User talk:Kelly

Building trust takes a long time...

...but it's worth it.

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

NPOV

Please do not remove an NPOV tag from articles without participating in the associated talk page discussion first. You stated in your edit summary that you disagreed with my tag. That is fine, but all it takes is one editor (in this case, myself) to raise a concern for the tag to be relevant and the need for a discussion arises. Thanks. --Winger84 (talk) 16:04, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Please do not add an NPOV tag without making your case on the associated talk page discussion first. I've made a statement on the referenced talk page. Kelly ^hi! 16:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Regardless, please don't edit war to remove the tag. 3RR applies. - auburnpilot talk 16:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, thanks. Kelly ^hi! 16:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Sarah Palin

Hi, I'm curious as to why you undid my edit in the Sarah Palin article; as far as I can see, the Anchorage Daily News [1] is a pretty reputable source (your reason for undoing it was 'needs better source').

I'm not that familiar with Alaskan newspapers, but at least according to Wiki, the ADN is the main newspaper in the state. If I've misunderstood something here, please enlighten me.

Thanks Seleucus (talk) 01:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey, Seleucus - it looks to be a single opinion piece in the paper's blog, as opposed to a straight news piece. For something that controversial, there needs to be a better source, preferably more than one. Kelly ^hi! 01:08, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Sarah Palin baby controversy

I am also wondering why my portion of the Palin article was removed. I cited the issue using 3 different sources, I made no claim to the validity of the argument, yet it was removed. This seems to be a clear abuse of your moderation powers. Considering your previous removal of information from the Palin page which can be seen as damaging to her reputation, I must question your personal biases towards the subject as the potential reason for removing such information. I will see that this controversy makes it on to the Palin wikipedia page. Tiger97882

Your sources are gutter trash. Kelly ^hi! 20:33, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Public domain video?

See Talk:Sarah_Palin#Public_domain_video and help me confirm whether the videos I see there are really legal to download and convert. NerdyNSK (talk) 09:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Palin military photos and NPOV

Let's discuss it here. Quality is secondary at all times to NPOV. I removed the second one you added. rootology (C)(T) 16:48, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

FPaS RFC

As a participant in the recent discussion at WP:ANI, I thought you should be informed of the new RFC that another user has started regarding FPaS's behavior.

• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Future Perfect at Sunrise

Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 17:11, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

picture

User:Fee Fi Foe Fum was warned about his reverting, you can add the picture again. Sleeping frog (talk) 23:12, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

How to convert WMV to Ogg Theora

It is easy. If you use GNU/Linux, there is ffmpeg2theora. If you need an easier interface, use Kino (software). Cinelerra is also very good, and GStreamer might prove useful too. Make sure, however, that before you download anything you check the legality of the software because some of the video editing software is illegal in some jurisdictions because of software patents. But in reality there is no need to install any software, as there are websites that can convert the videos for you for free, for example see http://media-convert.com/ which can do the WMV->OGG conversion online: just download the WMV to your PC, upload it to that site and ask it to convert it into Ogg, then download the resulting Ogg file. NerdyNSK (talk) 23:17, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Sarah Palin

Hey Kelly. Please behave even so you're right in your though and it's not always easy to just let it go w/o such comment. Regards, --Floridianed (talk) 08:35, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

What are you referring to? Kelly ^hi! 08:35, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edit summary which included "gutter". Need more hints? :) --Floridianed (talk) 08:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

What else would you call these trashy libellous accusations against a teenager? They are from the gutter and are horrifically misogynistic. How would you like something like that said about your wife, mother, or daughter? Please. Kelly ^hi! 08:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Simple answer: It's WP, not your or my personal life so just keep your cool. Regards, --Floridianed (talk) 09:06, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey Kelly, my apologies if I came across as accusatory. I only directed the comment at you because you seemed to be spearheading the pro side of the argument, and I thought you might have more insight into specifics regarding Palin's Kuwait visit. I understand and sympathize that all the flack regarding the military pictures came down on you and that you must have felt under some amount of attack. I further want to empathize with you in that you seem to feel strongly about Palin and providing a good article for her. On that note however, I was not at all intending to present the argument that the soldiers were offensive. I meant simply that the pictures were very congratulatory of Palin's pro-military stance and seemed to be putting more emphasis on that side of her than could truly be said to be NPOV. If you only consider the amount of time she spends in the public eye, I doubt that 1/5 of it regards the military in some manner. You several times cite the pictures in the Biden article, but those have no such context to give them bias. I will admit that I am a liberal and an Obama supporter; however, my intent here is not to diminish the Palin article, but instead to try to ensure that it does not become a tool of one side or the other. In that respect I fully commend you on your stance and moves to quash this daughter pregnancy nonsense. The theory has no real merit in my opinion (the photos and videos in the dailkos article seemed to argue the opposite of the article's intent to me); and in addition its not a noteworthy scandal just because some people write up some bull on the internet. So good for you. Anyhow regardless of our seemingly disparate political affiliations, we are both Wikipedians (you more so than me perhaps) and I wanted to apologize to you for seeming personally antagonistic. I was intending to criticize the pictures, not you yourself. Joshua Skrzypek 18:10, 31 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshua Skrzypek (talk • contribs)

Dry humor

I'm glad to know it's noticed.  :-) Ferrylodge (talk) 08:36, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

AN/I discussion

You have a "fan".[2] --Bobblehead ^(rants) 20:38, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. Yeah, the Kos people are frantic over the Sarah Palin pick. Kelly ^hi! 20:47, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey

Just wanted to let you know I disagree with your revert on Palin... I meant to put that up there as a signpost for what undoubtedly will be inserted in the future. The material itself doesn't assert anything about Palin, in fact it's the opposite, and just like reminders to stay NPOV or that Wikipedia is not a forum, that the repeatedly-mentioned (IMHO fabricated rumor) needs to follow WP:RS and WP:BLP. And according to how I interpret BLP as, that's fine for inclusion, but that's just my opinion. Seeing as it's both you and J disagreing, I'll refrain from putting it up again. Just giving you my 2 cents. :) --kizzle (talk) 20:59, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

OK - thanks for the note. Kelly ^hi! 21:02, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

As I mentioned on your talk page, kizzle, I think your signpost is simply attracting more WP:BLP violations than it's deterring. I appreciate your intent, but the best thing to do is remove WP:BLP violating content on sight.   user:j    (aka justen)   21:11, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Sarah Palin

It looks like the article and its talk page are receiving some much needed outside attention in an effort to prevent further violations of WP:BLP. I just wanted to say thank you for your hard work. It isn't always fun to put yourself out there in defense of Wikipedia's policies, but I think your efforts have helped make sure the article and the talk page reflect positively on Wikipedia and our commitment to verifiability.   user:j    (aka justen)   22:29, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I echo the thanks back to you - you've done great work! I just want to see a neutral article. Kelly ^hi! 22:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

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 ^hi! 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 ^hi! 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 ^hi! 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 ^hi! 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 ^hi! 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 Wikipedia 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 ^hi! 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 Wikipedia 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 ^hi! 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 ^hi! 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 Wikipedia! 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 ^hi! 01:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Personal Attack against Wiki User

I recently made an edit to a Discussion page and you immeaditly reverted the edit and called me a "Bullshitter" I dont know the correct syntax to write, but I beleive that personal attacks are against some sort of Wiki rule so if you wish to police the wiki page and revert any edit you do not agree with then that is one thing - but to personally attack another wiki user is not acceptable. If you do so again I will report you to the wiki police. Wwind (talk) 03:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Go for it. And if you insert any more libellous information, I'll see you blocked. Kelly ^hi! 03:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Block me for opening a subject for discussion on a discussion page? If I was adding the information to the main article I would agree with your point. But the point of a discussion page is so that we can discuss these things. I would also appreciate if you did not take such an aggressive tone. I am trying to find out the truth myself and the fact that you are so aggressive about this and don't even want to discuss the subject makes me to believe that you have some sort of agenda? I will now open an discussion on the TALK page as to why we are not allowed to discuss the details of the rumor (without actually naming the details) Have a good day "Kelly" Wwind (talk) 03:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

DO NOT libel people on that article talk page or you will end up blocked. Kelly ^hi! 03:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

This guy is doing it to everybody. I'm going to warn him about his unprofessional behavior. Testmasterflex (talk) 03:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I'm a "guy" now? Kelly ^hi! 03:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about

Are you accusing me of libel? I expect to see an apology or an explanation because I would not libel anybody. Please explain you position so that we may resolve this issue. Please explain how my edits are libelous. Do not make such accusations without merit. Thank you for your understanding. Testmasterflex (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 03:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

How about this? Kelly ^hi! 03:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I was just giving a warning regarding potential unsourcable claims. Please don't add that info to her article unless you can find RS for it. Testmasterflex (talk) 03:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't even talk about that misogynistic Daily Kos trash on the talk page. WP:BLP applies there, too. Kelly ^hi! 03:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

We appear to be in agreement so I don't see why you are so concerned. Testmasterflex (talk) 03:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Please don't even mention the specifics of that garbage on the talk page. It's just horrendously offensive to all decent people. I'm sorry for being short-tempered about it. Kelly ^hi! 04:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Sarah Palin statement

For anyone who comes here to complain about me removing the libel from the article and talk page:

Karl Rove apparently took this picture of Sarah Palin in a pregnancy suit

Also, Halliburton manufactured the pregnancy suit - it was delivered to Alaska by Blackwater mercenaries!

I can just see, in a couple of weeks, the governor's OB/GYN appearing at a press conference and saying "I've been released from my confidentiality requirements under HIPPA, so I can say without reservation, what the *$&% is wrong with you people?"

Then, for the rest of the presidential campaign, nobody will be able to legitimately criticize her. "Hey, you're in the pocket of big oil!", they'll say, to which she can reply, repeatedly, "And you mutants thought I don't know who my children are."

Nice job, Democratics. Daily Kos and Democratic Underground, thanks for what you've done to our political process.

Kelly ^hi! 05:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Uh... that photo says "Taken on March 19, 2005". rootology (C)(T) 05:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I see what happened there. rootology (C)(T) 05:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

On Flickr, the dates are often off because people don't set them in their cameras. I don't think that she was just fat when the photo was taken, and that she just happened to be hanging around the statehouse giving interviews when she wasn't even in office. Kelly ^hi! 05:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Blackwater and Halliburton? Good gravy. Was it delivered on a waterboarding table, and is Dick Cheney going to bless the baby at it's Christening with a bird shooter? :P rootology (C)(T) 06:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but the ceremony can only be performed during a full moon amidst the wreckage of houses destroyed by Hurricane Katrina, and you have to have just the right kind of nuclear waste and burning carbon for the ceremony. :) - Kelly ^hi! 06:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

You throw in the World Trade Organization hosting a pre-party get together to club seals to death, and I'll tell my wife I'll be home late for a date (threads like this make my poor liberal brain rupture). :P rootology (C)(T) 06:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

LOL - take care, Rootology - you're all right! Kelly ^hi! 06:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

You two just so rule. :) Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 06:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

A Barnstar

The Guidance Barnstar

		The Guidance Barnstar
		This is for your help in the deciding of whether to Go Coast Guard, or not. Whether I say Yes or No or Not Now, your opinions are really worthwhile and appreciated. Thanks :). <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 06:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, wow - anyway, feel free to ping me with any questions you might have! Kelly ^hi! 06:16, 1 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 [3] 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 Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons for more info. --Oi!oi!oi!010101 (talk) 05:09, 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 ^Claims ~ 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)