Archives
March 2008 April 2008 May 2008 June 2008 July 2008 August 2008 September 2008 October 2008 December 2008 January 2009

Hello, Kelly. You have new messages at Buster7's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Im beginning to detest wikipedia and the way in which people yourself just delete things making those who arent completely expert in contributing feel unwanted! Those images that you put up for "speedy" deletion were either taken by myself or given to me by friends through my sport to use as i wanted even on our own website if we wanted, which is why i was able to upload them to wikipedia! I jumped through hoops to learn on what was acceptable for the copyrights when i uploaded them and when i did so the person helping me said that the copyright information was applicable and complete. Maybe you could start talking to users about the content they are trying to improve wikipedia with through contributing rather than just tagging everything for speedy deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weeman com (talk • contribs) 18:00, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The images can be undeleted if you think the permission issues can be fixed - just let me know. Kelly ^hi! 20:28, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:England team on stand.jpg Copyright is culbann.com permission given for use on wikipedia

File:The club house and carpark at the shooting ground..jpg Photo take by myself

File:Shoot off for England High Gun.jpg File:Sharon Ebbrell and Phil Morgan.jpg Photos taken by competitors and sent to me for use as I liked, including culbann.com's website

File:Panoramic view from the hill.jpg File:Panoramic view from clubhouse roof.jpg Permission given to myself to use as I like aslong as copyright is attributed to Angus Cameron of the SCTSA (Scottish Clay Target Shooting Assoc.) Weeman com (talk) 16:15, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be possible to forward the e-mail permission for the culbann.com images and SCTSA image to WP:OTRS? Kelly ^hi! 16:19, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

forward the emails? well the culbann.com one there is none, I own culbann.com I was attributing the image to the website as thats where I originally hosted it. The one from angus cameron, it was 5 years ago, when the last international was held at culbann cpc, i doubt i still have the email and yet would still feel uneasy about forwarding personal information to OTRS Weeman com (talk) 16:52, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why does a photo have to be deleted after copied into wikipedia commons?--Jerzeykydd (talk) 01:54, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Well I am really unfamilar with this. I just spent a lot of hard work and time in uploading these photos. I probably uploaded close to 80 pictures today. So what is the best thing for me to do? Was all of my hard work a complete waste of time?--Jerzeykydd (talk) 02:06, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that File:Holynamecathedralemptyinterior.jpg which was uploaded in 2004 has been marked for deletion by you. You do understand that all the current processes were not completely worked out then? And I understand that culling and making sure that current rules are followed has to occur. In any case, I'll contact the uploader, who is still active, to see if he can shed light on the matter. So please hold on until he has a chance to respond. Smallbones (talk) 02:59, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Courcelles has deleted this today - which seems at least 7 days too early according to the tag you put on it. Could you go to his talk page and help straighten this out in good faith? Smallbones (talk) 02:52, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on some other stuff right now, but I'd advise that you either talk to Courcelles or make a request at WP:REFUND. Kelly ^hi! 02:54, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to get lightning bolts cast -- once for making an edit on a "clearly marked" page which was marked after the edit <g>, etc. 2/0 is now, once and for all, to me, an "involved admin" quite likely from my efforts to make WP:Activist a non-polemic neutral essay, of all things! Once for [1] which was required now under WP:BLP, once for [2] which is also now required under WP:BLP, once for [3] which was a classic "Nazi smear" being reinserted by an IP, and the classic King of Hearts block for an edit war (?) more than a week old. I stand by every single edit I have made, and the latest block seems to me to have been quite outre at best. Cheers! Collect (talk) 06:36, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That was the most incompetent block I've ever seen (except maybe some by Ryulong). Maybe this admin is heading for the same fate. Kelly ^hi! 06:40, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I adjusted the heading at your AN/I section as I feel that a more neutral heading is more likely to lead to a meaningful resolution of the matter. Hope you understand. --John (talk) 07:12, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, thanks. I put in a different characterization. Kelly ^hi! 07:13, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me, I reverted you. I won't edit war any further but I really feel that if you want an honest explanation of what happened it's better to couch it in neutral terms. --John (talk) 07:15, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kind of silly for you to edit-war with me over the title of my own ANI entry, but meh. Kelly ^hi! 07:16, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep your patronising template to yourself rather than littering it over my talk page. Thanks, Ericoides (talk) 22:49, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not my template, it's the community's. But OK. Have a good day. Kelly ^hi! 22:59, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. You too. Ericoides (talk) 23:00, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There can't be copyright on an image of a map with geometric figures overlaid. You might be referring to the poster as a whole, not to a reproduction of a map. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 07:23, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, the map is indeed under copyright. Working with images and copyrights is what I spend most of my time on Wikipedia and Commons working. Kelly ^hi! 07:24, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Everybody can have an opinion about something and opinion column editors usually allow opinions from all sources. No one opinion is any more valid or meaningful than anyone else's opinion unless the person expressing the opinion has any power or influence (e.g. a decision maker or lawmaker or some special advisor to people who are). I corrected the text in line with policy and you have reversed it, even though this is not the first time that I have had to delete the text for this reason. Just getting published in an opinion column is not enough to warrant a mention in Wikipedia. And it is disingenuous to call an "opinion" an "editorial". It just isn't. --Hauskalainen (talk) 17:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a LOT in that article that could be considered opinion. Most of what is coming from Emanuel is his opinion. You are trying to make a judgement on what opinion you like, it would appear. If you want to get rid of all the opinion, then you wouldn't have anything left because the article is based on the opinion that Palin (along with many others) thinks the law will create implied death panels. While others think that they are wrong. It is all opinion, and pretty much all unknownable. The only fact that could possibly be reported is whether the actual words appear in the law. Arzel (talk) 18:19, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For catching image copyright violations that TinEye did not. KimChee (talk) 22:49, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually all the credit goes to User:Tabercil, who found the actual source. But thank you! Kelly ^hi! 22:50, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with giver. (You should get one just for your NPOV work) --Guerillero | My Talk 22:52, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Still a good catch. I should have investigated further before I transferred the image to the Commons. --Tom (talk - email) 01:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It has happened to me too in the process of transferring images. Kelly ^hi! 01:16, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For all your WP:GNOME work in transferring images to commons. It is highly appreciated. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:56, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! And OgreBot is a godsend! Kelly ^hi! 22:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree; I've been noticing your work. I want to say one other thing -- I appreciate your principled stand regarding NPOV on very contentious, current political stuff, and am especially impressed with your ability to keep your cool. Wish there was more of that to go around. Good work. Antandrus (talk) 23:05, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thank you. Kelly ^hi! 23:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well I haven't observed this behavior, but we sure could use some level heads at Tea Party movement. I'm frankly quite tired of handing out blocks... a reasonable mind might be useful. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:14, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that article is a tough one. I try to spend time watching Sarah Palin for NPOV, which gets pretty bad, and I end up taking breaks from it periodically. I think it's about time for another break! Kelly ^hi! 23:16, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is a tough one, and frankly I have an opinion on most of the edit wars occurring in the article. But it would hardly be impartial of me to take a stand on the issues and be handing out blocks. Hence my desire for a rational mind. If you've handled Palin, I'm sure you can handle anything. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:39, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please just request protection at WP:RFPP if another edit-war breaks out over this. I see you've switched to discussion on talk pages, but if it breaks out again, you risk getting blocked by an admin who does not see this as a BLP problem (I have not looked into it, so I currently have no opinion on whether it is a BLP issue). Report to ANI for the fastest response.--Chaser (talk) 00:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, will do. I think today there was only one SPA on the page. There is an ongoing discussion at WP:BLPN. Kelly ^hi! 00:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Attacks "Derogatory comments about another contributor may be removed by any editor". WP:AGF??? Not seen any lately :o( DocOfSoc (talk) 05:38, 10 January 2011 (UTC) Abuse Ad hominem abuse (also called personal abuse or personal attacks) usually involves insulting or belittling one's opponent in order to invalidate his or her argument, but can also involve pointing out factual but ostensible character flaws or actions which are irrelevant to the opponent's argument. This tactic is logically fallacious because insults and even true negative facts about the opponent's personal character have nothing to do with the logical merits of the opponent's arguments or assertions. [4]DocOfSoc (talk) 06:21, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The proper place to take that is WP:WQA. Don't edit others' comments. Kelly ^hi! 06:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kelly. I mentioned you here Thanks --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 08:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your name is "unisex". Are you a "him" or a "her"? Or is it none of my business? :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:24, 10 January 2011 (UTC) (a him - and feel free to delete this question)[reply]

I once asked that. Then I got embarassed, said it didn't matter, and deleted the question.  :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not easily shamed. Although if Kelly does not respond within 24 hours, I think that would serve as an answer. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:41, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have perused the terms and I respectfully ask that you may want to take another quick glance at the terms located at Talk:Sarah Palin/Article probation yourself, Kelly. And, you may want to refrain from derisive comments like "Oh noes, inciting violence!" in the future. Also, in reference to your comments such as:

"a bunch of new editors show up demanding that whatever the latest kerfuffle is be given a prominent place in the article, because it's critical that everyone know the truth about what a horrible person this woman is"

Comments like that are accusatory, unnecessary and prompt me to once again ask that you to take another good look at those terms yourself. Thanks. Cowicide (talk) 20:18, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, will do. I'm afraid if you spend much time watching the Palin articles you get a little jaded about POV-pushers. I imagine the folks dealing with Barack Obama get the same way. Kelly ^hi! 20:19, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I understand it's a delicate issue and many would like to utilize Sarah Palin's Wikipedia page to merely express their discontent with her controversial campaign tactics. I just hope you'll know that's not my intent and I was just honestly shocked to find no mention of the large controversy which my research shows will actually define her presidential bid from here on (and shows no signs of abating). Whether that's fair or not for Palin isn't the realm of Wikipedia and that's why I don't understand that particular debate existing (surprisingly without restriction) on the Talk page and I don't participate in those particular debates because it's inappropriate for Wikipeida and, frankly, doesn't belong there if we are to follow Wikipedia's own guidelines. Instead, the only question for Wikipedia is if the entire controversy itself is important enough to Palin and her presidential bid to be included in her article and of course, it needs to be presented with a NPOV. There's evidence (from both conservative & liberal sources) that its very much a defining moment for her presidential bid and her future campaign tactics. That was the purpose of my article link there (as I stated). Cowicide (talk) 21:07, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, we'll see what happens. I've had Sarah Palin on my watchlist for a long time because I found her biography interesting, not because I necessarily agree with her political views. You should have seen the insanity on that page when she was selected as a VP candidate - even administrators fell prey to the hysteria. One thing I've noticed over time is that her political career is endlessly declared DOA and she seems to endlessly shrug it off. And another I've noticed at the Palin biography page is that whatever the controversy of the day is, it's always declared to be vitally important yet always seems to fade away when the news cycle moves on. Palin and the press have been in a running fight for over two years now and the pattern is pretty well established. Editors show up at the page brimming over with outrageously outrageous outrage over Palin's actions or statements during a political "controversy", but they mostly fade away when they realize the page isn't a forum for political beliefs or a place to report news. A lot get banned; a small percentage stick around, however, and become collaborative contributors. Kelly ^hi! 21:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I remember the fall of 2008 all too well. I'll say what I said then, that she attracts too much attention of the wrong kind. That doesn't mean she'll never get elected, though. She's got a degree of toughness just like Hillary Clinton does, and the worst thing anyone can do with someone like them is to underestimate them - which I think the media often do. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yeah! Wasn't it like you and me and maybe one or two other editors trying to maintain the page, when there was like one edit per second? Kelly ^hi! 01:35, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was nuts. I ran into the same thing in the spring when the loonies were all over the Obama article. At that point I pretty much swore off editing controversial articles. Since then I've discovered that trolls can fixate on anything. I can think of several articles (which I won't name, in case trolls have me in their sights) on mundane topics that had to be semi'd due to the crazies. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:49, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The editors who watch Barack Obama should be canonized. I can't imagine what it must be like there. Kelly ^hi! 01:52, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was horrible. I've never had a worse time on wikipedia than in trying to defend that article. And it's still going on, apparently, as it still is with Palin. This constant POV/tabloid type of stuff is the part of wikipedia that really sucks. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. I happened to see this pop up on my watchlist and wondered why Wizardman wouldn't have put in a rationale (he's usually very good with that kind of thing). Then I noticed that you removed the PD template (with no edit summary explanation) and immediately nominated it for deletion. I'm sure there's been a discussion or something where it was decided that these images weren't actually PD, but I was thinking you might want to leave a note about that on the image pages so someone doesn't think you're trying to pull a fast one :) Shell ^babelfish 20:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I figured something like that was the case, just didn't want you to end up running into any problems if you were going to be doing a lot of images like that. If you don't think it'll come up then no worries. Thanks for the note! Shell ^babelfish 21:03, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that you've well-exceeded the WP:3RR restriction on this article in the past 24 hours. I know all your edits are in good faith, and a number of the reversions are simple consensus / BRD / and removing bad content changes. But you've also removed the crosshairs image three times (to be fair, the editor who added it the last time admitted he hadn't read the discussion, so he ideally would have self-reverted if asked), and made some other reversions that some would oppose. Consider this a friendly note... I wouldn't request any sanctions, and I understand how it is to watch over a high conflict article. But the restriction does exist in part to keep things calm and avoid having a single editor get too deeply involved. Please do be careful. Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 23:37, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up. I've got long experience with this type of issue (political POV-pushing). Please note that my actions are out of WP:BLP concerns, not any particular POV. By the way, I believe your 3RR assertions are simply wrong, though if you offer up some diffs I'll confess and apologize. Kelly ^hi! 23:40, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I don't mean to prove a case, just giving you a friendly alert. Your expression of caution and care here is most welcome. Best, - Wikidemon (talk) 01:46, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Best to you, too. We're all acting in good faith - I've seen your good works around for awhile. Kelly ^hi! 01:49, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly, I need your advice. If the AP says Jared Loughner is "an ardent atheist" and The Guardian says he's "a vigorous atheist", are we violating BLP policy by reporting these comments in his article? These are not quotes from Jared's classmates but from reporters. --Kenatipo (talk) 19:43, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have the links to the sources - are they on the Loughner page? Kelly ^hi! 20:16, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a distinction between "ardent" and "vigorous"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:18, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what I put in the Loughner article (it was reverted right away) The Associated Press described Loughner as "an ardent atheist". ref: "Friends: Suspect Jared Loughner's nihilism, hatred of government rose with isolation" by Justin Pritchard of the ASSOCIATED PRESS. Lubbock Avalanche-Journal (LubbockOnline), Jan.10, 2011. accessed 2011-01-11. "An ardent atheist, he began to characterize people as sheep whose free will was being sapped by the government and the monotony of modern life." end ref

Here's the Guardian article: [5] Bugs, I have no idea what a "vigorous" atheist is. One who lifts weights and works out? --Kenatipo (talk) 21:48, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what the objection would be so long as it was backed up by sources. Maybe someone thinks it doesn't fit the storyline that he is some kind of extreme right-winger with a Sarah Palin shrine and pictures of aborted fetuses on his wall. Kelly ^hi! 23:14, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Kelly. --Kenatipo (talk) 23:39, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've found the POV-pushing relating to this event to be really troubling. The last one of these types of articles I participated in was Westroads Mall shooting and I don't recall so many of these problems. I guess because no politicians were involved. Kelly ^hi! 23:42, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

i ran across this CC picture that quotes Gingrich from WaPo. is there a reason/policy etc. why it wouldn't work at newt's page, or at death panel, for that matter? i haven't seen a picture like this on wikipedia, but i don't really think "because no one has done it before" is a reason. =) thanks. Jesanj (talk) 02:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! The problem with the picture is that it's likely a derivative work, i.e. the cartoon maker likely didn't take the picture of Gingrich himself, but took it from somewhere. Unless we know what the source of the original photo is, the image would likely be deleted from Wikipedia/Commons. But political cartoons have been/are used on Wikipedia so long as they are free content...not saying you wouldn't get an argument from other editors about including it in an article. With respect - Kelly ^hi! 02:11, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for teaching me something. Jesanj (talk) 02:32, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if you think I'm getting personal, but the fact is if you keep making claims about your only intentions being to maintain 'neutrality', it is about you. Anyway, this is Wikipedia, and I'm sure you've had worse - I know I have. My only consolation is that nobody seems to agree on which faction I'm supporting (see the Julian Assange talk page archive for evidence of my anarcho-authoritarian pro-CIA anti-Americanism). AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:17, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I see your point, though I think my suggestion that when somebody claims to be 'neutral', it makes a statement about him/herself and can therefore expect a response about them as an individual, is valid. Personally, I try to avoid claims to neutrality, because I know I have strong opinions about some things, and reserve my right to express them. I think a little more honesty in this regard would do Wikipedia a lot of good. NPOV is something we should aspire to, rather than claim to have achieved - I seem to remember someone saying the same thing about being 'free of sin' though I'm not quite sure who (not that an infidel like me takes much notice of such abstractions). AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:44, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The nightmare with Obama came on one fine Sunday evening in March of 2009 when the article was besieged by red-links and IP's trying to post the usual conspiracist stuff. I don't think there was too much trouble from valid sources, just from the lunatic fringe. The problems with the Palin article have been more in the area of "yellow journalism" or sensationalistic or tabloid stuff. The shootings seem to have brought out the worst in everybody, aided and abetted by the so-called reliable sources, and it's really disheartening. It might be just as well to leave it alone for a few days and see how things look when the dust settles. The one thing I learned in spring 2009 is that trying to be a lone warrior against the marauders goes totally unappreciated. So it's best not to beat oneself to death trying to do it. It's unfortunate that pages like Palin and Obama can't go on full lockdown, but the nature of their public careers is that they can make news any day of the week, so a lockdown really isn't practical. As to your specific question about the use of reliable sources that went off the deep end, there could almost be a separate article that could be called "reactions to the shootings". There might be one already for all I know. Palin upped the ante a bit today by talking about "blood libel", but I can't say as I blame her. Trying to blame that lunatic's behavior on political ads is really irresponsible, and the media fueled the flames. The use of scope sights as a symbol is an unfortunate coincidence, but it's hardly a unique metaphor. It's kind of like when the media beat Quayle to death over the "potatoe" thing. Well, maybe that's not an equal comparison, as nobody died. OK, I don't know if this rambling essay is of any help or not. :( But taking a few days away from this stuff might indeed be the best thing for your peace of mind. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:28, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One thing to consider is that things could be worse: (1) You could be trying to keep articles connected with Israel neutral (maybe you already are); (2) You could be a parent of the accused. Imagine what that must be like, to have your son charged with murder. "Where did we go wrong?" doesn't even begin to address it. OK, done now. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:32, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decided to cut down on the Palin and suffering, then? HalfShadow 22:47, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, back to images. Some other glutton for punishment can deal with it. :) Kelly ^hi! 22:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can always come back and work on the Tea Party Movement, India and Pakistan, The British Isles, and other low-key topics. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:52, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just don't take any abuse from 'em; nobody likes being teabagged. HalfShadow 23:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly, I'm concerned that you're exhibiting WP:OWNERSHIP of Palin-related articles. I am particularly concerned that you've been deleting material without mentioning it in your edit summaries. For example: you deleted "crosshairs", a key word, in this edit.[6] You also deleted sourced, relevant material in this edit without mentioning it in your edit summary.[7] Please be more careful in the future, and remember that NPOV requires we include all significant views.   Will Beback  talk  02:02, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Um, most of that language was restored in the normal back-and-forth of Wikipedia edits, and I didn't dispute it, I approved it once explained. If "crosshairs" is key, then say so. And I'd ask you to also take NPOV into account. Kelly ^hi! 02:05, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Better? Kelly ^hi! 02:09, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't counted, but you may be approaching the 3RR limit. In the future, please do not delete sourced, rel;evant material without an explicit reason based directly on policy.   Will Beback  talk  02:10, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I resent that accusation. Provide examples, please. Kelly ^hi! 02:11, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which accusation? The main accusation I am making is that you may be exhibiting ownership of the Palin articles. For example, you've been the leading contributor to the public image article in the past few days.[8] Your edits have mostly involved removing sourced material, repeatedly. You've been making efforts to delete the campaign graphic. Etc. Those have not all been neutral edits. I understand that you feel you are the responsible admin in charge of watching over the Palin topic, but you still must engage in neutral editing when you do so.   Will Beback  talk  02:20, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Accusations of 3RR and "repeatedly removing sourced material" - evidence, now, please, or retract. I ask this respectfully. I take 3RR seriously - if material has been removed in the spirit of WP:BRD and later restored, I always discuss unless it's an obvious policy violation. So please provide evidence or retract. Kelly ^hi! 02:23, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not accusing you of 3RR, just warning you that you are making a lot of reverts. If you like, I can make a more careful evaluation, but if I do that then it would no longer be an informal warning. My main concern is the overall ownership issue, of which reverting is just one symptom. My advice is to be more accepting of material added by other editors.   Will Beback  talk  02:39, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]