User talk:Katefan0/5

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 Wikipedia'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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia'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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Your 3rr proposal

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

This article needs more cats...

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

Lar, you're dead to me. ;) · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 04:17, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Ayn Rand unprotect request

Please take a look at the additional text I wrote at [1]. Alienus 06:00, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I've done some research into this. Please see Talk:University_of_Texas_at_Austin#Color_Controversy. Johntex\^talk 23:39, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia does not exist to help WNRI sell advertising. Thank you again! --Analogdemon (talk) 13:51, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

3RR for 80.90.xx at Phaistos Disc

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

Research

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

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^{(cat scratches)} 15:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We Did it!!!

Johntex\^talk 23:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 [there's Uncle Joe, here's a moving might slow, at the junction...] Johntex\^talk 04:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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\^talk 04:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 ^(talk) 23:21, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do have nerve! I make no apologies or denials about that! Johntex\^talk 00:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Back, savages, back! <growls>--Sean Black ^(talk) 00:46, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're just mad because I brought her the millionth article first. Johntex\^talk 01:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stop pushing me, pal. I'll fight this out if I have to.--Sean Black ^(talk) 01:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look at all the pretty gold on that gleaming one million... mmmm... shiny... Johntex\^talk 01:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, look. We can settle this. You, shoo, go find another talk page. There, settled. Whee.--Sean Black ^(talk) 01:48, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFPP

What is with all of the people requesting unprotection for articles that are not even protected?Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 22:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck with WLH!:)Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 23:01, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm...here we go [2].

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^T|@|ESP 23:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Jesus article

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

[3] which continues a pattern of attacking, incivility and disruptive tendentious behavior. Please reconsider the way you are conducting yourself on Wikipedia. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 23:31, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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))[reply]

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

(Deng 11:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC))[reply]

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

Looking for articles to work on?

Hello, Katefan0. I'm SuggestBot, a Wikipedia bot that helps new members contribute to Wikipedia. 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)[reply]

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 ^Talk/_CVU 03:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

McWhinney

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

Oklahoma Infighting

This [4] is a great diff with a great edit summary. Johntex\^talk 08:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Impersonation

Be warned, the user user:4.249.150.186 impersonated you on my talk page! -- Con Dem^Talk 08:23, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked him for 3 hours after a couple of warnings by others. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 08:54, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia: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)[reply]

I went ahead and put the pd-self tag on the image. If that's wrong kate, change it. :) --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 07:10, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks. Good grief, I tagged it with gfdl-self; what else is needed? · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 14:32, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 ^puff 06:10, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Re: Civility

While I can understand the need for politeness in Wikipedia 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I appreciate it. Thanks. - mixvio 19:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]