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 September 2008

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.[88] 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.[90] 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 "[I] 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)

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 ^hi! 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 ^hi! 03:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

<- I just noticed the section title - ZOMG CONTROVERSY!!1!!!1 I always wanted to be in one. :) Kelly ^hi! 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 ^hi! 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 ^hi! 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 ^hi! 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 ^hi! 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 ^hi! 04:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Hah, one of the news sites even suggested that the Wikipedia 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 ^hi! 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 ^hi! 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 ^hi! 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)

Note: I have removed the link to the BLP violation per discussion at the BLP noticeboard. Have a nice day. QuackGuru 18:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

And I've restored it, it's not a BLP violation. Go away, Quack, and stop harrassing me, for the last time. Kelly ^hi! 18:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Please stop restoring the BLP violation or you will be blocked. QuackGuru 18:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

It's already been explained to you that it's not a BLP violation, now stop edit-warring in my sandbox. Kelly ^hi! 18:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

It is a BLP violation and I am at 0RR. BLP violations are exempt from 3RR. QuackGuru 18:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

How many people have told it is not a BLP violation? It's an exact copy of a Wikipedia article, for reference, and that copy contains no BLP violations whatsoever. Now knock it off and go away. Kelly ^hi! 18:17, 9 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.delanoygabsadds 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 Wikipedia policy. But I have to admit that the stuff going on at the Palin article this week gave me some (more) white hairs. :) Kelly ^hi! 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)

My cabal of one hates to agree with Cla68 but that was some hard work on the targeted Palin articles. Nice. John Nevard (talk) 02:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Time for a breath?

Kelly, comments like [1] 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 ^hi! 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 ^hi! 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 ^hi! 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 ^hi! 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 ^hi! 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 ^hi! 06:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey you know what? You're right. It's just my opinion that that would make logical sense and would therefore be relevant to the article. Maybe the governor repeatedly asks people all the time whether they are willing to do something for her when she has no intention of actually asking them to do that thing. She might be completely illogical. She might have some Machiavellian scheme to bother librarians that voted for the other guy. She might be completely and utterly insane for all I know. I've never met her and I've only known about her for a few days. Just trying to get the facts out there so we can all get to know her better.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 07:26, 8 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 Wikipedia 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 ^hi! 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 ^hi! 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 ^hi! 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 ^hi! 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 ^hi! 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 ^hi! 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 ^hi! 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 ^hi! 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 Wikipedia 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 ^hi! 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 ^hi! 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.[2] 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 ^hi! 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.

[Palin speaking to Alaskan Independence Party]

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 ^hi! 18:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Palin's Pipeline

Hi Kelly, I' responding to your comment above; but breaking the discussion so its easier to edit. Attitudes about Sarah Palin are anything but speculation. There are people out there doing investigative reporting that gets into levels of connecting the dots detail you simply don't see in the MSM. Palin's Pipeline.

The McCain campaign is full of the same Bush lobbiests that gave us the last eight years. What Cheney brought to the table was seats for oil and gas men. Its not hard to see that its the men in those chairs that are driving the debates about whether to drill, whether to drill in ANWR, pipelines, going after methane hydrates, "Energy Independence", "foreign oil" and behind closed doors about the thing they really care about; profits.

The $40 billion dollar pipeline from Alaska's north slope to Boundary lake in Alberta is the reason Sarah Palin is on the McCain ticket and why the scandals surrounding her are so frightening. Sarah Palin is no environmentalist. She has the idea that despite the Iditerod ice melting ruining Todds snowmobile racing, global warming is a myth. She thinks BP's problems with pipeline corrosion, melting permafrost, melting iceroads, failed infrastructure are not related to changes in Alaska's climate.

In some ways Sarah Palin is being used. She thinks of herself as Sarah Barracuda, as mean, cruel and ruthless as necessary when it comes to protecting and profiting her family. She may even view Alaskan's as an extended family. For whatever reasons, maybe because of the views of her church she sees nature as something to be used and discarded like the carcass of the moose her burgers come from, and the wolves and the polar bears that clutter up the land on which she wants to build oil infrastructure, strip malls and parking lots on. She sees that as just being pro business and growth. That perspective ought to be in the article about her.

The pipeline that will be bringing natural gas from Alaska to help develop Canada's oil sands will profit Alaska. Possibly half of that $40 billion will translate into benefiting Alaskan's in the form of jobs and small businesses servicing new infrastructure. That perspective ought to be in the article about her.

Voters need to realize there is a choice whether to bring the natural gas to where it helps the oil and gas companies and Alaskans make more money, or to think in terms of "Country First" and ship it to the lower 48 or even as was proposed earlier by way of the Northwest Passage to Europe and Asia is the one the AIP would approve.

What is the natural gas requirement relative to oil sands development?

• It takes about 28 cubic metres (1000 cubic feet) of natural gas to produce one barrel of bitumen from in situ projects and about 14 cubic metres (500 cubic feet) for integrated projects. Currently, the oil sands industry uses about 17 million cubic metres (0.6 billion cubic feet) per day of purchased gas, or about four percent of the Western Canada Sedimentary Basin production. By 2015, this increases to about 40 to 45 million cubic metres (1.4 to 1.6 billion cubic feet) per day, or nearly 10 percent, assuming gas production stay level at 467 million cubic metres (16.5 billion cubic feet) per day.

How much water is required to produce one barrel of oil from the oil sands?

• The water requirements for oil sands projects range from 2.5 to 4.0 barrels of water for each barrel of bitumen produced.

Personally I'd like to see some discussion of the environmental impacts of that pipeline as balanced against its limited energy benefits in the context of Palin's advocacy for it in her speech to the Republican National Convention.

The environmental costs from tar sands oil extraction are high. Tar sands open pit mining and drilling are Canada’s fastest growing source of global warming emissions. Looking just at the production process, to produce a barrel of tar sands oil costs the climate three times the emissions as a barrel of conventional oil. For mining, up to four barrels of water are drained from the Athabasca River to produce one barrel of tar sands oil, resulting in tailings ponds of toxics that can be seen from space by the naked eye. Aboriginal communities downstream from the tar sands are concerned about high cancer rates.

Because Sarah Palin's page is locked up people are trying to put some of the information on other pages. Anne Kilkenny's letter is now its own page and under attack. This pipeline page will follow the same track. Rather than have all the information in one place where it makes it possible to get the big picture the data is diffused.

I'm sure that eventually Wikipedia editors will get it all sorted out, but in terms of it being presented in a useful time frame that will be helpful when people need it to make decisions, there is a concerted effort to stonewall its timely dissemination.Rktect (talk) 11:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey, Rktect. First, I hope you realize that Daily Kos is absolute hogwash when it comes to being a reliable source on Republican politicians. For example, they were the ones who published the Trig Trutherism meme about Palin's youngest son being her grandson, and then they astroturfed it everywhere - it caused us all kinds of grief here. Even though it was total bullshit, Moulitsas defended his publication of that crap to the press. So whatever meager credibility dKos may have achieved (and I did formerly have some respect for the discourse there), they have flushed down the toilet.

Concerns about the pipeline probably belong in the article about the pipeline, if they can be reliably sourced...oh, you have some factual inaccuracies above. She's not a global warming denier, she just doesn't believe it's manmade. That's not uncommon, many (most?) people believe the man-made part is politically-motivated bullcrap. She did appoint commissions to study climate change in Alaska.

Yeah, when it comes to animals, a lot of people freak out about that she kills animals, eats them, and wears their skins. But I think her views on that are not outside the American mainstream (definitely not outside the Alaskan mainstream), and in any case are addressed in her articles in a pretty neutral way. Kelly ^hi! 16:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Kelly,

Re: your comments on the Daily KOS; It has more than a million people contributing so its probably wrong to characterise all of them as anything other than involved in commenting on issues. Some of the diaries are pretty well researched, especially those on politics, global warming, the environment, peak oil, constitutional issues and other current events.

Their contributions to discussions about Republicans tend to be mostly negative so I don't object if you want to describe that as a POV, but lets allow the truth of it to be the relation between a given proposition and reality. In the case of the cited article on the pipeline its pretty well researched so if you have a different POV why not express it?

Not all of the material posted to the Daily Kos comes from Kosacks. Some of it comes from people who don't regularly contribute there and have other POV. Wikipedia has the same problem. I would tend to evaluate a given article outside of any broad brush characterization of the site and I'm sure most Wikipedians would also.

Global Warming is manmade. Denying that is whats meant by being a global warming denier. No sensible person doubts that anymore. Indeed the problem is that scientists are finding that the warming has accelerated suprisingly and we have reached the tipping point where mediation is no longer likely or even possible.

There are of course some people who don't care much for science if it conflicts with the consensus of their community. As I recall Senator Inhofe tried to list 400 "scientists" who doubted global warming was manmade to counter the point that thousands of scientists have reached consensus on this point. Analysis of his list shows that many of them work for oil and gas companies and are paid to be professional global warming deniers. Sarah Palin's page should allow full discussion of what it means in terms of the damage she and they have done and continues to do.

The Alaska Climate Impact Assessment Committee is a chamber of commerce device to promote tourism, oil and gas exploration, the development of a northwest passage, and economic development on the northslope. Its sponsored by ten oil and gas companies some military industrial defense contractors, some large chemical companies a fe banks, and two big logging companies Georgia Pacific and Weyhouser. This despite Alaska is already having to relocate communities because of melting permafrost, the absence of sea ice affecting ice roads and rising sea levels. The Pew center has a map of Renewable Portfolio Standards which coincidentally exactly matches RealClear Politics map of electoral votes for Obama and McCain. Red states have no standards abd blue states do. I am unaware of Sarah Palin having appointed any scientific commissions to study climate change in Alaska that have concluded its worth their while to just tell her the truth.

Concerns about what Sarah Palin is doing to the environment belong on her page.

I have no problem with Sarah Palin personally killing animals, eating them and wearing their skins. There is nothing wrong with being a hunter and personally I don't know why we don't make it a new rule that its fine to kill people as long as you are willing to eat them and wear their skin. Maybe it would make going to war more difficult if you couldn't just blow everything in the sights of your 50 cal Barret sniper rifle away from a couple of miles off but instead had to stop; jog over to where you shot them, find and dress out your kill, make a fire to cook your meat, digest your meal, and then take the time to cure the hide before wearing it.

The problem comes when she uses the resources of Alaska as a state and the United States as a nation to eradicate species whose habitat protection inconvieniences oil and gas companies. Rktect (talk) 19:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Rktect, you do realize that the oil companies up there hate her guts, right? She's raised their fees, yanked their leases, and locked them out of their planned pipeline by opening it up for bids. Probably the only ones up there who hate her more are the state Republicans, because she beat them in elections and sent some to jail.

So far as man-made global warning goes, I think you're a little optimistic. Hardly anyone I personally know believes in it - most of the people in my extended social circle think it's a scam for elites to grab more power or regulate more behavior. The standard joke in my office, when we hear that has snowed somewhere or is unseasonably cold, is to say "Oh, I didn't know Al Gore was in <insert name of cold place here>" Personally, I think it would take a huge source of energy to have any measurable effect on the Earth's climate, much more than humans can produce. As a matter of fact, I think that source of energy would probably have to be close to the magnitude of our own sun. :) I think the man-made global warming hysteria will fade away in a few years, like any fad. I actually am old enough to remember "global cooling" hysteria.

When it comes to killing - well, there always seem to be plenty of people in the world who need killing, particularly those who threaten the people of my country, or any other innocents. I'm happy to help. I really don't want to eat them or wear their skins, though. Kelly ^hi! 20:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Kelly,

Oil companies aren't haters. Personifying a company to have emotion is like personifying a god to want vengence. If oil companies weren't getting what they wanted from the governor of Alaska they would probably do something machiavelian like suggest to the McCain campaign that they should pick Sarah Palin to be their VP and teach her the drill, drill, drill chant removing her from Alaska politics win lose or draw.

In fact Palin has proposed that polar bears be taken off the endangered species list so that oil companies wouldn't have to deal with the environmental regulations that protect them.

Regarding your views of global warming its clear you think Al Gore is a joke and are a denier like Palin.

Its also clear you haven't really studied the subject.

Global warming is caused by a huge source of energy like the sun.

Most of that energy would normally bounce back off into space.

There are cycles wherin the earth is relatively warmer or cooler depending upon things like our orbit so that for example its cooler at night and in the winter and during ice ages.

Since the industrial revolution we have had an added factor called the greenhouse effect.

The greenhouse Effect is caused by increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere which trap the heat and cause the planet to warm more than usual.

Where normally we have cycles of ice ages and melting our burning of fuels emitting carbon has tipped the balance.

That is why we say it is humans who are causing global warming.

To test your hypothesis to the contrary try reading the IPCC reports or if things are as bad as you say and you don't have any intelligent friends try expanding your social circle to include some wikipedians like me and we will endeavor to help you learn more about the issue.

Far from being an optomist about global warming I'm pretty pessimistic about our chances of finding solutions. As we speak Ellsmere island is losing iceshelves the size of states in the lower 48. I expect we are very close to the tipping point where things get synergystic, but it doesn't help to hide your head in the sand. As an example of that since the seventies we have known about clathrates; we know methane is 25 times worse than CO2 emmissions and we are drilling for it in Alaska without any serious environmental protection thanks to Sarah Palin.

Scientists generally aren't big on power grabs, they tend to leave that to the politicians, and when it comes to regulated behavior I think the word you want to describe that is conservative. I have heard some scientists break socialization down into self actualizing and law abiding blaming both behaviors on our relative levels of two nerve hormones nor-epinepherine and seretonine going on to blame those levels on diet. If you have low levels of both its hard to function in society without a significant other you view as poerful telling you what to do

Man made Global warming is a demonstrable fact. As you point out many antithesis have been tested. Some scientists from woods hole thought global warming might cause melting in the artic to send large quantities of frsh water down toward the Gulf Stream causing it to come to a stop and the warmer waters it brings north to stop. By the end of the nineties those theories had all been tested and failed. Thats why skeptical scientists have managed to reach consensus, They have argued against global warming and failed to prove their point.

When you use jargon words like "elite" in the context of global warming maybe you should consider that most of the billions of people being affected world wide are living in the third world, watching the rising sea levels take the land from under their feet or the change in climate cause their crops to fail or floods and storms to destroy their villages. When you call it a scam try explaining that to the indiginous people of Alaska whose villages were built on permafrost that has now turned into sinkholes.

Global warming is caused by among a host of other things CO2 from oil and gas emmissions. Most people don't like the idea that the lifestyle based on cheap fossil fuels is coming to an end. Some like to proclaim it as the rapture and blame it on their religion. Some would like to pretend it doesn't exist, call it a "scam" and blame it on the oil and gas companies trying to increase their obscene profit margins.

Regarding the killing of humans. Most of the people on this planet probably think of their lives as valuable and those of their enemies as less so. For you personally, What makes the lives of the people of other countries less important to you than the lives of the people of your own country? Take that little kid at the top of your page. Is that life cheap and expendable in your view? Rktect (talk) 22:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the man-made global warming talking points, though I've heard it before. You're certainly welcome to believe in it, I have no problem with that at all. Everyone needs a hobby. But I'm afraid you can't force others to believe it, sorry. I'll state that I know there is such a thing as climate change (I grew up in a place where you can see how the landscape was shaped by glaciers during the last Ice Age), and I learned in history class that Greenland actually used to be green, when the only carbon being burned by humans was in campfires. :) But personally I lean toward the theory that it would take an enormous source of energy to cause serious impact on the Earth's climate, and that what we as humans do is pretty miniscule.

I value all human life, especially innocent human life, no matter where the people come from. That's why I have the picture of that Shiíte kid from Sadr City at the top of my page. We liberated him from oppression and fear, and he knows who he can trust - just look at him. To accomplish that noble goal we had to kill a fair number of pretty evil people who were doing things like blowing up mosques, kidnapping and executing entire families, and cutting off the heads of people who stood up for their own freedom. My conscience is clear in that regard, and I drift off to sleep each night happily thinking of those evil sadistic bastards burning in Hell. Kelly ^hi! 23:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

When it comes to killing - well, there always seem to be plenty of people in the world who need killing, particularly those who threaten the people of my country, or any other innocents. I'm happy to help

Were there people blowing up mosques, kidnapping and executing entire families, and cutting off the heads of people before we invaded Iraq, destroyed its infrastructure, broke our way into harems, manhandled women. children and elders, allowed its cultural treasures to be looted, failed to rebuild it, killed 600,000 plus innocent Iraqis by collateral damage, covert actions, supporting the salvadorean solution, kidnapping, torture, murder, holding without rendition, created abu garube, left the citizens of Bahgdad outside the green zone at the mercy of gangs, warlords and bandits and drove most of the professional doctors, lawyers, engineers, teachers, and business people into exile leaving the country without power, clean water, refrigeration for food, communications, HVAC, or any way to get to work without risking being shot at some roadblock, blown up at some market, arrested by paramilitary mercenaries, questioned by someone putting holes in our head with an electric drill, and left in a ditch with no eyes in their sockets and no tounge to tell the tale? Do you remember any of this or do you want links?

As I recall we put Saadam in power, had Israel supply both Iran and Iraq with weapons of mass destruction to facilitate Iran Contra and the Saudis being able to up production after the Carter gas crisis made deals not to release the American hostages in Iran until after the election then decades later decided to take him out because he couldn't be trusted with the oil.

We put Osama bin Ladin in power, were for the Taliban before we were against them, gave the mujahadin stingers to fight the Russians, allied with the bandits and rapists (the northern alliance) the Taliban and RAWA had been fighting while trying to bring humanitarian aid and infrastructure to Afghanistsan then double crossed them by refusing to honor the $5 billion dollar deal we had made to exchange humanitarian aid for an oil pipline through Banyan village, then spent some of it on a statue rather than the starving children we had promised it to causing our allies to blow up the Buddah of Banyan.

We are the bad guys, the evil sadistic bastards...always have been always will be... its our manifest destiny and how you get to be number one instead of dead. If we really wanted to put an end to terrorism, and the rejectionists, insurgents, freedom fighters we call the bad guys we would stop being terrorists and get out of other peoples countries when they asked us to. Our founding fathers were smugglers, slavers, pirates and land speculators who gave the Indians blankets dosed with small pox killin off villages, tribes and nations in order to get their land. Our manifest destiny mandated the necessity of taking most of the western United States from Mexico then said of the indiginous people living where they had been for millenia the only good indian is a dead indian. Since then we have gleefully killed everything which walks or crawls for god and country...

As to global warming, having worked our way up to it we are now about to kill a planet, exterminate its land animals, turn its seas into dead zones, watch its oceans rise to claim our cities and probably fight nuclear resource wars for the last of the oil rather than look at alternative energy

Do you remember any of this from history class or do you want links to our gunboat diplomacy?Rktect (talk) 00:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I love it, what a great country! Nowhere else do people have freedom of speech like this. My friend, I may not agree with what you say, but I'll gladly lay down my life to preserve your right to say it. God bless America - here's to the Army and Navy and the battles they have won; here's to America's colors, the colors that never run. May the wings of liberty never lose a feather. Kelly ^hi! 00:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Freedom of Speech

Hi Kelly,

Do you really think there is freedom of speech in the US? Teachers are being fired for telling the truth about the Bush administration, global warming, the use of the main stream media for the dissemination of propaganda, the oil wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, our destabilization of other countries, and the reasons the rest of the world is pissed off. People are scared to communicate on the internet for fear they will end up data mined and one of the millions of names on our no fly list, have their identity stolen, lose control of their medical and financial information, have their doors broken down by police looking for protesters as happened in Sr Paul and Minneapolis during the Republican Convention, or lose their jobs and be prosecuted for whistle blowing as in the Sybil Edmonds case.

Wikipedia articles by "liberals" are being reverted by "conservative" editors who don't think global warming is real and consider anything that links to the Daily KOS or that they didn't see on FOX news original research Rktect (talk) 10:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow, if the President is trying to suppress criticism, he's doing a pretty bad job of it, based on what I see in the news. Maybe he should follow the example of this guy and simply throw his critics into prison. Or this guy, who stripped thousands of families of their possessions and shipped them off, children and all, into detention camps. But somehow I doubt he will, he's a good man and above all the mudslinging and yapping.

Oh, if teachers tried to push political talking points like man-made global warming at my kids' school, the President wouldn't have to do anything about it - me and a bunch of other parents would be in front of the School Board faster than you can say "Al Gore". :) - Kelly ^hi! 16:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Kelly,

The President is doing a great job of supressing criticism. The problem with that is that by doing so he's lowered his credibility to the point where anything he says people now begin by assuming anything he says is false and trying to find the real story. I know that some of you believe if the President does it its legal, but thats not the way it works and that is why we have the check and balance of impeachment.

The fact that his impeachment is still stalled in the judiciary committee and his war crimes trials haven't even begun yet suggest that it may be months before we hear the end of the investigations into his conduct. Presidents have tried to bring acts of sedition before but rarely have they so openly engaged in illegal data mining, kidnapping, torrture, murder, holding without rendition, and failure to preserve protect and defend the Constitution and the Laws of the United States. It may take a new President and a new Congress and maybe even a new Supreme Court before we have all the facts exposed ;let alone properly investigated, indicted and the guilty impeached and incarcerated.

I wouldn't pretend that most presidents don't have failings but rarely do we get such a perfect storm of bull headed incompetance and bad ideas pushed to the limit, with an intention to purposely wreck the government of the United States, destroy its constitutional quarantees of freedom, debase its economy and standing in the world, ruin its reputation and leave future generations to try and patch things up as best they can.

What do you have against teaching kids science? Recently precedents have been set for refusing admission to college for kids whose parents wanted them taught intelligent design and creationism and whose teachers haven't been allowed to educate them properly. Global warming is caused by humans. Its not a political talking point its just a fact. Rktect (talk) 17:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't realize Kelly's talkpage was the new "Partisan government conspiracies hot line".... --mboverload@ 17:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Mboverload,

Kelly and I were engaged in a friendly exchange of ideas, what they would call a dialectic if we were speaking rather than writing the words. Would you like to speak for her? So far we have just been addressing Sarah Palin. Most government conspiracies involve more than one person. I suppose we could widen the discussion if you want to go there.Rktect (talk) 01:16, 10 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 ^hi! 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 ^hi! 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 ^hi! 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)

Screw them all. I'm out of here. IDcab and their new found attack dog jossi have won. Adios. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 04:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Jossi

Given your recent history with Jossi I thought you might be interested in what people (including myself) have said about him on Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sarah_Palin_protection_wheel_war/Evidence. In my opinion, he doesn't show the requisite judgment and restraint to be an admin. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm to new and have to little time to jump into this officially but Kelly, I do appreciate your hard work on the Palin page. Seeing the actions of Jossi and the three other admins pushing the POV to actually insert information on the Palin page has turned me off from contributing to wikipedia in general. Theosis4u (talk) 04:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, unfortunately there are a lot of left-wing folks here at Wikipedia. (See my fun with Pipeline Guy above.) It's just our demographic, so the POV tends to lean that way. And there's nothing special about admins (though most of them like to think so), many or most of them got their status by reverting vandalism mindlessly with a script, writing Power Rangers articles, and/or kissing ass. Try not to let it get to you too much, it can still be fun here. I like getting involved with the controversial political articles periodically, but it can be stressful. When I need a break I just go and upload photos at the Commons to relax. Be of good cheer, it will all work out in the end. Kelly ^hi! 05:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Lol... (BTW, I am not "left-wing", neither I edit Power Rangers, preferring obscure stuff such as Textual criticism, or Canons of page construction, as for fighting vandalism, yes, I do that but not "aimlessly") ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey, Jossi - don't you have some wheel-warring to do somewhere, or maybe an ArbCom case to comment in? Oh, wait - I think somebody is trying to edit Prem Rawat! Kelly ^hi! 05:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I find it odd (antagonistic to kelly really on your part) that you would use Kelly's talk page to defend yourself. Also, I never trust someones self description of their political POV once they felt they were accused. Your postings present enough evidence for me to infer it. Theosis4u (talk) 05:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Some of your deletions on Talk:Bristol Palin I have reverted as inappropriate

Deleting material from a talk page is a serious step that should be taken only rarely. Wikipedia must encourage (and be seen to encourage) the greatest possible freedom of discussion; otherwise, we cannot hope to generate consensus. I understand the first of your deletions: the rant contained a racially-offensive reference that served no purpose. The second, however, was a simple rant that, while violating Godwin's Law, was relevant to the article and did not in my opinion rise to the level of a personal attack such that it needed deletion. I have reverted your second deletion (but not your first). Regards. Robert A.West (Talk) 11:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Another admin (Gwen Gale?) had also been removing that rant, but I don't think it's a big deal. Probably best to just let the person have their say for now to avoid drama. Kelly ^hi! 16:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Please don't revert my edits without a reason

There is absolutely no consensus on the Bridge to Nowhere for Palin. If you have a problem with my well-sourced, balanced edits, please say WHY. I will revert now. But if you have a problem by all means, go to the talk page. As it now reads, it is extremely unbalanced. Let's bring this into the open and discuss it. What specifically do you have a problem with? —Preceding unsigned comment added by GreekParadise (talk • contribs) 20:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll take it to the article talk page, thanks. Please don't revert-war. Kelly ^hi! 20:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Have we reached a consensus then? Put longer version on main (protected) page and shorter version on political positions page?GreekParadise (talk) 21:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

If you'd like to make changes to Sarah Palin, you need to propose it at Talk:Sarah Palin. Kelly ^hi! 21:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Talk page Sarah Palin seems to be locked up. That is to say it won't allow edits. I thought it might be useful to add the information that since firing the cook she cooks at home and then charges the voters of Alaska

Gov. Sarah Palin knows how to cook. And her children are capable of making sandwiches. That said, Palin has told chef Stefani Marnon that the Governor's Mansion in Juneau won't be needing a professional cook until the legislative session this coming winter. "Bottom line is, the governor does not need a gourmet chef at the mansion," said Meghan Stapleton, the governor's spokeswoman. "From the start, she's been very uncomfortable with a gourmet chef. It's a luxury she doesn't think Alaskans should be paying for."

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has billed taxpayers for 312 nights spent in her own home during her first 19 months in office, charging a "per diem" allowance intended to cover meals and incidental expenses while traveling on state business.

Given the number of scandals and contoversies surounding her it might be nice to have a bulleted list in a scandals and controversies section.Rktect (talk) 16:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I had heard this was the latest dKos faux "scandal", hilarious. Wow, they must really be getting desperate. Have you seen the polls? Kelly ^hi! 16:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

No this is the latest one Alaska National Guard General Changes Story; Palin Promotes. The polls show Obama ahead, With no toss ups Meanwhile Palin is embarrasing herself with gaffs on the Fannie Mae Freddie Mac bailout. whats your point? Rktect (talk) 19:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

3RR Vio

You've been reported here[3]. I am reviewing this right now, and you can consider this your due warning. If I decide a block is appropriate, I will leave you message here before doing so describing how you can avoid one. I will also take your explanations of your edits, but they must stand and fall on their own merits. --Tznkai (talk) 23:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

<sigh>So any edit, no matter what it is, is considered a "revert" now? Kelly ^hi! 23:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

My loose definition for a reversion is any edit that substantively changes an article page to a previous version. You'll find a better one somewhere in the wiki policy pages, but there you go.--Tznkai (talk) 00:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Ugh. Well, I'm unwatching the Palin pages and stepping away before the rest of the IDCab gets on me. The main bio has been reduced to semi and I see the POV-pushing and factual inaccuracy that we tried so hard to work through consensus to neutralize is getting crammed into the article again. Oh, well. Kelly ^hi! 00:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

How exactly did that page become an "IDCab" battleground? As far as I can see, none of the political positions of Ms. Palin that are outlined on the page pertain to evolution vs. ID. *Dan T.* (talk) 00:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Palin apparently believes in some form of ID. She made a public statement in a debate that she favors allowing discussion of creationism should it happen to to come up in class, this is invariably twisted to mean that she favors teaching it as part of the curriculum, which she doesn't. The main Sarah Palin article was just unprotected and that inaccuracy was immediately crammed back into the article, despite endless prior discussion. Those pages are dismally discouraging, the POV-pushers are brutally persistent and few of them will talk reasonably on the talk pages. Trying to work through Wiki process with them is exhausting - I'm thinking I'll just contact the McCain campaign, and pass them the OTRS e-mail whenever lies or libel pops up in the article. ;) Kelly ^hi! 00:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Kelly, this is all in your head. Your immediate smear of ANY action I take as "IDCab" is wearing old and thin. Sarah Palin has nothing to do with the ID Wikiproject. I am an administrator; I am a member of the Mediation Committe; I am a member of OTRS. Not everything I do has a relationship to OTRS. Not everything I do has a relationship to the MedCom. Not everything I do is an administrative action. And certainly not everything I do has a relationship to the Wikiproject I belong to. However, virtually everything I do has something to do with trying to make Wikipedia better. I am sure you are trying to make Wikipedia better as well. But your paranoid attacks about "THE ID CABAL" need to stop. Its personal attacks; it is ABF; and it is gaming the system inasmuch as your insistance that anything I disagree with you on involves an imaginary cabal persecuting you. Give up the attacks, the paranoia, and the persecution complex, and simply AGF and try to work productively, ok? I am trying to be polite and patient but you have been beating this horse til it is nothing but bones, and now you're making bonemeal out of it. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, KC, get off the cross. I personally find it hilarious that the ID people can dish it out but can't take it. Now don't you have something more productive to do than hang around on the talk page of little old me? I recently looked at Rosalind Picard and I don't think it has enough controversy in it. Kelly ^hi! 15:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

(Undent)Ok Kelly, here's whats what. You have in fact violated WP:3RR. These are the options I'm giving you (pending outside administrative reversal).

• 1. You may accept a non punitive 24 hour topic ban from Sarah Palin related article pages. You may, and are encouraged to, continue editing other pages, and using Palin related talk pages in the constructive manner you have been doing so in Talk:Political positions of Sarah Palin. You are making significant contributions to the discussion there, and I'm sure you will be able to in the future.
• 2. Or I can give you a 12 hour block because of your 3RR violation.

--Tznkai (talk) 00:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I already stated in a couple of places that I'm done with the Palin pages. I don't buy the 3RR thing without some other evidence, but I know it's pointless to argue. Kelly ^hi! 01:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Option 1 then?--Tznkai (talk) 01:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I think you did some good work helping keep those articles under control. Now that they're receiving so much attention others can hopefully take up the slack now. Cla68 (talk) 01:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Cla. Before I unwatchlisted the articles, the new edits going in didn't look too hot. The problem is that hardly anyone neutral is editing. Some people were complaining earlier about Palin supporters editing the articles - I wish!!! It would be a pleasure to revert some fluff. There are left-wing blogs out there astroturfing people to come here and insert anti-Palin POV, and the memes are incredibly persistent. So it's basically been a contest between a crowd of anti-Palin folks, and a handful of folks trying to keep it neutral. The neutral folks are inevitably accused of being pro-Palin, and there are enough Wikilawyers now to bring process against them. :( Kyaa the Catlord, who had done amazing work with the articles, got driven off yesterday. It's disappointing, but not my problem anymore, I guess. - Kelly ^hi! 01:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to see you go. The political positions article is just atrocious. It has obviously become a dumping ground for every negative comment someone finds and can't add to the main article. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, Tznkai promised to look at "all parties" in the reverting, but I guess that was B.S. Anyway, I don't think there's a chance in hell for those articles to be neutral anytime soon. Asking for a prayer in a church for the success of a big infrastructure project is apparently now an "Oil and Gas" political position for the Governor of Alaska. Oy vey! Kelly ^hi! 01:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I've only had one 3RR report to investigate and I have 188 edits to slog through, plus cross referencing them. If you have a 3RR vio to report, there is the WP:AN3 board as well as my talk page.--Tznkai (talk) 01:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Go away, Tznkai. Kelly ^hi! 01:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Tznkai, you're missing the point on the real problem here. Those articles are under attack by political opponents, apparently including, unfortunately, one of Wikipedia's own admins [4] who outnumber the editors trying to protect NPOV. Content is the most important thing for an encyclopedia, right? Cla68 (talk) 01:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

As I've said elsewhere how you do something is about as important as why you do it. The wiki process that protects content works by consensus and cooperation, and good faith. Not by a any editor reverting, even in good faith. I am not unsympathetic to Kelly's hard work. this is why I declined the previous WP:3RR the other day.

As for the arbitration case, I am not going to act on that until editors make some resolution. I am operating completely editor blind, and deliberately so. Am responding to the reports I receive. I do not, nor does Wikipedia, function on taking sides.--Tznkai (talk) 01:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Tznkai, enough. Kelly ^hi! 01:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Kelly, I still need a response from you on your 3RR vio. If you don't respond, I'll simply have to default to WP:3RR's prefered remedy.--Tznkai (talk) 01:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Your answer is already above, and on the 3RR page. Do you really want a dramafest? Now go away, please. Kelly ^hi! 02:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

So it's basically been a contest between a crowd of anti-Palin folks, and a handful of folks trying to keep it neutral This is quite a statement... so are you saying that MastCell, myself and other long-term editors are part of a crowd of anti-Palin folks. You have some chutzpah. Basically, a case of WP:OWN to all who want to check it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Hee hee - thanks, I needed a laugh to cheer me up. :) Kelly ^hi! 03:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Courtesy note

FYI, you are being discussed here. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 16:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Meh. Puppy won't tell you that the real reason for all the disruption on that article was a POV-pushing astroturfing effort from the Obama campaign website.[5] That was all the new editors showed up, including her. (Not saying that's connected.) Kelly ^hi! 17:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Kelly, take this in good faith as it's a standard rhetorical device: I wasn't born yesterday. I've been over there the last few days, and you can check out my posts to AN/I over the last 36 hours.... That said, I wish you would consider the possibility that the brush you use to paint some editors who either don't understand the project's principles, or put them below other editing priorites (whatever they might be), might just have become overly broad. And I know free advice is worth what you pay for it, but I'd still like to point out that even though you have been baited more than once lately, you are also enabling the baitors, quite well in fact, with some of your rhetoric. Tnzi or whatever his name was had some good advice IMO, to disengage for a while. Wikistress is such an avoidable evil. Please don't take that as a threat; it was well meaning but in the end do what you wish to do, but please realize that not everyone who disagrees with you is necessarily a problematic editor. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I just looked in at WP:AN and the usual crowd are in a tizzy over nothing much. The whole admin community, with a few shining exceptions, has covered themselves in shame over the past week or so, either by negligence or actual misconduct. It's pretty laughable that I should care what they think until they've earned back some credibility. I do appreciate your advice, though, Baccyak, and I had already disengaged long before those folks showed up here to taunt me. Kelly ^hi! 18:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

NPA/AGF warning

This diff is both a failure to assume good faith, and a personal attack. As a response to a 3RR warning (which it effectively was) it also looks rather tendentious. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, please. What are you going to do, block me for "sass"? Kelly ^hi! 17:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

There's no policy against being sassy, so no. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

There is one against personal attacks, and incivility, though. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 18:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Whatever. Kelly ^hi! 20:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Kelly, nothing personal, but maybe you should also read this.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 21:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Mastcell has pointed out that my previous edit was akin to poking a frustrated editor with a stick. I somewhat agree and apologize.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 01:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Anyone else want to come here and pile on? Kelly ^hi! 22:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Please don't think we're all out to get you, just because a number of editors try to voice concerns here. Having said that, after reading about other issues you have been involved with recently, it's clear that you've been under a lot of wikistress, and for what it's worth I'm inclined to let this issue drop, and apologise if my contributions have added to your stress levels. I really was trying to help. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 00:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Break?

Kelly, I support many many of your actions and reactions, but it is very obvious that you are getting too caught up in Palin stuff. Please take a break? Self-imposed? For a little while, or a long while? You do excellent work here. Please step away from the ledge that you appear to be standing on. Forgive me if I'm overstating your personal stress levels (we both know that it is impossible to determine through a 2-dimensional visual medium what anyone else is "feeling"). Just on impression though, I don't like what I see happening in the next few days if several people don't take a step back and now I'm rambling, so again, forgive me, and please be objective about what I'm posting here? I'm not in any cabals. I've never used IRC, I don't even have email enabled. This is from me, to you. Keeper ǀ 76 18:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't know about taking a break, but I would urge you not to let your engagement into hostilities be determined by others (i.e. pick your battles). Ronnotel (talk) 18:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I mean only a break from the drama. Move away from the palin stuff and find other things to edit for a while, to gain perspective perhaps, to gain sanity, to reduce stress. Wikipedia is supposed to be fun to edit (none of us outside the truly altruistic, non-existent people would be here otherwise). The pay here sucks, and ain't worth getting stressed over. Keeper ǀ 76 19:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Break? Edit other stuff? It's mazing that anyone with an once of empathy and has reviewed the history on Kelly's talk page and also followed the Palin page the last week would offer that. I'm not belittling the attempt to comfort.. but from my POV, the paicture is like this:

Kelly tried her best on the palin page, requests for support for from other admins fell on deaf ears, "POV" admins then catch on to the Palin page and attempt a take over so they can directly edit the Palin page, throw Kelly into the administrative review grinder to move her out of activities on Palin page, successfully remove any admin opposition to their edits to the palin page, and THEN have the perverse desire to harass her in her own sandbox! All the while... where's the push back against these other admins besides cheap advise that "she" steps away?!?! The experience of watching this has not only turned me off from wikipedia but I will activity do what I can for a better replacement and also reach out to any source of public press to report on this issue and to Flag wikipedia as POV driven because of the lack of control on admins. Disgusted.

(Sorry Kelly if I'm out of place by venting myself about this on your talk page) Theosis4u (talk) 20:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Theosis4u (talk) 20:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

@Keeper, Ronnotel. I already disengaged from the Palin pages some time ago, and have so stated in multiple places. However, if you'll look up my talk pages, I still have a lot of editors, and admins, who feel entitled to come here and troll me. Kelly ^hi! 20:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

And you continue to bear up remarkably well, but just the same time remember to WP:DFTT. :) Ronnotel (talk) 20:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you want to know the funny thing? I've never once voted for a Republican for president, and this year I was planning to vote for Bob Barr. I just like politics articles. After the experience of the last week, where the vilest misogynic and anti-religious prejudice was being spewed onto these pages (and still is), and I've found for sure that it's actually being organized by people from the Democratic Party, I've gone whole hog - that's really why I had to quit editing the articles. Last night I sent $2000 to the McCain campaign, and today I registered to vote as a Republican. I even signed up as a campaign volunteer. Kelly ^hi! 20:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

...How are people supposed to take you as neutral when you've donated 2000 bucks and signed as a volunteer? I subscribe to WP:FUCK. --mboverload@ 22:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Kelly doesn't have to be neutral, her edits have to be. You don't have to "take" her in any manner, you have to take her edits and judge them based on their merit.   user:j    (aka justen)   22:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

You're joking, right? You've seen my contributions to the Arbcom, right, on this case, plus the discussions all over? You'd think I was Trigg Palin in disguise. Hint: I was signed up to be an Obama delegate locally but bowed out and have donated to MoveOn, and been a member there since way before it was where all the cool kids hung out. I'm as far from a Palin supporter as they breed us. rootology (C)(T) 22:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Did you just admit to being User:Young Trigg, rootology? Where'd I put that number for npr?  ;)   user:j    (aka justen)   22:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

No comment unless Carl Kasell does my voicemail recording first. rootology (C)(T) 23:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Would you settle for Jeremy Irons? JoshuaZ (talk) 23:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Scar would be an acceptable substitute. If I went Brit I think I'd prefer Michael Caine, though. rootology (C)(T) 23:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I would have taken Don LaFontaine but I guess I'm a bit too late. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Pablo Francisco. YouTube his movie man routine, and look at the video on his site here. He was a friend of LaFontaine and did a killer impersonation. rootology (C)(T) 23:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

(Undent)You should probably take the conversation to your own talk pages.--Tznkai (talk) 00:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Get this guy off me

Will somebody watching this please get QuackGuru the hell out of my sandbox? Kelly ^hi! 20:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Please stop adding the BLP violation allegations. QuackGuru 20:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

What's in your sandbox? This is new to me. Keeper ǀ 76 20:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

See the thread "Sandbox controversy" above. The link he keeps removing is to an archived copy of the the earliest revision of John Edwards extramarital affair, an article which I wrote, and which had a different title then. It contains no BLP violations. People have told him this repeatedly, and to leave me alone, and he won't give it up! Kelly ^hi! 20:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

(e/c)Quackguru, are you really edit warring with a user over that user's sandbox, because of a link to a wikipedia mirror? Really? What the hell am I missing? The link you keep removing is not a BLP violation anymore than our article is, (whatever it's now named). Is it the title that's bothersome? That said, Kelly, this might be a "choose your battles" situation. Can you write down the link, you know, on paper, or bookmark it on your browser and keep it off wiki? This seems like a tempest in a teapot. Keeper ǀ 76 20:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

You know, if initially I had been approached courteously, I might have been obliged to do so. But I am getting sick and fucking tired of being trolled. Kelly ^hi! 20:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

FUCK! Goddamit, QuackGuru, you have never explained what the hell you think the BLP violation is!!! Stop revert-warring in my sandbox! Kelly ^hi! 20:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I posted Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#QuackGuru_and_Kelly_going_at_it this request for uninvolved admin to help out. Ronnotel (talk) 20:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Quack, please cease all activity relating to Kelly until this is resolved, period. --mboverload@ 20:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, here comes the block, great. Why the hell won't people just leave me alone for a bit? Kelly ^hi! 20:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Kelly, we can watch over your talk page while you take a breather/break.--mboverload@ 21:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

User:QuackGuru earned himself a vacation.

Just a suggestion...

You don't know me from Adam, but let me make a suggestion (and its completely well-intentioned). For the next 72 hours, don't load WP at all. You're beginning to sound a bit.. well.. you're definitely letting the frustration get to you in your words. There are folks out there who do this well. They nudge, and nudge, and nudge, like someone poking you over and over and over, till you snap and swing at them to get them to leave you alone.

That's what they want. They want you to snap and say something that while true, you may regret later. That way they can hold up the diff of you snapping and say "Look at this person's overreaction", and use it to discredit you in future arguments. I've seen it time and time again. (I've even been the subject of some of them, which to MY regret, I've not been always able to practice what I preach).

Seriously, 72 hours, or however long it takes to decompress, get a sense of humor about things, whatever, is nothing. There is no deadline when it comes to Wikipedia. Rather then burning yourself out with constant battles, take a break and come back ready and raring to go.

The work you've done has been appreciated, btw. SirFozzie (talk) 22:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll drink to that

You can never have too many friends or too many highballs ...

Not sure about the 72 hours (48? 24? 18.75?) , but as for the rest, I second the wisdom of the Foz. Summer is waning. Walk in the sunlight, enjoy the breezes in the fresh air. Then get sozzled. You may wake up with a headache in the morning, but it's a lot more fun than worrying over Wikipedia articles. If the highball doesn't work, I heartily recommend increasing degrees of debauchery. But start with a highball. Highballs are your friends. [The author of this post is not a licensed bartender. If you are pregnant, under-age or experience the urge to dissolve your life in an alcohol-induced haze, stop taking this medication.] -- Noroton (talk) 03:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest not going near the computer after a few highballs. Cla68 (talk) 06:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I concur with all. Go get blazed, but stay off the 'pedia for the duration. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 15:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks like you're inactive, Kelly, so I imagine you've preemptively taken the above advice in some form or another. Hope you're relaxing and enjoying your break in whatever way is best for you. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 21:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't drink and drive though. I got a DUI and it sucks. Testmasterflex (talk) 03:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't let it get to you

The wiki can be frustrating at times, but don't let it get to you. We may have our differences on image policy, but I still think you do great work for this project! --Dragon695 (talk) 04:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)