Jump to content

User talk:Carolmooredc/Archive VI

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

let go of the stick

I think it might be time to drop the accusation about trying to RFC USA terror to death.Slatersteven (talk) 17:07, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I was finished with it yesterday. Two editors brought it up today. But I think it's finished now that the issue of not deleting article by one editor is settled. (And how did you know my favorite activity besides tug of war with the dog was wikipedia? ;-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:10, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Hey Hey Ms Carol

Happy New Year. Hey Ms Carol hope your well. Hey have you read Nassim Taleb yet? You should read the "Black Swan" the chapter on Hayek is truly brilliant. Let me know if you need any help. LoveMonkey (talk) 03:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like a fun/smart/on target guy. I can see him lecturing and entertaining looters who try to get into his house when it all goes bad. At least they probably won't kill him when they leave. Sigh... CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:49, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes LOL. I think your right. And when they loot the rest of us they will find nothing worth having! Have a wonderful year Ms Carol :>) LoveMonkey (talk) 14:01, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

WikiXDC: Wikipedia 10th Birthday!

National Archives and Records Administration (NARA)

You are invited to WikiXDC, a special meetup event and celebration on Saturday, January 22 hosted by the National Archives and Records Administration in downtown Washington, D.C.

  • Date: January 22, 2011 (tentatively 9:30 AM - 5 PM)
  • Location: National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), downtown building, Pennsylvania Avenue & 7th St NW.
  • Description: There will be a behind-the-scenes tour of the National Archives and you will learn more about what NARA does. We will also have a mini-film screening featuring FedFlix videos along with a special message from Jimmy Wales. In the afternoon, there will be lightning talks by Wikimedians (signup to speak), wiki-trivia, and cupcakes to celebrate!
  • Details & RSVP: Details about the event are on our Washington, DC tenwiki page.

Please RSVP soon as possible, as there likely will be a cap on number of attendees that NARA can accommodate.

categories for sexism and misogyny and revised guideline

I think you stopped watchlisting wife selling (English custom), but you might find this talk topic interesting, partly because of implications elsewhere. It's about the amount of sourcing needed to establish that a characteristic is a defining one sufficient for categorization. Nick Levinson (talk) 19:19, 22 October 2011 (UTC) (Corrected talk link per original intent: 19:29, 22 October 2011 (UTC))

Note: You can unsubscribe from DC meetup notices by removing your name at Wikipedia:Meetup/DC/Invite/List. BrownBot (talk) 01:57, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

'Abrahamic' religions

There are not more than three 'Abrahamic' religions. The term is a modern one, and the claims to a relationship with Abraham by non-Jews are tenuous even in philosophical sense, never mind one that can be documented outside of the Hebrew texts. For example there are no notable historical figures in either past or present Christian or Islamic theology that are named after AbrahamKoakhtzvigad (talk) 02:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I actually wasn't familiar with calling them that til heard something in passing on tv recently and read the wikipedia article - though not very carefully. So don't really have a strong opinion. Just seemed like a more specific adjective for what I thought were the three related ones than "patriarchal." Maybe will just go back to that. :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:11, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


WikiXDC: Wikipedia 10th Birthday!

National Archives and Records Administration (NARA)

You are invited to WikiXDC, a special meetup event and celebration on Saturday, January 22 hosted by the National Archives and Records Administration in downtown Washington, D.C.

  • Date: January 22, 2011 (tentatively 9:30 AM - 5 PM)
  • Location: National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), downtown building, Pennsylvania Avenue & 7th St NW.
  • Description: There will be a behind-the-scenes tour of the National Archives and you will learn more about what NARA does. We will also have a mini-film screening featuring FedFlix videos along with a special message from Jimmy Wales. In the afternoon, there will be lightning talks by Wikimedians (signup to speak), wiki-trivia, and cupcakes to celebrate!
  • Details & RSVP: Details about the event are on our Washington, DC tenwiki page.

Please RSVP soon as possible, as there likely will be a cap on number of attendees that NARA can accommodate.

Note: You can unsubscribe from DC meetup notices by removing your name at Wikipedia:Meetup/DC/Invite/List. BrownBot (talk) 01:57, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Books anything but simple

Carol, as you may not know, google books doesn't provide the same level of within book viewing between various states. Was Boaz the author of that chapter in Boaz? Fifelfoo_m (talk) 02:02, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I shouldn't have just copied editor in cause when checked realized that Boaz not editor but author of whole book. As the "about" testified. Also, sometimes one can double check factoids on "Look inside" if it's available on Amazon.com. CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:09, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
the version linked to prior to my run through was structurally part of the CATO web exerpts of The Primer. I obviously have a very large irritation towards the editor who provided such a half arsed citation. Excuse my en_au but bad citation shits me to tears because it cuts off rational debate and turns sourcing into shitty argumentum ad autoritum Fifelfoo_m (talk) 04:47, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
yes, it can be frustrating. But it took me two years before started using books google, and 6 months to figure out how to do it halfway right. CarolMooreDC (talk) 05:14, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments

I made some comments at User_talk:Spaceclerk#ANI which partly discusses you, I feel it is only fair to give you a heads up on the mention :) --Errant (chat!) 15:58, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:05, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

COIN

Per feedback, I have moved my concerns to WP:COIN. I think it will be best for both of us to get these concerns resolved on the merits once and for all. Jehochman Talk 20:52, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

In contrast to my mere POV issues, hopefully these real COIN concerns about you will be addressed, as I wrote at the WP:Conflict of interest noticeboard. More at your talk page. CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:40, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
I didn't see anything at my talk page. I only edit for education, amusement or procrastination. It's a weird hobby. Most of what catches my attention are things like U-853, Russian submarine K-152 Nerpa, Gamma ray burst, Battle of Coral Sea, often related to WWII, Cold War, astronomy or Internet technology. Jehochman Talk 04:35, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Patience. I have so much to learn from Kenilworth Terrace :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:06, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Would you mind, please, striking an accusations you've made against me until such time as you have the evidence to back them up? Thank you. I'll admit that the COI case against you is not very strong. The matter is really an appearance of WP:ADVOCACY, which is an area of evolving policy. I hope you are willing to listen to feedback and possibly make modifications in your approach. (I won't determine that; somebody uninvolved like Kenilworth is who you should listen to.) And if you feel like I'm being unfair to you at any point, please leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Jehochman Talk 15:10, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Be specific. I already struck a couple things that are more appropriately brought up in an COIN I might do against you. (But only if actual evidence should show itself. I haven't even asked a question on your talk page yet.) Also, your approach of screaming bigotry instead of dealing with real issues in an NPOV way isn't working out too good, as I know others have told you by now on 2 or 3 boards and the talk page, but I don't feel like searching out all the diffs. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:15, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
OK, I made a guess about what recent comment you meant. Feel free to think about what you meant for when and if I get around to officially asking you on your talk page. I'd rather work on improving articles, personally. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:36, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
I appreciate a lot of your efforts to improve articles. I hope we can get along in spite of the fact that we occasionally have strong editorial disagreements. Jehochman Talk 15:49, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Clarification

You asked about this diff. What I meant was the our definition of WP:COI has fuzzy edges. It is often hard to classify whether editing is COI, or WP:UNDUE or WP:SOAP (see WP:ADVOCACY for a more nuanced description). Your thoughts and criticism on these issues is welcomed. Wikipedia policies in these areas are complex and evolving. Jehochman Talk 15:47, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

If it's difficult, than don't go rushing to WP:COIN, especially when you haven't gone to my talk page to ask me first, according to WP:COI last time I read it. Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:52, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality board

Point of order, I think it would go to miscellany for deletion, no? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:43, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. That should stick in my mind since I just archived something quick that was deleted through that. I'll give it some time. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:45, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Your COI concerns on my talk page

No. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 20:28, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

FYI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 20:54, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

January 2011

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 months for attempting to harass other users. Once the block has expired, you're welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:36, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
This was far beyond the pale.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:37, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
please use this time to evaluate your role in wp. i hope in the future you will direct your energy toward content. there is a chance you have become too enthusiastic in enforcing your understanding of wp policy. Darkstar1st (talk) 21:52, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Unblock request

Note: block has been reduced to 1 week, per continuing AN/I discussion. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:09, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

(Trying to correct per complaints as template suggests I can): I realize that all the harassment I was putting up with this week from a number of users in a number of places was not an excuse for a) thinking the best place and way to approach just one user I had an issue with was an explicit WP:COI question on his talk page which made highly negative assumptions about his personal behavior because of the areas in which he was editing and attacked him based on those assumptions; b) not realizing that Wikia, even if owned by Jimmy Wales, is an Off-Wiki site; and c) assuming that because another editor linked there from this discussion at WikiProject Feminism and posted controversial links from wikipedia editors there, it was OK for me to link to my WP:COI question there. (I have asked the originator of the Wikia page to take it down, both at the page and via email, so no one else gets in trouble.)

While I don’t have a problem with a short block of a week or so for my failure to think straight under the circumstances, I feel that three months is unjustly long, given the lack of administrative response when I went to Wikiquette about harassment this week and another editor went to WP:ANI with related concerns. So do many of the editors at the relevant WP:ANI

I certainly do not want this to happen again and will have to continue to look for appropriate venues to ask for help when harassment issues arise long before it gets to the point I lose my temper and common sense. If there is some Wikipedia administrative group that advises people on dealing with this sort of thing, I’m very sorry I missed it. If there isn’t, maybe one could be created. Thanks for your attention. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:44, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

User below agrees to wait until block expires. --Jayron32 06:18, 24 January 2011 (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.

I would conditionally support an unblock or shortening. The condition is that Carolmooredc has stop talking about other people in her unblock request, and agree to cease all battlefield-style activity. If she is just going to come back and start slagging people (myself included) again, filing retaliatory noticeboard threads, and making baseless or retaliatory accusations, then unblocking can't be done yet. Any wrongdoing by people is irrelevant to her own unblock request. She has to stop trying to shift blame to other people. This type of projection is exactly what lead to the block. If she wants to edit hot topics related to race, religion and ethnic conflicts, she has to keep cool, and she has to be ready to deal with questions about her possible biases without going to DEFCON 1. Jehochman Talk 18:09, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't see her shifting the blame. It seems like she's accepted responsibility for losing her temper, stated that what she did off-wiki was inappropriate, and that she cared enough that she took the time/effort to email the site admin to takedown the offensive content. She's owned up to what she's done, explained its origins, and is ready to move on and get back to editing. Given how productive of an editor she is, it is absurd to have a punitive 3-month block on her account, now that she's acknowledged that it is a mistake, and that she won't do it again.
But it seems that in addition to this, she is also asking you and other users who have been hounding her about her personal/political views and what she does in her personal life, to stop; and also to stop insinuating that she's anti-Semitic. This is what you are calling "shifting the blame". But that's inaccurate. In reality she's simply asking you to accept responsibility for your own actions, which played every bit as much of a role in this conflict as hers did. She's asking you and other editors who have been hounding her ((Such as User:Darkstar1st, whose recent edit warring blocks, talk page I'd highly suggest people taking a look at, especially regarding his history with CarolMooreDC at Talk:Libertarianism, and his tendency to falsely label people anti-Semitic and misrepresent disputes)) to accept responsibility for your actions, and to stop badgering her about her politics and implying that she's anti-Semitic. This seems like a fair and reasonable request to me. It seems to me that you do need to "keep cool" with the aspersions regarding anti-Semitism and "advocacy", and stop portraying yourselves as neutral observers who are simply trying to remove "anti-American POV", while CarolMooreDC is just your typical career left-wing anti-semitic(?) activist, who is unable to remain neutral (like you, of course). Doing so will help resolve the dispute. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 19:15, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Please don't lump me in with such people. There's been a lot of partisan noise. Please take it with a grain of salt. Jehochman Talk 22:58, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
There does not appear to have been consensus for a block, or at least a long block, at ANI.[1] TFD (talk) 18:11, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
I continue to reject the allegations of "harassment" of CarolMooreDC by me. These repeated unsunbstantiated accusations seem to constitute further harassment of me per WP:AOHA. Does CarolMooreDC accept that her posting on my talk page was, and was intended to be, an unjustified grossly personally offensive attack?
I have commented further at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Unblock_request. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 18:26, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
I would urge that Carolmooredc not be unblocked until she figures out what was wrong with asking "if you are financially benefiting yourself by engaging in a little written free sadism against a female".--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:30, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
"too personal" was not the issue. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:43, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
No, I don't think you do. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:48, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
That last change was heading in the right direction, at least. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:09, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
oppose unblock, support block carol appears to have much knowledge of wp:policy, the block is fitting the offence. Darkstar1st (talk) 19:03, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Support reduction of block. While I generally support the imposition of blocks for personal attacks, I think a 3 month block for a first offense without a warning may be a bit excessive. Especially now that the user has retracted the attack, apologized, and pledged to work through dispute resolution venues in the future. Kaldari (talk) 19:38, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Support reduction of block mostly per Kaldari. I generally think that duration of a block should roughly match the timescale of the disruption leading to it. Considering the overall pattern of CM's editing over the last several days, which to me shows clear evidence of disruptive battleground behaviour, I think one week is appropriate. I am not convinced that an immediate unblock would not lead to a resumption of the behaviour, even though the proximate issue has been addressed. Franamax (talk) 20:32, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose unblock. Kaldari, it's not a first offence, far from it. On the same day as the above, she decided that I was linked to CAMERA, a pro-right-wing-Israeli lobby group (even though I was involved in a user account associated with CAMERA being blocked). And that my link to that group was connected in some unexplained way to my suggestion of setting up an advocacy noticeboard. [2] Just like the attack on Kenilworth, it's neither true nor coherent—and she hasn't even acknowledged that it was incorrect—and this is very much the problem with Carol's involvement with Wikipedia, both in terms of editing and interaction with other editors. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 20:59, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
    • I don't see any previous blocks on her account, but I'm not familiar with her editing history. If she is a disruptive editor concerning Israel/Palestine, you should seek a topic ban. She seems to be a productive and collaborative editor on other topics, as far as I can tell. Kaldari (talk) 00:14, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Can you give some diffs showing the addition of good content? I'm not doubting it, but it would save me having to search. I'm a bit concerned about this diff from September, for example, where she starts the article with a dictionary definition from Merriam Webster, rather than the academic's description already in the next sentence.

    Also, the link doesn't say what she wrote that it said. Carol wrote: Libertarianism is the advocacy of the maximization of freedom of thought and action." The dictionary she linked to said: "A person who upholds the principles of individual liberty especially of thought and action." [3] Upholding the principle is not the same as maximization, and what kind of liberty is there apart from thought and action? So "especially" seems odd: a good reason not to use general dictionaries as sources for philosophical concepts. But read her edit summary. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 01:21, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

    • Perhaps you ought to read Libertarianism's talk archives. The reason why TERTIARY sources were being used was that a circle of POV pushers were claiming two things: firstly, that a series of primary sources were secondary and their opinions were notable; and, secondly, that a real world walled garden of commercially operated think tanks from the United States ought to be taken as the totality of the literature available. In addition, by constantly revisiting consensus, this circle had jammed the editorial process on the talk page. Carol's work on Libertarianism was firmly for sourcing from secondaries by appropriate weighting procedure, and from HQRS tertiaries. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:28, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I can understand the need to defer to mainstream tertiary sources where there's a dispute, but using a dictionary to define a philosophical idea is never acceptable. Going beyond what that dictionary says is even worse. When people say that an editor should be unblocked because they make good content contributions, it makes sense to give examples. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 04:06, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't think you're broadly familiar with Carol's work on wikipedia. I don't believe I said "good content contributions". Carol's work with libertarianism has been NPOV, WEIGHT, dispute resolution on Talk: over twelve months of POV pushing. Throughout this Carol maintained highly collaborative behaviour. All of which is "productive and collaborative" editing. As you may know Libertarianism is not a philosophical idea, but a series of mutually incompatible political movements in social reality. I'm finding the authority you're claiming here to be fundamentally bizarre. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:21, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Libertarianism is an idea academic philosophers have written a great deal about, because it involves ideas about natural rights, contracts, and the objectivity or otherwise of moral values. It would be better to use academic sources in the article, whether philosophers or others, or at least high-quality tertiary sources, rather than dictionaries. What authority am I claiming? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 04:33, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
  • …; Yes, and that is covered amply at a completely different article, Libertarianism_(metaphysics). Libertarianism discusses a minor US ideology, and an even smaller appendage to that ideology, and a sequence of 20th century revolutionary social movements with interlinked ideologies in the United States, Western Central and Eastern Europe and South America. I'd strongly suggest you actually learn about Carol's editorial history before making your carte blanch statements. You appear to have a completely ungrounded comprehension of this editor, and her work here. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:43, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
  • This isn't the place to discuss that article, but the one you linked to is a different set of ideas. Libertarianism is a source of much philosophical writing, and it ought to be used in the article. Regarding Carol, I've been asking you for examples of good work; I can't force you to give any, but it would help her case if you did. That's all I'm going to say for now. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 04:52, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Here is a link to the discussion surrounding that edit in Talk Archive 22. It was made after an editor set up an RfC, supported by Darkstar1st, to change the article to "Libertarian (word)". Presumably Carol was attempting to form a compromise. TFD (talk) 05:00, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
  • "Regarding Carol, I've been asking you for examples of good work; I can't force you to give any, but it would help her case if you did." No, you've been dictating a discourse, and acting with extreme hostility towards me when your right to do so has been challenged. You have no familiarity with the editor in question's work on wikipedia, and, when invited to become familiar you have again acted with hostility and assumed a position of untrammelled authority. I have informed you of Carol's work, and where to find it, and your resulting behaviour has been to attempt to hegemonise a taxonomic belief regarding an article. You could well do to inspect your own civility. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:12, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Carol has also been a productive and collaborative editor in economics and feminism related articles. Can we please end the "trial" now? Once again, this is not the appropriate venue. The matter at hand has been settled. Can we please disengage and move on? Kaldari (talk) 19:21, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Question from Jrtayloriv

Carol -- Just to alleviate people's concerns that you don't understand why what you did was wrong, could you answer the following:

  1. Do you acknowledge that your personal attacks towards User:Kenilworth Terrace were totally inappropriate and unneccessary?
  2. Why do you feel these attacks were inappropriate?
  3. What are you going to do differently in the future if you feel you are being harassed by a group of editors?

Thanks, Jrtayloriv (talk) 19:22, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

First, I just realized via your question that I could answer here. (Assuming it saves.)
  1. Yes, I finally get that my attacks were totally inappropriate and unneccessary? I confess I did not at first, even this morning.
  2. I realize I made inappropriate attacks after looking at his contributions and assuming some highly speculative personal motivation and then asking him about it in an offensive way. I would not be at all surprised if others have made negative assumptions about me based on looking at my contributions history and attacked me, so the user does have my sincere sympathies and apologies.
  3. What to do differently when groups go after me? Write a better Wikiquette naming several people? Go to WP:ANI naming several people? Do User:RfCs naming several people? That is where I admit I need further advice - i.e., when the harassment continues, even despite one or more editors or admins warning the harasser(s).
  4. Since a 7.5 year old off wiki email is often the focus of harassment, and so far the advice is not to go into detail about it, I don't know how to defend the recurrent references to it. Let me say again, it was a stupid, overly generalized and exaggerated response to weeks of harassment and threats, but certainly not written with some evil bigoted intent. I feel that a lengthy correction of it complete with refs about then existing specific incidents/issues/etc, or stating in detail my current views, would be inappropriate, even on my user page and doubtless lead to more accusations by people who have a different POV. But if there's some policy on this that I missed, I sure wish people would help me out with that. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:02, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Has it ever crossed you mind that the reason that this 7.5 year old email is being dug up is that your editing of Allegations of Jewish control of the media seems in the eyes of those who dig the email up to be advancinge the view expressed in that email that Jews do in fact exercise a pernicious control over the media? And does it occur to you that these criticisms may be motivated by a genuine concern for what Wikipedia says rather than out of a malicious desire to pick on you?--Peter cohen (talk) 20:48, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
(insert)Peter, since I have always found you reasonable, I am glad you finally bring this up with me since I was concerned that you expressed negative views on the WP:ANI that I had not seen before. I think I've stated my actual position several times: while there may be some individual Jews or groups of Jews in some media industries who may work together for certain purposes, as even some WP:RS admit, and as evidence might show, that does not mean that Jews work to control all media. The only place I've suggested that it be brought up in the article is when WP:RS say it as part of their argument that even if Jews do have disproportionate power here and there, it doesn't prove they control or seek to control all of media. I was going to put such relevant material in the article last weekend, but with the new spate of attacks, I could not focus, even put the material on the talk page for discussion after someone expressed their problem with using any such material at all. CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:06, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Carol — though I don't know about every detail of this, I wanted to say something more in general. There are certain people who will always point to stuff that happened in the past (7.5 years ago should be proof enough); they will never let go of it, and their goal seems to be to get rid of you, no matter what you say or try. In this case, as difficult as it may be, your only option is to ignore it. Don't even bother filing a complaint, don't bother going to any noticeboard. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 20:20, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I read through Carol's recent edits to the media article and could find nothing that was POV and ask that you examine the edits as well. TFD (talk) 05:43, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

On your #3 above, this may sound fatuous but imo the first step is to decide on your own emotional state. You can tell yourself "Editors repeatedly raise concerns with me about what they feel is my inappropriate editing. I am going to deal with these concerns calmly and clearly and I am going to make sure that my own edits and behaviours are unimpeachable." - or you can tell yourself "I am right and they are wrong. I am being harassed." and then go on to retaliate in whatever way you can and repeat "harassment" over and over. As far as what to do if you have made an honest attempt to communicate directly with those raising the concerns (i.e. on user talk pages), I dunno, perhaps mediation would work. Alternatively, a RFC/U on the individuals or perhaps one on yourself where you outline the concerns that have been raised and why you think those concerns are unjustified. In that last case, you would need to do some "writing for the enemy" to present their case fairly before you refute it, or perhaps invite them to contribute to the framing of the RFC. Just some thoughts... Franamax (talk) 20:54, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

There are a lot more men than women on Wikipedia. There are a lot more Israeli editors than plain population numbers might suggest. What conclusions are drawn from these is another matter. Being blocked is never fun. I just completed a twelve hour block that I hotly contested the justification for.3 months is a long long time for a lapse of judgement that has been acknowledged and apologised for.Ironically my own block was regarding discussion and freedom on the discussion page of Attack pages policy to which Carolmooredc had contributed substantially and cogently. Maybe such efforts of Carol's could be taken into consideration in considering reducing her banishment. I suggest Carol that you use the time to move beyond these wikiwalls. go dig a pond or plant a tree. I got into a heated debate with another editor over adding 10 names to a hundred name cast list of a 30 year old cop show .Silly. Life is elsewhere.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 21:51, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Where are you getting your data from? As an editor involved at times with Israel related articles I did not notice a greater percentage of Israeli editors then from any other country with a similar socio-economic culture. If anything there are less, due to the topic bans frequently dished out in the I-A conflict area.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:30, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
  • If you feel I am hounding you, and speaking directly with me does not alleviate your concerns, go talk to an experienced, completely uninvolved editor and ask them to review your concerns and then share feedback with me. When communication becomes difficult, it can be really helpful to get an uninvolved third party to intervene. Jehochman Talk 23:03, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
    • I would like to echo Jehochman's suggestion. Next time, get a third party involved rather than acting on your frustrations. If Wikiquette alerts doesn't work, find an admin you trust and discuss it with them personally. Kaldari (talk) 00:19, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Per recent discussion on AN/I, I have reduced your block to one week. Further discussion may result in further reductions, depending on community consensus. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:09, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

i think it would be interesting to see what carol would edit if you reduced the ban to the topics she has edited in the 30 days. i wonder if her obvious zest for wp would be applied to non political articles? Darkstar1st (talk) 01:39, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
That seems more like a comment designed to provoke a response, rather than a genuine attempt to resolve a dispute. Franamax (talk) 02:32, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
@Darkstar1st: CarolMooreDC has contributed an enormous amount of information and quality sources to many articles, and there has been no valid reason given as to why she should be banned from any topic, other than attacks on her personal life and politics, and claims that she's an anti-Semite. The problem here was not her content contributions, but her incivility towards certain editors.
Furthermore, she has had far fewer problems than yourself (as one can see by taking a cursory glance at your talk page, your ANI record, and your block history). I don't believe you are really in a position to be suggesting topic bans for people at this point in your development as an editor, because you seem to cause problems at most of the articles you focus heavily on. That is, it doesn't seem like your judgement is very well developed in regard to what type of behavior is appropriate on Wikipedia.
It's also hard to see how this is not, as Franamax suggested, a response simply designed to "push buttons" rather than fix anything. Can you describe what you were hoping to accomplish through your statement just now? -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 03:03, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
jrtayloriv, my suggestion was to un-ban her, read into that what you will, but there is a chance you are being obtuse. please stand next to fran so i may slap you both with one swing of the trout. Darkstar1st (talk) 04:28, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
I have followed the thread, without taking part. There is no suggestion anywhere that a topic ban is called for; and indeed she is not banned, but blocked. There is a highly significant difference. On a different aspect, and noting that the block is reduced to one week; in the light of an apology which has been made and accepted, is this residual block preventative or punitive? --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 12:14, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

FYI - One week fine with me

I need the rest/recovery from talk page/notice board stuff!!! I might even have ready a new article or two I haven't been able to finish because of it all. Yeah!! Maybe we should all have a one week compulsory block every three months just to chill. I'll think about an RfC on that... :-) CarolMooreDC (talk)

Since the consensus at ANI seems to be that it's time to lift the block, I have unblocked you. If you feel like taking a break before returning to normal editing, you shouldn't feel obliged to return before you're ready. Happy editing, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:04, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. I'll archive all this now (perhaps to link to later from main page if that has any constructive purpose) and enjoy mostly resting a few more days except one or two pressing issues. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:38, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Second Vermont Republic: COI

Carol, I don't really know how these things ought to go and will try to research before commenting but in regard to request NPOV editors, I've really have none for this article other than to see it improve. I don't fall among detractors or supporters since I just don't really know of you but can see above that the past few weeks have been difficult and understand now the mention you made on my Talk page about a "bad week." Preliminarily it would seem that your COI could be significant but it would take time to go over what you've disclosed to arrive at a fixed conclusion.

Lordradish made a req, admidst some personal stuff, regarding the blog called Vermont Secession. Is that something that the group you're assembling could take a look at? It seems to be intermingled with what we're talking about. I'm having a hard time squeezing this in this week but will try to set some time aside for it tomorrow. Thoughts? Vttor (talk) 22:04, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protection

I've temporarily semi protected you talk page, as some-one has attempted to flood it with personal attacks. It will expire in a few hours. Rockpocket 23:33, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I went ahead and did some rev-del on your user page. There's no sense in having insults like that viewable in your user page history. AniMate 04:52, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:55, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Not entirely sure why AniMate said he was deleting the revisions and they're still there, but I've gone ahead and deleted them myself.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:27, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

PA

Cold at admin action all those IP's (who from the edits were the aem person)?Slatersteven (talk) 13:04, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean. Geolocate shows from all over but I'm sure that is someone with technical expertise to fake it somehow. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:55, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Well if it was not sock its was very odd that they all posted the saem thing with the same edit summery. Tag teaming at least. As such all the IP's should be blocked for harrisment.Slatersteven (talk) 14:00, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Double vote

Hi! Did you mean to be neutral or oppose in Bhawani Gautam Rhk's election page? You seem to have posted in both sections. Regards, Jafeluv (talk) 15:18, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I goofed. Will fix. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:43, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

BLPPRIMARY

Carol, you could propose an addition to WP:BLPPRIMARY on the WP:BLP talk page. While this applies to deceased authors as much as to the living, I would support adding a couple of sentences to that effect in BLP policy. --JN466 18:01, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Great. I'll give it til Monday to let brouhaha die down :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:36, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar for Marie-Laure Sauty de Chalon

The Article Rescue Barnstar
Thank you for your help in rescuing Marie-Laure Sauty de Chalon. Bearian (talk) 15:56, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:14, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Does

[4] This happen often to you? Tentontunic (talk) 23:03, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

A lot of guys cannot handle females who don't go away when they are told and keep being right about policy, bringing uninvolved editors from noticeboards in to point out why you can do what they want to do in that BLP. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:22, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hi Carol. I think all the vandalism has been undone, and the edit summaries/threats/etc. purged. Let me know if I missed anything. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 05:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

You guys were fast!! Thanks. Guess I'll have to stop editing in those areas. ha ha But I've discovered one even naughtier, so you never know... CarolMooreDC (talk) 05:58, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
You know how it is, these things just start to snowball... — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 06:00, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Just so's you know - it's the same guy, again and again :/ - Alison ❤ 06:16, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Snowballing

Carol, could you attend to [5]? I couldn't find anything to that effect in the source Atomaton indicated. --JN466 06:53, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Yoo ha! It's public domain! CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:21, 19 February 2011 (UTC)


setting image sizes

You shouldn't change an image size unless there is a good reason for a specific image (e.g. a map image that is unreadable until it's 400px at least). See WP:IMGSIZE. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:26, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

First I've heard. Useful to know the content there, though not quite as you describe it. I assume you mean the NOODLE picture. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:29, 19 February 2011 (UTC)


Barnstar

The Original Barnstar
Awarded for guts and gumption in the service of NPOV. Good work. JN466 01:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I must make a list of goodies to start passing around also!!! CarolMooreDC (talk) 12:24, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

WP Feminism in the Signpost

"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject Feminism for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Other editors will also have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 20:27, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


Solidarity

I know you've been getting vandal-spammed a lot, and I've been sorry to see so much protection work has been required for your personal pages. I know that we got into some heated discussions (by my standards, not Wikipedia's) and wanted to let you know I'm sorry to see any attacks on you. Cheers.--Carwil (talk) 13:29, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Some could be related to articles we've met on, but others might be related to another issue which has been more of a problem off wiki. Someone who doesn't like the gif above at all, among other things. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:09, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikimania 2012 bid, DC chapter & next meetup!

  1. At WikiXDC in January, User:Harej proposed that DC submit a bid to host Wikimania 2012. A bid and organizing committee is being formed and seeks additional volunteers to help. Please look at our bid page and sign up if you want to help out. You can also signup for the bid team's email list.
  2. To support the Wikimania bid, more events like WikiXDC, and outreach activities like collaborations with the Smithsonian (ongoing) and National Archives, there also has been discussion of forming Wikimedia DC, as an official Wikimedia chapter. You can express interest and contribute to chapter discussions on the Wikimedia DC Meta-Wiki pages.
  3. To discuss all this and meet up with special guest, Dutch Wikipedian User:Kim Bruning, there will be a meetup, Wikipedia:Meetup/DC 16 this Tuesday at 7pm, at Capitol City Brewery, Metro Center. There will be a pre-meetup Wikimania team meeting at 6pm at the same location.

Apologies for the short notice for this meetup, but let's discuss when, where & what for DC Meetup #17. Also, if you haven't yet, please join wikimedia-dc mailing list to stay informed. Cheers, User:Aude (talk)

Note: You can unsubscribe from DC meetup notices by removing your name at Wikipedia:Meetup/DC/Invite/List. -- Message delivered by AudeBot, on behalf of User:Aude

Bias categories

Congratulations on the hard fought victory. Glad to see that there will be some consistency now and hopefully this will alleviate some BLP problems. Kaldari (talk) 02:16, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

We'll see if the most recalcitrant category tries to stage a counter-revolution :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:18, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I would suggest not pushing the issue aggressively. Make some edits to Wikipedia:Categorization and give the change a little time to sink in. Maybe you could add a "Bias categories" section after the "Eponymous categories" section of the guideline. Of course, that's just my opinion so feel free to ignore it. Kaldari (talk) 02:26, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I was thinking that after I finished being assertive ;-) in a couple places. So instead celebrating tonight giving out Wikilove using your script :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar! I was wondering if that discussion would ever be closed... Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:52, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the Kitten

Actually, I have kittens on my user page already, fast asleep:

Still, another mewing bundle of fur is always welcome to a cat-person like myself (I've been known to stroke tomcats that others will only approach in full body-armour, so I think I qualify...) AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:07, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I've been meaning to do it for a few weeks and User:Kaldari/wikilove script makes it so fun and easy, I'm catching up on the most memorable editors ;-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 05:23, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

I too thank you. My own Tintin and Haddock are a bit unsure, but once they've got used to the idea I'm sure they will take to her. Please sit and drink a cup of tea with me.

RolandR (talk) 08:24, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

thanks for the kitten

How wonderful of you Ms Carol. I hope your doing well. LoveMonkey (talk) 13:06, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

LoveMonkey has given you a kitten! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Kittens must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or kittynap their kitten with {{subst:Kittynap}}

Thanks!

Thanks for the kind comments on my Talk page! --Noleander (talk) 19:09, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

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

Ta

Much obliged. And very nice to come here and see the little kittens. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:42, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

Cookies!
Thank you, Carol, for the kitten. Please accept some cookies in return. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:17, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Addicted to cookies, et al

Gosh, this giving and getting kittens, cookies, etc. is getting addictive. Makes me want to edit more and more to find more excuses to give them. Self-control!!!! CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:17, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

BLP, ethnicity, gender

Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Include "ethnicity, gender," to match all other guidelines

Trying to remove an end-around of WP:EGRS that's being exploited. You've expressed interest in the past. Already 4 days into the certification poll.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 05:12, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Much deserved Barnstar

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
To my occasional sparring partner, hopefully friend, someone who is really about something and a privilege to know, and major contributor to Wikipedia. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 04:05, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Makes me want to quit while I'm ahead!! :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:17, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


Page move - I think I've fixed this for you...

Hi,
I came across Barnsters as a new article. I've moved it to User:Carolmooredc/Barnstars. You may want to change the spelling back to the cerrect version!
Oo-roo from where it is a warm, wet Autumn afternoon.--Shirt58 (talk) 06:08, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Will have to be careful not to do it again. CarolMooreDC (talk) 06:09, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Oh, I've much worse, and many times, believe me! --Shirt58 (talk) 06:32, 13 March 2011 (UTC) ps: Are you feeling in a kitten-giving mood? No, no, particular reason for asking...
I've been meaning to give BarnstArs for a while and then User:Kaldari put up his wikilove script and I went crazy playing catchup over 4 years!! Still a few more to go. Enjoy the fall and watch out for those earth and ocean upheavals! CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:51, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

the Public Policy Initiative Assessment Team wants You!

Hi Carolmooredc, it looks like you contribute to articles within the scope of Wikiproject: United States Public Policy, and I was hoping you would be interested in assessing articles with the Public Policy Initiative. There is more info about assessment on the 9/13/2010 Signpost. If you're interested or just curious you can sign up on the project page or just contact me. Thanks! ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 23:08, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

DC Meetup: May 7 @ Tenleytown Library

The next DC Wikimedia meetup is scheduled for Saturday, May 7, 3:30-5:30 pm at the Tenleytown Library (adjacent to the Tenleytown Metro Station, Red Line), followed by dinner & socializing at some nearby place.

This is the first official meeting of our proposed Wikimedia DC chapter, with discussion of bylaws and next steps. Other agenda items include, update everyone on our successful Wikimania bid and next steps in the planning process, discuss upcoming activities that we want to do over the summer and fall, and more.

Please RSVP here and see a list of additional tentatively planned meetups & activities for late May & June on the Wikipedia:Meetup/DC page.

Note: You can unsubscribe from DC meetup notices by removing your name at Wikipedia:Meetup/DC/Invite/List. -- Message delivered by AudeBot, on behalf of User:Aude

Restructure

Re [[6]] ... go for it! Gerardw (talk) 23:00, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I didn't do the original new positing, so person who did should. In fact mine should just stay with the old one. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:16, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

RfC: Stepanakert Airport Disputes

Dear Carolmooredc,

I would like to kindly ask you for a comment at Stepanakert Airport:

RfC: Is Polukhov's statement worth being kept in the article?

Thanks in advance. -- Ashot  (talk) 17:07, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Error

You are in error, editing my Discussion. I don't need "proof" in discussion. Besides, You don't Live in Tucson, you have no first-hand experience of the police and sheriff dept's. fascism, or interviews with ex-policeman who concur with me. Here's a Source": Chester Cunningham, Rep. candidate for Sheriff of PIma SCounty. Several years experience as a lawman; agrees "not all facts in" but several oversights and negligent procedure in case.68.231.184.217 (talk) 13:41, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I may have edited some article - I can think of a couple relevant ones. I rarely edit talk page discussions. More details please. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:44, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Checked most likely suspect and left this explanation. Someone else removed your material, leaving my response. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:50, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Completely new abortion proposal and mediation

In light of the seemingly endless disputes over their respective titles, a neutral mediator has crafted a proposal to rename the two major abortion articles (pro-life/anti-abortion movement, and pro-choice/abortion rights movement) to completely new names. The idea, which is located here, is currently open for opinions. As you have been a contributor in the past to at least one of the articles, your thoughts on the matter would be appreciated.

The hope is that, if a consensus can be reached on the article titles, the energy that has been spent debating the titles of the articles here and here can be better spent giving both articles some much needed improvement to their content. Please take some time to read the proposal and weigh in on the matter. Even if your opinion is simple indifference, that opinion would be valuable to have posted.

To avoid concerns that this notice might violate WP:CANVASS, this posting is being made to every non-anon editor who has edited either page (or either page's respective talk page) since 1 July 2010, irrespective of possible previous participation at the mediation page. HuskyHuskie (talk) 22:45, 4 July 2011 (UTC)


An article that you have been involved in editing, "Legal status of Texas" and another, "Republic of Texas (group) has been proposed for a merge with Texas Secession Movement. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Otr500 (talk) 04:53, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:LaRouche movement

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:LaRouche movement. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 06:47, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Your 1RR report

Hello Carol. Please note there is a 3RR helper tool that can be used to make a proper list of reverts. Admins who might otherwise want to study your report may be troubled by the lack of clear data. The use of the helper tool is recommended for all reports. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. But is MalikShabazz correct that it is not 1 RR? Don't want to report if not. Or will ask on 3rr talk page when get a chance. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:59, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
You tell us. Which pair of reverts violate the 1RR, below? Reverts numbered 9 and 10 are consecutive, so they count as one.

Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC

  1. 16:18, 18 July 2011 (edit summary: "/* Writings and activism */ clarify "Finkler"")
  2. 03:56, 19 July 2011 (edit summary: "/* Writings and activism */ added cite; removed presumably misplaced tag")
  3. 14:42, 19 July 2011 (edit summary: "")
  4. 14:31, 20 July 2011 (edit summary: "/* Writings and activism */ expand Atzmon statement, add title for subsection")
  5. 19:39, 20 July 2011 (edit summary: "Combine activism paragraph into activism section")
  6. 19:46, 20 July 2011 (edit summary: "/* —Allegations of antisemitism */ remove extraneous material from citations")
  7. 19:01, 21 July 2011 (edit summary: "/* Music */ removed repetition; covered elsewhere in article")
  8. 16:55, 24 July 2011 (edit summary: "/* Novels */ tighten section")
  9. 13:41, 25 July 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 441346502 by Carolmooredc (talk) undo massive unsupported POV revert; see WP:OWN")
  10. 13:49, 25 July 2011 (edit summary: "/* Allegations of antisemitism */ changed heading")

— EdJohnston (talk) 17:10, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I found the helper tool a little confusing. It would be 8 and 9, assuming that his deleting/reverting other editors' past material counts. That's the issue that Malik evidently is challenging. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Since there does seem to be debate about what actually is a revert (and thus if his first edit was a revert), per Wikipedia_talk:Edit_warring#How_long_does_an_edit_stay_in_place_before_its_removal_is_not_a_revert.3F, I won't pursue this in this instance while trying to get policy clarified. Obviously the 3rr closing editor doesn't seem to realize the WP:ARBPIA template says one option is to go to 3rr page. Which I commented there. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:36, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

DC Meetup, July 29

DC Meetup 21 - Who should come? You should. Really.
DC MEETUP 21 is July 29! This meet up will involve Wikipedians from the area as well as Wiki-loving GLAM professionals. See you Friday! SarahStierch (talk) 16:32, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Sarkhan Vol

Was it really a good idea to leave a message for Sarkhan Vol? All it did was provoke another personal attack. Please stay away from her/him. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 05:50, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes one gets in a debating mood. But won't do again. CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:02, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Final Warning

RE: Casey Anthony Trial Talk Page - Do not reprimand me or any other editors on this article again Carol. This is my final warning. I see by the warning here you are doing it on other pages as well. Mugginsx (talk) 11:20, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Be specific. Note that I didn't even bother to mention to you that once again during the 25-26th period you again exceeded 3RR as your meerily reverted others recent work. Please be careful and don't do it again. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:14, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


In the closed and collapsed discussion[7] I saw Zero said "Looking further back in the contribs (but only 3 days), this personal attack deserves a block by itself and illustrates the attitude which JerryDavid89 brings to Wikipedia. Please do something about it." This referenced the attack that helped motivate my ANI report,[8] which didn't result in any sanctions. Any idea why? Was it worded poorly? Are we short on admins? Do you have to be an consistent personal attacker/rule breaker to get a ban around here? Shootbamboo (talk) 06:32, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I think they decided to move it to WP:AE because it does go under WP:ARBPIA (Israel Palestine arbitration). However sometimes people are reluctant to go their initially because sometimes both sides get punished. But this is quite the open and shut case, now resolved. Til next time he socks! CarolMooreDC (talk) 10:23, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Consensus and policy

Carol, this is too rabbit-trail-ey to bring up at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Death_of_Caylee_Anthony.2C_Missing_white_woman_syndrome, but I was wondering about your statement there that "Consensus does NOT trump policy, including even obvious BLP violations that have to be fought over." I don't mean this as a criticism, but am asking just in case you know something that I don't know but ought to. Though I'm not sure that the process for doing so is entirely clear (for reasons I've stated here), I think that except in a few mostly-legally-related exceptions (negative unsourced BLP information, copyright, child protection, and perhaps one or two others), that it is always possible to make a IAR local exception to policy. Do you disagree? Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:04, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I was talking about clear BLP/NPOV/OR/RS policy. The White Woman syndrome is a grayer area so I was just generally speaking with a phrase I've heard here and there. Search: "wp:consensus trump policy" for some examples. Only in grayer areas can you talk about exceptions. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:19, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikimania 2012

Glad to see your name on the Wikimania 2012 organizers list. They're going to need all the help they can get! Kaldari (talk) 21:40, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Just going to do some out reach and maybe some grunt work. But who knows where the world - and me - will be 12 months from now! CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:07, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism, etc.

While modus operandi similar, I don't know that it is that User since there is no note there that they are obsessed with I-P issue or have indulged in dozens of similar email threats. Not interested in follow-up at this time otherwise. Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:03, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Oh, it's him, the use of the 2008 sleeper accounts proves that. The Superjew thing is just his current schtick (although he has a long history of virulent anti Muslim stuff). Let me know if you change your mind. NawlinWiki (talk) 03:07, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
If he'$ loaded and a big fat civil $uit would be worth it, I'll think about it :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:09, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
I wish. He's a 21 year old with no life. Cheers. NawlinWiki (talk) 03:10, 12 August 2011 (UTC)


Your dispute resolution noticeboard request

Would you please remove your request and then re-list it using the "Initiate a new discussion" button at the top of the page? If you've not yet informed other involved editors of the listing, please do so. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:27, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry! And, yes, alerted individual. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:32, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Note for future reference this was in regards to this Dispute resolution

User talk:mugginsx

DRN archive top|Listing editor satisfied with clarification of policy, no further dispute. — TransporterMan (TALK) 18:19, 23 August 2011 (UTC)}}

Dispute overview

  • Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?

At this diff I asked User:Mugginsx about a possible conflict of interest because of his/her repeated statements on a talk page about how he was a legal professional and therefore he knew best. S/he didn't answer there but discussed it an inappropriate forum. Today I shared some comments on the COI issue I got from someone else, i.e., it being more POV/Bias and problems with demanding we believe personal interpretations of video over that of multiple WP:RS. S/he deleted that section, leaving just my original comment. I then deleted my whole comment, which s/he reverted.

I couldn't find exact guidance for this situation under either Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines or Wikipedia:User_talk_page but I get the impression a) s/he has a right to delete or archive my whole comment, but not part of it (unless grossly offensive and insulting which it wasn't). And I have a perfect right to remove my own comment s/he never responded to. Thoughts on this narrow issue of removal and not the whole WP:COI discussion itself? CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:51, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Users involved

  • Who is involved in the dispute? (Make sure you let them know you have posted here)

Resolving the dispute

  • Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?

This should be a fairly clear cut policy matter - yet I cannot find exact policy statements, only easily debateable ones, so rather than debate ad nauseum with this individual I thought I'd bring it to some experts.

  • How do you think we can help?

Hopefully a quick resolution is possible.

CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:41, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

User talk:mugginsx discussion

Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.

This discussion is limited to the additions and deletions to Mugginsx's talk page. It is not about the appropriateness, or lack thereof, of any claims of legal expertise made by the involved editors or about the particular edits under discussion at the BLP noticeboard. With that limitation understood, I can find no discussion of those additions and deletions. The guidelines of this noticeboard say, "This noticeboard is not for disputes which have been carried out only through edit summaries or which have not received substantial discussion on a talk page." Therefore, I believe that this dispute is not ripe for consideration here.

Let me say, however, that

  • Per the WP:TPO guideline it is considered to be improper to edit or move another editor's comments for the purpose of changing their meaning, regardless of where those comments were made, even on one's own talk page, with quite a few exceptions set out there (none of which would appear to apply here).
  • Subject to that limitation, the WP:REMOVED guideline says that except for a few specific limitations set out there (which appear, again, to be inapplicable here) that a user may generally choose to remove any or all comments from his/her talk pages or blank them altogether. (It is to be noted, however, that removal constitutes acknowledgement that they have been read.)
  • There is no rule governing removal of one's own comments from a talk page other than one's own talk page, only a best practice saying that it is frowned upon. While that is contained in a guideline, it is clearly described as a best practice, not as something which must not be done.

Though it's a long and involved argument, the main difference between a policy and a guideline is that it is much more difficult to get yourself blocked or banned for violation of a guideline than it is for violation of a policy. Unless you can show how Mugginsx's additions and deletions from his/her talk page were clearly and obviously intended to change the meaning of something you had said there, you are probably not going to get anywhere with this issue.

Unless you can point me to some discussion on this issue, I will either close this discussion or allow it to roll off to the archive in a couple of days. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:37, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Transporterman: The edits are all in the same section "Conflict of Interest with paralegal job?" and were made by CarolMooredc on different days and different times and I have NOT revised any of her edits on my personal Talk page. I deleted them except for one paragraph made days earlier in response to ANOTHER noticeboard about me that she creating last week http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Death_of_Caylee_Anthony:_Alleged_defamation_by_WP:RS . That original edit, was made days before and retained in FULL. That noticeboard she created refers to a difference of opinion of a possible wp:BLP violation on a paragraph in the article and possible defamation in the references she used in that paragraph as well as the paragraph itself back in July 2011. I invite you to look at the diffs on my talk page to confirm this. I was advised by veteran editors not to respond further to CarolMooredc's continuing personal comments to me on my Talk page and I found that was good advice and I took it. In my opinion these noticeboards are being used to get attention and harass I am not going to participate further except to show you the respect of answering and invite you to my talk page to see the truth. I am in good standing with Wikipedia and have never been blocked. I have nothing to hide. Mugginsx (talk) 17:39, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
I was not informed of the above alleged "harassment", but obviously had a feeling that Mugginsx would not reply and that is why I brought it here. I think the policy has been made clear but will not bother to go further, except perhaps to save the comments to my archives for future reference. Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:15, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

}}


RFD

Hello -- at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 July 22#Pro-Palestinian consensus was reached to retarget the "Pro-Palestinian" redirect from "Israeli-Palestinian conflict" to "Palestinian cause". On 14 August 2011 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Palestinian cause was closed as "Redirect to Israeli-Palestinian conflict", inadvertently reversing the consensus reached at the RfD regarding the "Pro-Palestinian" redirect (the redirect was not mentioned during the discussion). In subsequent discussion at Talk:Pro-Palestinian#Extract from RFD discussion for future reference it has been suggested that both redirects ("Pro-Palestinian" and "Palestinian cause") would be better targeted at Palestinian nationalism. It was also agreed to initiate a widely-advertised RfD, with notifications to relevant WikiProjects and participants in the AfD and RfD. Accordingly, your comments are invited at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 August 26#Pro-Palestinian. Best, —Ireilly talk —Preceding undated comment added 09:03, 26 August 2011 (UTC).

DRN

You mentioned something in regards to an editor being disruptive etc at DRN talk, and them possibly needing mentoring? Could you fill me in on the details, as this is something I could potentially do. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 02:19, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


ANI notice

Hi, I have posted on ANI a concern about User:Mugginsx's behaviour, which may interest you. Cheers. elle vécut heureuse à jamais (be free) 00:21, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

FYI

Just FYI, it looks like a missing ref tag at the end of your post has obscured your signature here. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 12:18, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

WT:AN3

I've replied to your suggestion about changing the AN3 page header. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 06:23, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


prior to Spaceclerk

Hi Carol - was there a user following the same patterns in relation to your contributions prior to Spaceclerk's first edit in 2010 - possibly one that was blocked or restricted? perhaps at Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Log of notifications - Off2riorob (talk) 16:56, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Carol I think that applies if the user has a blocked or banned account - I think his return to his previous conflict with you under his new apparition at the same articles as previous is a violation of WP:Clean start - If you have any thought about who the master is, please let me know. Off2riorob (talk) 22:29, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

It all comes clear... The only question is, how far back does it go... More in a day or two. CarolMooreDC 23:58, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Brief note

Hi there. good to see your recent posts. perhaps I could be of some help in some way, re recent topics at WP:IPCOLL? please feel free to let me know. thanks! --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 21:50, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean joining the project, reorganizing the main page or discussions in article issues? Check out the talk page cause I think there are somethings we've talked about never implemented. CarolMooreDC 21:55, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
hm, ok, sounds good. I'll take a look. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 22:12, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Close paraphrasing

I agree with your initial point on your posting to talk:Epeefleche, as you say it is easily done and I added something to the WP:PLAGIARISM guideline to cover it. It is now in the section "Close paraphrasing. The question here is really what would a reasonable editor do when show that something paraphrased has not been altered enough. Would they try to fix it, or attack the motives of the person who makes the observations?

The real problem comes when there is a disagreement over POV in an article, one can not put in too many quotes (it becomes a style issue), but if one does not use the precise word in the original source one is accused of WP:SYN and if one uses the precise word one is accused of copyright violation.

There is never a correct answer, and it is difficult to formulate rules. For example I discussed this issue with Moonriddengirl over a specific instance I had introduced into a paragraph, which at the time was under the intense scrutiny of several people who had different views on the issue. There was a sentence I had added where I could not see an alternative word to "circumspect" if the sentence was to convey the precise meaning in the source. She decided that it was indeed to close and altered the text to a quote. If people are acting in good faith this can easily be done, but too often as is shown up in the copyright investigations, people become defensive and obstructive in dealing with this issue. -- PBS (talk) 02:00, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I didn't follow the detail too closely on whole page but noticed "inadvertent." I certainly recognize the behavior you are describing and it hardly surprises me giiven my own past experience with the individual. (Unfortunately, I've found he's not as even as bad as some people in the I-Pa area who somehow manage to keep it up month after month and even year after year!) In fact I think I was once in an I-Pa editing situation similar to the above where there was minor contention but it was settled through quoting before it got out of hand. CarolMooreDC 14:36, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Poo-poo'ed clarification

Thanks for the clarification at the NW page. Starting to get tedious, isn't it? :-/ Lhb1239 (talk) 06:14, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

It's interesting to see people getting that obsessed and testy who do NOT think most wiki editors secretly want to genocide them. Guess wikipedia is just a place for acting out for some people. CarolMooreDC 06:27, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
OMG, yes!!! Lhb1239 (talk) 06:30, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

meetup

hi, nice to meet you. here's the washington writer Natalie Clifford Barney, and her poetry in wikisource [9] Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 02:37, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

You too. Interesting article about yet another as to here unknown to me fascinating character! CarolMooreDC 13:22, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Al Durrah

Hello, Sorry about this, but English is not my native language, and I don't understand what you've written in the talk page. Was "doubting account" meant for me ? If I misunderstood please forgive me. - TwoHorned User_talk:TwoHorned 14:13, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, clarified it at talk page. CarolMooreDC 17:24, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, but I still don't understand: what makes my comments low profile ? - TwoHorned User_talk:TwoHorned 18:14, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Rachel Feinstein (sculptor), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Condé Nast, S. I. Newhouse and Saint John (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:17, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Did You Know...

Nomination - do keep an eye on it! I've also put begging letters for images on Flickr Victuallers (talk) 12:10, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Natalie Wood death section again

Please look at the recent history of the death section and the discussion board from this evening. I have reported Wikiwatcher1 for edit warring behavior at the 3RR noticeboard. Enough is enough - she's had the article hijacked for too long and something needs to change. Your input anywhere in this issue would be appreciated. Ho-ho-ho, huh? :-/ (talk→ LesHB ←track) 07:35, 25 December 2011 (UTC)


DYK for Rachel Feinstein (sculptor)

Materialscientist (talk) 02:18, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

BLP

Carol, I want to apologize for my reversion of your change to the BLP policy page. I haven't changed my mind about the language, but I mistakenly thought your edit came out of the blue because I hadn't realized it was being discussed on the Talk page. I should have given you a heads up here rather than just a stark revert. My error. Now that I know there's a discussion, I've actually contributed something to it. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 19:46, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for note. Will check it out later. CarolMooreDC 19:50, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Carolmooredc/Archive_VI&oldid=1215293199"