Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:23, 8 September 2008

Archives
March 2008 April 2008 May 2008 June 2008 July 2008 August 2008 September 2008

Sarah Palin edits with no discussion

Hi. It seems as if you keep adding in material to the Palin article without discussion on it. I'd like to see the artcicle slimmed down before it gets too huge. Take a look at Al Gore for an example as a well maintained article. And in the meantime, lets try to come to a concensus before edit-waring, yes? --Oi!oi!oi!010101 (talk) 23:02, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

You first. Kelly 23:10, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I allready had. :) Sry.. I don't log in frequently cause I this stupid name is impossible to spell and it's a hassle. So I'll leave it as is till further discussion. BTW, I love all the hard work you've put in to that article and am not trying to be a jerk, just a few small things I notice here and there I take shots at if I think they need improvement. I figure a hundred folks like me finding little things to fix makes it a better world. Also.. I love your user page. --98.243.129.181 (talk) 23:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Aw, shucks. Well, I'm really sorry for being snippy. Honestly! The kind of absolute misogynistic trash that the Democrat Party people have been trying to put into the article really pushed my "sexist" button, but you weren't one of those! Kelly 23:24, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

If anything I'm the one that needs to appologise for sounding snippy. And on the topic of the intro, a couple people have wieghed in and I think I'm in the extreme minority so I'm dropping the issue. Thanks again for all the har work. --98.243.129.181 (talk) 01:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I think you'll find that it's the "Democratic Party." When people say "Democrat Party," they generally intend to be insulting. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Really? Well, I'm heartbroken at the idea of insulting the Democratic Party, since they were so solicitous of my feelings when I was in Iraq in the dark days. Weren't they the party of slavery and segregation? I always forget. Kelly 00:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I was assuming good faith; I didn't realize that you intended to insult me. I'll remember, when I'm not certain in the future, that you are insulting me intentionally. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Uh-huh. Typical Democrat Party victimhood. Kelly 00:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I have a question. Do you support blocks for violations of No Personal Attacks? Do you think that rule is applicable in this situation? I feel that I offered you an opportunity to retract an insult against me, fairly politely, and instead, you insulted me again. Would you like to take this opportunity to apologize to me, considering that your attack against me was entirely unprovoked? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll apologize as soon as Harry Reid apologizes for stating that we lost the war. Kelly 00:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't remember saying that to you. Are you truly saying that you are free to insult me as long as there is a Democrat anywhere in the country who has spoken in a way that hurt your feelings? Are you willing, then, for me to extend the same courtesy to you, and insult you freely on behalf of every Republican who has hurt my feelings? I should warn you that I'm gay; some of your party's members have said some extremely unpleasant things about me, just as unpleasant as those that some Democrats have said about the war. Would it make Misplaced Pages better if I took my feelings about that out on you? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm just saying that you're being a tad bit histrionic for taking "Democrat Party" as an insult. Oh, and I'm not a Republican and never have been, I'm a libertarian. There are thousands of heroic gay people in the military - Bill Clinton's "don't ask don't tell" policy is a travesty and always has been. My gay comrades should be able to serve openly with pride. America is for everyone who shares its ideals, no matter what they do in their private life. Kelly 01:00, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Though not part of this conversation, I feel it necessary to interject myself. I fail to understand how using a term that may possibly be somewhat demeaning to the Democratic Party is a personal and therefore individual attack on all members of the Democratic Party or specifically to FisherQueen. If anything, I can see how use of the term Democrat rather than Democratic might possibly be an attack on, or insult to party leaders if Kelly was implying that the Democratic Party was not in fact democratic in some way. I further fail to understand how the 'Democratic rather than Democrat' comment was constructive to the topic that was being discusses at the time it was interjected particularly considering the nature of the page it was post. I do not believe that the ‘Democrat instead of Democratic’ comment or the follow-up “...idea of insulting the ‘Democratic Party’…” comment rises to the level of a personal attack.

I believe that "I'll remember, when I'm not certain in the future, that you are insulting me intentionally," may constitute a personal attack. Granted, this comment was made as a response to a perceived personal attack even if the comments which that perception was based on would not objectively be considered a personal attack. I believe that "Typical Democrat Party victimhood" may have been intended to use FisherQueen's "affiliations as a means of dismissing" her initial comments. This single comment may be considered a personal attack. Again, this comment was a response to a perceived personal attack in the ‘insulting me intentionally’ comment.

An appropriate response would be to end the conversation before the issued escalated further; however, this did not initially occur (I praise FisherQueen for coming to the conclusion to walk away from the argument, all be it a bit belatedly). The veiled block threat was wholly inappropriate. Blocking is an extreme deterrent for personal attacks and should only be used as a last resort. I vigorously object to any attempt to block Kelly for the above comments.

In conclusion, I believe it will be helpful if we are all a little more thick skinned during this political season. (Though I must agree that the slanderous, scurrilous, cheap, and downright nasty comments about young Bristol Palin have no place in any discussion and breed contempt and rancor for those who would spread them.)--Fredammons (talk) 07:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Let us review. (1) Kelly uses a term which is pejorative. (2) I inform her, very politely and without implying offense to myself, that the term she has used is pejorative. I include a link to the Misplaced Pages article discussing the term and confirming its pejorative usage. (3) She responds with a personal attack that is certainly directed at me personally. (4) I respond by informing her that I have taken her personal attack as intended, and am indeed insulted by it. (5) She reponds by saying that she will only withdraw the personal attack against me after some other Democrat, who I have never met, withdraws personal statements he has made. She follows up by claiming that the original comment is in no way pejorative and that I am 'histrionic' for taking offense. Notes: (a) I did not take offense at her use of the term 'Democrat Party.' I took offense only after she had deliberately insulted me, personally. (b)I would never block User:Kelly for insulting me personally; doing so would be a gross abuse of my admin buttons. I do think the question is a useful reminder, though. I have done absolutely nothing to make Kelly dislike me personally, and I was shocked to be insulted by her merely for identifying myself as a member of a political party which is really very large... I don't know whether Kelly is in the habit of insulting everyone she meets who disagrees with her politically, but if she is, then I will not be the only person who will notice. When I look at the unpleasant encounter I had with her tonight, combined with the overcharged language I see her using in regard to her recent efforts to protect Sarah Palin (efforts, incidentally, which I applaud as necessary and useful), I have- just tonight, and with no look at her history- the impression of someone who is entirely too free with the attack language. As far as I am concerned, I am finished with this user, who clearly has no interest in making friends or allies. But if what I saw tonight is typical of her editing pattern, then she will experience serious problems, including, yes, the possibility of blocks, with users who object to being spoken to with such unnecessary harshness. I am now removing User:Kelly from my watchlist, -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Good day. --Fredammons (talk) 02:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Kelly, I just wanted to say while I don't really consider myself a Democrat but I am leaning liberal so I guess I fit by default, I wanted to thank you for serving in Iraq. I was going to ask you how long you've been a Democrat for but sarcasm is hard to pull off here ;) ... but do think about when you say the "Democrat" party, you have to know that's a barb that is the equivalent of fighting words. If you're intent here is to contribute productively, you might want to avoid words that you know will tick off other people you are conversing with. I say the same thing when some f'in dumbass says "Rethuglican" or "BushCo" or some real original label like that, it's just not productive. Anyways, once again thanks again for serving our country, and I look forward to editing the same pages as you :) --kizzle (talk) 00:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your friendly sentiment...I guess I did go a bit over the top, which was unwarranted. I don't think anyone can question my productivity here or (especially) at Commons. I just wonder when I'm going to get my apology for being defamed as a "war criminal" or a "Bush Puppet" or a "child" when I was busting my ass to bring some honor back to this country, and I was constantly being run down. My Dad was decorated in Vietnam after the Battle of Hue City, and I always wondered about his bitter attitude towards leftists afterwards, but I understand it now. I'm supposed to shrug off the "war criminal" thing, but some people are insulted by "Democrat" vs. "Democratic". If they're vets, or Blue Dogs who have supported us, I'll apologize, but others should shove it deep and hard. Kelly 00:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Well being raised around San Francisco and having a hippie Dad, I was basically taught that Republicans were bad, but then you grow up and learn that we're all similar, behind all the bitterness and divisiveness over the last 8 years, we just have small policy differences. If someone here calls you a "war criminal" or a "Bush Puppet" or acting like a "child" then I'll be the first to stick up for you. Just hold to the golden rule, treat others as you would want to be treated. If you come here with the approach that liberals are scum, you're going to get yourself in trouble, and whatever substantive point you wanted to make will be lost behind comments like "Democrat Party". Not all liberals are scum, not all conservatives are "war criminals", let's just focus on how to make better articles while staying civil to our co-editors. Anyways, that's my opinion, don't want to bug ya :) --kizzle (talk) 00:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Point taken, thanks for the great advice. Actually, if it wasn't for people protesting against civilian casualties and other problems in warfare, the U.S. military would not have placed such an emphasis on humane warfare. The balance in our society is what makes us great. I just wish the left would give us props where props are due - for example, the U.S. military is the least racist community you can find anywhere in the world. But we never get credit for the good things. Kelly 01:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

First, let me say thanks also...but Kelly, try not to make people so mad that they have to turn off their computer and leave for a time. If you find that you are insulting someone, let it GO! It's not like you are going to lose face or anything...no one knows who you really are here on Misplaced Pages! Cheers, the_ed17 01:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I'm naive, but when did "Democrat" become an insult anyway? Seems kind of silly. I can't imagine getting worked up over someone calling my party the "Liberty Party". (Actually, it might be an improvement.) Kelly 01:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The use of "Democratic Party" rather than "Democratic Party" in Republican speeches dates back to Senator Joe McCarthy in the early 1950's, and is considered to be a calculated insult, per the Washington Post and the Dallas Morning News , . Assuming good faith, you clearly did not know that before, so no insult should be taken. The Washington Post noted back in 1998 that such intentional mispronunciation of your opponent's name is "the lowest form of intellectual debate" . Edison2 (talk) 21:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Sarah Palin

Hi, Kelly,

I noticed that you removed a lot of information I added on Sarah Palin's policy stances from the Eagle Forum questionnaire I know that the source is a blog, but it seems reputable in that the Eagle Forum is a legitimate organization (though with its own agenda) and it wouldn't just make up responses to its questionnaire. It doesn't seem like we should just ignore this Seleucus (talk) 17:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Seleucus, If it weren't for Kelly there would be so much unfounded garbage on that page that no one could find the real info. Check out Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons for more info. --Oi!oi!oi!010101 (talk) 05:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I know that, but it doesn't seem right to ignore a completely legitimate questionnaire just because it was given out by a blog. Seleucus (talk) 22:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

If semi-protection doesn't work to protect the article from BLP and other violations, then full protection should probably be requested. Cla68 (talk) 07:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Levi Johnston

Hey, I started a discussion on that redirect at WP:AN, since I had deleted a redirect from that title to Shotgun wedding, which seemed... inappropriate. Since it's in reliable sources (as noted in the governor's article itself), I thought a proper redirect might be in order, hence the discussion. Didn't mean to short circuit you - since you have been on top of things to this point, I might have checked in - but it's a crisis averted, I think.

That said, I'm continuing to watch the article, but ping me if I can be of any assistance with a fork or a topic. Thanks for your hard work, UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 12:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Ownership of Sarah Palin

Please familiarize yourself with wiki policy in regards to NOT taking ownership of articles. The last few days have shown that you believe yourself to be the sole authority on what should be included in her article --- and you objectivity is clearly in question. Scrubbing the article of well sourced possibly unflattering aspects and always using the blanket of excuse of BLP is not sufficent. If you continue you will be reported, as your behavior has already been discussed by several wiki editors. Thanks. 72.91.214.42 (talk) 12:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't you just love getting friendly, disinterested advice from single-purpose accounts with a history going way back to August 31 and who already have a block? This generosity with advice just warms my heart. Cheers! Noroton (talk) 16:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Eh, trolling. Everyone is heated because of politics, you've done a fine job, Kelly, and thats coming from probably the far distant side of the aisle. Ignore it and keep on "owning". rootology (C)(T) 16:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I can second Root's opinion. You and I have had disagreements over the article but all the editors know that you are watching out for Misplaced Pages, and that's an (almost) thankless job. Keep up the good work, and I expect to disagree with you in the future =) --mboverload@ 02:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I third and buy you a fifth for your efforts. Keep up the good work and don't let the SPAs get ya down. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 14:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, all. I don't have much time for editing this week but will try to check in once in a while. I wasn't bothered by the trolling above. Kelly 14:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey there

Are you ever on IRC? It would be nice to chat/mend some fences with you. --mboverload@ 02:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

No fences to mend, my friend - it's all good. :) Kelly 14:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Kelly, it's pointless. Stop contributing to Misplaced Pages

A. It's more of an online community game, than a real research project. B. EVerything you do can get shifted like sand. C. If you put your effort into articles of your own, you'd have real work product. D. Respect for it is waning. E. The liberals are in control. Just like they are good at Google bombing and hitting online polls. F. There's all kinds of cabals going on.

P.s. I love Sarah Palin.TCO (talk) 02:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I can't tell if this is sarcasm or not. --mboverload@ 02:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm playing wikipedia. want to play with me?TCO (talk) 02:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, please don't. — pd_THOR | 02:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Sexist Swear Words

I have to agree with Guy that the C word isn't sexist per se. I should explain that I am a UK (Scottish) male. In the 1970's pussy was a word meaning cat, with an innuendo of vagina, but now it mostly means vagina with a possible meaning of cat. While of course cunt has the meaning of vagina, it is rarely used to mean that, which is why it is a swear word, not a swear word for vagina, just a swear-word. Guy was correct when he said that British culture in no way views it's use as indicating sexism, although it is the last taboo word on TV. There are many male-organ swear words in common usage - knob, knob-end, dick, dick-head, bell-end, plonker - no one would consider anyone sexist for using them. Twat is the only other swear word (mild) meaning vagina I can think of just now, but there must be more! Swear words are quite common on adult comedy panel shows in the UK, sometimes they are bleeped, sometimes not, depending on the target audience. Someone actually used the C word (bleeped) on a show, and a fellow female panellist criticised him (mildly, in good humour) for it, putting forward the proposal that only those in possession of one are allowed to use it. The mixed-gender audience plainly disagreed with her. I don't think you can claim ownership like "nigger" has been (re?)claimed, as cunt was never (in our lifetime) been used as a slur word against females - if it was you could. Swear-words are an important part of our heritage, and belong to everyone regardless of gender. You can use this or other vocabulary to express sexist opinions, but the individual words you use are not then intrinsically sexist. I could make a sexist comment of, "You are only a woman!", This would unquestionably be a sexist comment, as would "You are a cunt of a woman!". But could you say that "only" and "cunt" were sexist words? Anyway, I seem to have gone on a bit about this, I just thought it was an interesting contrast between cultures. Cheers. -HarryAlffa (talk) 18:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Please let me know where the discussion on Talk:Sarah Palin said to remove info on Track's birth from the Family section of the article

Hi Kelly,

You removed information on Track Palin being born eight months after the elopement in this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Sarah_Palin&oldid=236080560 -- with the edit summary 19:03, 3 September 2008 Kelly (Talk | contribs) (70,854 bytes) (→Family: NO - per talk)

The only place that I see where it has been discussed is Talk:Sarah_Palin#Track.27s_age_and_the_quote_in_the_Wikipedia_article

Can you point out where it was discussed and agreed otherwise? If not, it seems that it should be restored.

Sincerely, BTR (talk) 19:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

That is a long talk page- here is the section. Kelly 19:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Sarah Palin

Hi. I have noticed that you are keeping a firm eye on this article. I've just noticed this edit which adds 5,000kb onto the article. As I'm not familiar with the topic, I thought I'd ask for your opinion. Looking at it, I think it may add undue-weight and need to get removed. Thanks, D.M.N. (talk) 19:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Admin?

Kelly, has any admin really stepped up to the plate for the Sarah Palin related articles. (I don't want to do it because my political leanings are conservative, so it is better for me to enforce BLP on articles like the John Edwards mess than on similar pages about conservatives.) But the mess appears to be spreading widely over several articles, and I figure you would know if there is a primary admin handling it. I forget just how I found the spreading mess now, but all three AFDs currently at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Christianity are related. And I don't know if anyone is trying to manage a wholistic view of the situation and contributors. GRBerry 19:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid I haven't had any consistent admin help on the articles, despite leaving a note at WP:AN and Jimbo's talk page. I have been trying to keep an eye on Sarah Palin and Political positions of Sarah Palin, with only moderate success. Ferrylodge and Baseball Bugs have been helping sensibly, too, along with a couple of others on and off, but we're not keeping up with the volume. Desperately need help on this, especially as I have limited time this week. Kelly 20:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I think most editors see Kelly as the guiding, or babysitting editor on the page. However, as she says there is no admin or leadership coverage for a lot of the day and we can only do so much. We need the cabal to send some troops. Jimbo has also been notified of the situation. --mboverload@ 20:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

As an admin, I too have had to make limited edits for the same reason GRBerry states. Kelly, I commend you, particularly, and the other editors for trying to keep the article as POV-free as possible while being vastly outnumbered by left-wing POV-pushers. Cheers! —Travis 21:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The preceding seems to set up the editing process as "left-wing POV pushers" versus unbiased NPOV editors. That strains credulity. The national international press coverage of the editing of the Sarah Palin article shows a belief that a great deal of polishing went on in the article, and observation of the talk page indicates to me a quickness to remove any possibly negative information along with desire to include positive information. The best hope for an encyclopedic NPOV article is a continuous process of collaborative editing by good-faith editors of various political persuasions, without any name-calling, threats, insults, or goading, which only hardens the views of others. Edison2 (talk) 21:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I apologize, that came out wrong. What I meant was that it appears that there are far more editors pushing a left-centric POV than than the opposite and Kelly, et.al., are doing a fine, albiet thankless, job of trying to keep the article neutral. —Travis 21:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The early press coverage was basically all "YoungTrigg," but a more recent assessment is at JuneauEmpire.com which says "In the few days since, campaign sympathizers have been removing thousands of edits containing critical information as quickly as detractors are trying to revise what they call a "whitewashing" of Alaska's governor." Most of the "scurrilous libels" which some have sought to insert in the article have appeared in newspapers already with more florid and rude tone than has appeared in the Misplaced Pages article .Edison2 (talk) 22:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I applaud Kelly's yeoman work in keeping the article neutral. The past two days have seen a tidal wave of edits trying to push a POV and, frankly, slander the subject of the article. I've been on Misplaced Pages for 3 years, and I've never seen such an feeding frenzy, even in the SCOTUS articles and the 2006 election articles. Well done, Kelly! (and protecting it was the right thing to do).--Paul (talk) 00:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

There is clearly a Right leaning polish and POV that is being inserted into the Palin article, which is quite disappointing.zredsox (talk) 15:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

		The Anti-Flame Barnstar
		I award you this barnstar for helping control, contain, and extinguish the inferno of BLP violations at Sarah Palin—as far as is humanly practicable, at least. You've demonstrated grace, civility, and tireless effort. Cool Hand Luke 00:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm also an admin, but I'm trying to show the restraint like GRBerry is, and for the same reason. Thank you very much for getting the edits stopped. I've never seen such a BLP violation-magnet. Cool Hand Luke 00:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to all above! I would definitely appreciate any help with BLP and NPOV enforcement that you may be able to offer or scare up in the future. Kelly 01:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Ditto the other comments, from someone in the TV news business. It was disappointing to see how vulnerable wikipedia is when a mass of people want it to say something, no matter what. 216.67.15.201 (talk) 14:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your work on the Sarah Palin article. I wish I could help, but I wouldn't even know where to begin. I guess I would start by watchlisting and then removing all POV edits. Unfortunately, I'm not an admin and I imagine edit wars are rampant over there. Enigma 06:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Enigma, thanks so much for your good wishes. If you ever have any spare time, you can get a sense for the particular libel memes that people are trying to push into that article on any given day - Bad Neonatal Decisions, Crazy Pentecostal, Animal Slaughterer, Corrupt Ted Stevens Associate, Alaska Secessionist, Pork Lobbyist, Book Burner, Dominionist, Knocked Up Before Marriage, Slut, etc, etc. Basically a lot of Daily Kos bullshit that the mainstream media picked as straight news, and was later debunked. Once you figure out the meme of the day you can deal with it.

Some people even think that her children were the ones who actually gave birth to all of her children, including themselves. :) Kelly 06:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

U r famous

. You and I were also quoted in a "why Misplaced Pages sucks" blog post from our comments on Jimbo's talk page. --mboverload@ 00:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Can I have your autograph, ma'am? rootology (C)(T) 00:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The Empire strikes. I believe that was LessHeardVanU in the pic with Palin, which I've notified him of on his talk page. I just hope there isn't a COI problem here. -- Noroton (talk) 01:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Somebody ID'd the guy in that pic in the blog comments - not LessHeardVanU. Kelly 01:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

That's what you're supposed to think! -- Noroton (talk) 01:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

ZOMG TEH WITEWASH!!!!11!1!!1!! Kelly 01:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Notice there's no pic on the Steve Schmidt article? eh? eh? EH?! Don't let them fool you, Kelly! I'm gonna go put that into the Sarah Palin article now, right up in the lead, where it belongs. See ya! -- Noroton (talk) 01:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Two words: Kelly Barracuda. Ronnotel (talk) 01:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Lol! --98.243.129.181 (talk) 23:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Moving business information

In this edit of the Sarah Palin article, you took business information, which was in a separate section, under "Personal life", and copied it to the "Early life and education"; then (next edit) you deleted it from the "Personal life" section. What was the rationale for moving this?

I ask because the "Early life and education" section, before you added this information to it, only went to 1988. Do you have any information that Palin and her husband were involved in the car wash business in the 1980s? If you don't, I feel fairly strongly that the car wash business information doesn't belong at all in that section. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 13:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, John. The editing at that time was pretty insane - I think I was just trying to get rid of a "controversy" section or something. You've done a great job editing on this topic and I will support your judgment on the placement or inclusion of the info. Kelly 22:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Sarah Palin

I don't think enough people have pointed out that your work on that article really is appreciated. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Carl - coming from you, that's really appreciated. Kelly 22:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I do as well. Not surprised to see it was unprotected again, and again, and again. I didn't expect it to last a whole day at all. Is it true that the John Edwards page was fully protected for a week? Wow. And I see on the RFar case an argument that BLP was only meant to protect minor figures; that's news to me. It seems after less than a week, Palin is already more prominent than Edwards. How sad for him. :) Aunt Entropy (talk) 23:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Ditto the above. WilyD 23:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

		The Award for Unending Labour
		Kelly, you've gone above and beyond the call of duty, and I hope you can realise that it is appreciated by a great many. WilyD 15:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Despite the fact we are currently talking past each other (meh), I want to assure you I too am grateful for your efforts. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 16:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, guys - your words are really appreciated. Kelly 16:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Press inquiries

Just some advice about press inquiries...don't be afraid to give your true feelings on the issue. Please speak freely and openly. Our loyalty should be to our readers as much as, or even more so, to project politics. Cla68 (talk) 05:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I thought. I've been putting together a narrative and diffs on the whole sordid story, including all the times I requested help from site admins and was ignored. I'm also putting together the diffs on the libelous edits that no admins would help me to address, and the admin logs involved. It was pretty crazy - there were times that me, Ferrylodge, and Rootology were battling like the 300 in the fucking Gates of Fire with no admin help. Kelly 05:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

You might also mention (if true) that two admins unlocked the article without helping to police it once they did so. Cla68 (talk) 05:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

F'n A right they did. And one of them (Jossi) is even working some anti-Palin edits now, on Political positions of Sarah Palin. Kelly 05:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The whole admin situation has pissed me off to no end. There's been 1 block this entire time that I can tell (Moreschi blocked GreekParadise for 48 hours) and probably 200 more that should have been blocked. MZMcBride hasn't even bothered to respond to the arbcom that was called against him. WTFipedia. :( Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 06:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Tell me about it. It's blatant negligence. Of course Jimbo is clueless as usual when something major is going on. Kelly 06:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

<- This is pretty rich...the reporter who contacted me says that the news organization followed a lead on and published a bad/bogus story because they were tipped off by Misplaced Pages. Kelly 07:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Jossi's behavior on Misplaced Pages has risen to press attention before , so perhaps he's getting used to it. Cla68 (talk) 07:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Tipped off by Misplaced Pages? *vomits* You mean tipped off by some POV editor who was busy perusing far-left blogs for crap to add to the Palin article. God help us. The sad thing is, many reporters are lazy and do go to Misplaced Pages for information, which means we have a responsibility to keep the garbage out of the article. I am pushing for full protection until we get five admins willing to spend a good part of their days paying attention to the article. We have a few other editors, but it would be helpful to not have to run to a noticeboard for administrative help every time there's a problem. Enigma 07:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

You're right about the reporters - I have run across articles in the last few days with chunks of text lifted straight from Misplaced Pages. Oh, and the noticeboards are normally no help - I tried that for days before I finally got a result. I even tried Jimbo's talk page and was ignored. Kelly 07:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Happens all the time, actually. Sometimes it's brought up on Misplaced Pages, sometimes it's not. Reporters/writers just lift the information and hope no one will notice. By the way, you're getting a barnstar from me as soon as I figure out which one to award. :) Enigma 07:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

With the main article locked down, of course the POV pushers are going to keep trying in other, directly or indirectly related articles. Look at this diff , for example. Cla68 (talk) 07:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, POV-pushers have got a fever, and the only prescription is more Moose-Belle. Kelly 07:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I like the new one with the Moose, Enigmaman. :P Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 07:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• One other piece of advice I'll give you. I've been quoted in the press four times (all well before Nupedia was thought of, never mind Misplaced Pages). Two times they got the quote right, and in one of those because I'd personally given the reporter a written copy of the speech they were quoting. (The other two got the general gist, but not the exact words, despite the use of quotation marks.) If you can, reply in writing - and forward a copy to a person or two you trust at the same time. That way if the reporter/editors distort what you said, you'll at least have an accurate copy from which to base any corrections. GRBerry 14:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The barnstar I promised

Figured I'd follow Jeho's lead and listen to Kyaa. Enigma 16:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Enigma! Kelly 16:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Irrelevant orange bars can go both ways, Kelly!Ferrylodge (talk) 18:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

LOL - you got me. :) Kelly 19:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:3RR Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing at Political positions of Sarah Palin. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't apply to BLP violations, Jossi. Kelly 21:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Sarah Palin protection wheel war

The Sarah Palin wheel war arbitration case, on which you have commented, is now open.

• Evidence for the arbitrators may be submitted at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Sarah Palin protection wheel war/Evidence. Evidence should be submitted within one week, if possible.
• Your contributions are also welcome at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Sarah Palin protection wheel war/Workshop.

For the Arbitration Committee, Anthøny ✉ 21:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Pastor Paul Riley, Pastor Ed Kalnins, Pastor Larry Kroon, and Pastor David Brickner

• It is not fair to Sarah Palin to put controversial quotes of pastors on her page, as is being argued for by some, just because they are her pastors, as is being argued elsewhere. This is guilt by association!

"In March 2008, a controversy broke out concerning Obama's former pastor of 20 years, Jeremiah Wright. After ABC News broadcast clips of his racially and politically charged sermons, Obama responded by condemning Wright's remarks and ending Wright's relationship with the campaign. Obama delivered a speech, during the controversy, entitled "A More Perfect Union" that addressed issues of race." This came directly from the Barack Obama page. Explain to me why it's not acceptable to add information on her churches controversial words when there is mention of controversial remarks made by the opposing ticket's. The only differences are the lack of media coverage and Jews instead of whites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.123.227.188 (talk) 08:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• Palin might not have even been there for Ed Kalnins' controversial remarks! She deserves same neutrality and respect as any other living person.
• I do not already know what the answers are, as you assert. It is kind of disrespectful for you to say this, when Paul Riley was not the subject of anything I wrote, except to include a statement that he is one of her pastors on her page. No one is responding to my comments because a few people are making statements like " already know the answer" and claiming a meaningful response is "elsewhere", when it is not. Either respond or don't respond, but don't try to get me ignored by INCORRECTLY stating that the issues were addressed.
• My David Brickner article has been getting 100% keep, after the intitial delete. Why should the years of controversy about him be put on Palin's page. All she did is go to church once, and he started speaking. She never went anywhere to see him since then. Why tar her with his controversial remarks from 2004?
• I added the names Ed Kalnins and Larry Kroonan to the Palin article in a completely neutral way, and my exact wording is still there. Why shuold Pual Riley not be added also, as I wrote. How would I "know the answer" about him. Why should I not put this here? Should he is not be NOT be mentioned in her article just because he made NO controversial remarks. Do only the controversial people get included?

Kelly, you should strike your incorrect statement about my knowledge, strike your remark if it is not responsive to what I wrote. It would be better if you responded, though since we are likely to agree with each other if each of us looks at what the other is saying. As an experienced user, you could probably teach me the ropes in less time than the time it takes you to deride me. EricDiesel (talk) 21:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:TLDR. --mboverload@ 22:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Looking for Advice

Zredsox is driving me batty on the Sarah Palin talk page. It seems his only purpose is to contradict everything I say and constantly accuse me of editing in bad faith. He ignores everything he doesn't like and accuses everyone else of having a narrow view. Unfortunately, this sort of behavior seems to be the norm in political discussions and I normally stay out them, but for some unknown reason I latched on the SP article when I removed some vandalism from it. I have tried very hard to be objective and logical, but I am starting to get stressed out at some of the non-nonsensical objections/discussion on talk. Any advice for dealing with the situation? --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing. It's probably time for a request for comment on user conduct. I hate those things because they can be a time suck when collecting and presenting evidence, but it's probably necessary at this point. Kelly 03:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I went through part of his talk page history after posting my own request for him to stop and it seems he has been warned about this sort of behavior numerous times. So there is definitely a case to made if one wishes to make one. If he continues to attack me, I will make it myself. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Sandbox controversy

Note After discussion it was found that Kelly actually wrote the original article and this is just the draft before she posted it to mainspace. It has since been toned down slightly. No secret anti-BLP cabal made of BLP enforcers here. --mboverload@ 04:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Kelly/sandbox 2 I know what you have hidden in your sandbox. I think it would be a massive BLP violation if you tried to start such an article. QuackGuru 03:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The article already exists - see John Edwards extramarital affair. :) Pretty well hidden, huh? Kelly 03:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm talking about the love child allegation. QuackGuru 03:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

It's in the article I just linked you. Go read it, I put a lot of work into gathering sources for that article and in making sure it was written in a professional and neutral way. Kelly 03:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

<- I just noticed the section title - ZOMG CONTROVERSY!!1!!!1 I always wanted to be in one. :) Kelly 03:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

It is written differently than your in sandbox version. The mainspace version is more neutral while your sandbox is an attack piece. What is the purpose in keeping it in your sandbox. You can have it deleted and start fresh. QuackGuru 03:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Could you please point out in detail that actual section your are objecting to?--mboverload@ 03:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

For starters, just read the first sentence. Read what is in the bold text. QuackGuru 03:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I was going through the history looking through historical revisions, comparing it to the current article with WinMerge, etc. Silly me for overlooking such. =P. --mboverload@ 04:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Yes. Thanks for bringing this to the committee's attention. Kelly is quite clearly a disruptive element. Fortunately we have ways of dealing with trouble makers like her. Ronnotel (talk) 03:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Clearly I must immediately retire in disgrace. Kelly 03:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

What is more troubling is the link to a copy of the sandbox for people to read the sandbox BLP violation version. There is a strange webcitation link. QuackGuru 04:01, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The webcitation link was for WP:DRV evidence when the inevitable partisan speedy deletion happened, when the article was initially posted. It was, of course, improperly speedily deleted, then restored when it was shown that the admin acted improperly. Kelly 04:10, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Kelly...why do you have a lovechild article in your sandbox...? Did you simply forget to change the title? =P--mboverload@ 04:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

That was the initial version I drafted here, and then later posted to mainspace. The article was subsequently renamed and has had a few changes since. Kelly 04:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Kelly wrote: This page has been temporarily blanked to hide the contents from search engines. Do not delete, thanks!

That is misleading because there is a link at the sandbox for people to read the love child allegations. QuackGuru 04:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Heh. You can see the initial version yourself without using webcitation, by looking at the earliest revision of John Edwards extramarital affair. No conspiracy here. Oh, did you know that burning jet fuel can't melt steel? :) Kelly 04:12, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

You have a link to a BLP violation version in your sandbox. Kelly, please stop. QuackGuru 04:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

You realize that a link to the history of that article would have the same result? What is your angle Quack? --mboverload@ 04:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Quack, this is bordering on harassment. Please stop. Ronnotel (talk) 04:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Potential Barnstar. It's amazing that you wrote most of that article by yourself. Well done kelly (ignoring above misunderstanding)--mboverload@ 04:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the initial title was teh suck (even I admit that) - the history of that page was a rough ride until Edwards was forced into the open, then the partisans Edwardians gave up and walked away. Thanks! Kelly 04:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Hah, one of the news sites even suggested that the Misplaced Pages page pushed the media into looking into it further. Well done. NOTE TO OTHERS: As much as it seems I'm in love with Kelly I still disagree with some of her opinions. mboverload is not a sock =0 --mboverload@ 04:27, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Kelly, I would appreciate it if you removed the webcitation link from the sandbox. QuackGuru 04:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the courtesy, but no thanks. Kelly 04:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I hope you are aware the webcitation link is a BLP violation. There is a BLP noticeboard if we can't work this out. QuackGuru 04:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure, post it up there. Kelly 04:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

<--Just passing through. QuackGuru, please see this. The Webcitation link and the aforementioned link are one in the same. The article has been smoothed out over time. We don't oversight BLP unless it is an extrordinary circumstance. Rather, we fix it and move on. I think you may be missing the point that the sandbox is the same article as the one we currently have, albeit a very early edition. spryde | talk 19:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

We oversight BLP in every circumstance. The sandbox should be treated the same as mainspace. There was devoplement phase of the article using of the sandbox. But now there is no point in keeping a link to a BLP violation version. QuackGuru 22:12, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Quack, I'm sorry, but you're becoming tiresome and I'm asking you to go away. If you still have a problem with me I urge you to go to the next step in dispute resolution. Kelly 22:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm still searching to see what it is you're hiding there. It's been 15 hours now but I'm sure I'm gonna find it soon! 86.44.29.35 (talk) 06:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

a shiny

		The Calm Amidst the Storm Award
		This Calm Amidst the Storm Award is hereby presented to User:Kelly in recognition of her attempts to maintain some small pockets of reason and order on Talk:Sarah Palin. Regardless of what you say there, the fact that you have retained your sanity in that hell-hole for this long is absolutely unreal. I, well, I just don't know how you do it. I cannot thank you enough for your willingness to deal with that mess. I wish I could do more to thank you than just giving you this. J.delanoyadds 05:54, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Heh - as Palin herself would say, "Thang Q, Thang Q". I appreciate the recogition! I've got some experience with the political controversy articles, going back a few months to Eliot Spitzer prostitution scandal, and I've actually learned to enjoy the jab-and-thrust of POV-pushers versus Misplaced Pages policy. But I have to admit that the stuff going on at the Palin article this week gave me some (more) white hairs. :) Kelly 07:01, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Nuff respect also from me - for your tireless work on the Sarah Palin page. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 20:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Time for a breath?

Kelly, comments like make me wonder if you might benefit from a brief pause. Party officials said something false. The NYTimes ran with it, but so did a ton of other news agencies. When you single out the Post and Times and use verbs like "pushing", it sounds like you are echoing the right-wing POV that "liberal" media is being unfair to her. I hope that isn't your intention. Dragons flight (talk) 20:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, after dealing with the stuff going into the article, and examining hundreds of news items that people have offered for sources, I've kind of developed an independent opinion that the media (liberal or not) has been unfair. I cited the Times because of the Secessionist Meme (for which they have published a retraction) and the Post because of the Slashed Teen Mother Funding Meme, for which they have not yet published a correction, to my knowledge. Your advice is appreciated - you may not have noticed, but my activity level here is way down...mostly I'm just relaxing and playing online games, and checking in periodically. Kelly 20:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Something's a foot

Hello Kelly. I seem to recall political staffers were caught last spring vandalising the Hillary Rodham Clinton article (along with crazy posts at that talk-page). I wonder if the same thing is occuring at Sarah Palin article - a liberal onslaught. I assume similiar things occured on the Clinton & Barack Obama articles aswell (from possible conservative shannigans). GoodDay (talk) 20:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I honestly don't believe that's what's happening. I think it's more likely to be astroturfing coming from the really far-left sites, like dKos and DU. Plus there are so many people visiting the article that, even if 0.1% are extreme partisans, it still looks an organized effort. Might be worthwhile keeping an eye on Wikirage, though, in case it picks anything up. Kelly 20:56, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Run for cover (on that article), if McCaian-Palin win the election. GoodDay (talk) 21:38, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Or even if they don't - I have a feeling that, no matter what, that article will be long-term target for miscreants like Barack Obama and George W. Bush. Kelly 21:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Eek. GoodDay (talk) 22:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Political positions of Sarah Palin

Kelly, since you are relatively new on wikipedia (about 7 months by my count), you can check my user page, User:Cdogsimmons and you will notice that I have been editing on wikipedia for 3 years now. I am not "some blog meme" as you suggested here. You will also find that I commented on Talk:Sarah Palin concerning this issue several hours ago at the end of this section. Although I am motivated primarily by my desire to improve what I consider to be an incomplete article, I am seriously concerned about the state of censorship in the world and I do find what appears to be Sarah Palin's attempt to censor library books offensive. The fact that there is no discussion concerning her attitudes towards the First Amendment is in my opinion indicative of the failure in policy that putting the page under full-protection is. If it were not so blocked, we would now have plenty of information from multiple sources concerning her attitudes on the subject. The attempt to censor the library books is the first indication of her stance on the issue of free speech that I have been made aware of, but I am sure there will be many other incidents filling in the gaps soon enough. If I have appeared to have lost my cool, I apologize. Perhaps it is an indication of my frustration that what appears very clear to me does not appear so for others.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 21:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Cdog, might I respectfully suggest that if you are extremely passionate about the issue, you may not be the best person to include such information in a neutral way? I encourage you to research the incident in depth, but it basically boils down to yes, she did ask the librarian if some books could be withdrawn because of being offensive; no, they couldn’t; yes she did threaten to fire the librarian a month later; no, that wasn’t over the books thing but instead over administrative issues; no, the librarian wasn’t fired either; yes, the librarian was a big supporter of one of her political opponents; yes, the librarian was also the girlfriend of the Chief of police who was also fired; no, this is not the first time in the history of civilization that someone has been threatened with being fired over a political dispute. This doesn't add up to a political position on censorship. Kelly 21:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, sir, judging from some of your talk page conversations I would wager you have a view about Sarah Palin as well. I know I do, but that shouldn't make a difference as to whether we can put together a factual article (assuming we don't get into an edit war over this). It's unclear why she was asked to resign (it could have been over her stance on censorship). What is clear is that Sarah Palin cared enough about censoring books to ask a librarian three time whether she would censor books. That to me is significant. It was significant enough that she was questioned about it at the time.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 21:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Cdog, politicians pass along questions from their constituents all the time, regardless of how they feel about the questions. Maybe she agreed with the requests, we just don't know. We don't even know what books were involved, maybe it was The Anarchist's Cookbook for all we know. But it's important to keep in mind that no books were removed or "banned". Kelly 21:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I would attribute the fact that no books were banned more to the librarian who repeatedly refused to ban them rather than the Governor who repeatedly questioned her about it. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 23:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Legitimate opinion, but ultimately an opinion is all that it is. Kelly 06:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

"church prayer meet to convert gays to straights" a Coathanger?

"In September 2008 the church promoted a conference to pray for the conversion of gays to become heterosexual." Was deleted as coathanger. I am new at Misplaced Pages and maybe I do not understand which article this this should go on. What is it a coathanger for and why? I have place for answer on talk page at Wasilla ThnxEricDiesel (talk) 05:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:COATRACK. Kelly 05:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Kelly, Can you explain what you feel is the potential bias in mentioning what appears to be a simple well documented fact? I generally feel a better approach is to WP:AGF Rktect (talk) 17:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Anne Kilkenny letter

Hi - you may have noticed that right below the "Save Page" button when you edit, there's a notice which says "Do not copy text from other websites without a GFDL-compatible license. It will be deleted." I'm afraid we can't copy other people's work unless it's specifically given a free license. All work is copyrighted by default, even "open letters". Sorry about that. Short quotes from the letter should be OK under the doctrine of fair use, though. Kelly 10:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Kelly - Its an open letter which the author has requested be broadly published. That license is GFDL compatible. and is tagged open letter on the page. Rktect (talk) 10:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

As an aside, how knowledgable are you about the area you appear to be serving in? Do you speak any of its languages? Have you ever studied its history? Do you visit archaeological sites in your area? Have you read any of its wisdom literature in Sumerian or Akkadian? If you are still there and want to give me your coordinates I can send you a list of nearby places it might be interesting to visit Rktect (talk) 15:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Rktect! I'm afraid the licensing claim needs to be more specific - see WP:C. If you were able to contact Ms Kilkenny and get her to release it under an explicit license, then it would be fine - see WP:COPYREQ. Oh, the picture at the top of the page is not me (a lot of people make that assumption) it's just a free picture I found that I like. Unfortunately, when deployed to the MidEast, GIs aren't generally allowed to leave the post except under very controlled circumstances, and even then only in generally "safe" places like Doha. Kelly 15:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Kelly, Anne Kilkenny has publically granted permission to use the open letter and in fact publically requested that it be published as widely as possible. She is explicitly on the record on this. I'm sorry to hear you are on such restricted duty. When I am in the mideast I enjoy traveling where I wish and have found there is much to see there.Rktect (talk) 16:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, someday I want to go back there as a private citizen just to enjoy the cultural sites and the absolutely magnificent hospitality of the people. The landscape is awe-inspiring, too - the most beautiful sunsets I've ever seen, and the sight of a sandstorm moving at you across the desert is almost a religious experience. Kelly 16:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:C says: All works are copyrighted unless either they fall into the public domain or their copyright is explicitly disclaimed. If you use part of a copyrighted work under "fair use", or if you obtain special permission to use a copyrighted work from the copyright holder under the terms of our license, you must make a note of that fact (along with names and dates). An open letter is by definition "copyright disclaimed"

One thing you might try and do is take pictures when you are coming and going from your base. Aerial photos will ofen reveal much earlier habitation and in fact there is enough detail in google map to find many old ruins nearby.Rktect (talk) 16:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Draft article

See Talk:Sarah Palin/Draft article. Hopefully this will let us test the water and see how viable semi-protection will be for the main article. Please feel free to revert me if you think this is unhelpful.Tim Vickers (talk) 15:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey, Tim - why not just work from the talk page of the main article? Things do seem to have become more civilized there. Also, shouldn't the draft be no-indexed to hide it from search engines? Kelly 15:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure, no-index it if you want, I don't know how! People can wok on sections easily enough on the talkpage, but you tend to rapidly get several competing versions. However, like I said, if you don't like this idea, please just get rid of it - it's just a suggestion. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey, Tim - just a question, maybe you know better than me. Are there GFDL issues with doing it that way? (Though honestly I don't know the difference, GFDL-wise, between that and talk page edit requests.) Kelly 16:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so, I've been doing things this way for a while at evolution as it hops from full to semi-protected due to this minor sock problem, and I've always just attributed the author with a link in the edit summary eg diff. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, OK. I'm relatively new to this really controversial stuff - if you've been involved with keeping evolution neutral, then you are a Wiki-God so far as I am concerned. We'll see how the discussion plays out at Talk:Sarah Palin. With respect - Kelly 18:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Why not just put the facts, now fairly well established, out there and let people see them.

What's the point of scubbing the page, putting up intentionaly misleading half truths, misinforming people by obscuring part of the information available, and hiding what differs with one users POV as if there were something to fear if the average encyclopedia user were properly informed by the article? Rktect (talk) 16:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi again, Rktect - the main concern is neutral point of view. We attempt a balanced and neutral presentation here, not just facts or claims that only present one point of view. If you think a particular passage is unbalanced, it's best to address that at the article talk page. Kelly 16:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Kelly, IMHO a neutral point of view does not attempt to censor information that might be considered a negative by one particular POV. People will just go research it elsewhere and find the truth out anywayRktect (talk) 16:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

No, I see where you're coming from, but we shouldn't be posting an unbalanced account on such a highly-trafficked page in the hope that someone will eventually come along and balance it. It gives Misplaced Pages a bad reputation. Negative information is fine, though, so long as it's presented in a neutral way. For a good example, see Alaska Public Safety Commissioner dismissal. Kelly 16:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Kelly, I can see where you are coming from also. Basically I agree we should have all the information in the article negative or positive, but then go on to stipulate that it should be referenced and footnoted so we can see where it comes from.

Since many statements Sarah Palin has made are alleged by the media to be false or misleading and there is a great deal of public discussion of these issues perhaps we should add a fact checking section. In particular as regards her being for "the bridge to nowhere before she was against it", her allegation that she sold a plane on ebay when it fact it was listed but did not sell, her denials of troopergate which have been challenged by the media, and her relations to lobbiests, earmarks, Ted Stevens and her staff the article should make some attempt to be interesting and informative, otherwise why have it there at all? Rktect (talk) 17:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, many of the statements that the media have published about Palin have been proven to be false (such as the New York Times claim that she belonged to the AIP, or the Washington Post claim that she cut funding for a teen pregnancy center), and other claims are alleged to be false by the McCain campaign. I think nearly all of the things you list above are discussed in some way at Sarah Palin. Oh, on the eBay plane thing, she never said she sold it there, just that she listed it there, which is true. McCain was the one who mistakenly said she sold it there - bad McCain! :) Kelly 17:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi kelly, Re: the Alaska Public Safety Commissioner dismissal; that seems well referenced and fairly straight forward. Do you see anything in it that you consider an apparent bias? If not then I would say that is a good model for the rest of the pages on Sarah Palin and the various allegations of wrongdoing. Re her membership in the AIP; they have claimed her as a member, Todd was a longstanding member, Video is available of her addressing their convention and speaking very positively of them as an important influence (third largest party in Alaska) As regards her record as mayor and governor, thats a public record. As to her statements regarding the ebay plane the transcript of her speech is available just as it was placed on the teleprompter for her to read.

While I was at it, I got rid of a few things in the governor's office that I didn't believe our citizens should have to pay for. That luxury jet was over-the-top. I put it on eBay.

I was always brought up to recognize that a lie is an intent to decieve and IMHO that's an intent to decieve that her speech lays the groundwork for with the intent that others will come along and spin it.. Why not include all of those well documented items and then let the reader judge for themselves as to what that all means. Rktect (talk) 17:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The Times was forced to retract their AIP claim. So far as addressing their convention goes, she addressed many organizations, from the Better Business Bureau to the Girl Scouts of America. Yes, her husband was a member for a while, but your spouse's political beliefs don't determine your own. See James Carville and Mary Matalin. So far as the plane goes, her statement about listing the plane on eBay was factually correct. Yes, it puts her in the best possible light, but all politicians do that. The full circumstances of the sale are in (I believe) Sarah Palin#Budget. Oh, I hope you realize that all major politicians have their speeches written for them, and they all use teleprompters. Kelly 17:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Kelly, I consider this an open question. The real issue is whether McCains message of "Country First" is subscribed to by Sarah Palin. It appears she is a supporter of the AIP a seccessionist fringe group that does not believe in country first. At first the AIP claimed she was a member. Her video shows that when she addressed the AIP convention she seemed to think of them very positively and to espouse their views. I consider it germane that her husband was a member for seven years and that they attended AIP conventions together. I grant you that she has retained her Republican party registration but that wouldn't necessaily prevent her from being associated with the AIP and she has said that she supports their views. I'm sure that neither politicians nor their party spokespeople every lie, but on the other hand some press retractions err on the side of caution.

Correction: September 5, 2008 An article on Tuesday about concerns over Senator John McCain’s background check of Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska, his choice of running mate, misstated the history of her political party affiliation. As The Times has since reported, she has been a registered Republican since 1982; she was not for a couple of years in the 1990s a member of the Alaskan Independence Party, which advocates a vote on whether her state should secede.

AIP statements regarding palin membershipRktect (talk) 18:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Yup, some people certainly have that opinion, but it's total speculation. Personally I find it pretty unlikely that the McCain campaign would pick a secessionist for a running mate. I rank it right up there with the bullshit claims that Barack Obama is a closet Muslim or has ties with the Chicago Mob. Kelly 18:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: Deleting My Comment

I didn't intend to delete the comment, rather I was trying to add a comment agreeing with you. I'm not sure what was going on.

My apologies.

WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 16:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I went back to look for it and it was already restored (yours was the one above where I placed my edit, right). WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 17:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Talk Page

I think what might be happening was that I didn't intially see the Edit link for the section. (Also checking preview). WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 18:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

It's no problem - stuff that like happens to everybody sometimes. Kelly 18:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring at Political positions of Sarah Palin

Kelly, I've been reviewing the AN3 thread here, and it does look like you've been reverting a fair amount of edits in a short period of time. Were you aware that the protection had changed from full to semi? Were you aware that WP:3RR doesn't mean the same content but can refer to any reverts in a 24-hour period? And were you aware that reverts cannot be done under a NPOV justification as you state here? BLP, if you are confident you can demonstrate it, is a good justification. NPOV is not. If you think the edits are biased to the extent that they violate BLP, then you need to say that in your edit summaries. Carcharoth (talk) 21:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, they violate BLP but I'm taking a few breaths. It has been a very, very rough ride on NPOV/BLP on the Palin articles over the past week, and the fact that I have been able to get very little help from admins until recently has been extremely frustrating. Talk:Sarah Palin has now settled down, but few admins are watching the spinout articles. Also, I unfortunately let the IDCab folks push my buttons; they have tag-teamed me before. Based on my experience, any article they get involved with is sure to become a hellhole of POV-pushing and BLP vios. But that's just my opinion based on experience. I'm sure they'll come by here shortly to harrass me again for saying "IDCab". :) Thanks, Carch. Kelly 21:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I personally think you are pushing BLP too far. All politicians have bad things said about them. You have to try and get the balance right and respect the sources and let the sources write the article. If the (non-tabloid) sources are currently in a tizz about Palin, then that's unavoidable. Just make sure there is a representative selection from all parts of the political spectrum. Oh, and as I said at AN3, the ID cabal comments are grossly inappropriate. Please don't perpetuate that meme. Editors need to work together here and explain any edits and reverts they do, or request protection (I know, I know, there is an arbcom case about that at the moment). Sorry I can't help out at the articles themselves. I know it's been difficult at that article, but when 3RR reports get filed, you probably do need to step back a bit. Carcharoth (talk) 21:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Advice taken, thanks. I take it you've never been the target of the ID folks, so you don't really understand what it's like. But I promise to be nice and bite my tongue when I see them around. :) Kelly 22:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Carcharoth, the IDCab is not a meme. Once the collective behavior of that group improves, there won't be any reason to keep calling them on it. Hopefully that time will be soon. Cla68 (talk) 00:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

question

Hi, I have seen you referred to as both "he" and "she" and can find no assertion of gender made by you. I prefer not to err or offend, so I ask - how do you prefer to be referred to? he, or she? Thanks much, and apologies if it was stated somewhere and I missed it! KillerChihuahua 23:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)