Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:20, 24 September 2008

Template:Attempting wikibreak

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

Thank you

Hi Kelly, thank you for your efforts in reagrds to Palin and related articles. The Palin talk page has become quite a forum for commenting about the subject of the article rather than how to improve the article. I was blocked after I tried to remove questionable material from that page per the policy at the top of the page about not being a forum. Anyways, good luck. --Tom 14:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I like your moosehead award. I'm a Misplaced Pages newbie, I joined because of your contribution to the Palin article and discussion. It's good to know there are people committed to the idea of Misplaced Pages. --Blackpoms (talk) 06:41, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Fantastic, welcome to Misplaced Pages! Kelly 13:01, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The Usual Faces

re User_talk:Catherineyronwode#Drop_it_already and 'the usual faces' comment you made there (tangentally).

Kelly, is there any way to tell which personae are the same as others, like a flurry of sock-puppets appearing to be people, or is it a convention to just assume that tight-knit groups of "the usual faces" are part of clubs, cabals, or gangs making what, for all intents and purposes, appear to be 'drive-bys'?-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 03:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

None of us are real. We are all just figments of my imagination.

No really, it's not unusual for birds of a feather to flock together here. The wiki software makes it easy to keep in touch with others with the watchlist mechanism. I have an embarrassing amount of user talk pages on my watchlist, including this one. Aunt Entropy (talk) 04:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 16:26, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Palin-AIP stuff

Hey Kelly,

Since it's actually rather difficult to get an unconflicted edit in over there right now, I thought I address you directly here...

I almost never get involved in political articles because of the poor heat-to-light ratio that tends to snuff real progress. I rewrote the content I presented not because of any politcal stance, but more for the general defense of the use of userspace to practically work on reasonable encyclopedia content without overzealous interference.

I brought the content to Talk:Political positions of Sarah Palin with a few things in mind:

• I don't have a strong opinion regarding the topic's inclusion. Since the content was conceivably unnecessary or unwelcome, I took it directly to the talk page. I wasn't in on the prior incarnations, but I can imagine they got heated. Looks like there were some edit wars, too?
  • Side benefit: if the content (presented in this quality of sourcing and neutrality) is rejected, then there will be a very clear discussion archive that can be cited if this is (inevitably) brought up in the future.
• I think the topic has been in wide enough circulation, with enough major coverage (to quote myself: "Palin secession pops up a quarter million google hits and 1,760 Google news hits the mis-spelling "seccession", sadly for the English language, doubles the Google hits") to potentially merit coverage in a relevant article.
  • I'm of the general opinion that if there is notable nonsense floating around, and there's reliable coverage that demolishes said nonsense, the best course is to let that nonsense wither under the bright lights of full disclosure. Now, many don't share that view, it can be hard to do properly, and the general argument that even discussing critically such content gives the purveyors of nonsense far more pub than they deserve certainly has some real merit.
• The political positions article seemed to me to be the most likely place for it, but I admit that it doesn't easily fit within the article's scheme. I do think it can be reasonably extrapolated that "some have claimed that Palin's links to AIP indicate she's sympathetic to a pro-secession" = a political position of note. I didn't quote any of the commentators that have explicitly mentioned this (also, I didn't find Palin directly claiming a position counter to the AIP's stated postion, but perhaps I missed something), but I think it's reasonable to say that it's "knowledge" that's "out there" in news reports down to email spam.
  • This is, admittedly, the weakness of my proposed inclusion: a lot of words to precisely state that she went to a few meetings of a sorta-sketchy group but was never a member. There's rather little meat on them bones and a 63kb article isn't dying for new content.

In any case, I just wanted to provide a little clarity on my thought processes without cluttering up the talk page, or talking past each other (compounded by edit conflicts). I'll be interested to see how this all turns out...and happy to go back to writing about dopamine receptors when it's all over. Cheers, — Scientizzle 20:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Scientizzle. I hope I didn't come off the wrong way - in the earlier days of that article, there were some rather vicious trolls pushing that "secessionist" meme and it tends to get my back up. I think you'll find nearly all of the Google hits are left-wing blogs pushing the meme or right-wing blogs debunking the meme. It died quickly in the reliable sources once they realized it was a lie. If it were to belong anywhere, perhaps it would be Public image of Sarah Palin, but that article is up for deletion because it's simply turning into a coatrack of stuff people can't get into other articles. I, too, look forward to returning to simply finding and uploading free images of famous people (my usual activity) and looking at copyright status of images. This election is crazy season. All my respect, and best wishes to you - Kelly 20:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the reply. I wasn't aware of the public image article...that AfD is touch messy. I explicitly avoided linking any of the partisan sources I found specifically because I hate to give creedence to any party's wingnuts. :) I remember the daily ANI posting regarding the plethora of Palin articles...didn't even look into them 'cause I knew I'd lose my patience in short order. Cheers, — Scientizzle 20:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

pic

Oops, sorry, no problem at all. I'll get right on it!Ferrylodge (talk) 17:03, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Thomas Muthee

I've been working on it quite a bit and would appreciate it if you would take another look. :) Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 03:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Palin children, etc.

If the McCain camp has said anything about this subject that suggests they believe Palin's first child was conceived out of wedlock, then they've kind of opened the door to this. McCain's critics say that he or his team don't know when to shut up, and this might be one of those cases. Baseball Bugs 21:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The citation is just a sneaky way of slipping the rumors into the article. The one who wrote it says the McCain camp "acknowledged" it, which is a weaselly way of saying, "Hey, they didn't deny it!" but the citation only says they refused to elaborate. It's gotta go, ASAP. Baseball Bugs 22:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

You beat me to it. Meanwhile, this is yet another Palin page to watch. You've heard of underwear with days of the week? Misplaced Pages ought to send her a set with links to the different wikipedia articles about her. Meanwhile, do you begin to see why I wanted the Obama line that the family is off limits? It might send a hint to wikipedia editors to follow the same standard. Baseball Bugs 23:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I just now read your note. I learned a long time ago to stay away from articles that are battlegrounds. The one exception I had made was the Apollo hoax article, the concept of which I, as a child of that era, found so apalling that I felt the need to jump in, while also trying to keep the article clear of POV-pushers from both sides. I only came to this one because I wanted to learn more about this Palin character. Again, I was dismayed at all the tabloid stuff going on here, as if wikipedia were the blog version of "Crossfire". This race ought to be about the Presidency, and the Palin phenomenon seems to have overshadowed it. One thing is certain: McCain can't use the "celebrity" line against Obama any more, because Palin has been hyped like there's no tomorrow. It's also a convenient distraction from the 700 billion dollar invoice that the mortgage companies are trying to send to the American public with the help of Mr. Bush. That's another story. Baseball Bugs 23:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Another note crossed in the mail. Politics has always been vicious, but the internet, and the attendant lack of civility (and lack of anything resembling perspective or thoughtfulness) has accelerated it. Watergate had a lot to do with starting the modern take-no-prisoners approach, as Nixon drove a huge wedge between the press and the White House. It's too bad that we no longer have candidates with the graciousness of guys like JFK and Ronald Reagan, who were quick on their feet and had ways of disarming or deflecting negativity. The family issues of Carter, Reagan, etc., were treated with a degree of humor that's lacking now, except maybe on Leno or Letterman. I also blame the parties for trying to find robots for the job and end up with mediocrities. I wonder how much more credibility Bush might have had if he had owned up to all his youthful indiscretions instead of allowing his handlers to hide it. I have to say, if I haven't already, that I don't much care for either of these candidates, nor do I envy the winner for the crises that he will end up having to deal with. The "winner" might turn out to be the "loser". Ironically, I was ready to vote for McCain in 2000 if he had been nominated, and I seldom vote Republican. My fear now is that he's too old for the job, while Obama is too young. Maybe I'm the one that's too old? :) Baseball Bugs

I'm happy to hear whatever you have to say. :) When you say a "veteran", I take it you are literally a military veteran? If so, my Cubs cap is off to you. I have nothing but admiration for the members of our courageous military, who are willing to take a bullet for the rest of us. I call myself a liberal and generally vote Democratic. I voted Republican once, for Nixon, and he cured me of that. :) I might actually be more of a libertarian than a liberal, but I try not to get too stuck on labels anyway. The right-wingers who were calling McCain a "liberal" (which he ain't) seem to have changed their tune (as you knew they would) once he got nominated. I was raised a Protestant and I'm interested in the various ways people look for God or faith or whatever - including atheists, who simply have a different kind of faith. I might think Palin has feet of clay as regards the out-of-wedlock issue. But I believe in prevention, not abortion (unless a doctor recommends it to save the mother's life) and as a liberal or libertarian, my quarrel with her has to do not with pregnancy as such, but with both her and her daughter presumably not taking proper precautions. But once there is a pregnancy, to my mind it becomes a question of which is the "greater sin". That's kind of a Jewish thing, kind of theological "situation ethics", but it works. Yes, conception out of wedlock is a "sin", presumably (although I'm hard pressed to say where the Bible actually says that). But killing that child is a far greater sin. The moral choice is a no-brainer. I can hear some of my fellow liberals shrieking over that one, although I know many people who would qualify as "liberals" who don't believe in abortion-on-demand. But if the Palin supporters would just take the time to point out the "greater sin" aspect of it instead of making statements that make it sound like it's OK because she's a Republican, I think they would gain broader credibility. FYI, I had not thought about Spitzer, but I stayed away from Edwards, and I have a very low opinion of the both of them. And that's all I have to say about that. :) Baseball Bugs 23:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and you mentioned Cronkite. We could do with a few more Cronkites out there. I wonder if you're old enough to have seen live, or maybe you've seen the kinescope, of when he announced the confirmation of JFK's death. I don't think there's ever been a more "human" moment on TV. Yet Walter choked back the tears and continued the mission. The reporter in him took over when it had to. And you might remember the other end of the spectrum, when the boys of Apollo 11 reported, "Tranquility base here - the Eagle has landed", which still brings a lump to my throat, and of course Walter forgot he was a reporter and just went, "Boy oh boy!" or some such (which he later put down as being unprofessional, but it was Walter). Baseball Bugs 00:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Aha, another note. Well, I gonna tell ya something - I was hoping Hillary would get the nomination. I think she did, in fact, get derailed by the Obama celebrity phenomenon, and I wasn't too happy about that. They tried to liken him to RFK, but RFK had already served in a White House and was in a much better position to be a good President. I'm not saying Obama wouldn't make a good President - someday. I just don't think that day is here yet. Meanwhile, keep in mind that Bill Clinton was helped to victory by that entertaining looney named Ross Perot, who siphoned a lot of the disenchanted votes, especially in 1992. I thought Bob Dole was a pretty good candidate in 1996, but they tried to turn him into a cardboard cutout, as you say, and it just didn't work. He had a terrific persona when he was relatively unfettered, but it was like they wanted him to lose or something. (I did vote for Clinton both times, though). Things are never as simple as "Crossfire" tried to make them seem. Baseball Bugs 00:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I want to make one thing perfectly clear (pardon the Nixonism) and that is that in 2000 I would have supported McCain, not in 2008 necessarily. McCain got derailed by the fanatics in the right wing, who wanted their cardboard cutout and got him. If Gore had had half the charisma of Bill Clinton, he probably would have won, but I would say about him what someone once said about Dave Kingman, that he has "the personality of a tree stump". The one thing I wonder is how Gore would have handled 9/11... or how McCain would have handled it, for that matter. To my somewhat more peacenik friends, I said, "We have to do something. We can't let someone attack us and get away with it." Sadly, I think we did the wrong thing. But maybe it's still too early to tell. Baseball Bugs 00:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, if I had known how tough it would be to be a Cubs fan, I suppose I should have picked another team. Like... the White Sox?? The Cardinals??? Nay. Nay, I say... In the afternoon of 9/11/01, when everyone else was singing "God Bless America", a different tune was running through my head: Paul Simon's "American Tune", written during the Vietnam War, but the sentiments still fit, to my mind. It's a mixture of sadness and some degree of hope or optimism. The one thing we've always had going for us in the USA is the feeling that we can meet any challenge. That's the one thing we can't afford to lose in this country. OK, that's probably enough sermonizing. :) Baseball Bugs 00:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Kelly. I need all the blessings I can get. :) The "Barracuda" tempest in a teapot vaguely reminds me of when the Beach Boys were on the schedule at a July 4th capitol wing-ding, or something like that, and dim-bulb Secretary of the Interior James "Just One" Watt tried to have them cancelled on the grounds they had been drug users. Then President Reagan said, "Well, I like the Beach Boys," and dat was dat. The Reagans invited them back next year, and in the interim they sent Watt packing. I've always thought James G. Watt looked like a cartoon character, "the little man from the draft board", that tormented "Draftee Daffy". Baseball Bugs 00:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

That could have been 1984, after Watt had been dismissed for his stupid remark about his employees (see the article for details). In fact, for a guy who looked like an egghead, he was remarkably ignorant, or at least was obviously out of his element ever making a public statement. If you cast a vote for a redlink, that's obviously not a good sign. :) I stick with the mainstream parties, one way or another. To someone of your age, who may wonder what it felt like when JFK was killed, in particular, I'll just say this, as I've said to others: What you felt on 9/11/01 was the closest thing to it - a feeling of incredible anxiety and vulnerability, wondering what was going to happen next. The difference is that on 11/22/63, there was no footage of the event available (thankfully), just people talking about it, which was probably better than running the crashing of the towers over and over and over again on CNN and FoxNews. My folks lived through Pearl Harbor, another shocking event, and they were even more insulated from it, as the newsreel footage of the Arizona billowing smoke didn't show up in theaters until the next weekend. The stills in the newspapers were startling enough, though. Regarding FDR, you may not recall this, but although Reagan became a Republican, he was a Democrat in his youth, and whenever I heard him talk about FDR it was with a degree of awe or deference. FDR gave the people hope when there was none. He had a list of flaws a mile long, but he was what was needed then. We've had a knack for often (not always) electing the right guy at the right time. I just hope, whoever wins this one, that it's the right guy for the job. Baseball Bugs 01:11, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Is Misplaced Pages dominated by liberals?

And more of a social game or chat room than a collaboration?TCO (talk) 00:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The short answer to all of the above is "yes". But if you're persistent you can help this project to achieve its goal of neutrality and fairness. Kelly 01:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I am a liberal, and I dominate wikipedia. Everyone bends to my will. When they blocked me last year for awhile, that was just a practical joke. :) I hope. :( Baseball Bugs 01:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

It's easy. If a user is a good editor, one should not be able to tell from their contribs their political leanings. If one is a bad editor, it should be simple. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 01:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The important thing to realize is that, if you're getting too emotionally invested in a topic, you need to disengage. There are plenty of others to pick up the slack. Kelly 01:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. Or work on a safe topic, like sports or cartoons. No controversies ever erupt there. Oh, and if you believe that, I've got a slightly used bridge to sell you. Some assembly required. :) Baseball Bugs 02:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Notice

You'll note I'm not asking, I'm telling.--Tznkai (talk) 03:10, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Tznkai, I've told you before I don't buy your sanctimonious faux-neutral act. Go away, chat with your friend KillerChihuahua, and find an uninvolved admin or use dispute resolution. Now shoo. Kelly 03:12, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

You have 10 minutes.--Tznkai (talk) 03:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Find an uninvolved admin, Tznkai. Kelly 03:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to get in the middle of anything, but giving deadlines like that? Not helping your position, whatever it may be. EVula // talk // ☯ // 03:18, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Tznkai, do we really want to get into how you only started shadowing me when I got into a disagreement with your friend, and how you supposedly were "neutrally" monitoring Political positions of Sarah Palin for 3RR violationst, but seemed to mysteriously overlook the most egregious violators? I've got plenty of diffs. And it's fascinating how suddenly you're so offended at a percieved slight of Felonious Monk, an ID-Cabalmate of your friend KillerChihauhua. Do you pursue all "personal attacks" so aggressively? Kelly 03:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I've asked at WP:AN for someone to look into whether Tznkai qualifies as a neutral admin in this situation. Cla68 (talk) 03:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

please migrate it to WP:ANI so we have a unified discussion.--Tznkai (talk) 03:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Kelly, I won't issue any orders (and I will take it to ANI if Tznkai blocks you over this), but I do politely request that you remove the comment linked above (and naturally Tznkai's response, which would looks silly out of context). I have nothing to do with any of this other than the request for clarification I just left on NYB's talk page, so I hope you'll consider me neutral for this situation.--chaser - t 03:32, 24 September 2008 (UTC) Sigh. Awaiting your unblock request.--chaser - t 03:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The discussion is at ANI now. Cla68 (talk) 03:34, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Ouch. You can do whatever you want, but if I were you, I would take 24 hours (i.e. tomorrow) and do something else, to clear your head. The times I was blocked (thankfully not recently), I made no attempt to either ask for overturning or to defend my side, I simply let the block run its course - taking what I considered to be the "high road", and taking a break from too much drama on this silly website. Baseball Bugs 03:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll echo that. I suggest turning off the computer and coming back tomorrow to see what the results of the ANI discussion were. Cla68 (talk) 03:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Block

• Note: To any administrator who may catch an unblock request, please see WP:ANI#Block of User:Kelly for further discussion. seicer | talk | contribs 03:39, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Unblock request

Kelly (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Involved admin block, plus I wasn't attacking anyone, just criticizing use of admin tools.

Decline reason:

I would probably call this edit a personal attack - the phrase "a horrifically bad admin" is an attack, not criticism. If you have a specific issue about a user's action, refer to the action, don't go for name calling. Please also note that there is a wide consensus here for your block. Your claim that the blocking admin is involved - irrelevant for an unblock request if the block itself has a wide consensus and seems to be justified. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Hilariously bad block, though obviously as a person who is very much involved, I cannot lift it. Otherwise I would. --B (talk) 03:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)