four times, what is that all about? I want him blocked!

Anakinskywalker 04:34, 09 January 2006 (UTC)

BTW, here is a list of what I proposed and how Hipocrite responded :

"Hiprocrite, it's time to get down to business and start to negotiate and compromise on through 1-7. I was with my girlfriend all day, and realized that I would rather spend more time with her, than on her. So I'm going to list the ones, and tell me if it sounds fair.

• 1. It's been resolved

Only if it has been resolved to the effect of "Hipocrite is right." Hipocrite - «Talk» 03:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me? You better watch what you say, those types of comments can and will be used against you. This case is resolved.

Anakinskywalker 04:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

2. This can simply be changed to "ranked the University of Ottawa among the top universities in the world", can easily be changed to, "ranked the University of Ottawa among the Top 500 Universities in the world", and then I will list the ranking.

No. The ranking source you used is not a reputable or notable one. It will not go back in. Hipocrite - «Talk» 03:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Wrong, it is obviously reputable enough to have a page on Wikipedia, to be included in multiple University pages on Wikipedia, including on McGill, and Toronto, and there is nothing POV about it. Also, it was important enough to make news in the Universities itself. This case is resolved

Anakinskywalker 04:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

• 3. It's been resolved

Only if it has been resolved to the effect of "Hipocrite is right." Hipocrite - «Talk» 03:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Again, You better watch what you say, those types of comments can and will be used against you. This case is resolved.

Anakinskywalker 04:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

4. We can change "It is associated with Nobel, Pulitzer Prize, and Peabody Award recipients and a Prime Minister", too, "It is associated with Pulitzer Prize, and Peabody Award recipients and a Prime Minister."

Only if you can point to the specific Nobel, Pulitizer Prize, Peabody and Prime Ministers who are employed by the university. Hipocrite - «Talk» 03:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I have taken off the nobel part so I don't know why your adding that in, probable for effect. They are listed in the Alumni section. This case is resolved.

Anakinskywalker 04:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

5. Can be backed up with a source that I will add, in the coming days.

No. It needs to either be a quote from someone or needs to be rewritten for NPOV. Hipocrite - «Talk» 03:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

NO it doesn't, if an article is from a trustworthy source, it is relevant enough. I have read the wikipedia rules and there is nothing to the effect that says so. If it can be proven with a trustworthy source, then deemed acceptable.

Anakinskywalker 04:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

6. Could be backed up with sources or rewritten, to reflect the stature in Canada. But either way, for the Faculty of medicine and science, I can back up they are internationally respected by it's research and researchers, in the coming days.

No. It needs to either be a quote from someone or needs to be rewritten for NPOV. Hipocrite - «Talk» 03:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

NO it doesn't, if an article is from a trustworthy source, it is relevant enough. I have read the wikipedia rules and there is nothing to the effect that says so. If it can be proven with a trustworthy source, then deemed acceptable.

Anakinskywalker 04:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

• 7. It's been resolved

Anakinskywalker 03:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Only if it has been resolved to the effect of "Hipocrite is right." Hipocrite - «Talk» 03:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Last time, again, You better watch what you say, those types of comments can and will be used against you. This case is resolved

Anakinskywalker 04:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)"

Anakinskywalker 04:48, 09 January 2006 (UTC)

Dear Katefan0, I couldn't help but to notice that you passingly asked for help with the design of your user page. Hence I took the liberty of creating a basic layout for you which I hope you'll like. It's somewhat simple, but believe me girl, redesigning your user page was like stapling jell-o to wall! I nearly went crazy with so many images, and it also served me to find out that the Hook'em template had a major flaw in its design... trust me, it was quite an adventure but I'm satisfied, and I hope you will to. I've placed it at a temp page, where you can cut the text and paste it directly into your user page... that, if you like it, of course! The colors are also unellaborated; if you want, I can try and beautify it a little further. Oh, and I accidentally saved a test at your user page while previewing - I hope you forgive me. I reverted it immediately; I recommend that you don't use that version cause it's an incomplete one - use the one stored at the temp page instead (again, only if you really really like it!)

Anyway, Katefan, nice to meet you, and I hope you're doing fine. Take care, enjoy, and see you around! Cheers, -- Phædriel ^*whistle* 06:55, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

HI Katefan0(scribble)</ HI Katefan0^(scribble) Whatever happened to my ability to contribute was corrected, so THANKS... oldwindybear.THANKS,,. oldwindybear

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Oldwindybear"

Okay, but I'am tired of Hipocrite be aggresvive and being bias. I want something done about Hipocrite personally attacking me by saying :

"Only if it has been resolved to the effect of "Hipocrite is right." Hipocrite - «Talk» 03:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)"

He made that 4 four times, what is that all about? I want him blocked! He is saying that the case will only be solved if I bow done and prasie him like a god. That's a Threat, bias, and a personally attacking me.

Anakinskywalker 04:57, 09 January 2006 (UTC)

I would like something done about this, you can't ignore the fact that is a THREAT. I had every right to excercise the princples and for you to uphold them. Tell me if your going to do something about this?

Anakinskywalker 04:57, 09 January 2006 (UTC)

No offence in any way, but what he did was a Threat, and if you do not want to do something about that, I find that offensive and insulting, that is very wrong in protecting my rights as user here, and will talk to someone else who will listen. I also wonder why you would post that comment on my page, but not even mention to Hipocrite about making threats on Wikipedia.

Anakinskywalker 06:47, 09 January 2006 (UTC)

What happened was that I started a new section “Hiprocrite, it's time to get down to business”, and wrote to Hiprocite that it's time to start on the negotiations and to compromise. Then I said, "So I'm going to list the ones, and tell me if it sounds fair."

After listing which ones we solved, which ones can be re-worded, and the ones that could be backed up with reliable sources, he then stated that in order for any resolution to be passed further, or deemed acceptable, after he already agreed to the same disputes, he said 4 times:

"Only if it has been resolved to the effect of "Hipocrite is right." Hipocrite - «Talk» 03:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)"

Meaning that unless I say that (as in writing) "Hipocrite is right., he would not allow any of the agreed upon resolutions would to be allowed to pass. I'm not an expert in pre-law, but I have taken classes on pre-law past 2 years in University, and I know what a Threat is under law, and what constitutes a threat, and even Blackmail. When I read this, I felt like just leaving this site, never coming back, and recommending that my friends at Carleton University, McGill University, and others to stop contributing if behavior like this is tolerated.

It’s under “Hiprocrite, it's time to get down to business” on the University of Ottawa talk page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:University_of_Ottawa

Anakinskywalker 07:21, 09 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to do that. What he did might be simple blackmail and a threat, however, it is blackmail and a threat. I'm going to report this to someone who is acutally going to protect my rights as a user with equality.

Katefan0<Kate, I am going to say goodbye to wikipedia. I wish you well, I think you are a good person who is trying to be fair. But I am not letting Pig post constant lying and negative comments about me -- and everyone else who irritates him == and if we delete the slanders, we get in trouble! Easier for me to find somewhere else to volunteer. Take care, and I am respectfully, oldwindybear

yeah, dumb of me, at least i know how it works now. thank you very much.--Urthogie 17:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation. Is the policy then, to allow {{test4}} to be an empty threat, unless the vandal attacks more than one page at a time? The template claims that the person will be blocked the next time they vandalize a page. If it is policy not to carry through on this, it sends the wrong message to vandals, and perhaps encourages more vandalism. If the policy is not to block vandals such as this, then perhaps policy should discourage use of test4, but what should one do then? This user (User:64.107.53.2) received test 1 through 4 in sequence. Do we need a test3.5 ?--Srleffler 18:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. I see your point. It bugs me a little that anonymous vandals effectively get treated more gently than vandals with an account, but you're right in this case that it's most likely a new user with the same IP, who is going though his first "gee I can really edit this" moment. Innocent until proven guilty etc... It does leave me unsure how best to respond, though. I would be reluctant to add a test1 to a talk page that already has test1 through test4. We almost need a policy that says someone (perhaps an admin) can purge the vandalism warnings from an IP talk page if it appears that the address has changed hands.--Srleffler 23:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello there, my apologies in advance for disturbing you. :) I just wanted to point something out with regards to the cosplay page you protected from edits, and I was hoping to correct something. In the current cosplay page as it is right now, the link in dispute is listed as an "old" site, which is untrue, and very unfair to the site in question. Mikeabundo, the user who was deleting, and then modifying the site to make it sound obsolete, was the last person to edit the page prior to the site becoming protected. I'm obviously on the side of the party who just wanted to have their link up on the article, and I was wondering if it was alright to simply just edit that part out? Thank you! Here's the 3RR notice filed regarding the user, just for reference. 3RR Mikeabundo 58.69.89.158 12:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Reggie Bush or Vince Young? Johntex\^talk 20:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that is what I've heard too. I don't follow pro football at all, but it seems that Houston needs a running back more than a quarterback. I know sentimentally Young must relish the idea of playing in Houston, Texas, and the fans would absolutely adore him. But I guess sometimes the fairy-tale scenario is not the most practical. Johntex\^talk 20:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how much louder I have to yell "I'M MALE!". --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 21:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I guess. :) I have a little GF now. Well. She's not little. :-D --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 22:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Please don't unprotect the page until everything is sorted out on the University of Ottawa talk page. This is going to lead to another revert war. Hipocrite have already again made changes to the page to his own wording, and beliefs, on what should it look like without my approval, and since the dispute is between him and I, I have a say as well. Please make sure to reprotect until EVERYTHING is sorted out, or this is going to get worse.--Anakinskywalker 21:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Your attention is requested at the page in question. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Hipocrite has just violated the 3RR rule, a request for block.

--Anakinskywalker 21:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Please review my comment on AS's page, and revert if you consider it inappropriate. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, in the interest of fairness, just because I know how to read things all over the place and how to get in touch with people quickly dosen't mean that AS does. Regardless of his willingness to abide by what I unilateraly promise to abide by, he should be unblocked to lower tensions. Hipocrite - «Talk» 23:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Looks like you have your version of my Macedonian language saga, where one side says PROTECT and the other goes NO. Hang in there. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 16:20, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Having never been blocked before, I didn't know how angry it can make someone. Obivously, I flew off the handle in the first place to get blocked, and then flew off the handle at you. More sorry than I can reasonably explain. Obiviously, I need to focus more on people-as-people as opposed to people-as-tools-to-be-used. Luckily, I have the fact that I was clearly the swing voter in your RFA and now one of those troublesome users you are so good with to fall back on, right? Hipocrite - «Talk» 23:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Something possessed me to move Texas longhorn to Texas longhorn (cattle). I'm now working my way through the double redirects. I hope no one minds!!! You have a mention of Texas longhorn at User:Katefan0/Articles, so I thought I should let you know... Johntex\^talk 03:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Why so much Wikistress, my dear Longhorn? Any way I can help you? (if you don't mind a Sooner offering help! ;-) Cheer up! Gimme a call if you need me, k? -- Phædriel ^*whistle* 04:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes indeedy, what can we do to help? That reminds me of a a joke: Two Longhorns and a sooner walk into a bar... Seriously, it simply will not do to allow one of Wikipedia's finest to get too stressed out! Hugs, Johntex\^talk 04:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Uh oh! Need help? What's up? --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 16:17, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

My unprotection requests are not made in bad faith.Danny Phantom 23:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

At least make User:Remington and the Rattlesnakes.

[[ |thumb|200px|right|You are awarded 1000 MegaFonzies for being cool with woohookitty]].

Your edit forced me to look up the name of the San Luis Pass-Vacek Bridge just to make sure I was right about it. I've been working on the Texas Gulf Coast barrier island stubs and playing around with an open source mapping tool. I think Galveston Island deserves a separate article from the city of Galveston, one perhaps more focused on geography, flora, fauna, beach erosion, weather, etc. The articles are still not really much beyond stubs, so feel free to add anything to them that you can.--Kharker 16:59, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

How does someone who is blocked continue to edit? [7] Does the software make an exception for the user's own user page and user talk page? What about other pages? Thanks - Johntex\^talk 21:18, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! That is what I surmissed, but I couldn't find it described anywhere, so you have cleared up my confusion quite nicely. That particular situation looks like a real mess from the outside. Johntex\^talk 21:31, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, if I recall correctly, you were the very first person to block her. Congratulations!! She certainly looks like a problem user, but I wonder if we don't need better guidelines on how long to block for what type of offense. I found this to be interesting, as well. Johntex\^talk 22:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

My username is siva1979. I feel that I am being blocked unnecessarily. My IP address is 165.21.154.177 and I have not vandalized any page so far. Could you rectify this problem as soon as possible?One with Her 06:35, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey Katefan, some IKEA trivia I've heard, but cannot verify:

• Kamprad got frustrated at how long meetings were dragging on at IKEA, wasting his time. So, he redesigned the meetingrooms so that there were no chairs. Everyone stood at chest-height coffee tables, and meetings were dramatically shortened so everyone could get back to their comfy office chairs.
• There is a word in Swedish that means "to decorate with too much pine", but it's not "Ikea".

Cheers, Pete.Hurd 22:57, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, IKEA, Is there some kind of a 12 step program? Everytime I invest in a meaningful way in my IKEA relationship I wnd up getting hurt again, but I keep going back for more and more, tempted by the disposability and cheapness of the small things IKEA does for me (and the pickled herring in mustard sauce *mmmmm* piiiiickled herrrrrring!) until next thing I know "Oh IKEA, I just want a warm fuzzy and a couple placemats and a half dozen dinnerplaces in some funky size that is at least 1/2 a cm different from anything available though anyother source and will not appear in any IKEA catalog ever again, and *Wham* IKEA co-dependency kicks in and I get home to find I've bought a kingsize bed that doesn't keep the mattress from sitting on the floor, a kitchen widget that doesn't work, and a combination boot and wine rack, all for the price of $50 and a couple of hours wandering around a maze wondering if I'll get a nibble of cheeze and a pat on the head when I find the checkout, becoming progressively more and more misanthropic as I watch in disbleief as the studio extras cram shag carpet upholstered to-dads into their carts (these must be the people that keep boney-M on the airwaves! Have they no functioning sense of irony!? *sigh* at least I don't have to worry about whether Kamprad really was a quisling now that he's no longer the "real" owner... Pete.Hurd 15:50, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Whoa! That is nasty! Furnitorture! The '70's lurch on, zomboidally, no doubt families bearing the name "Lagfors" throughout Sweden have pulled the drapes shut, and wait for the shame to pass... Pete.Hurd 20:25, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Dear Katefan, a super-sized "thank you!" for reverting the vandalism on my user page! Now I've been called many things in my life, but I swear "Indian bitch", I've never been called before... anyway, I hope you're doing fine, and don't let Wikistress get you! Cheer up, my (only) Longhorn friend! Phædriel ♥ ^{tell me} 23:21, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Katefan, i am Oldwindybear's brother -- i live with him, as he is disabled, and needs help on some things. You need not worry about his writing anymore, you ran him off wikipedia. I took the liberty of correcting one of his articles out of his notes on Bonnie and Clyde, (he had worked on it for over a year) and may write myself some if I don't get run off as he did. I did think you went a little wild when you accused him of having people write in to support him. He was just trying to help the encyclopedia. I, definately, am wrting in to support him. I thought what was done to him was wrong, not that anyone cares. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.50.125.89 (talk • contribs)

Anyone is welcome to contribute as long as they follow the rules. Have fun. Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 06:33, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Gotcha. I used my brother's notes to clean the Frank Hamer article up. And appreciate your welcome, but have to say I thought you were a little cruel to my brother, a disabled Vet, who had spent considerable time working on wikipedia projects for nothing but a hard time. But then, that is all Vietnam Vets ever got, was a hard time. In any event, I will sign my name as you suggest, as for an account, no offense, but I saw what you did to my brother, so I pass. You guys welcome who you want, who has the correct political viewpoint, and historians like my brother, you make unwelcome. The words are nice, but I watched what the actions were, and they were a little cruel, to say the least, and biased, for a journalist.68.50.125.89 12:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC) 15 January 2006 (UTC)Mac

Another editor, in a civil and responsible way, without attacking me personally, made the point that though the facts may be true, the article on Frank Hamer contained language which was inappropriate. My brother attempted to change it, and that failed-- and when I removed the article, you again reverted it. Since we appear headed for a libel case on this, I want it on record that I attempted repeatedly to correct what was reasonably found to be inappropriate language, and you reverted it, for reasons I know not why. Your inability to show any form of fairness should cause you to bow out and let another editor -- like Phaedriel to do so. I wished to avoid a first amendment and harrassment case for trying to contribute to a good project, but people like yourself, who misuse power, need to be off this project, frankly. I would be delighted to bring my research on Bonnie and Clyde, and Frank Hamer, to a panel of editors in DC and let them examine the evidence. But again, I want it on record when a reasonable editor, Phaedriel appropriately disputed the language, and I attempted to correct it, you reverted to the inflamatory language deliberately. Not only is this abuse of authority, but harrasment at the least. I want these records clear so a court sees that I attempted to correct the language as Phaedriel noted, offered to produce the evidence for the entire article, and all I saw was reversion to the disputed language. old windy bear 01:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)(by the way, i have followed your instructions to use old windy bear 01:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC) which leaves my name twice! Also, if there is any otehr place to object to yoru harrassment I would like the name and person to contact.old windy bear 01:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)oldwindybear

Ello! Hopefully, we can spread the megafonzie craze throughout wikipedia ;-) The magical Spum-dandy 11:27, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[[ |thumb|200px|right|You are awarded 150 MegaFonzies for no particular reason!]]

Awaiting your edits...

You're quite welcome; that's the second time in a week I've had reason to say "The first amendment applies to Congress; we're not Congress, we're the cabal." Sometimes, it just doesn't pay to get out of bed. ; - ) Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 03:23, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Oooh, it just keeps coming; I guess I'm going to have to add it to my list of accomplishments! -- Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 05:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Are you an Adminstrator? I saw your warning on User_talk:85.250.166.7. Can you block this user? S/he's at it again. See also the relevant Talk and Mediation Cabal pages.--DieWeibeRose 08:52, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Kate.--DieWeibeRose 10:04, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

And now s/he has a different IP, or somebody else has taken up the slack. Please see Jack Abramoff history page. This is really getting out of control. Is it possible to lock the pages from all anonymous folks? Sign me: frustrated. Sholom 19:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

old windy bear 15:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)Good morning Kate! When you get a chance, would you go look at the Frank Hamer article? I completely rewrote it, and will specifically add page number citations as soon as I can get to the library. (the facts as written are all well documented, but I believe you correct, and because of the sensitive nature of this, it should be source cited more than usual. At any rate, I thought the rewritten article actually addrsses many of the concerns -- would you check it when you have time? Thanks, and sorry again, old windy bear 15:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Your name is being nominated on user RFC. --CyclePat 19:01, 16 January 2006 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct

Dooh! I just sumarized the issues. All that work. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Katefan0 --CyclePat 22:32, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

p.s.: Next time I see a bloody message blinking on the top of my page I'll know to read it before continuing on. --CyclePat 22:32, 16 January 2006 (UTC)