User talk:Carolmooredc/Archive I


Renaming/moving page

JoseRodriguez → Jose Jorge Rodriguez … Rationale: I'm too new to move and didn't realize URL and name on top of page were same. Plus want to clearly separate from another Jose Rodriguez in wikipedia. - User:Carolmooredc

Hi Carol. Yeah I can see you're confusing some different things here. Let me sort this out for you. Hang on a sec...
...OK I've moved the page you created. It's now at Jose Jorge Rodriguez as it should be. I also created some wiki links (links to various other wikipedia articles) from that page. Maybe you can see some more of these that should added, just to mesh it into wikipedia nicely. You should also create one or two incoming links to this page. If you look here Special:Whatlinkshere&target=Jose_Jorge_Rodriguez, it shows that there are no incoming links (well apart from this discussion page). If you can find an any appropriate article in which Jose Rodriguez could be mentioned (and linked to like this [[Jose Jorge Rodriguez]]), then this will help to mesh things together nicely too. See how that works?
There are some other points which are maybe confusing you. Most 'users' (people editing wikipedia) have a user page, prefixed with 'User:'. Only very few wikipedia editors are sufficiently notable, that they have an actual wikipedia article written about them. It's an honour to be chatting to you :-) You have and article Carol Moore which should be written (and has been written) in a balanced neutral point of view, by many wikipedia editors. You also have a 'user page' User:Carolmooredc where you're free to write about yourself, as you see fit (if you want). This gets automatically linked to, in page 'history' displays and 'recent changes'. Moving/renaming a user page technically tricky thing to try to do. But the pages Carol Moore and Jose Jorge Rodriguez are not user pages. They are regular wikipedia articles. You can move them yourself, using the 'move' tab at the top.
hmmmm hopefully that makes things clearer. Anyway welcome to wikipedia! -- Nojer2 13:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Image:Joserodrigueznucleardeath.jpg - higher resolution?

Regarding Image:Joserodrigueznucleardeath.jpg, could you upload a higher resolution version of this image? Images can be uploaded to Wikipedia at any resolution (the higher the better), and then can be sized to the proper screen resolution when you link them into the articles. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Never mind... I replaced it with one of my own images. SchuminWeb (Talk) 07:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Image:Joserodrigueznucleardeath.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Joserodrigueznucleardeath.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. SchuminWeb (Talk) 07:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

DOB

What is your date of birth? Usually, on articles about people, we include the full DOB next to the name in the first sentence of the article. SchuminWeb (Talk) 13:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Regarding DOB, that's fine. You're also the first I've hit up about a DOB, and so it's never come up before regarding similar reluctance. You do raise a good point, though. I went ahead and put the birth year at the top, and added the article to Category:Date of birth missing. Otherwise, regarding the NPOV tag, it's actually not a lot of stuff that's causing it, and I've been thinking about how to reword those areas. One that I'm particularly trying to reword is the part where it speaks of "wars of aggression". And lastly, I moved the quotes off onto a Wikiquote page. More quotes there = helpful, but we just need to source them. SchuminWeb (Talk) 09:45, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Sources and such

First of all, thank you for your contributions of all the links and such. They will be valuable in filling out the article should it survive AFD.

Also, I invite you to read over WP:AUTO, which is a guideline about how people who have articles about them should conduct themselves regarding those articles. I think a large part of the reason that the article about you was submitted for AFD in the first place is because the perception was that you were a major contributor to an article about you, which is strongly discouraged. In other words, that's a bit of a no-no, and I was deficient in not bringing this to your attention sooner. Basically, in most situations, it is considered proper for you to make contributions and suggestions via the article's talk page (Talk:Carol Moore), and to let others edit the article. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of Jose Rodriguez (Activist)

Haven't been back lately but was very active today and decided to check Jose Rodriguez (activist) and low and behold looks like sometime in last 6 weeks they decided he wasn't important enough to keep. However, they still have the disambiguation with the OTHER Jose Rodriguez. And they still have the shell of a page entitled Jose Rodriguez (activist). I'm not going to fight for it or anything but am just curious as to whether this was an official dropping of the page; if I can easily find an explanation just to send him; and anything else of interest you might have to say. You may have been watching the page and more on top than I was. Have made some big changes to and important page and will continue to do so, so will be paying more attention in the future :-)

Carol Moore 05:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC) carolmooredc

According to the deletion log, Jorge Rodriguez (activist) was deleted after a proposed deletion was allowed to expire. The article was deleted by Srikeit, but I don't know who originally posted the proposed deletion. For that matter, I also don't know what the reason was for the proposed deletion. I have/had the article watchlisted, and I don't even remember the prod nomination going in, and so I should have seen it. I'm considering contesting the prod, which would get the article restored, though it might be subject to an AFD after that. SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I went ahead and listed it on deletion review, and so the article should be restored soon. SchuminWeb (Talk) 07:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Jose Rodriguez restored

The article on Jose Rodriguez has been restored. The prod reason, now listed in the history, states that Rodriguez's notability was questioned. We now need references to satisfy WP:BIO. That's the kicker now. SchuminWeb (Talk) 16:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

After the problems I had with mine almost getting dumped I WAS surprised that it had lasted as long as had. I don't think his most noteable accomplishments are on the web except as noted on his web site. But will throw in a few things and see if that satisfies whomsoever Carol Moore 21:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC) carolmooredc (Talk)

Do you know of any third-party references? That's what the article really needs. SchuminWeb (Talk) 10:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I have seen the original articles and video tapes referred to but they are too old to be on line. Actually he could put the two news videos on line. And even copies of the articles. For now I guess giving them dates would help, and I actually might be able to find a few, but he's away for couple months so can't check his files. ALSO: note that the business about children's books on Carol Moore entry was the OTHER Carol Moore who rates high on google. Will email that person about that. Carol Moore 22:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)carolmooredc (Talk)

Policy on Trashing People in Discussion Sections??

Someone shared obnoxious opinions about me in the discussion section of a page I had edited, based merely on false accusations. Can one claim POV etc and remove such comments from a discussion section? I'm too annoyed to do a lot of research on Wiki policy on it right now myself. Tomorrow. Meanwhile, for any opinions, THANKS! :-(

Carol Moore 02:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

May I take a slight leap of faith and say that the page you are referring to is Talk:DC Anti-War Network? On that page, I've added {{talkheader}} to it, as a reminder that it is a talk page for the article, and not a discussion forum for DAWN. As for the content of the comments there, I don't think there's much you can do except counter it with your own message, which it seems you did. Just please remember - play nicely. SchuminWeb (Talk) 22:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for doing that and hopefully whom so ever will take the hint. And I was on my best behavior cause I have lots of pages I want to fix up -- but so little time to do it!! :-)

Carol Moore 02:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

License tagging for Image:CarlosLatuff4wikipediause.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:CarlosLatuff4wikipediause.JPG. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 02:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Bruce Baechelor

Any chance of your starting an article on Bruce Baechelor? He's one of several missing notable people on LPedia, and if you started it there (and noted a dual licence or similar in case someone other than you edits it) at http://www.lpedia.org/index.php?title=Bruce_Baechelor you wouldn't need to worry about it getting deleted before his notability can be properly asserted (I'm the de facto main Sysop there although I don't have bureaucrat access or permission to change the main page). I also haven't succeeded in finding the chain of Texas LP chairs that goes back to him, let alone all the way to 1972.

You might remember me. I had a beard and a cane (and large bifocals) in Indianapolis in 2002 and spent most of my time with George Phillies and Melinda Pillsbury-Foster.

-- Strangelv 12:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I can put it on my WIKI do list - which is very long. I assume you saw my memorial page? Feel free to do all that using info from HIS page: http://www.carolmoore.net/bruce/baechler.html

Carol Moore 14:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

Thanks .

There is hope for the Ward Churchill article and its extensions. but it will probably have to go through the entire dispute resolution process before it happens. I am hoping that the disruption stops without an admin deciding to protect it yet again. Your suggestion that everyone should take a deep breath was definitely worth a try. As for your edit I assume that the others would have been all over it if they disagreed with it. I hate proof reading . Anyway thanks for your participation thus far. Albion moonlight 10:07, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Your note

Hey Carol, thanks for the note and the vandal fighting! I had a look, I'm not sure if there's a way to tell if it's one person or multiple people, but my guess is that it's either one or just a few, since they haven't made that many edits. If it was like a school IP, they'd have a lot more. Anyway, the way I'd proceed in this case is like with other vandals: give them warnings starting with {{uw-v1}} and proceeding through the levels up to {{uw-v4}} if they keep doing it. After that, you can report them on WP:AIV for blocking, they generally get dealt with pretty quickly. I'm more of a stickler for giving all the templates than most people are, but it's generally seen as good to make sure they've gotten at least a couple warnings recently before being blocked (unless they're doing something really egregious). Anyway, thanks again for the work, definitely let me know if you need any help or anything. Peace, delldot talk 17:57, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Burr and Hamilton

I reverted the statement on the cause of the duel because it was nowhere close to to the complete story. With the reference to Hamilton as the "founder of American conservatism" I assumed the whole edit was vandalism. Tom (North Shoreman) 00:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Israel nukes

Really excellent edits to Nuclear weapons and Israel! I had only scrapped together the little information I could find when I first wrote the article (from Hersh and Cohen), but this makes it incredibly comprehensive. Heck, if someone adds a criticism section it could go FA. Samson Option also finally got the detail it deserved. Thanks, Joshdboz 23:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I've been waiting for the bombs to fall on the article but so far so good! A one word alleged POV was deleted which I could have debated, but not that big a deal. As a 30 year anti-nuke activist it's a big issue for me and I had a lot of sources already and found a bunch more for the article. Also made important additions to POLICY section of nuclear weapons and Israel.
Carol Moore 17:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

Panarchy and pancracy

Hi, I've seen you have edited Panarchy (and that it's on your user page!). It has been proposed that Panocracy, an article currently nominated for deletion, be merged into it. Perhaps you'd like to contribute? --Victor falk 17:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, considering that panocracy has NO references, for all we know this is original research by a couple of writers, something which is not supposed to be done on wikipedia. So unless you can prove that it really is a philosophy known about in wider political circles, I agree it SHOULD be deleted. And I don't think it should be referred to in either article if it's just one or two people's bright idea. When it gets more popularity, sure. I'm also opposed to merging it into panarchy or panarchism for that reason.
Carol Moore 22:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc
Well it appears that pancracy and panocracy and panarchy and pan>infix of your choice<c(h)y are all synonyms, but that panarchy is the preferred term. It seems to me that parts of the content in "panarchy" would fit into "panarchy"... --Victor falk 22:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
If you know something about this topic, please include a comment or 'vote' on the deletion proposal page. Thanks, Anarchia 22:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
already done (twice, even)--Victor falk 23:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Edit to Separatist feminism

Your choice was probably best; good edit summary, too. The original text described all such works as utopian, which is a silly way to describe something like Suzy McKee Charnas' Holdfast Chronicles! (Have you met her? Great woman; always a hoot to see at WisCon!) I was just trying to make the article more accurate. --Orange Mike 15:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't see the edit before yours but was just reacting to general use of word. Second time I've used that "all" argument to delete something POV. It works :-) Love to watch scifi but don't read it much - or anything much off line. But definitely into separatism of all varieties. Http://secession.net is my site. Carol Moore 18:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

She writes science fiction, not scifi. --Orange Mike 18:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Dang the scifi channel for ruining the lingo! Carol Moore 18:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc
Remember, those are people who think wrestling and "psychics" are 'sci-fi'! The channel had some small promise at first, but is nowadays mostly an embarassment. --Orange Mike 19:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Decentralism

I have not forgotten about the McClaughry article, trust me. I may just throw together something, as a stub, as a placeholder for now. Yet another project to be expanded and improved later. I wondered if you were the "same" Carol Moore, 'cause the possibility of two people with the same interests and the same name seemed remote. I read your newsletter---possibly picked up copies at the Green Congress in Eugene, Oregon in '89, or may have been shown copies by David Haenke (let's see if he has an article) at one of the bioregional congresses. My abiding passion, even after all these years, is still for the Ralph Borsodi/Dorothy Day/Paul Goodman vision, and I will always be a decentralist. It is good to know you. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 00:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I remember meeting David once I think in S.F. at some such conference. oticed he ran for Gov of NY(?) as Green recently. Yes, it seems activists took decentralism a lot more seriously 20-25 years ago! Then there were those damn Clinton go-go years! And then came the black bloc anarchists and all they want to do is smash stuff. But Bush has helped bring more of us back to fundamentals!
Carol Moore 02:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

Male infanticide

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article Male infanticide, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{db-author}}. Mdbrownmsw 17:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

POV Conflict on Definition of Violence

Saw on Wikipedia:Editor_assistance you help with Wikipedia:Five Pillars and conflict resolution. Anyway, I like your approach and links!!

As you can see in entries #11 and #12 in Talk:Violence this person "Talonx" (who is not registered and frequently forgets to sign talk posts) wants what I believe to be a narrow POV definition of violence which makes smashing and burning property and accidentally harming people NOT violence.

I've been a little accusatory because as a peace activist I've had to put up with these excuses for violence from black bloc types since year 2000. (His reference to Emma Goldman puts him in that category; I'm an anarchist pacifist myself). Anyway, if I re-write the definition to reflect a wider range of views, I'm sure he'll revert the entry AGAIN to his narrower view, and I don't want to get in a revert war. Note that old Talk pages show he has done this before in the past and been reverted by others. So I think he's here to stay trying to make that POV definition of violence the WIKI definition.

No one else on that talk page is opining right now, though Friday I did invite people from the more active Terrorism page to do so since that page links to violence a lot. We'll see if there's any response. Meanwhile, advice on what to do welcome. Also, make it clear what page I might respond on -- I guess the one you reply to me on? Carol Moore 03:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

I made several (hopefully helpful) comments there. If you have any further thoughts or questions, feeel free to ask. For now, I'll be keeping your talk page, and that talk page on my watchlist. Hope you're having a great day : ) - jc37 12:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

How to Know When Page Removal/Redirection is Vandalism?

Carol, I think Wikipedia talk:Vandalism is not a good place to post your message, because it states up front that "This is not the page for reporting vandalism", and instead it advises to: "* Report any other incidents at the incidents noticeboard". You may want to move your message to the incidents noticeboard, because - I think - nobody will respond to it at Wikipedia talk:Vandalism, since it seems to be misplaced. Deleting it from Wikipedia talk:Vandalism will also be beneficiary to WP:VANDALISM, since its talk page is dedicated only to the vandalism's "theory", and not to its application (instances). Sincerely, Eugene -70.18.5.219 03:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Will do as you recommend. I posted it there more because I was interested in possible future incidents. But I guess your advice would apply to those too, in situations where it does not seem that process was followed.

Carol MooreUser:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

Carol, I understood it; my proposal over there - preceding yours - was posted for the same reason. But, it seems that Wikipedia talk:Vandalism collects rather proposal of solutions to problems (than problem notices themselves), and only those particularly pertaining to the "theory" of vandalism. Sneaky vandals have bothered me too, in particular those, who seep through the system unpunished damaging others' (including mine) contributions by pretending acting in good-faith. So, I posted the proposal over there to strengthen the "vandalism" definition (in part pertaining to "deliberate" and "good-faith effort") allowing to hunt them down or just as a deterrent with a benefit to everyone. If you can think about a particular solution to the problem you encountered, it will be beneficiary to post it too. -Eugene70.18.5.219 18:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I am facing the problem today with someone actually deleting all the evidence I provide of a controversial point opposed by citizens of a foreign nation and then putting in [citation needed]. Also claimed POV.

Someone else who may or may not have the same bias then chimed in with original research and Synthesis. Luckily, most of points I make were made by a Pulitzer Prize winning reporter in a best selling book so I just have to go back and make my case better. At least in my case I know what is going on, got very specific statements of why changes made and it's not just vandals having fun and giving no credible reasons. However, the latter usually is easier to revert.

I don't know if stricter rules are necessary. But I do know it's necessary to know the wiki lingo to defend your points - and be willing to strengthen you edits if there are reasonable sounding objections made.

The one thing I would like to see is an archive of articles deleted kept for a few weeks so we can find out who did what and why. When they just disappear for no reason or one missed the reason it happened so fast, it's a problem. I keep complete wiki html copies of articles I've made significant changes to and now see that is very useful if want to contest a mysterious deletion like that one. Carol Moore 20:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

Pacifism

Hi there; I hope I wasn't too blunt about the changes I suggested for the pacifism page. Having seen your name a few times on the talk page, I'm glad to see that you're still an active editor of the page. I hope that we will be able to work together to make it a featureable article. (I'm kind of surprised it was nominated already.) I don't study ethics in particular, but I'm trying to devote some of my free time to familiarising myself with relevant literature so I can improve this article substantially. I may e-mail Andrew Fiala (with whom I have corresponded on occasion -- he is the author of the Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy's wonderful article on pacifism) and ask for suggestions on where to start. I hope that you realise that I am aware of how much work is involved in the editing process (and how much people have already put into that article), and that the 'spectrum' and the very first bit of the lead-in was the least objectionable! ρ∈∧⊂∈ ∴ Heelan Coo (Talk) 23:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you find about about nominations, since don't see note on top of page. I'll keep my eye on what's going on and throw in my two cents and edits if necessary.

Carol Moore 22:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

Re: Samson Option

Thanks for your request for me to help out with conflicts on Samson Option. I'm in the process of going over the pages to see if there's any suggestions I can make. However, I must tell you I'm unhappy with your use of off-wiki WP:CANVASSing to garner support for your position. This isn't a judgment of your position but the canvassing itself. I suggest you refrain from doing this. It's easy to feel overwhelmed on Wikipedia and I know sometimes people can bully or be bullied, particularly in minority positions. The proper course is to ask for neutral parties on Wikipedia to come help, not to solicit off-wiki support for a position. This kind of solicitation encourages people who have absolutely no familiarity with WP policy or guidelines to participate. The result is generally off-point discussion and a higher chance for the discussion to fall into attacks and bad faith accusations.

Anyway, hopefully I'll have more to say after reading the talk page and getting a sense of the positions there. Cheers, Pigmanwhat?/trail 19:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. I'm not sure if I should reply here. Canvassing one of many policies I wasn't aware of. I didn't actually encourage people to edit, for the reasons you mention, just expressing frustrating temporarily. I'm actually re-writing the page as a more neutral presentation of facts than before, so I have learned something from the process. But Ill take it down if it's a problem. All the same material in slightly different form will go up when I'm done.
Otherwise, I hope my other efforts to seek advice or comment were ok. I know I asked one very experienced editor who had had a similar problem with a similar editor for tips on what to do - and maybe comment. And then I did mention it to a couple editors on nuclear weapons and Israel who had said they wanted to keep it as a separate article so they could participate in debate.
Carol Moore 23:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc
Replying here is fine. I prefer having conversational continuity on a single page if possible. Technically, you didn't really canvass as you said, merely posted a notice. However, the prominent placement on the page, the link to the article and the tone all invite readers to participate. And if you read the WP:CANVASS article, you'll note that asking for help or neutrally expressing your concerns about an article to a limited group of Wikipedians is fine. It's just the specific rallying of bodies and opinions to one side that's discouraged.
I've been a bit busy so I'm still going through the info, particularly the talk pages to understand the issues involved. It's rather lengthy but I'm getting a sense of it. Cheers, Pigmanwhat?/trail 02:17, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

No Problem. So used to "lobbying" living in DC, must be reminded when NOT to do it :-)

I just took out all mention of WIKI and all wiki links and left it a temporary mystery article until I get my final material together in a week or so. Only the hardest core of WIKIpedians might guess where it's from. On a related note, I've just been working on another project and couldn't believe all these for-profit sites that just copy wikipedia whole sale, put a bunch of ads on it, and make money!!

As for all that material, I don't mind if 1/2 gets deleted in a proper wiki process, as long as all editors feel free to comment and one person doesn't seem to be a big bully. Carol Moore 03:32, 17 November 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

Re: Please Read Samson Option Talk

To undo my edit, you simply go to history, find the edit of mine which you wish to undo, and click (undo). My apologies that I didn't consult the talk page before adding contributing- I first created the Samson Option article about two years ago (it was only a line or two long before that), and that was the info which I had researched and entered at the time. I left it alone, and only came back to it today, much changed and, I was dissapointed to see, very short and lacking in any information on what exactly the Samson Option is- that is, a DOCTRINE, more so then a simple nuclear reality. Upon finding the article with so little information in it today, I simply re-added what I had originally written, since it was still valid, and absolutely relevant to the subject. I did not delete anything you or anybody else wrote. I will now go and consult the talk page, and anything which is not specifically in dispute there, I will simply re-add. I would appreciate it if you would then take up your concerns on the talk page, before simply deleting anything I write- I am not a vandal, and I try to play by the rules, but articles in need of expansion, such as the Samson Option one, need to not be held in such tight check against anybody who wants to expand them. If I make reasonable contributions, and site my souces (which I did), then you have no call to delete them- certainly not in an article as short as this. Remember, just because something does not necessarily agree with your opinion on the subject, does not mean that it does not belong in the article. Thank you. Rudy Breteler 21:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


Ok, I read the entire talk article and didn't find any significant disagreements with the "doctrine" section, but found several statements of support for it, from various users. I will re-add. Also, the short fact ("le'olam lo shuv (never again)" having been inscripted on the first Israeli nuclear bomb) which I sited (twice!) was not disputed on the talk page at all. I think it's relevent. The page is short enough that the needs of expansion are on my side. I can defend my position on the talk page, if you attack it there. Please, do not simply delete it if I post that again. Thanks, Rudy Breteler 22:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


On a side note, I appreciate your extensive contributions to the article, and the research which you are obviously putting into it. It was people like you who I was hoping would come and take over the article after I wrote it in the first place. Obviously, we come from different ends of the political spectrum here- I should state openly that I'm Jewish, Zionist, very pro-Israel. Correct me if I'm wrong, but my impression of you is of a somewhat leftist activist. Thats OK with me, it is healthy interaction between different types of people which makes Wikipedia a stronger community. Rudy Breteler 22:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I responded three times and each time my response got eaten by editing conflict. This time I'm saving it!
Thanks for your honesty. I'm actually a libertarian decentralist anti-nuker. See barebones Carol Moore. I don't have a problem with honest disagreement, just dishonest hidden agendas!
First off, though, you should question the claims of "hidden agendas" on the part of Wikipedia as fervently as you question the Wikipedia's claims. What you see as "hidden agenda" may not be seen as that by another nor may it even exist at all, and even if it does, you should be able to point to something that really suggests it is so. It is good to expose one's own claims to the same level of criticism with which one levies against others' claims. mike4ty4 (talk) 04:06, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Anyway, the bottom line is that Israeli Doctrine is PURELY Speculative because they have never announced one, only hinted at it. Some feel it is merely self defense, others feel it is a policy of aggression to intimidate others with threats of wide retaliation. I certainly included lots of quotes illustrating that point from Israeli leaders, critics and supporters. I only wanted to get BOTH opinions in. If agree with those who believe ONLY the first interpretation belongs, then it seems you are joining the POV club. This kind of ganging up and using wikilawyering to delete information harmful to any particular cause is really a problem hurting WIKIPEDIA's credibility and a lot of people are getting fed up with it.
Carol Moore 22:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc
YELLING (like that) at people though will not help any. Also, if you want a good resolution, you have to be willing to admit your own interpretations may have been in error too, and/or may not be neutral (this does not mean you cannot still have them or that they are bad, it means they are not suitable for Wikipedia.) I'm not familiar with this "Israeli Doctrine" and the stuff surrounding it, so I could not offer any help in that regard, but I am just saying how you may be able to get a real solution here that will actually work. Not to suggest the edits you have made are biased (I cannot judge it fairly as I am not familiar with the subject matter), but you need to be open to that possibility, and to remember that writing anything that even comes close to neutrality on yourself and things you are closely associated with requires a great deal of humility, and even to simply work in the direction of that, even with the assistance of others. Developing this humility may be difficult, but humility is a good thing to have anyways, so there are other reasons for developing it that have nothing to do with writing a bunch of prose on Wikipedia. mike4ty4 (talk) 04:06, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
The idea that there there has never been any public disclosure whatsoever of Israeli nuclear policy is really a myth. True, there have been no official statements by the government, but several former MKs, PMs, and retired high ranking military officials have talked quite openly about many aspects of Israel's nuclear policy (some most likely with instructions from the government to do so, since that is a way for them to communicate their policy without actually themselves admitting that they have one). My list is drawn from a compliation of interviews and articles from such people. I will make an effort to dig these up and show them to you/place them in the article, but right now is finals week and I'm swamped. Anyway, some of them may be in Hebrew- I'll see what I can do. Rudy Breteler 17:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I know there has been lots of unofficial stuff said and I tried to get some in but it was deleted. Now maybe I might concentrate on stuff that looks negative and you might on stuff that looks defensive, but if we have a dialogue we can come up with a balanced article. The problem is people who just want to delete anything they don't like, even NEUTRAL stuff. Esp. people who want to delete the article all together. But take your time and maybe the naysayers will lose interest and rational minds can consense on something that tells the whole story, from all relevant viewpoints, at some point. ;-)
Carol Moore 23:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

Mike4yt4's comments are a bit late. And he admits he is not familiar with the topic. Also I don't know if he's read the actual Samson Option talk page or just somehow chanced upon this page. If you read my last comment there the bottom line is that because the Israeli govt does NOT tell us what their nuclear strategy is, it is open to interpretation. And there are a number of interpretations. The problem was that one person in particular, with a couple supporters, only wanted certain interpretations that made Israel look good, not statements by Israeli leaders or supporters that made Israel look bullying.

Anyway, I was pretty annoyed at first, but had to learn how to use wiki policies to deal with issues. But I'm still not as good a wiki lawyer as this other person. Carol Moore 20:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[User:Carolmooredc]] User talk:Carolmooredc

RE:Where is pacifism archives?

Sorry, my mistake. I forgot to link to the page. I just added {{archivebox|auto=yes}} to the talk page, which links to every archive created from now on. - • The Giant Puffin • 23:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Your note

Hi Carol. Nice user page, and between that and info in the article on you, it's great to have this chance encounter, sharing many approximate ideas myself.

About the situation, I can't really offer anything in the way of hard and fast advice right now. My own attempts to engage him in substantive discussion about this pattern, have thus far been failures and messages on his talk have also been deleted as trolling. But if you do have a problem with the same user in the future, do let me know. On my part, I'll do the same and perhaps we can open a joint WP:RfC. Tiamut 17:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, ha! Now I know what RfC means. I did it once but the meaning hadn't sunk in. Didn't realize that it could be use with disruptive users. But good to know for future incidents -- and so I can keep my own thoughts of naughty behavior to myself and thus under control! :-)
Carol Moore 19:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

Debt-based monetary system

By the way, thank you for your considered comment on this page. I can live with the page remaining IF it can be "unmessified". As you can see, my opinion is that it has turned into entirely original research and/or restatement of an author who is not particularly notable. I believe there are, potentially, sources that could be used to make this article useful, but it's not there. At any rate, your attempt to contribute and assist is most appreciated.--Gregalton (talk) 21:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I just looked at the first article written http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Debt-based_monetary_system&oldid=53824906 It is what you need to do to understand the concept without hours of studying current article! Doing so does make me realize that "debt based monetary system" is NOT a compliment! But if the phrase is used by a few authors and has some sort of support among activists, I don't have a problem with it being there. But as a short article reflecting the importance of the subject, not the absurd piece it is now.
Just read through K's comments and can see there is at least one fanatical supporter. Not the first article I've seen making all sorts of claims about what most libertarians think with no references!
What I should do is try to get some of these free market libertarians who at least support the possibility of some sort of workable credit money (or "debt money") system to say so in a paper, give it a definitive name, and that would solve the problem theoretically for those think pure credit money systems CAN work if they are carefully controlled by users/consumers and not by profiteers and frauds.
Carol Moore 22:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)CarolMooreDC talk
There are some sources at full reserve banking and a search for free banking will turn something up. There is a nice cite criticising the full reserve banking position (IMHO) at that article in a clear monetary sense. Off line for several days, have fun.--Gregalton (talk) 22:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Thomas H. Greco, Jr

Hi! I'll venture a guess and say that it's probably not possible to control the url address because it is automatically created by Wikipedia. A few other "Jr" articles that have that url without the 20% gibberish seem to have been created years ago which might indicate that it is something controlled by the system. Newer ones have that other lettering (which is what I'm guessing is spacing, etc). Since I'm not really sure, try posting at the technical section of the Village Pump. Someone there might know if it's possible to control the url created. Good luck! Pinkadelica (talk) 05:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)