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

What a difference a day makes ...

... Twenty-four little hours

Brought the sun and the flowers

Where there used to be rain

Then again, wait for the closing admin to close as a delete on policy grounds (it's never over till it's over), which is why I'm posting policy arguments that are really addressed to whoever closes and to the possible DRV. My Neal Stephenson tome is still on the shelf (I'm way too intimidated by it to actually open it yet). Instead I've been dipping into a Obama: From Promise to Power by David Mendell (soon to be assimilated into the Wikipedia Borg -- the book, that is, not Mendell). Obviously I'm in WP too deep. -- Noroton (talk) 01:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Heh - if you're referring to a Neal Stephenson "tome", I'll bet you're talking about The Baroque Cycle. I still haven't finished that myself. If you're looking to start on Stephenson, I highly recommend Snow Crash or Cryptonomicon (my favorite). Thanks for the good words and the support in the debate! Kelly ^hi! 03:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, kudos. I think the strength of the writing has a lot to do with the consensus that's forming. And I'm glad you waited for an admin to overturn the speedy rather than appeal at DRV. I have a feeling that a DRV might have yielded a different result. Ronnotel (talk) 01:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Ronnotel - I appreciate the good words! You're to thank for me waiting...your earlier advice was excellent. Kelly ^hi! 03:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

<-- I just noticed that the article is being discussed at the DYK candidate page - there are some understandable reservations, though. Kind of disappointing since I was able to get Ashley Alexandra Dupre featured at DYK - though I think there's a chance this article could eventually end up in "In the News", depending on how the story develops and assuming the article survives. Kelly ^hi! 04:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

More updates

I thought you might like to be informed about this. Happy editing. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 15:41, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up! I do agree that, based on the story as it exists at this moment, the focus needs to be sharper on the history of media coverage of the allegations, and their impact, with the substance of the allegations as background to that narrative. (This was the thing that intrigued me about this subject in the first place.) I was planning to do some work on that this weekend, as there have been a lot of new sources on this that have developed over the past few days. The tough part on this research, as always, is sifting the wheat from the chaff. Take care! Kelly ^hi! 15:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the train has left the station... Your previous efforts will not be for nought. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 19:41, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I am happy for myself, regarding the work on the article, tempered by sadness for Edwards' family, who must now bear the brunt of his disgusting behavior. I have a feeling this story is far from over. Kelly ^hi! 22:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Unblock request

Now I see a neutral possibility. I unblocked. I'll welcome the user. Bearian (talk) 17:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Cool, thanks Bearian! Kelly ^hi! 18:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Tear...

Awwwww! Your picture of that US soilder with that little Iraqi boy is just so cute! OMG!! That's so sweet. --70.121.33.78 (talk) 22:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I loved it, too - afraid that I'm a big fan of American GIs, who are completely awesome and underappreciated. Kelly ^hi! 22:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Vindication

I feel compelled to take issue with the congratulatory tone of your note here. Do you really see this as "vindication" for that particular editor? He persisted in restoring material which 3 admins agreed was a violation of WP:BLP, all the while firing off overheated personal attacks, frivolous noticeboard posts, and accusations of censorship. That's actually not something to be proud of, nor to be encouraged. Yes, ultimately reliable sources supported these allegations, but that's a vindication for waiting for adequate sourcing, not for edit-warring in blatant disregard of WP:BLP, throwing around wild accusations, and generally pitching a fit when one doesn't get their way here. MastCell ^Talk 00:10, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I understand your position and appreciate your note to me. Kelly ^hi! 00:23, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Talk:John Edwards

The post I removed attacked the other editors on the page for alleged politically motivated editing. It was the user's only contribution to the talk page and that editor made no edits to the article. Such comments add nothing to the discussion and poison the atmosphere of collaboration. I'm not sure why you restored it, but I'd appreciate it if you not do so again, or at least discuss with me the reason you think such a comment is appropriate for the talk page before you do so. Thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 17:14, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Obviously I'm not going to edit-war over it. But I think it's generally a bad idea to remove comments from people if they're not attacks or otherwise prohibited by WP:TALK. It just upsets the person who posted the comment and sometimes goads them into a fight. Far better, I think, to just ignore it. Kelly ^hi! 17:30, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I see your point about goading them, but those sorts of comments invite responses from other editors, some of whom might not be so reticent about responding to (and thus feeding) trolls, and I think on a page like this one, when good editors have been under frequent attack by drive by trolls and tensions are strained, I think it's good to remove comments that contribute to that strain. Gamaliel (talk) 17:33, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

<shrug>I don't really feel strongly about it either way, so I'll leave it to your judgment. With respect - Kelly ^hi! 17:37, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Very very very OT,... but here goes.

BTW, the Neal Stephenson description of Finns (while the main character was staying with a smuggler) is the most apposite so far I have read by an American SF author. Sterlings attempt at The Littlest Jackal was bizarre and had one single sentence that was apposite, but mostly fell flat on its face - much like I did when reading Snowcrash for the first time (ask me about it some time, there is a very very long story to go with it, involving passing out drunk in Dulles airport bar and traveling accross the US by Greyhound and hitch hike)... - all Finns really need is a deep existential problem and a bottle of hooch, and we are set for the whole evening... -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 06:32, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

P.S. The above is of course a reference to the Cryptonomicon of course. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 06:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, yes, the smuggler's daughter! Stephenson definitely has a talent for capturing the essence of things. I once spent an evening with some Finns who were on holiday in the Mediterranean...it's interesting that they're so different from the Swedes on one side and the Russians on the other. A fascinating and unique culture. Kelly ^hi! 14:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

happy that that article is still around

Kelly, I just wanted to let you know that despite my taking John Edwards extramarital affair to ANI earlier, I'm quite happy that the guy fessed up and we've been able to keep it. You've clearly spent a lot of time producing an excellent article. Well done!--chaser - t 16:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Chaser, that means a lot. It's ironic that you came back here to say something, when all you did was decline speedy deletion and neutrally put this topic up for discussion. None of the people who put the article up for deletion, or speedily deleted it, or who said my sources were garbage and snarked at me about UFOs and Bat boy, and that the London Times had obviously degenerated for reporting on an Enquirer story, have had a damn thing to say to me or even retracted what they said earlier. Nice.

But I guess I really should blame our so-called "reliable sources", like the New York Times, the LA Times, and the major networks. I've had some nice schadenfreude reading their mea culpas over the weekend, where they try to explain away their laziness and partisanship by sniping at the supposed unreliability of the Enquirer. If I could say something to them, it would be along the lines of "Yeah, we all understand that you think the Enquirer sucks. But you got your asses totally pwned by a paper that you say sucks. So that means you suck worse!"

OK, done ranting. :) Thanks again, Chaser! Kelly ^hi! 18:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Please comment on this Rielle Hunter RfC

Kelly, would you please give feedback on this RfC? Thanks, AdamKesher (talk) 09:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

edit warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Rielle Hunter. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. The edit warring also appears to be ocuring on John Edwards extramarital affair and possibly other related articles, which is an aggravating factor - discuss and solve it at one of the talk pages and then it should be easier to solve at the other. GRBerry 15:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

GR, I got your big old 3RR warning template on my talk page...can you please tell me where I "engaged in an edit war"? So far as I can recall, I only did one reversion in the spirit of WP:BRD - the other editor boldly removed the information, I reverted once, and discussed the situation at WP:BLPN, where the conversation was taking place. I suppose I could be mistaken, I'd appreciate it if you could point that out. Kelly ^hi! 17:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

You did one revert at each page.[1] [2] An IP editor did multiple reverts at one of the pages. And the other logged in editor did multiple reverts on one page and one revert at the other. I saw enough edit warring that I was considering page protection, which meant that it was time to caution everybody involved. GRBerry 17:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

So I get a big nasty warning template (the template was sort of unnecessary; I know what edit-warring is - a simple sentence would have done) for edit-warring when I didn't edit-war? How I am responsible for what an IP does after I have already left the conversation? I reverted once and discussed my actions. Kelly ^hi! 17:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

You aren't responsible for what others do, but when a situation is an edit war I need to make sure that all parties stop, one way or another. My goal was to make sure that I didn't have to use the admin tools to handle a continuing edit war. Since I strongly prefer in these situations to give essentially identical messages to all editors, I did so. If all the editors were established accounts, I might have handled it differently. With an IP in the mix, giving essentially identical messages meant the template - especially during a quick break at the office. If you had stopped, it was unneeded for you, but stopping is not immediately apparent if others are doing the same thing. GRBerry 17:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

All right, I get your point and will not edit those pages. I'm disappointed with you, GR. You've been monitoring this situation for a long time and you know for a fact that I have always followed policy on these pages, no matter how much I had to smile and put up with people giving me all kinds of ridicule and shit in multiple forums for writing about that topic. Hell, half the time I was the only person following Wikipedia policy on those pages! Then you ride in here and drop some idiotic template on my talk page as if were some newbie, and instead of doing the decent thing and retracting the template, you give me some lame-ass excuse about treating everyone the same. As if I were engaged in edit-warring like some other users. I could understand this from some random admin but I expected better from you. This really, really pisses me off. Kelly ^hi! 18:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I do know that you have been editing responsibly in a tough environment on the relevant pages, and don't want you to stop editing them. (As I already said, the goal was to stop a multi (>2) party edit war on multiple pages without using the tools - which meant the intent was to keep editing ongoing, because it needs to be ongoing.) If the template bothers you that much, archive or blank this section! The IP editor blanked their message a few hours ago. GRBerry 18:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Greater than 2? I count two - the IP and Red dog or whoever the hell it was. And if I blank the warning it essentially means I acknowledge or agree with it or whatever the hell the policy is now. It's not the same as a bad warning being retracted by the issuer. Kelly ^hi! 19:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Blanking or manually archiving something is generally taken only to acknowledge having seen it. (And even then I've seen editors blank or archive something while explicitly saying they haven't read it - the example I saw today was someone who archived a very long-winded conversation by multiple other parties that occurred on her talk page during her wikibreak.) It doesn't imply that you agree with whatever is blanked or archived - here is something in my talk archives that I obviously disagree with, and I put the colored archive box around it by hand. It is pretty obvious by now both that you have read my message and disagree that you were edit warring. I've said that an edit war was happening. You don't disagree that an edit war was happening; you just don't believe you were doing it. The use of identical messages to everyone who is reverting is intended to let me give cautions quickly without first deciding whose editing was problematic. Please take it in that spirit. I'd like to move on from this tangential discussion and get you back editing these pages; you have been doing a good job with them. As such, this will probably be my last post in this thread. GRBerry 19:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Fine, GR, since you can't bear to bring yourself to retract the bogus warning, then you maintain sanity in those pages, since your judgment is obviously better than mine - I'm done. I've put up with the last bit of crap over this issue. I've been called a libeler, a defamer, been told that I was dragging Wikipedia into the gutter and that I didn't know how to use reliable sources, and now I'm being accused of trying to harm a baby, for God's sake - how much worse can it get? Hardly anyone who accused me of those things could be bothered to retract those statements or apologize. Then on top of that I'm accused of being an edit warrior by an admin I thought knew better, who has seen me bend over backwards to follow policy and obtain consensus. I'm exasperated and disgusted. Have fun! Kelly ^hi! 20:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)