Jump to content

User talk:Kelly

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Hero of Time 87 (talk | contribs) at 15:39, 21 January 2009 (→‎Roland Burris Photo). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Building trust takes a long time...


...but it's worth it.


Archive
Archives
  1. March 2008
  2. April 2008
  3. May 2008
  4. June 2008
  5. July 2008
  6. August 2008
  7. September 2008
  8. October 2008
  9. December 2008
  10. January 2009

Francesca Dani

Hi! I noticed that you reverted my changes of the article about Francesca Dani. I've changed it back again and left the explanations on the talk page, ok? Thanks, bye. KeiMakino (talk) 17:10, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Warning to factchecker

I think your warning to him was inappropriate. In fact, your actions are more deserving of warning. Why is it ok to revert to undiscussed changes and not ones that have been discussed in great detail? Listen, we are obviously having a disagreement on how to proceed, but getting preachy on policy when people are still generally cooperating civilly is quite unhelpful.

We are making progress in a civil manner, so let's not take actions which are sure to inflame tensions.LedRush (talk) 17:36, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's no intention to inflame things - I even added myself to the notification list out of fairness. Kelly hi! 17:46, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for clarifying your intentions. The history of the users here just made me more cautious, and I didn't want factchecker to be alienated when I feel his actions on the board have been quite positive and civil recently. Feel free to delete this section from your talk page.LedRush (talk) 18:03, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, best wishes. Kelly hi! 18:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The list of editors involved in editing Sarah Palin during the election and since is lengthy. I am sure that many still stop in to see what's goin' on and would not mind getting re-involved. Please add my name to any notification list in the future. Thank you. --Buster7 (talk) 20:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dicklyon

You might wish to look at the edit summaries left by said user at William Timmons and his behavior in the talk page for that article. His compadre there is Commodore Sloat who is banned from editing anything related to the McCain campaign, so he is the only editor pushing his particular POV for all it is worth in the article <g>. His m.o., moreover, in warning people corresponds closely to another editor in the past. Thanks! Collect (talk) 19:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I fear he is on the edge -- he has now openly accused me of stalking him because I posted on an AfD about Orthogon (considering I have now posted on well over a hundred XfD discussions I think he is full of it <g>). Collect (talk) 15:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3O sought

In William Timmons I am being accused of "partisanship" (amazing since it has been a decade since I was involved in any campaigns at all) because I pointed out the "cherry picking" of a source in order to make a political point against Timmons (meanwhile the source actually points a stronger finger at Sorensen). Might you cast a dispassionate their set of eyes there, as I fear he is on the edge of an editwar. Merci! Collect (talk) 01:09, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3RR?

[1] 23:22 19 Jan [2] 17:49 [3] 17:49 (two different reverts there)

[4] 8:17 [5] 23:14 18 Jan [6] 17:47 [7] 23:37 17 Jan

Makes, I think, 7 separate reverts in 48 hours? If I err, please simply disregard. Thanks! [8] brand new interjection of Watergate <g>, Collect (talk) 01:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roland Burris Photo

The photo is from Senator Burris' personal website, so it is connected to the US Congress. He himself has posted the photo, so I suggest it be left alone. "....posted on the official websites of a member of Congress." (See www.supportburris.com) Hero of Time 87 (talk) 14:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Kelly. There is no need for notices or delete discussions as the photo satisfies the prerequisites for the prescribed licensing. I suggest they be removed promptly since they are not warranted. Simply because one person feels the photograph isn't what they want doesn't mean that the photo's licensing can be disputed, especially when it does in fact appear on one of the official websites for a member of Congress, which is the case here. Hero of Time 87 (talk) 15:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Based on my experience with copyright issues here at Wikipedia, I think you're incorrect (and actually that photo has already been deleted here at Wikipedia more than once in the past). But no harm in letting the discussion play out. Kelly hi! 15:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well based on my experience with copyright issues as they are stated in the notices, I think it is you that is incorrect (and it has not been noted on previous files of the photo that it is in fact on his personal website). But I see no need for a pointless discussion over something that's quite obviously a legal photo that is on an official website of a member of Congress, as stated in the licensing. It's really quite clear: "....posted on the official websites of a member of Congress." (See www.supportburris.com) Hero of Time 87 (talk) 15:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The license actually applies to images that are official works of Congress and their employees. Although a copy of this image is hosted on the Senate website, it was taken before Mr. Burris became a Senator and the copyright belongs to either the private photographer who took it, or to the State of Illinois if it was made by a state agency. Kelly hi! 15:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it refers specifically to a member of Congress' official websites, in case you didn't read the notice. So according to the notice, this license also covers this photo because Senator Burris is using it as his official photograph until a more recent one is produced. You don't really have an argument here I'm afraid. And please refrain from putting unnecessary notices into Senator Burris' caption if there is no basis for your accusations. Hero of Time 87 (talk) 15:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Probably best to keep the discussion on the IfD page rather than forking it over here. Kelly hi! 15:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I think this is just you arguing as I see no one else with a problem about the photo, and this new development has been discovered too that really lays this discussion to rest: http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/senators/one_item_and_teasers/burris.htm Hero of Time 87 (talk) 15:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We'll let the admin who closes the discussion decide, thanks. Kelly hi! 15:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see where the admin can dispute it by law as admins only have certain powers, but have it your way. And I don't think it takes an admin to close out an argument over a photo when only one person is disputing it against all other evidence. Hero of Time 87 (talk) 15:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kelly&oldid=265497958"