Misplaced Pages

User talk:Kelly: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 08:29, 14 December 2010 editKelly (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers99,890 edits →WP:CIVIL vs WP:PTO: reply← Previous edit Revision as of 09:15, 14 December 2010 edit undoWritegeist (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users6,187 edits →WP:CIVIL vs WP:PTO: rNext edit →
Line 93: Line 93:
::Don't worry, we're on the path towards dispute resolution. However, that's at right angles to the issue of civility. On the occasions where my own comments have come across too strongly, I have almost always been willing to redact them by replacing them with a gentler equivalent. ] ] 08:27, 14 December 2010 (UTC) ::Don't worry, we're on the path towards dispute resolution. However, that's at right angles to the issue of civility. On the occasions where my own comments have come across too strongly, I have almost always been willing to redact them by replacing them with a gentler equivalent. ] ] 08:27, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
:::] directly addresses that circumstance. ] <sup>]</sup> 08:29, 14 December 2010 (UTC) :::] directly addresses that circumstance. ] <sup>]</sup> 08:29, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
::::Accusing an editor of sophistry is beyond uncivil. It is in clear breach of ], as is an accusation of lying, for example. It looks to me as though ] expressly permits deleting personal attacks, but I may not be reading it correctly.] (]) 09:15, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 09:15, 14 December 2010

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

Please Stop

Please stop. Misplaced Pages is not censored. Any further changes which have the effect of censoring an article, such as you did to Bristol Palin, will be regarded as vandalism. If you continue in this manner, you may be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages.

You are edit-warring and agenda-pushing. Please review WP:POT, WP:NOCONSENSUS, WP:Forum shopping, and WP:DRNC. I am putting you on notice that I will be taking your behavior (as illustrated below) to WP:RFC if you do not cease this unacceptable behavior.

  1. 2nd revert of sourced material without clear consensus to do so
  2. 1st revert of sourced material without clear consensus to do so
  3. assertion of consensus where none exsists
  4. demanding sourced content reversion while acknowledging a lack of consensus to do so
  5. demanding that revert remain unaltered due to a lack of consensus to restore
  6. forum shopping

184.59.23.225 (talk) 23:50, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

@184.59... I don't see anything wrong with Kelly's behavior (you, on the other hand, are being obnoxious). He has a BLP concern, he raised it on the talk page, and he opened a discussion in the proper place (WP:BLP/N) to solicit additional feedback. I don't think you understand what WP:CENSOR means, nor what forum-shopping is, and until you do, you probably shouldn't run around using them as weapons. MastCell  00:05, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
implying consensus where there is none 184.59.23.225 (talk) 04:26, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm pretty familiar with BLP policies, and it's an issue that comes up frequently with the Palin articles for some reason. I'll let MastCell's response stand as my own. Kelly 05:02, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Your proposal here is over the top. Unless the materials is uncivil, exposing personal information, or rambling and unrelated to the article, we do not delete other people's comments from talk pages (your user talk page excluded). Victor Victoria (talk) 02:33, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Please assume that I'm acting in good faith. WP:NPF applies everywhere, not just article space. Kelly 02:37, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
WP:NPF is not applicable: Per WP:NPF
“ In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability, focusing on high quality secondary sources. ”
I don't see how, under any circumstance, you can apply this to remove references listed in talk pages. Victor Victoria (talk) 02:50, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "User:Gods10rules, User:KeptSouth, User:Kelly, and User:Johnuniq".The discussion is about the topic Bristol Palin.Thank you. 184.59.23.225 (talk) 10:26, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Uh, I'll pass on commenting elsewhere. I'll just say here you're one of the best examples of WP:TE I've run across yet, and I've been around awhile. I'm wondering what your signed-in identity is. But I'm fairly sure that the folks at WP:AN will see through you. Rather than bother them with more stick and dead horse, I'll let them investigate and judge. Best wishes. Kelly 10:36, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


WP:NPF

I hope we can resolve this WP:NPF issue at WP:BLPN#No consensus and come to a mutual agreement.   Will Beback  talk  12:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I didn't realize that discussion was still going on. I was just looking over Talk:Malia Obama last night, I would think most of the points raised there apply to Willow Palin as well. They seem to have achieved a longstanding consensus. Kelly 14:35, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Kristi Noem

How do you decide if someone is an "pro-life activist"? I seem to take the words of Kristi Noem for what they are (clearly activist): "I am, and always have been, pro life. From the miracle of conception to a dignified death, life is precious and should be protected. The federal government has no business forcing taxpayers to pay for abortions. If elected to Congress, I will maintain a 100% pro-life voting record."--Corbridge (talk) 02:14, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Probably best to open a discussion on Talk:Kristi Noem. This is potentially controversial...trust me. Kelly 02:22, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
I will take your word for it. However, I will point out that Katherine Harris, Nat Hentoff, and Martin Sheen, who are all pro-life, are categorized as "pro-life activists" even though they do have even a fraction of Noem's commitment to the issue.--Corbridge (talk) 15:14, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

December 2010

Thanks for your note. I've responded on my talk page. -User:78.128.176.178


As you chose to not react, I removed your false accusation myself. Thank you. --Hon-3s-T (talk) 20:57, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

You made work for me. :-(

I looked into the Pro-life cats, and guess what I found?

  • Category:Pro-life_activists This category contains articles related to individual members of the mainstream pro-life movement. It is for activists who are primarily notable due to their pro-life activism. This category is not a list of anyone who has a pro-life stance.
  • Category:American pro-life activists This category contains articles related to individual members of the pro-life movement in the United States. It is for activists who are primarily notable due to their pro-life activism. This category is not a list of anyone who is pro-life (such as actors, musicians, or politicians).

Politicians are mentioned specifically, which makes sense, or else the cat would get clogged with anyone with a pro-life stance. I am weeding out the categories now. I've finished Category:Pro-life_activists and am halfway through the B's in Category:American pro-life activists. *sigh* This is all your fault. Care to help? KillerChihuahuaAdvice 16:45, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that! :) Do you still need help? I was just going to go help with unreferenced BLPs. Kelly 05:41, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
heh, thanks but of course I was just whining. Puppies do that sometimes. I'm done with Americans and I'll get the other countries later. Go forth and do good works in BLP-land, far more important! KillerChihuahuaAdvice 12:27, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Can of worms...just ran across Category:American anti-illegal immigration activists. Kelly 16:34, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Of course, it should be okay in an article about a non-pro-life activist to merely mention that they have a pro-life position, if that info is presented without undue weight and is supported by reliable sources. That would be perfectly okay, right KC? :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:29, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL vs WP:PTO

A specific exception is the redacting of uncivil remarks. I requested a redaction and explained that, if the request was ignored, I would redact it myself. That's how it turned out.

Do you deny that calling me a sophist is gratuitously insulting? Dylan Flaherty 08:22, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I've seen much worse, trust me. Use dispute resolution, but don't modify other people's comments. Kelly 08:24, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Don't worry, we're on the path towards dispute resolution. However, that's at right angles to the issue of civility. On the occasions where my own comments have come across too strongly, I have almost always been willing to redact them by replacing them with a gentler equivalent. Dylan Flaherty 08:27, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
WP:TPO directly addresses that circumstance. Kelly 08:29, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Accusing an editor of sophistry is beyond uncivil. It is in clear breach of WP:NPA, as is an accusation of lying, for example. It looks to me as though WP:TPO expressly permits deleting personal attacks, but I may not be reading it correctly.Writegeist (talk) 09:15, 14 December 2010 (UTC)