![]() | This is an
archive of past discussions for the period 2011. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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)
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)
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)
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.
Please RSVP soon as possible, as there likely will be a cap on number of attendees that NARA can accommodate.
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)
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 Abraham Koakhtzvigad ( talk) 02:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
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.
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
Point of order, I think it would go to miscellany for deletion, no? Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 00:43, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
No. Kenilworth Terrace ( talk) 20:28, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
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)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.
SarekOfVulcan (
talk)
21:36, 21 January 2011 (UTC)Note: block has been reduced to 1 week, per continuing AN/I discussion. -- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 23:09, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
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. -- Jayron 32 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.
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)
Carol -- Just to alleviate people's concerns that you don't understand why what you did was wrong, could you answer the following:
Thanks, Jrtayloriv ( talk) 19:22, 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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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. Rockpocke t 23:33, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Cold at admin action all those IP's (who from the edits were the aem person)? Slatersteven ( talk) 13:04, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
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)
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. -- JN 466 18:01, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
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)
[4] This happen often to you? Tentontunic ( talk) 23:03, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
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)
Carol, could you attend to [5]? I couldn't find anything to that effect in the source Atomaton indicated. -- JN 466 06:53, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
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)
![]() |
The Original Barnstar | |
Awarded for guts and gumption in the service of NPOV. Good work. JN 466 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)
"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)
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)
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
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)
Thanks for the barnstar! I was wondering if that discussion would ever be closed... Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 02:52, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
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 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)
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 for the kind comments on my Talk page! -- Noleander ( talk) 19:09, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Much obliged. And very nice to come here and see the little kittens. Itsmejudith ( talk) 22:42, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
Cookies! | |
Thank you, Carol, for the kitten. Please accept some cookies in return. — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 04:17, 9 March 2011 (UTC) |
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)
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)
![]() |
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)
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)
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)
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
Re [ [6]] ... go for it! Gerardw ( talk) 23:00, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Dear Carolmooredc,
I would like to kindly ask you for a comment at Stepanakert Airport:
Thanks in advance. -- Ashot ( talk) 17:07, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC
— EdJohnston ( talk) 17:10, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
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) |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
DRN archive top|Listing editor satisfied with clarification of policy, no further dispute. — TransporterMan ( TALK) 18:19, 23 August 2011 (UTC)}}
Dispute overview
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
Resolving the dispute
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.
Hopefully a quick resolution is possible.
CarolMooreDC ( talk) 15:41, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
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
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)
}}
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).
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)
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)
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)
I've replied to your suggestion about changing the AN3 page header. Thanks, EdJohnston ( talk) 06:23, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Thanks for the clarification at the NW page. Starting to get tedious, isn't it? :-/ Lhb1239 ( talk) 06:14, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() | On 29 December 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Rachel Feinstein (sculptor), which you created or substantially expanded. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Rachel Feinstein (sculptor).You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Materialscientist ( talk) 02:18, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
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)
![]() | This is an
archive of past discussions for the period 2011. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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)
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)
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)
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.
Please RSVP soon as possible, as there likely will be a cap on number of attendees that NARA can accommodate.
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)
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 Abraham Koakhtzvigad ( talk) 02:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
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.
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
Point of order, I think it would go to miscellany for deletion, no? Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 00:43, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
No. Kenilworth Terrace ( talk) 20:28, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
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)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.
SarekOfVulcan (
talk)
21:36, 21 January 2011 (UTC)Note: block has been reduced to 1 week, per continuing AN/I discussion. -- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 23:09, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
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. -- Jayron 32 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.
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)
Carol -- Just to alleviate people's concerns that you don't understand why what you did was wrong, could you answer the following:
Thanks, Jrtayloriv ( talk) 19:22, 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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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. Rockpocke t 23:33, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Cold at admin action all those IP's (who from the edits were the aem person)? Slatersteven ( talk) 13:04, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
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)
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. -- JN 466 18:01, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
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)
[4] This happen often to you? Tentontunic ( talk) 23:03, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
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)
Carol, could you attend to [5]? I couldn't find anything to that effect in the source Atomaton indicated. -- JN 466 06:53, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
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)
![]() |
The Original Barnstar | |
Awarded for guts and gumption in the service of NPOV. Good work. JN 466 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)
"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)
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)
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
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)
Thanks for the barnstar! I was wondering if that discussion would ever be closed... Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 02:52, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
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 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)
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 for the kind comments on my Talk page! -- Noleander ( talk) 19:09, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Much obliged. And very nice to come here and see the little kittens. Itsmejudith ( talk) 22:42, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
Cookies! | |
Thank you, Carol, for the kitten. Please accept some cookies in return. — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 04:17, 9 March 2011 (UTC) |
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)
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)
![]() |
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)
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)
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)
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
Re [ [6]] ... go for it! Gerardw ( talk) 23:00, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Dear Carolmooredc,
I would like to kindly ask you for a comment at Stepanakert Airport:
Thanks in advance. -- Ashot ( talk) 17:07, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC
— EdJohnston ( talk) 17:10, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
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) |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
DRN archive top|Listing editor satisfied with clarification of policy, no further dispute. — TransporterMan ( TALK) 18:19, 23 August 2011 (UTC)}}
Dispute overview
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
Resolving the dispute
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.
Hopefully a quick resolution is possible.
CarolMooreDC ( talk) 15:41, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
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
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)
}}
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).
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)
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)
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)
I've replied to your suggestion about changing the AN3 page header. Thanks, EdJohnston ( talk) 06:23, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Thanks for the clarification at the NW page. Starting to get tedious, isn't it? :-/ Lhb1239 ( talk) 06:14, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() | On 29 December 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Rachel Feinstein (sculptor), which you created or substantially expanded. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Rachel Feinstein (sculptor).You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Materialscientist ( talk) 02:18, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
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)