User talk:70.128.224.128

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

BTW - you need to take a closer look at the document that you provided the link to below.....the dates are 1931 - 1933.....When were B & C killed?.....1934......once again, attention to detail would save you much embarrasment


I suggest you open those books and read them then. He DID NOT have a ranger commission. If you really are a historian, your colleagues will be ashamed because they have been aware that that popular myth is false for 30 years! OPEN THE BOOK if you actually have it, page 210....do I really have to spoon feed it to you like this? Let your agenda go and report the facts, that is what REAL historians are supposed to do. Got to the state library and archives website like I suggested, 3-4 times now. YOU ARE WRONG! Deal with it and make the corrections.


I have the books right in front of me. You are so off base that it is not funny. I have heard that this sight has a reputation for letting anyone post anything, and you have proven that reputation with this article. I also have the texas State Library & Archives records on my desk as we speak. I don't care what you or this treherne claim, I have the documentation right here. Who are you, anyway, to post such unsubstaniated rubbish?

Contents

[edit] check the website

Then you obviously did not check the online website, which shows Hamer's active ranger commission, still in the state archives in Austin at http://www.tsl.state.tx.us/treasures/law/hamer-warrant.html You need to deal with you could not even check the archives for an active ranger commission which is posted on at least 3 sites online! And that is the bare beginning of your errors. Your "version" of the highway patrol ambush was exhaustively rebutted by Treherne - if you have his book, you can see on that page that he says the farmer was proven wrong. Ted Hinton's son -you do know who that is don't you? - says flatly Bonnie was asleep in the back seat when that gun battle happened. Listen, look and learn, and perhaps next time your facts will be correct, and you can follow some modicum of basic wikipedia policy. By the way, do NOT POST on my user page. if you wish to comment, leave it on my talk page. Try to learn some basic courtesy, and wikipedia rules, in addition to correct history before you come vandalize. Your facts are wrong, and again, follow wikidpedia policy - if you wish to dispute this, list the facts on the talk page. You are simply incorrect. Go look at the commission.

Also, you are using as a reference, a self serving, rushed out book that the Hamer family had rushed into print in 1968, which is considered useless historically, and was useful only for them to use to bargain with the studio to settle for a few dollars rather than the company try a nuisence suit based on a single inaccuracy in the film about good old murderer Frank, who allowed people to cut off a dead girl's hair - a dead girl who was only wanted for aiding the transportation of a motor vehicle, if you knew any of the history, which you obviously do not. old windy bear 01:50, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

And I am someone who signs my name, and cites the actual pages - and who cares what you think, it is what Treherne, and the experts think, that makes the wikipedia articles. If you have factual disputes, post them on the talk page, they get discussed, and we seek consensus. I also have the books in front of me, and you obviously do not know what you are talking about. Hamer had an active ranger commission, he was hired by Lee Simmons, and that is the beginning of your errors. However, if you wish to debate them, post the disputes in proper wikipedia fashion, on the talk page, or ask for a peer review. Who am I? A historian with at least enough intelligence to sign my postings, not vandalize articles, and follow wikipedia policy - try doing the same. Reverting your vandalizing won't go on long before an admin locks you out altogether unless you stop vandalizing, and start following policy for disputing facts. old windy bear 01:40, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

===Hamer's Ranger Commission was Permanent and your errors are sad===

You need to present factual disputes properly and stop vandalizing - you need to list these alleged "errors" on the talk page, in order, or request a peer review. You obviously do not know the history, Hamer still had that commission in 1934 when he was hired by Lee Simmons of TDOC to hunt down Bonnie and Clyde. Why do I feel I have to deal with fools constantly on these articles? This person vandalized the article, my user page, Kate's user page, and never once posted facts that are not refutable. Hamer's PERMANENT RANGER COMMISSION is posted online at http://www.tsl.state.tx.us/treasures/law/hamer-warrant.html Also go read Texas history online -http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/HH/fha32.html saying "In 1932 Hamer retired from active duty but retained his commission." Please, your lack of knowledge is embarrassing!The highway patrol fallacy - long ago discredited. Oh well, another night in wikipedia, with nameless vandals, lol old windy bear 02:19, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Katefan0

Please lock this one out. I have had to revert his POV messages, historically inaccurate messages at that, from the article, four times now, and will have to continue until someone locks him out. He refuses to follow wikipedia policy and list any disputed facts on the talk page, cite references, and seek consensus, but instead, plays vandal, and leaves messages on the article itself. Please lock him out until he complies with basic wikipedia policy...old windy bear 01:44, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how to get this issue taken care of, but there are countless factual errors in the frank hamer article by old windy bear, and though I have provided him with specific example that he can not refute and that I have the documentation in hand and cited, he does not seem willing to acknowledge and correct these serious factual errors. apparently he has an agenda and he is sticking to it, as some of the past dicussion reveals. I will include my original notes and my reply to his comments below. You will see the seriousness of his errors. This site has a reputation for allowing bogus info to be posted (lot of bad press this past year) so I am sure you will address this issue promptly.

Thank you


Warning to readers!!!

There are countless factual errors in this article. Who ever wrote it did very careless research, if any at all. There are so many that I do not have time to correct them at this time, but I will attempt to in the near future, as I will collect and post citations for all facts that I expose as misleading or false. Most of the errors are common mythology that has surfaced over the years regarding Mr. Hamer.

One obvious example is that he was NOT commissioned as a Texas Ranger when he tracked down Bonnie & Clyde, but he was in fact commissioned as a state highway patrolman ("I'm Frank Hamer" (c)1968) Also check the Texas State Library & Archives, you can see his records online. They disprove what the writer of the article below claims, even though he/she references them.

And for the record, Frank never wrote an "autobigraphy", as he passed away in 1953, and the aforementioned book was written by H. Gordon Frost and John H. Jenkins with the permission of the Hamer family in 1968. Ask his son Frank Jr., if you dont believe me. Or try actually reading the book.

BTW-The family successfully sued Warner brothers for that farce of a movie starring warren beatty for copyright infringement.

PS - Bonnie Parker was implicated by eye-witness in the cold blooded assasination of two highway patrol officers in grapevine texas on April 1st 1934. She Walked up to the one survivor and shot him point blank, then proceded to desecrate the corpse in an unmentionable fashion. She was anything but innocent, as she was suspected in numerous other murders & robberies, reveled in being photograped posing with guns, and sported a tatoo memorializing her 1st marriage to a man who was serving a life sentence in prison.(the eye-witness is named and his account provided in the aforementioned book, however the desecration I referred to was so vile that it is not included there, or in any publication)

To whoever posted this bogus info, please do your homework first, or don't post anything at all. It is a grave dis-service to the public.

His full given name was Francis Augustus Hamer.

I am willing to accept that the gross errors you made in the Frank hamer article may have been made in good faith on your part, but the fact remains that they are indeed errors.

Significant errors such as the example I gave that you are completely unable to refute. You didn't even try.

Go to the texas State Library & archives website and actually review Hamer's entire file like I have, the read the entire book, "I'm Frank Hamer" that you erroneously referred to as an autobiography, then talk to me. You are wrong on those facts I noted and many, many others.

Please be assured, I will not let this go until you correct those mistakes. This was my first experience with this site(very disappointing, to say the least), so I will have to learn the protocol, but you will save yourself much grief and embarrasment if you make these corrections yourself. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.128.224.128 (talk • contribs) .


Here are some more specifics, as he continues to cite incorrectly without actually reading what he cites. first here is the link he provides to defend his claim that hamer had a ranger commission in 1934....

http://www.tsl.state.tx.us/treasures/law/hamer-warrant.html

BTW - you need to take a closer look at the document that you provided the link to below.....the dates are 1931 - 1933.....When were B & C killed?.....1934......once again, attention to detail would save you much embarrasment


I suggest you open those books and read them then. He DID NOT have a ranger commission. If you really are a historian, your colleagues will be ashamed because they have been aware that that popular myth is false for 30 years! OPEN THE BOOK if you actually have it, page 210....do I really have to spoon feed it to you like this? Let your agenda go and report the facts, that is what REAL historians are supposed to do. Got to the state library and archives website like I suggested, 3-4 times now. YOU ARE WRONG! Deal with it and make the corrections.

[edit] Hamer's Ranger Commission was Permanent

You need to present factual disputes properly and stop vandalizing - you need to list these alleged "errors" on the talk page, in order, or request a peer review. You obviously do not know the history, Hamer still had that commission in 1934 when he was hired by Lee Simmons of TDOC to hunt down Bonnie and Clyde. Why do I feel I have to deal with fools constantly on these articles? This person vandalized the article, my user page, Kate's user page, and never once posted facts that are not refutable. Hamer's PERMANENT RANGER COMMISSION is posted online at http://www.tsl.state.tx.us/treasures/law/hamer-warrant.html Also go read Texas history online http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/HH/fha32.html saying "In 1932 Hamer retired from active duty but retained his commission." You may be right on the commission date which would change nothing - since the article makes clear he was not hunting Bonnie and Clyde as a ranger, but as a special investigator for Lee Simmons of the prison system, and still was and is the only ranger to "retire" with an active commission - your own methods and incredibly poor writing undercut any credibility for even this technicality. Please, your lack of knowledge is embarrassing! The highway patrol fallacy - long ago discredited. Oh well, another night in wikipedia, with nameless vandals, lol old windy bear 02:19, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

You are the vandal, desecrating the truth to forward your obvious agenda and bias!

[edit] to whoever vandalized the Frank Hamer article

YOU need to go read the books. Treherne exhaustively investigated the highway patrol shootings, in addition to Hamer's status. Ted Hinton's son also investigated - you do know how Ted Hinton was, right? - and Bonnie was asleep in the back of the car when those shootings occurred. Treherne, actually quote his book if you want the cite the farmer incident, disparaged it as untrue after an exhaustive investigation. If you want to come back and correct, fine, post your factual disagreements on the talk page, and they will be debated, and I will debunk the junk you posted cite by cite. Hamer was hired by Lee Simmons of TDOC, and he still held his active Ranger commission at the time. No one ever said he "wrote" an autobiography - do you know the definition of what the "auto" means added to biography? If you have problems with the article, post them here, follow wikipedia policy, and debate them - MyTwoCents - instead of vandalizing the article and failing to file allegedly wrong facts that need discussing here, or request peer review.old windy bear 23:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Katefan0

this user keeps vandalizing the Hamer article. If he wants a peer review, or to challange facts, he needs to do so within wikipedia policy, not just vandalize away to his POV heart's content. Will you lock him out please? Asking him to post facts in dispute properly is not working. old windy bear 00:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] another wikipedia violation

AnnH this user went to my user page, and edited it, basically threatening me until I accept his POV view of the hamer article - please lock him out, and I would be apprecitive if you extended protection to my user page. I don't react well to threats from cowards who cannot even sign their names, let alone get a fact right or follow basic wikipedia policy. old windy bear 01:48, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome to Wikipedia

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions.

Currently, you are editing without a username. You can continue to do so, as you are not required to log in to Wikipedia to read and edit articles; however, logging in will result in a username being shown instead of your IP address (yours is 70.128.224.128). Logging in does not require any personal details. There are many other benefits for logging in to Wikipedia. For now, if you are stuck, you can type {{helpme}} on this page and an experienced Wikipedian will be around to answer any questions you may have.

Please note these points:

  • Please respect others' copyrights; do not copy and paste the contents from webpages directly.
  • Please use a neutral point of view when editing articles; this is possibly the most important Wikipedia policy.
  • If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
  • Do not add unreasonable contents into any articles, such as: copyrighted text, advertisement messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Both adding such unreasonable information and editing articles maliciously are considered vandalism.

The Wikipedia Tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, ask me on my Talk page. I will answer your questions as far as I can! Thank you again for contributing to Wikipedia.

[edit] the world is turning upside down, I partially agree with MyTwoCents

I welcome anyone - even someone whose ideas are plainly wrong, and ask only that they abide by wikipedia rules. I would add to what MyTwoCents said:

  • don't edit other people's user pages, talk pages are for those messages, and if you leave messages, threats such as you left last night will get you nowhere but banned - and then you cannot edit at all;
  • you cannot erase an article because you disagree with it, you must list the FACTS you dispute on the talk page, and no matter how much you think you know - for instance, last night you thought Frank Hamer did not hold a ranger commission in 1934 and was hired by the Highway Patrol - wrong on both counts, according to the state of texas official website, he held an active ranger commission, and was employed against Bonnie and Clyde by the Texas Department of Corrections as a special investigator; in any event, if you disagree with the foregoing, you cannot leave a personal note to people in lieu of the article, you must list the facts on the talk page, and seek consensus;
  • if you list facts you dispute, I would suggest User:AndyZ as a model - he lists "weasal words," (subjective interpretations), and disputed facts about as well as anyone I have worked with, you have to LIST them, not write a rambling, incoherant dissertation that no one will pay any attention to;

Your entry was rather like a bull in a china shop, but much as I hate to agree with MyTwoCents on general principle, any person is welcome here, just abide by the basic rules, and be civil. Be as wrong as you want to be, or as right, but be civil in either case, and remember that no matter what you think you know, others will have both opinions and facts to dispute you. CONSENSUS is the byword in disputes. Present your arguments intelligently, and you will find far more agreement than listing threats or insults. They will get you what last night did - nothing. MyTwoCents is right that all are welcome, just abide by the rules. (sorry, I cannot endores MyTwoCents as a model, I would suggest asking User:Katefan0 or User:Musical Linguist for advice, both are superior admins with wonderful people skills. old windy bear 18:33, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


This is pathetic. Your statements prove that you have an agenda against Hamer. Are you a descendant of that murderous women, Bonnie Parker, or what? her family has tried to whitewash her violent history since before she was stopped in her murdering tracks, so your feeble attempts to blatantly ignore facts and re-cast her as some kind of victim are not only bogus, but unoriginal as well.

And dont talk to me about remaining anoymous, as you are the charlatan who posted this nonsense under an alias so that you can't be held responsible for that tripe. Oh, sure Old Windy Bear is your real name, right? PLEASE!!! You post your REAL name on that piece of garbage you call a historical account and I will gladly tell you mine. Otherwise, give it a rest and stop trying to change the subject from the fact that you are Bonnie Parker apologist for whom the end justifies the means, you FRAUD! I know you won't if you actually have any real connections to any legitimate historians, as I WILL expose you to them if I find out who you are then you will be black-balled in the academic and publishing community. yes, I am daring you!

The very documents that you cite contradict you own assertions. I notice that afterthe 4 or five times that I have pointed that out that you never address the specific issues. So you are the vandal, not I!

After perusing your discussion history, I see that you have been repestedly challenge on the bogus facts and claims you have put in numerous articles. See a pattern, do ya? I will make sure that Wikipedia gives you the boot, unless they want some more bad press like they had in the past year. I wouldn't doubt if you were the source of those bogus articles as well.

[edit] Don't Sing It, Bring It

You are a real laugh, threats from those who cannot back them always amuse me, so let me see if I can explain this in simple sentences that even your limited mind can grasp:

  • you cannot seem to grasp that you must READ the state of Texas's archival site, which clearly stated that Hamer held a valid ranger's commission at his "retirement" which was actually a forced political resignation;
  • that commisssion was valid in 1934 when he began the Parker/Barrow Hunt;
  • he was not a highway patrolman as you so ignorantly posted, but rather a special investigator for the Texas Department of Corrections;
  • the highway patrol shootings were started by Henry Methvin, and Clyde joined in, Bonnie had no part, except, according to Treherne, for trying to help.
The book you claim for source material was a hack job pushed through by Hamer's wife and son in 1968 so they could sue and pressure the movie for a few dollars - all they got to end the litigation -- and is historically incorrect in virtually every detail.
As to being a Parker relative, that is amusing also. Some of the admins know my full name - In my younger days I would have offered to meet you anywhere - but then, people like you love to threaten people via the internet, from a distance. That is your style, to hide in the dark, behind an IP address. So I won't dignify that with an answer other than to say you amuse me. As to "driving" me from wikipedia, check my talk page. I am regularly asked to work on projects - something I doubt you will achieve, and I will be here long after you go pester a child or someone you can safely pick on.
By the way, mental giant, "repestedly" is spelled "repeatedly." I assume you were trying to say "repeatedly." If there is a pest here, it is you, repeatedly a pest, so I assume you could be a re-pest.
You also misspelled "anonymous" - a certain sign of a superior mind is the ability to misspell the simpliest of words, lol. But then, you said "anoymous" which may mean annoying to us, which would be accurate!
I have addressed each of your points, and speaking personally, your threats amuse me greatly. Better minds than you have and far better men have threatened me to no avail. You have no ability to write, (God knows you can't spell!), less ability to do research, and merely amuse me. So, in the immortal words of the Rock, don't sing it, bring it. I suspect you are a sock puppet, but don't really care. In either case, I will dismantle your stupid arguments, on the talk page, get consensus against your points, which are all wrong in fact. Like I said, as to the personal threats, and all that stuff, yawn, you bore me. Don't talk me to death, don't sing it boy, bring your arguments to the talk page, or ask for a peer review, and lets get busy!old windy bear 21:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

You want to appear educated,yet you quote a WRESTLER? I think that pretty much sums you up.

I have brought it repeatedly, and you just choose to ignore it.

To User:Katefan0 Will you take a moment to look at Old Windy Bear's own citations that refute his own claims. The link he keeps providing shows that Hamer's last commission ended in January 1933, a year and a half before the Bonnie & Clyde job. This error of fact is particularly important because your writer goes on to make some far-out claims based on that factual error. And as for his criticims of the "I'm" Frank Hamer" book, he is so ignorant that he refers to it as an autobiography even though hamer died 15 years before it was written by John H. Jenkins & H. Gordon Frost, two highly esteemed Texas historians of their generation. You can verify their reputations with the UT-Austin History department if you like. And furthermore, his claims about the timing of the book are erroneous as well, as is his claim that the settlement the family received was insignificant. The terms of the settlement included a confidentiality clause, so make him provided documents to rpove that claim as well. I do know this, the first payment came at the signing around 1970, a suitcase full of wrapped stacks of $500.00 bills. Frank Jr still has the suitcase and wrappers if you would like to see them. And finally, your writer cites a self-described NOVEL, the one by shelton, as if it were a work of history. He might as well cite the warren beatty movie then!

You are correct that if you are the type of hack they want on this site, I will certainly not sully my reputation by posting her any longer. Since this site has faced substantial scrutiny and imbarresment for factual errors already, I am certain it will not be long until the whole world acknowledges it for a farce, if indeed you are an example of their best work. Proffessors around the country are already warning students way from this site and even docking points when it is used as a citation. Just the kind of outfit that I definitely do NOT wish to be associated with! What does it prove that a few "editors" for the site know your real name, if you keep it hid from the public that you are so blatantly trying to decieve? And what childish threats to "meeet you anywhere" Please, you are so beneath me. 54 years old, you say? I was thinking you were about 12 when I read that, and the pathetic attempt to insult me by ridiculing my typing. OOOOHHH, that one really hurt! Especially from a guy who doesn't even read documents before he cites them and also cites sel-described novels as if they contain history!

I have addressed each of your points, and speaking personally, your threats amuse me greatly. Better minds than you have and far better men have threatened me to no avail. You have no ability to write, less ability to do research, and merely amuse me. So, in the immortal words of the Rock, don't sing it, bring it. I suspect you are a sock puppet, but don't really care. In either case, I will dismantle your stupid arguments, on the talk page, get consensus against your points, which are all wrong in fact. Like I said, as to the personal threats, and all that stuff, yawn, you bore me. Don't talk me to death, don't sing it boy, bring it.old windy bear 21:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

You want to appear educated,yet you quote a WRESTLER? I think that pretty much sums you up.

You are correct that if you are the type of hack they want on this site, I will certainly not sully my reputation by posting her any longer. Since this site has faced substantial scrutiny and imbarresment for factual errors already, I am certain it will not be long until the whole world acknowledges it for a farce, if indeed you are an example of their best work. Proffessors around the country are already warning students way from this site and even docking points when it is used as a citation. Just the kind of outfit that I definitely do NOT wish to be associated with! What does it prove that a few "editors" for the site know your real name, if you keep it hid from the public that you are so blatantly trying to decieve? And what childish threats to "meeet you anywhere" Please, you are so beneath me. 54 years old, you say? I was thinking you were about 12 when I read that, and the pathetic attempt to insult me by ridiculing my typing. OOOOHHH, that one really hurt! Especially from a guy who doesn't even read documents before he cites them and also cites sel-described novels as if they contain history!

You want to appear educated,yet you quote a WRESTLER? I think that pretty much sums you up.

I have brought it repeatedly, and you just choose to ignore it.

To User:Katefan0 Will you take a moment to look at Old Windy Bear's own citations that refute his own claims. The link he keeps providing shows that Hamer's last commission ended in January 1933, a year and a half before the Bonnie & Clyde job. This error of fact is particularly important because your writer goes on to make some far-out claims based on that factual error. And as for his criticims of the "I'm" Frank Hamer" book, he is so ignorant that he refers to it as an autobiography even though hamer died 15 years before it was written by John H. Jenkins & H. Gordon Frost, two highly esteemed Texas historians of their generation. You can verify their reputations with the UT-Austin History department if you like. And furthermore, his claims about the timing of the book are erroneous as well, as is his claim that the settlement the family received was insignificant. The terms of the settlement included a confidentiality clause, so make him provided documents to rpove that claim as well. I do know this, the first payment came at the signing around 1970, a suitcase full of wrapped stacks of $500.00 bills. Frank Jr still has the suitcase and wrappers if you would like to see them. And finally, your writer cites a self-described NOVEL, the one by shelton, as if it were a work of history. He might as well cite the warren beatty movie then!

You are correct that if you are the type of hack they want on this site, I will certainly not sully my reputation by posting her any longer. Since this site has faced substantial scrutiny and imbarresment for factual errors already, I am certain it will not be long until the whole world acknowledges it for a farce, if indeed you are an example of their best work. Proffessors around the country are already warning students way from this site and even docking points when it is used as a citation. Just the kind of outfit that I definitely do NOT wish to be associated with! What does it prove that a few "editors" for the site know your real name, if you keep it hid from the public that you are so blatantly trying to decieve? And what childish threats to "meeet you anywhere" Please, you are so beneath me. 54 years old, you say? I was thinking you were about 12 when I read that, and the pathetic attempt to insult me by ridiculing my typing. OOOOHHH, that one really hurt! Especially from a guy who doesn't even read documents before he cites them and also cites sel-described novels as if they contain history!

I have addressed each of your points, and speaking personally, your threats amuse me greatly. Better minds than you have and far better men have threatened me to no avail. You have no ability to write, less ability to do research, and merely amuse me. So, in the immortal words of the Rock, don't sing it, bring it. I suspect you are a sock puppet, but don't really care. In either case, I will dismantle your stupid arguments, on the talk page, get consensus against your points, which are all wrong in fact. Like I said, as to the personal threats, and all that stuff, yawn, you bore me. Don't talk me to death, don't sing it boy, bring it.old windy bear 21:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

You want to appear educated,yet you quote a WRESTLER? I think that pretty much sums you up.

You are correct that if you are the type of hack they want on this site, I will certainly not sully my reputation by posting her any longer. Since this site has faced substantial scrutiny and imbarresment for factual errors already, I am certain it will not be long until the whole world acknowledges it for a farce, if indeed you are an example of their best work. Proffessors around the country are already warning students way from this site and even docking points when it is used as a citation. Just the kind of outfit that I definitely do NOT wish to be associated with! What does it prove that a few "editors" for the site know your real name, if you keep it hid from the public that you are so blatantly trying to decieve? And what childish threats to "meeet you anywhere" Please, you are so beneath me. 54 years old, you say? I was thinking you were about 12 when I read that, and the pathetic attempt to insult me by ridiculing my typing. OOOOHHH, that one really hurt! Especially from a guy who doesn't even read documents before he cites them and also cites sel-described novels as if they contain history!

Haven't seen any "warning" from admin, whoever that may be. Your denial seems do be pathological though. I am the one who first told you about the state library and archives document (in my very first posting - I also told you that I have a printed file of his ENTIRE record from the state archives) that, for the ump-teenth time, shows hamer's commission as VOID on February 1, 1933. Will you ever actually read that document, or will you continue living in denial?

I see that you were reprimanded by both katefan and phadriel repeatedly on this article and forced to edit it substantially in January....I can't imagine that it was worse than it is now, your bias against hamer must run in your veins! Katefan was so concerned that she thought you are going to get the website sued, which you just might.


[edit] An Admin Just Warned You, You would be wise to listen

Your denial seems do be pathological though. I am the one who first told you about the state library and archives document (in my very first posting - I also told you that I have a printed file of his ENTIRE record from the state archives) that, for the ump-teenth time, shows hamer's commission as VOID on February 1, 1933. Will you ever actually read that document, or will you continue living in denial?

I see that you were reprimanded by both katefan and phadriel repeatedly on this article and forced to edit it substantially in January....I can't imagine that it was worse than it is now, your bias against hamer must run in your veins! Katefan was so concerned that she thought you are going to get the website sued, which you just might.

I told you wikipedia does not tolerate antics like yours, and I would listen to the person who just warned you. But then, I am not you, thank God. As for Kate, I did not know you knew her, and I certainly was unaware - and I do communicate with her - that she ever feared being sued for my writings. You certainly do feel free to speak for people you don't know.
As to the Hamer issue on his commission, please, you need to raise that on the talk page, or ask for a peer review, which you will lose. You need to present factual disputes properly and stop vandalizing - you need to list these alleged "errors" on the talk page, in order, or request a peer review. You obviously do not know the history, Hamer still had that commission in 1934 when he was hired by Lee Simmons of TDOC to hunt down Bonnie and Clyde. Hamer's PERMANENT RANGER COMMISSION is posted online at http://www.tsl.state.tx.us/treasures/law/hamer-warrant.html Also go read Texas history online -http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/HH/fha32.html saying "In 1932 Hamer retired from active duty but retained his commission." Please, your lack of knowledge is embarrassing!The highway patrol fallacy - long ago discredited. See the cites on Bonnie and Clyde.
As to your grand posturing on leaving, gosh, what a loss you will be! Hmmmmm, first, I know of no major university which deducts points for citing wikipedia as a source, but I am certain a master scholar of your stature knows some he can cite. (and it is "cite" not "citation" which is a legal term for referencing a case in a brief, just for your education before you go, a cite is a factual reference, a citation a legal one in an appropriate legal context. (Not that you understand either, obviously) As for quoting the Rock, at least you know who he is, you obviously were not aware of the archives of the State of Texas, since they contradicted your every point. Wikipedia is the future, and while I will try to bear up under your loss, sniff, sniff, guess the rest of us will just have to lumber along without you.
  • By the way, "imbarresment?' It is spelled "embarassment."
  • "Sel-described" what is that? Are you trying to say self-described, or are you shortening sell-described? If so, whatever you are selling, no one here is buying.
  • "Porfessors?" Do you mean "Professors," or are you inventing a new language? You certainly cannot speak, spell, or write, english well.
  • "citation?" That is a legal term, for referencing cases. In writing we cite facts, citations are completely different.
I was unaware that you know Kate, and certainly never heard from her - and I do communicate with her - anything like what you claim.
As for my work, I let my peers here, and in the historical community judge it, and obviously, you are not either, since you cannot even spell the most basic of words. I was embarassed for you reading "imbarressed," "sel-described," and "proffessors." Is there not a word you cannot mangle? If you need help in learning spelling and basic writing skills, send me an email, and I will gladly mail you free a book on basic writing. You did not come here to contribute, you came to attack me. I suspect a sock puppet, but unlike the person who accused me, I chose not to go that route. Your "writing" is reason enough to bid you adieu. (that is french for see you!) In closing, let me bid you farewell, and I even spelled it correctly! If you stay, I would heed the advice of the admin who just warned you, and stick to the issues on the article, and avoid the personal attacks. I was serious about sending you a book on writing, you do need some help. old windy bear 22:26, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Once again, sorry my typing is all you have in your life to help you feel good about being a hack. "This" is most certainly not the "historical community" but I will ask the giants of the field (that I am having lunch with tomorrow to discuss a project) what they think about this. If this, (& hacks like you) are the future, then I weep for it! Sayonara! (Japanese for good-bye, for YOUR education)

I would offer to send you the documents that prove you wrong, but then we both know you won't read them.

Au contrarie, (french for on the contrary), scan them and send them by email. I cheerfully acknowledge I am not the be all, end all, of historians. If you wish to scan documents which prove your point, and they check out, I will cheerfully post an apology, and edit the article appropriately, or encourage you to do so. What folks are trying to tell you, is that endless personal attacks here - and you started them - are not the way to address factual disputes.

There are three ways to address factual disputes, but the first two are best:

  • direct communication between the editors - you say you have documentation for me, fine, scan and send it to me, my email address catches from my wikipedia address, and I will respond directly, if you do this civilly. If you are correct, and myself in error, I will gladly acknowledge that your history is superior to your spelling, and make the necessary edits;
  • post the factual disputes you allege - which so far the proof is lacking, on the talk page, and ask for consensus to change the disputed facts, after anyone, (and I am not alone in opposing your viewpoint), has an opportunity to respond and view the evidence submitted by all parties;
  • if the first two fail, request a peer review.
ironically, You may be right on the commission date which would change nothing in the article - since the article makes clear he was not hunting Bonnie and Clyde as a ranger, but as a special investigator for Lee Simmons of the prison system, and still was and is the only ranger to "retire" with an active commission;
if you want the commission date clarified, you need to scan the file, and forward it, or post it, though again, ironically, if the date on it is all you have, it changes nothing in the article, which again, makes clear he was not hunting Bonnie and Clyde as a ranger, but as a special investigator for Lee Simmons of the prison system, and still was and is the only ranger to "retire" with an active commission - as to the wording on the autobiography, you need to take that dispute up with his family, which marketed that hack job as made from his notes and recollections as relayed to the ghostwriters;
These are not difficult policies to follow. What you clearly cannot do is post lengthy diatribes that personally attack any person, myself in this case, but it could be anyone, while being long on rhetoric which is easily rebuttable, longer on vipurative personal insults and threats, and short on wikipedia civility. I will absolutely read any documentation you send, check it via the library of congress, and if you are correct, make the appropriate changes. So scan and send, if you have the documentation, and if you can manage it with civility, I will directly respond with what evidence I have, scannning and sending - and we can work together to edit the article. These vipurative personal attacks are simply a sign that an agenda is at work that has nothing to do with the article. If that is not the case, let us call a halt to the rhetoric, and send the documentation back and forth, and resolve this. Or, post it on the talk page. Your preference, but again, if you have evidence, send it, scanning and sending by email is done regularly here. The truth is the objective, and if you have proof something is wrong, I personally want to see it, and correct any inaccuracies. Right now, all you have said is strongly disputed the Texas State Archives, John Treherne's work, (regarded as the best historical source on Bonnie and Clyde), and Ted Hinton's son's accounts of his father's writings and knowledge. If you have other information, I would be delighted to see it, and if it is legitimate, act appropriately. Don't weep for the future, it is futile and a waste of good tears - work constructively to change it. Frankly, if I could not differentiate between citing a fact and citations, I would not call anyone a hack. So prove me wrong, and send the documentation - if you are correct, I will certainly verify it, use it and correct any inaccuracies at once, and publically acknowledge you were right. old windy bear 00:10, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article edits

Do not add comments to users into the articles. That belongs on the talk pages. You may be blocked if you continue. Take your time and discuss with civility whatever issue you have over this article. Also keep in mind our policies on edit warring WP:3RR. NoSeptember talk 22:22, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

This has been my first interaction with your site, I came upon it by accident, though I do recall hearing about it having some credibility issues on the news in the past year. I am not familiar with all of your complicated protocols, but what I do know is that there are large quantities of gross factual errors in the article on Frank Hamer by old windy bear. I even saw that he was chastised and forced to edit the article some back in January by katefan & phadriel. Unfortunately, there are still massive problems and errors and erroneous conclusions drawn from those errors. I have attempted to address just a few of them civily with the writer to no avail, as he insulted me from the beggining and his own cites contradict his claims. i do admit that I then responded curtly to his insults and denial. Though I did try to soften my rhetoric at one point early on, stating that I would accept that his errors were in good faith, but he responded with attacks and insults still, because the facts don not support his argument. Will you please review all the history and advise me as to what course to follow to get that article either heavily revised or removed? I will no longer repond to his childish insults, and will wait for your, or any admin's reply. thank you

Follow the process at WP:DR. If discussion doesn't work, maybe Phaedriel or Katefan0 will agree to get involved, since you asked them. If not, you can request another mediator. Just remember that we block people all the time for edit warring and incivility, regardless of whether their facts were ultimately right or wrong, because the process of working things out is important. Sorry but I don't have the time to dig into this dispute, but their are plenty of people around who will help. Have patience, dispute resolution takes time. NoSeptember talk 23:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

NoSeptember I have tried repeatedly to tell this user that wikipedia has policies for factual disputes. I have urged him to:

  • forward any documentation if he has any, and if verified, any inaccuracies will be corrected;
  • if he does not wish to do that, then post the facts in dispute, in some form of orderly fashion, not a ranting diatribe, on the talk page of the article, where the contrasting sources will be reviewed by consensus, and a result achieved after such review;
  • ask for peer review if the first two fail;
Unfortunately, it appears that this user, probably a sock puppet, appears out of nowhere, and after a long and sometimes bitter battle over this same subject was just resolved by consensus, tries to bully it changed by personal attacks. If you - and I am sure you have - review his overwriting the article, it contained personal attacks on me, rather than following any form of asking for factual review. I have asked for any documentation he claims to have, and will personally verify it via the Library of Congress, if it exists, and it is found the article needs correcting, it will be. Essentially he claims Hamer's commission expired in 33, which still left him the only ranger to "retire" with an active commission. No one ever said he was hunting Bonnie and Clyde as a ranger, he was acting as a special investigator for the Prison system, under Lee Simmons. In any event, his claims on Bonnie Parker are totally wrong, period, and refuted by every major scholar on the duo. (the highway patrol incident has been religiously rebutted, by every expert on the duo) But as I said, if he has factual disputes, they need to be resolved without his using the article to call me, or any other editor, names. And frankly, it does not help his credibility that he can neither write nor spell with any degree of literacy. He may be right on the commission - but his methods and incredibly poor writing undercut any credibility for his arguments. Wikipedia requires we work in a group effort, not this sort of personal garbage. I probably should not have pointed out that he cannot spell or even properly cite facts - a citation as you know is a legal reference, not a factual cite. But the complete lack of literacy, coupled with unending personal assaults beginning before any attempt to resolve this with wikipedia policy on the talk page, does raise serious questions about agendas. This unnamed user began by posting a very personal assault and POV attack, replacing an article with his personal opinions and insults, (most of it quite misspelled), without any effort to list the facts in dispute properly. When asked repeatedly to utilize our methods of factual dispute, he refused, and ranted more. I think this speaks plainly to what agenda is present. old windy bear 03:04, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


This old windy bear's attempts to defend his biased and inaccurate article are as replete with ignorance of the topic as the article itself. And the fact that he cries and whines about "insults" while he continues to lob them at all who offer critique of his articles further diminishes his already lacking credibility.

As he refuses to attach his real name and credentials for verification to this or any other article, I recommend that all articles by him be removed. A quick review of the discussion history around his "work" will easily provide your organization with justification to do so. He claims to be a "54 year old historian" but without specifics to verify, just as in his articles, I have serious doubts as to that claim as well.

The documents and other sources he cites all either contradict his claims, were produced by individuals with recognized biases and agendas in the matter, such as relatives of Bonnie & Clyde (check them out, it's true), or are even works of fiction by their own admission (The Gene Shelton book is a NOVEL)

His complete lack of knowledge on the topic of how rangers were commissioned in those days is frightening. He is continuing to argue in the face of over whelming evidence (the very document that he cites which shows itself to have been VOID Feb 1 1933) He claims that the fact that it is on file with the Texas State Library & Archive as "proof" that it was "permanent" No real historian could be so ignorant. The archive maintains ALL old ranger commissions from the period before the creation of DPS in Texas. (I bet old windy bear doesn't know a thing about what that signifies)

He argues that "scholars" have refuted this that or the other, yet conveniently, he never names any specific "scholars" and his article cites primarily non-scholars and works of self-described fiction.

He also is ignorant of the fact that the "special investigator" position created by Lee Simmons in order to hire Hamer did not come with any actual law enforcement authority at the time, which is why Hamer needed the state highway patrolman commission, so that he would have the powers of arrest and to carry firearms.

It is of significant interest that old windy bear both cites the book "I'm Frank Hamer" (by recognized scholars John H. Jenkins & H Gordon Frost - and you might want to review the list of contributing / assisting scholars in the acknowledgements, as well as the many sources in the bibliography, a feature many of the books that old windy bear cites don't even have) erroneously refers to it as an "autobiography" repeatedly in his "article" (the subject had been DEAD for 15 years - old windy bear also got the date of death wrong) and cites it repeatedly, but then, conveniently, disputes its veracity on points that undermine his claims and agenda. The only sources he has offered that have "long discredited" that work are by recognized NON-scholars: people looking to make a buck, or defend Bonnie and, or Clyde, and with no scholarly background, which is plainly evident upon review of their work.

If this site continues to pass the buck and take no action in this matter, it will be no surprise, although a disappointment, as I was hoping that you all had learned your lesson after having been so incredibly humiliated in the national press this past year.

You will not be able to say that you were not provide due notice.

PS - Old windy bear, name for me one major University that will accept wikipedia as a cite in scholarly historical research. be assured that I will contact any institution that you venture to name in order to verify your claim.

[edit] Response to More Personal Attacks

User:Katefan0 has instructed all parties - that includes you - to cease any personal insults, so I will deal strictly with the issues you have more or less raised, as best I can ascertain them, in the rambling lengthy and confusing post you made:
  • you claim Hamer's commission expired in 1933, which is a moot issue even if true - the Texas State Archives still list him as the only ranger to retire with an active commission;
  • he was hired by Lee Simmons of TDOC to hunt down Bonnie and Clyde after the January 1934 Eastham prison raid by the duo, as a special investigator for TDOC, not as a highway patrolman, as you incorrectly claim;
  • you make various claims about Hamer's ghosted autobiography, which, as I explained to you, was released as such by his family to cash in on the movie, claiming it was from his personal notes and recollections as relayed to them;
  • the book was rushed out 13 years after he died, not 15, to take advantage of the movie, and position the family to sue; just as you had the settlement occuring in 1970, it happened in 1971 - your dates are simply wrong, as are your facts;
  • you claim they got a huge settlement from the movie company in 1970 (the settlement was actually in 1971), a "suitcase full of $500 bills" claiming Hamer's son as the source - anyone with any knowledge of the legal system knows settlements are not made in suitcases!
  • you claim Bonnie was the killer in the highway patrolmen murders, see Treherne, or Ted Hinton's son's account, at http://www.dallasnews.com/s/dws/spe/2003/bonnieclyde/story.html -- in fact, Ted Hinton, a far more respected lawman in Texas than Hamer, found she was asleep in the back seat during those murders, and Treherne found she approached the dying men to try to help them. The farmer you quote was discredited for his many changes of version on that event, depending on his audience.
  • you seem to feel I am "pro Bonnie" and Clyde. We went through all that on a good peer review on the Bonnie and Clyde article, and consensus was achieved through 4 people working very hard on the article, and no one felt it - which is far stronger than the article on Hamer - was "pro" anyone, it ws the truth as relayed by the historians and eyewitnesses, especially Ted Hinton for the later, and Treherne, Milner, and Geringer for the former. No one is "pro" anything except pro-wikipedia, which is to say, pro truth, wherever that leads. You do not even mention the ambush - which we did not use stronger quotes on, which state that today Hamer would be charged and convicted of murder and civil rights violations - or the aftermath, in which he held forth to citizens on his great career while souvenir hunters cut the blood soaked clothes and hair off a dead girl. Nor did we dwell at length on Boots Hinton's stunning posthumous revelation by hs father, Ted, that Hamer kidnapped Methvin's father, and in return for not getting charged for that crime, traded a pardon to Henry Methvin for the murder of the two highway patrolmen. We mentioned it, but again, left out far more incendiary quotes on the ethics of a man who would trade a murderer a pardon to avoid criminal charges that would have ruined him. That is the sad, but blunt, truth. We did not use the stronger quotes on Hamer's pontificating during the savaging of dead bodies either, though he only stopped that unbelievable activity when the coroner ordered him to - in an effort to be NPOV. NO one disputes he ordered automatic weapon fire on a girl not wanted for any major offense, period, and then let people cut off her bloody clothes and hair for souvenirs, and he and some of the posse took even her personal possessions, selling them for souvenirs, which I believe speaks for itself. Actually, we had to work hard not to use incendiary quotes on Hamer's conduct far stronger than those we used, again, to try to be encyclopedic. But the truth is what it is.
  • As to universities which accept wikipedia as a source, you can start with the University of Houston, since you claim to be Texan, and check with it's undergraduate history program, which certainly would accept a cite from an article here as a reference in a paper. That is just one. UT at Austin, check with theirs also. Be my guest, I am an alumni of the University of Houston, and called them yesterday. They would accept this site as a reference in a class paper.
As to listing my true name and academic degrees, first, you won't even list a name - telling me you are a sock puppet, and secondly, while I have four, Essjay, who has far more, including two earned doctorates, makes a vital point that education is not the measure of value here, it is your work. I believe since - if you look at my webpage - I am regularly asked to work on projects, that speaks to that issue. I am absolutely complying with Kate's instructions not to respond to your personal attacks, I would strongly suggest you do the same, or you will be banned, trust me. I suggest we move the debate to the talk page of the Frank Hamer article, and I confidently predict the current article will prevail. The truth is what it is, whether or not a particular person's views like it. But again, wikipedia works by consensus, and now is the time for you to make your arguments - not in lengthy repetitive "warnings" but specific lists of disputed facts, references, and why the article should be changed. And I, and others, will respond, and consensus will rule the day, as it should and does on wikipedia. old windy bear 16:14, 20 May 2006 (UTC)