This is an archive of past discussions with User:Carolmooredc, for the period 2010. 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.
Sandstein/Nableezy
Hi CarolMooreDC. I would like to work on two things regarding what has happened to Nableezy. One is to file an appeal of Sandstein's decision which I will begin in my user space shortly. The second, concurrent to this, would be opening a User RfC on Sandstein regading his abuse of his admin powers. I have asked Gatoclass for some advice on how to proceed. I hope he responds soon. When I have drafts up in my user space, I will be contacting you for feedback. I hope you will co-sign both the appeal and the User RfC. Also, check out Nableezy's talk page to see what has happened most recently and why these steps are absolutely necessary. Thanks. Tiamuttalk19:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
From just a quick look I'd say that the original topic ban might not be undue IF such bans were evenly applied, [say] as in a recent situation of a defacto single purpose account person getting away with all sorts of nonsense [on one article he was only blocked from once for 3rr/editwarring though he did it constantly]. But even a quick reading does make the recent Sandstein behavior questionable. The one dealing I had with him he did seemed OK. Anyway, will look at your material when finished and see if my commenting will be of use. I'm pretty fed up with the project right now myself, except for a little work here and there. CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:19, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Since it's easy to lose one temper on these topics and say untoward things (as I've done myself a few times in the past, earning me warnings of such bans), I favor short bans (a few days to a week) just to wake people up. Longer for those who continue to transgress. Sandstein thing still a bit confusing after reading. And it starts by saying 4 2 month topic ban -- 42 months??? CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:57, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
JIDF
Hi, this page is currently semi-protected for a month. I'm trying to take advantage of this to fix some long standing problems. I'm going through section by section making proposed changes. Feel free to comment or provide suggestions of your own.--Peter cohen (talk) 17:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Street fighting. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Street fighting. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
greetings
Just thought I'd introduce myself, so that the tone of my last comment on Talk:Gilad Atzon wouldn't be mistaken as personal, or belligerent. By the way, I love your photo on your user page. ;-) Nice work.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 17:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Category for deletion: Your opinion needed
There is a category which is being discussed for deletion which I see great use in. It is: Category:Musicians who have served in the military. I wonder if you would check it out, and offer your opinion, either way, "Keep" or "Delete", here. (As I don't know you very well, I hope you will let me know whether you find such a request inappropriate.)--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 01:06, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
New editors' lack of understanding of Wikipedia processes has resulted in thousands of BLPs being created over the last few years that do not meet BLP requirements. We are currently seeking constructive proposals on how to help newcomers better understand what is expected, and how to improve some 48,000 articles about living people as created by those 17,500 editors, through our proper cleanup, expansion, and sourcing.
I offer a sincere apology if you feel I stepped on your toes. My only intention was to stop an edit war and encourage a discussion that had already begun on the article's Talk page. — Malik ShabazzTalk/Stalk20:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't know if you read replies on others web pages, but considering your threats to have me banned for life over the Atzmon article, which I thought excessive, I do feel you have been a bit heavy handed in the past. (See this comment of mine if you missed it.) So I thought it needed to be mentioned there. I am sure there are occasional times when issues should not be brought there, but that probably needs to be discussed at the project talk page. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:45, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
I understand. I'm trying to be less heavy-handed, and I regret my past comments about you. I hope we can put that behind us and work together constructively in the future, because I think we have the same objectives in mind.
I am writing you this message because you have participated in the RfC regarding the name of the Climatic Research Unit hacking incident article. As the previous discussion didn't actually propose a name, it was unfocused and didn't result in any measurable consensus. I have opened a new discussion on the same page, between the existing name and the proposed name Climatic Research Unit documents controversy. I have asked that no alternate names are proposed at this time. Please make your opinion known here. Thanks, Oren0 (talk) 05:49, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
I read the talk page so not necessary to waste storage space on these messages which means more energy use on a server which leads to global warming, or cooling, or pollution, or something. :-) Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:38, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
I've been trying to avoid the headache of the policy pages, so haven't been paying much attention lately, but I did notice your comment earlier. I fully agree. I think policy should be as easy to understand as possible, and tied together more. For accuracy, if I were to try to make it clearer, I would say:
By fact we mean attributes that can be verified and double checked.
By value or opinion, on the other hand, we mean principles, ideas, beliefs or conclusions, which may be subject to dispute.’’
I think that not only complies with the spirit of the policies, but also with the sourced definitions. Personally, I'd sum all of the policies up in one "parent article," to clarify how they all interconnect, but that's just my opinion. Anyway, thanks. Zaereth (talk) 22:17, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Double checked is redundant and probably would be reverted - and reverting it might be an excuse to mess it up. So I'm inclined to leave it alone and be glad it makes sense now! :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:40, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
You're probably right, which is one reason I decided to bring it up here instead of there. Baby steps, I guess. I'm glad it finally makes sense too. Thanks again, and I hope to see you around Wikiland. Zaereth (talk) 16:15, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Libertarianism article
Defining the details and history of Libertarianism is fine and dandy, but if people don't understand the train of thought that goes on inside libertarians, then ignorance will surely continue to cloud their minds. That is why I advocate with strong conviction the addition of quotes, poetry, motto's, slogans, and whole passages that expound upon the very logic and emotion of what Libertarianism is. --174.23.200.192 (talk) 10:24, 10 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.23.200.192 (talk) 10:23, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Sorry. Somehow got confused. Removed the note. Also, FYI, I just leave a note if an editor edits article again, ignoring talk. Since the actual person in question didn't edit again, just going to revert, given talk. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:32, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Sami Al-Arian
I don't know if you've checked in on this article lately, but it's now highly slanted against Arian. This is due largely to the editor Epeefleche. I thought about making edits to it, but I've been involved in some nasty edit wars recently and don't feel like getting into another long drawn out fight at this moment. I just wanted to bring it to your attention. annoynmous04:30, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I don't feel like a fight either - except I'm the fighting Irish so I probably won't be able to control myself... :-) Also will alert some folks if you haven't on a couple relevant pages. CarolMooreDC (talk) 12:23, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry to bother you again because I know you said you didn't feel like getting involved, but the situation is worse than I thought. It's not just this article, but any article that deals with Al Arian or with Islamic organizations like CAIR or the Islamic Society of North America. Biased sources are used throughout to make muslims looks as bad as possible. It seems that ever sense the Nidal hassan shooting Epeefleche has been trying to make muslims look bad on as many articles as he can. I made some edits to the article on Steve Emerson, but I don't have the strength to engage in an edit war across several articles.
I left a message on the Israel Palestine Collaboration/Current Article Issues page about both the Al-Arian and Emerson articles, but I'm not sure that was the right place to post. You mentioned before about alerting several people to this issue. I know you may not want get involved personally at this point, but I would appreciate it if you could alert anybody you feel may share the same concerns as you and I. There are literally dozens of articles dealing with Muslim organizations and issues that are now heavily biased. annoynmous00:16, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Planning Discussions Now Underway Regarding DC Meetup #10
You are receiving this message either because you received a similar one before and didn't object, or you requested to receive a similar one in the future. If you don't wish to receive this message again, then please let me know either on my talk page or here.
Hi there. There is currently a discussion occurring about whether Murray Rothbard's description of Lao Tzu as a libertarian should be included in the Laozi lead, article body, or both. I think your input would be valuable, as you're able to overcome your personal biases in favor of appropriate weight and neutrality. Go here to join the discussion. Thanks! Torchiest (talk | contribs) 12:45, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Re: Gilad Atzmon
Hi. I was wondering if you could give me a very brief bullet list of essential things missing or needing removal. I say this because if looks to me as if the politics/Allegations of antisemitism section is already too large and could use some trimming. Viriditas (talk) 04:22, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
A version that Drsmoo and I actually did put together in draft form after the article was locked; it's really too long on allegations but does illustrate balancing accusations and responses.
My preferred version. The problem is for every allegation against Atzmon there is a specific response from Atzmon or someone else, or there is the issue of things obviously taken out of context. NPOV demands including such info. So it is just easier and less complicated (and less liable to POV issues) to link to accusations.
Article does have to comply with NPOV and Wikipedia:BLP#Criticism_and_praise :Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all.CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:19, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, Carol. I'm reviewing those links now. Could you do me a favor? Please try to refrain from commenting on or about Drsmoo (or any other editor). That way, we'll only have to deal with content problems. Thanks! Viriditas (talk) 04:01, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi Carol,
I decided not to invest any more time in that discussion with Darkstar, but it's of no consequence. You know how the game works. Whoever's willing to put in the time at Google Scholar and find reliable sources to back up the content they want to see in the article wins. I find talk page discussions, especially extended talk page discussions, to be of little use in most cases, unless one just wants to debate. Tisanetalk/stalk21:57, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. While a little bit of back and forth can be useful, when it's that apparent they don't intend to stop, the best way to shut them down is to keep telling them about WP:Soapbox, encourage them to discuss WP:RS and otherwise ignore them. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:53, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
This SPI[1] was closed because Checkuser found the accounts to be unrelated. But the behavioral evidence appears to be strong. I wonder if you have any opinions on this. (You may reply here or on my talk page.) TFD (talk) 18:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
I definitely get the impression he's been around for a while, probably under another guise and your case is persuasive. But where he does make accurate points about sourcing, we'll just have to do the work and source it. Oh, well. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:31, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
I do find him to be annoying, and he does basically violate WP guidelines on civility, edit warring, etc., but not in an egregious enough way that I could really do anything about it without seeming like a jerk. (I'm tempted to invoke WP:GIANTDICK here.) I wouldn't be at all surprised either if he is someone who got blocked under a different name and came back, but that's common practice on Wikipedia, and not something I really hold against people; it's present behavior, not past behavior, that matters the most, in my view. In conclusion, while his presence here makes my encyclopedia-building experience slightly less enjoyable, the bottom line is that he doesn't really cause much harm and therefore I'm just going to ignore him rather than be provoked into doing something I'll regret. Tisanetalk/stalk18:16, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello Ms Carol I hope your doing good and all is well
Just checking in with you.. I hope your doing well and all is good. hey I was still looking to correspond with you off line and reason and logic to the idea of freedom. I simply adore your insights.LoveMonkey (talk) 04:06, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
"LOve is the creation of consciousness in another." But I stole that from someone else in some book with a mirror on the cover. CarolMooreDC (talk) 12:04, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Can't remember what you are talking about, if I ever knew. And libertarianism comes from different epistemologies, some being more objectivist, some more subjectivist, some based on authority, some based on intuition, some based on reason, some based on science, some melding most of the above. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:30, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Your question at WT:IPCOLL
I replied there. As for the tool, it's http://toolserver.org/~mzmcbride/watcher/. (I would like to keep the tools discussion out of the award section, which is already bigger than some people's attention span.) — Sebastian03:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)(Please reply on this page. I'll be watching it for a while.)
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.
When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.
Thanks for work on Libertarianism. Especially putting back a first paragraph similar to longstanding lead. I just want the article to reflect all views, having been working on it more than two years and seeing it pulled back and forth between "left" and "right" over and over again. Feel free to comment on the talk page.
Thanks for the encouragement. I don't have an ideological axe to grind but I think an article reflecting all views has much to recommend it, and at least there shouldn't be change to a narrower article without a full discussion and consensus. I think the problem is that contributors with an interest in and knowledge of "left" libertarianism seem to have gone AWOL a while ago. Unfortunately I don't have a lot of time to invest in the article, but I try to keep an eye on it.
Is there someway to put some sort of box on top of talk page saying that article should reflect both views?
Good idea. Would need to think about the appropriate wording. Go ahead if you can think of one.
Iota (talk) 12:47, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
The lefties used to come around and at least rant on talk, even if they didn't do the work of putting in WP:RS info too often. But even though I've left messages on relevant talk pages, not much action. I'll just have to put in interpretations from sources I find reliable until they decide to put in their own.
Hello, Carolmooredc/Archive V! We are looking for editors to join the Smithsonian Institution collaboration, an outreach effort which aims to support collaboration such as Wiki-Academies, article writing, and other activities to engage the Smithsonian Institution in Wikipedia. We thought you might be interested, and hope that you will join us. Thanks!!!
Greetings, I see that you have chosen to conspicuously identify as a "Nontheistic Wikipedian" Me too! Currently there is a proposal to delete the article Nontheism or merge and redirect it to Atheism. Greg Bard (talk) 22:24, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia Campus Ambassador
Hi there, my name is Annie Lin; I am the Campus Team Coordinator for the Wikimedia Foundation. I am emailing you because Wikimedia is launching a new project (the "Public Policy Initiative") for the 2010-2011 academic year and is currently looking for dedicated Wikipedians near the George Washington University and Georgetown University areas to serve as the project's Campus Ambassadors, and I thought you might be interested.
More details about the Wikipedia Campus Ambassador role can be found at http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Campus_Ambassador. Here is also a little bit more information; in a nutshell: The Campus Ambassadors are crucial components of the Wikipedia Public Policy Initiative. Volunteers in this role will mainly be in charge of providing face-to-face training and support for professors and students on Wikipedia-related skills, such as how to create new articles, how to add images, how the talk pages work, etc. Campus Ambassadors will also help recruit other people on campus to contribute to Wikipedia articles, for example by setting up Wikipedia-related student groups and by organizing "Welcome to Wikipedia" social events. In general they will become known as Wikipedia experts on the university campus (in your case, on the GWU or Georgetown University campus). The estimated time commitment for this role is 3-5 hours a week, possibly slightly more at the very beginning and very end of the semester. The Wikimedia Foundation will hold a mandatory three-day training for all Campus Ambassadors in August, and will continue to stay in contact with and offer full support for the Campus Ambassadors throughout the academic semester.
Please let me know if this is something that sounds interesting to you, so we can talk about next steps in the application process. Feel free to respond on my talk page or email me (alin@wikimedia.org). Thanks, and I look forward to hearing back from you!
Thanks for invite. At 62 I'm more interested in getting retired people to do something useful and hope to do outreach to those groups soon. CarolMooreDC (talk) 12:26, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Just a reminder: you have not yet voted on the straw poll. If you don't, your voice will not be heard on this issue, which would be sad. . --Ludwigs206:26, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Quoting carol else where: Libertarianism means many things to many people and any one faction trying to enforce their view, especially with little discussion of WP:RS, really is working against wikipedia policies. CarolMooreDC (talk) 12:32, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree that there are many people/factions trying to enforce their view. Does there really need to be one page that tries to include each view? If so, then let's copy all the content over to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism_overview and then dedicate the Libertarianism page to American Libertarianism. --97.93.109.174 (talk) 20:07, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, because everyone left out will either reinsert or raise hell. Plus WP:RS exist for both. Plus there is such a range, where does one draw the line? I'm working on it today with new WP:RS, since few bother to even look for them.. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:11, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Personally, I think we should utilize the Libertarianism (disambiguation) page to make sure nobody gets left out and then create a main page for each form. Each form pretty much already has its own main page anyways. You're going to drive yourself (and everybody else) nuts trying to work on one central page that gives equal wait to each view. If that's what floats your boat then your overview page should be moved to a new page Libertarianism overview. Once everything has been copied over to the Libertarianism overview page then we can dedicate the Libertarianism page to American Libertarianism...as defined by the Libertarian Party. --97.93.109.174 (talk) 20:48, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
It wouldn't get a speedy deletion because the current article is a mishmash of two separate and distinct articles...an article on the world view of Libertarianism and an article on American Libertarianism. Trying to combine the two into one has resulted in confusion and conflict. The current article is mainly about American Libertarianism so we just need to extricate the world view perspective and give it it's own page. You can call the new page either Libertarianism overview or Libertarianism world view. --97.93.109.174 (talk) 22:34, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
The article is pure synthesis, which I should have noted but others had. Some capitalists may urge governments to kill. But usually it's elites who are anti-market and pro-mercantilism and monopoly. CarolMooreDC (talk) 11:54, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
It's no more synthesis than the Communist article - maybe less, because there's clearly a Marxist thesis on how capitalism leads to mass killing, whereas I don't see a parallel for communism (as opposed to Stalinism). That thesis is made eg by Davis in relation to a number of cases, also Firad in relation to Indonesia, among others. It's certainly no more synthy to put those together than the Communist one is. However I've argued that both articles are essentially List format and should not be, and that this can only be fixed by merging both to mass killing. I'm sorry, but from previous engagements with you I was under the impression you would engage more with the arguments made for a Merge. Rd232talk16:22, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
You don't need a theory when you have raw facts: Communist govt regimes killing millions, many in mass killings. And all the theory in the world doesn't excuse blaming extremely different economic systems for the crimes of specific government regimes. (Especially if none of those that might be WP:RS accuse "capitalism" of "mass killings.") Even the Bhopal disaster was in a facility owned in part by "public sector financial institutions." And you can bet there was some sort of govt connivance in assuring Union Carbide their liability for any accidents would be limited, as it was in the final settlement. CarolMooreDC (talk) 11:34, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Libertarianism vs Anarchism
So you're a Libertarian! Surprise surprise! It's really kind of amazing how we can both think of ourselves as Libertarians yet have such conflicting views on the subject. Here's my guess as to why our views are so divergent. From my perspective...Libertarianism is based on the Harm Principle while for you it's entirely based on individual freedoms. Is that correct? Removing the Harm Principle from the equation I can see how it might be easy for you to connect Libertarianism and Anarchism.
In our current society...would you say most men do not rape women because A. they lack the inclination or B. they have strong moral principles or C. they fear going to prison (where they themselves would be raped)? History is riddled with enough examples where we can easily rule out the first possibility. The second possibility is a little trickier. From the Christian perspective...Jesus is willing to forgive any sins as long as you repent. Personally I would rule that one out as well.
The third possibility seems the strongest. Nobody wants to have all their freedoms taken away. Yet, even with that powerful disincentive...rape still frequently occurs in our society. Taking the United States for example, according to Rape statistics...in 2005 there were 191,670 victims of rape or sexual assault. In my Libertarian society...there would still be police, court systems and prisons...so the statistics wouldn't be that different. What about in your Libertarian society? --97.93.109.174 (talk) 20:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't hear too many libs talk about harm principle, but the article does need to explicitly mention "non-initiation of force." I'm more a Rothbard libertarian who became a decentralist libertarian since I don't care if people live in anarchist or minarchist communities as long as there's no central govt and communities don't aggress on each other and work out their differences peaceably. Which is easier if people embrace any kind of anti-harm or non-initiation of force principle - i.e., the Golden Rule. As for rape, you should worry more about it happening to men in prisons. (My way of saying, confusing WP:Soapbox.) CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Libertarians that do not talk about the harm principle are Anarchists. The harm principle is basically...the freedom to swing your fist ends where somebody else's nose begins. In your Libertarian society...what happens when one community is aggressive towards another community? How does your Libertarianism differ from Tribalism? Can you think of any tribal societies throughout history that were not either the aggressors or the victims of aggression? --97.93.109.174 (talk) 21:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
You obviously aren't that familiar with libertarianism. Have you read the article, which has some insights. Or any of the many articles ref'd or in bibliography. I don't have time to explain it or engage in WP:Soapbox. CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:28, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Obviously, I'm not familiar with your form of Libertarianism...and for the most part I really wouldn't care. However, you are the editor in charge of the Libertarianism page...so in order to figure out why the Libertarianism page is such a mess I needed to understand your perspective. It turns out that you think that Tribalism and Libertarianism are exactly the same thing. Or, you are incapable of describing the difference between the two. In either case...the mystery has been solved. --97.93.109.174 (talk) 23:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
How was my observation any different than you observing that I'm not familiar with Libertarianism? But, since you brought it up...say I did personally attack you on here. Please describe what would happen if Wikipedia was a society based on A. Libertarianism B. Anarchism or C. Tribalism. --97.93.109.174 (talk) 23:47, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
thanks for your patience
I am surprised by the patience you've shown on the 'libertarianism' page, I can't even begin to emulate it! How do you talk to people who wouldn't do their 'homework'? I would have said, "to hell with you", and left the discussion long ago. So I thank you for, in effect, fighting for me too. Niku N6n (talk) 04:49, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Ok, so I misinterpreted 3RR as I wrote on the talk page. I've rectified the issue.
"Considering all the times I've seen people war other people after only 3 edits a day, I was surprised to see that it turns out you are right. Wikipedia:3rr#The_three-revert_rule: A "revert" in the context of this rule means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, However, most edits revert something, which is probably why people usually stop after 3 a day, just in case."
Anyway, all these personal attacks from RTLamp, instead of a simple explanation of my error, was all that was necessary. Is it now illegal to remind people of Wikipolicy on such attacsk, or that they've been warned about this by you before, as I did on his talk page? Your message is cryptic. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:49, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Umm ... thought this was strange
I saw this edit, and thought maybe you would find it of interest: [2]. Maybe it's nothing, or maybe it's old news to you. Cheers. BigK HeX (talk) 05:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Noted that D. did join, though not with a flare. Also know there are some hard cores who watch the project and maybe they'll finally be motivated to action. Last month or so, I left several messages about problems on Wikiproject Anarchism largely ignored, so figured I did my part. Going on vacation for a week soon and hopefully can clear some time to organize the mass of good WP:RS I've come up with. Should at least stick in that material I quoted from the NPOV source. CarolMooreDC (talk) 12:19, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
The Four Deuces vs TFD confusing
Sorry for any confusion by my change of signature, but it did not seem to confuse anyone else. TFD (talk) 23:17, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Also I haven't figured out if I have you mixed up with someone with similar initials who had I thought had different editing style, which makes it more confusing. But who has 10 minutes to research it over several articles? CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:18, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello, Bastin says that minarchism and anarcho-capitalism should better be merged (on the libertarianism page) as they share the same ideology/theory/people, etc. Here anarcho-capitalism would be one end of the spectrum, and this merged entry would be the primary modern-day american version of libertarianism. If you and other long-timers agree, this is a good time to harness Bastin for this work!
I don't think it would hurt the interests of Austrian-school version of Libertarianism. Bastin seems to be aware of what he/she is talking about.
But you have to consider how this would evolve in the future. Later someone can claim that Rothbard's views are an "extreme point" and thus do not deserve a place on the libertarianism page.
The new userpage he posted is pretty benign as such things go, and isn't really actionable. As for additional insults - He's had several final warnings, so if he posts anything else you should report him. But, to be honest, the best way to end this situation might be to deny him an audience. Ignore him, and he may well go away. I'll watchlist his pages, to be safe. Happy editing, UltraExactZZSaid~ Did12:10, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Hey, just in case you missed it, there is an oppurtunity to get a free dinner this Tuesday August 11 and a chance to meet and hang out talk about Wikipedia:WikiProject United States Public Policy and WP:GLAM/SI. Sorry that this is so late in the game, I was hoping the e-mail would be a better form of contact for active members (if you want to get on the e-mail list send me an User e-mail ). Hope that you can attend, User:Sadads (talk)11:40, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Libertarianism
Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Libertarianism, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you.
Just a reminder. The tag states that the article may lack a single coherent topic, so if you disagree, please discuss it on the Talk page in the section I started when I created the tag, don't just revert and comment in the summary edit. If it turns out I'm the only one who feels this way, I will remove it myself.
No. But often problems are actually symptoms of deeper problems. Should we go after the symptoms, or the root issue?
I believe it is likely that much of the behavior issues you list are ultimately caused by the topic incoherency problem at this article.
On that note, I am curious if you know of any uses of "libertarianism" in any source whatsoever which is inclusive of both right and left libertarianism. But I already asked this at the Talk page over there, so please answer there. My point is that if no reliable sources use "libertarianism" in such a broad sense as to include right and left libertarianism, then neither should we. I would like to know where you stand on that point too. Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:05, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
If you look back only within 10 days you'll see one excellent example. Look back through talk a couple weeks and there are more. More to come. As I've said repeatedly, I didn't do much with them because disgusted with behavioral issues. Right now, just had basement flood so there goes my extensive wikipedia time for a couple days. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:55, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Discussion on closure of Israel and Aparthied mediation
Current consensus seems to be to move the article to Israel and Apartheid with an appropriate disambiguation line to prevent any misinterpretations. Please weigh in over the next few days. --Ludwigs217:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
I noticed that you seem to be running out yourself. I may begin an RFC/USER for Darkstar1st if he continues to make these crazy edits based on wild speculation, instead of WP:RS. Just a bit of advance notice, since you've mentioned that you're not available a whole lot for the time being. BigK HeX (talk) 05:43, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Request for comment good since it will bring attention to all the editors who also are pushing this POV ad nauseum. Another option is Don't forget the four ani complaints, esp. the Community Ban one where Mediation was recommended. It may need another ANI complaint to say that since we haven't gotten a mediator 3 weeks after request and disruption continues... And make sure all editors know it's up there so the rational NPOV editors can opine. And I've noticed he allowed those comments to stand on his page and definitely would mention it in any of my critiques (unless I forget with all the other stuff to complain about!) CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:09, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your current interventions on Talk. I agree with your editorial concept of "even the ones I don't like." This article has been such a fussy one over time. At the back of my head there's a perfectly good article produced by collaborative consensus editing; which seems to be obliterated by POV pushing. What puzzles me in particular is the current POV push seems to be focused around the issue of minarchist versus anarchist positions within the pro-property ideologies / movements! I feel like in a few minutes respective POV pushers will start pulling out Trotskite grade insults for each other :) Fifelfoo (talk) 16:23, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
In late 2009 I put together a pretty good summary trying to accommodate all positions that lasted a couple months, but that was gutted by earlier POV pushing minarchists and then in the spring the newest crop started coming along. Because they are trying to push out even anarchist capitalists, which hasn't happened before, I do think someone out there is promoting editors to gut the article, as part of some larger political plan. See Wayne Root as a prime motivater of that in the Libertarian Party. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:37, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Such is the swamp of parliamentary politics and its relationship to media. Whether grassroots or astroturf, it isn't encyclopaedic. I've noticed, over time, that POV pushers tend to love mucking up ledes, but don't touch body as much: a way forward? Sadly Wayne's wikipedia photo displays a bit of what is called in Australia The Julie Bishop Death Stare. Fifelfoo (talk) 16:59, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
So Wayne really is a Ken Doll?? Which reminds me I have a neutral and true edit to make on his page.
To clarify above, I only have a slight preference for pro-property views as long as the anti-property types realize the pro-properties will defend their properties with (probably bigger) weapons, and they might as well just go the voluntary route. Then whatever works, works. Life is an experiment. Or as I always say, if a bunch of young libertarian socialists want me to live free on their commune in my old age, and pay my medical bills, and walk my dog(s), I'll join. The only "libertarians" I don't like are the ones who would use military force against nonviolent secessionists, but then they aren't libertarians anyway. Uh, oh, chatty fluff that can be used against me in a conflict of interest complaint. ha ha. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:02, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm confused if "Users certifying the basis for this dispute" is good enough for the second person, or does it need it higher up? Will it confuse what he wrote with what I wrote unless I sign it, but will that confuse issue too? CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:13, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Don't be afraid to revert him. Once a user is community banned, any editor may revert their edits, including you. Yworo (talk) 16:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm reluctant in case it is some OTHER obnoxious AnonIp since quite a few have passed by libertarianism article last few months - and a couple have registered who more saavy people have not identified as Karmaisking. But may do elsewhere in future with an initial warning note saying "tell me if you think I'm wrong." CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:23, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, in this case it's obvious and he even admits it. But sure, I wouldn't recommend doing it in cases which aren't as obvious or you are unsure about. Yworo (talk) 01:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
In newest case I but the {sockpuppet|Badsockpuppet} on their main user page. That usually does the job without my having to go further. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:04, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
P.S. You are receiving this message either because you received a similar one before and didn't object, or you requested to receive a similar one in the future. If you don't wish to receive this message again, then please let me know either on my talk page or here.
One of the key ways to spot a KiK ip is to geolocate - if it's Australia, it's probably him. That 64.x ip on Libertarianism was from Texas, and very probably was not KiK. Could have been a sock of someone else or (AGF) a new user. Ravensfire (talk) 02:40, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for tip. Using this site already found out that a new contributor on the page is from Kangaroo land [added for clarity later (aka Australia)]. I guess just pointing out that factoid will be sufficent. :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:32, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
In general, it's probably better to give anonIP editors the benefit of the doubt. Sockpuppets are a menace, but we cannot go around painting all anonIP's with the sockpuppet brush. (Also, your "Kangaroo Land" comments might be taken the wrong way. Might want to consider restating that...) BigK HeX (talk) 17:05, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
I love Kangaroos so it's a compliment. Ate at Outback Thursday :-) I thought it was ok to make fun of sockpuppets? Girls just want to have a little fun. Well, if it's a problem on Lib-talk I'm sure I'll hear about it and will strike it. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:08, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Good edit. I prefer avoiding dicdefs, but I understand the spirit. Could you check the section I added for a Main article for Libertarian Socialism? I edited down the lede of that article to the most pertinent bits for Libertarianism, but may have cut too little. (Another reason to have good ledes, they make for good content to enter into other articles where there's cross linkages like this). Fifelfoo (talk) 13:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
See my (just added) comment on that (libertarianism lead). I don't have a problem with him there but 3rd or 4th def, not first. Also don't see a recent edit by you to Lib Socialism, so are talking about the current lead itself? It looks ok on quick glance except added link to libertarian municipalism article. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:29, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
All of it, no Libertarian Socialism section existed (someone must have purged it). Before adding a Libertarian Socialist section I had checked Libertarianism#Left libertarianism (Some kind of modern Georgism with progressive social values?) and evaluated the content as sufficiently differentiated from Libertarian Socialism. I'm not in favour of long discursive subsections covering types, or duplicating other's editorial work, so I copied the lede (should be a summary anyway) of Libertarian Socialism and included it as a subsection in Libertarianism after Left Libertarianism (the nearest cogent moment to include it in the article structure). Thanks for the commentary on Talk. Fifelfoo (talk) 14:09, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
I thought you were talking about article Libertarian socialism. Duh. There was a section for a long time til it was deleted around beginning of August. It's in this old version in case you want to compare and contrast. Will put doing so on my agenda. (As usual other projects, mostly off wiki, keep me procrastinating on wiki projects.) I guess my complaint about deletion and warning I'd put it back got archived. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Deletionist
Yworo doesn't actually seem to be a deletionist. Yworo has actually opposed the deletionist proposals in many of the previous RfCs. BigK HeX (talk) 14:05, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
I set up a discussion thread about The Independent Political Report at RSN.[5] Since you introduced a previous discussion thread your comments may be helpful. It appears to be informed and neutral and covers stories that do not appear in other sources, so if it is a reliable source it could be helpful for some articles. TFD (talk) 14:52, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:29, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Libertarianism
Hi, CMDC - I'm happy to mediate at Libertarianism, but I know we had a conflict in the distant past on an unrelated issue. If I'm acceptable to you (and the others), I'm certain I could help. If I'm not acceptable to you, please say so wherever and I'll step aside. Hipocrite (talk) 14:03, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Frankly, looking back quickly at what you had to say in the one article I remember running into you, I think a number of people might feel that you have some prejudices on the topic in general. At this diff you wrote: The problem that I see with that section is not that Cohen says Atzmon is a nazi, but rather that both he and far-rights suffer from a paranoid mentality (see The Paranoid Style in American Politics).
Libertarians often are considered being far right and some want to use the phrase "right" more than others to describe the topic. (Not me.)
I assure you, this right will only be used to rv vandalism, or perhaps a stupid string of edits I may make at some point in the future. I'm pretty much done with the debate that has almost no chance of ever being resolved of the Libertarianism page. ToaNidhiki0520:01, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
I started watching a lot of people around the time User:karmaisking was posting to talk pages. Then I learned more about how to identify where AnonIPs come from to find out which was his. Finally getting around to cleaning up overloaded watch list and noticed the Editor review function which I didn't know existed - and won't use for reasons expressed. Plus I'm not ambitious to take on any more free work. :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:16, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi
Noticed your post about two years ago on the BLP talk page and I just posted a similar question / proposal here. Sorry to see that your question never got a reply, and I am hoping we can get more traction this time. Your thoughts on the topic would be appreciated. Thanks. 707:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
I think in that case someone later came up with a usable translation and I think that's the bottom line issue. However, the source should probably be a better one that if it was in English, but that's always decided on a case by case basis, and according to POVs of editors who predominate, which may or may not be a good thing. But that's why there are noticeboards. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:46, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Could you have a look at the legality[broken anchor] discussion? There appears to be a working consensus for proposal 2 emerging. I'm not sure what the next stage should be. In your opinion, should we close the discussion now and declare consensus, or use the outcome as a basis for the next stage of the process? PhilKnight (talk) 20:46, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Getting over a head cold so might take a day or two to figure it all out. Think I should archive some earlier old threads just so page doesn't get too big. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:18, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Need you to take a look at this
Hey, there has been a very long discussion here: [6], can you go through this entire discussion and see if there is consensus? Its important that you take a look at the arguments. I believe there is consensus for proposal two, and that the majority support it. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:59, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Carolmooredc, the comment that you left on the talkpage, was that you going through the discussion and seeing what stage two should be, or are we still waiting on your analysis? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:26, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Looking at now. Note I'm just admin moderator so my voice otherwise doesn't carry much weight. My pov is "put illegal in lead of all settlement articles, and body except for stubs." But what's the best process for making sure that happens? I'll opine when finish plodding through, hopefully soon... CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:12, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia DC Meetup 13
You are invited to Wikipedia DC Meetup #13 on Wednesday, November 17, from 7 to 9 pm, location to be determined (but near a Metro station in DC).
To keep up-to-date on local events, you can join the mailing list.
First impression: tricky. I'm not at all sure I want to put my head over the parapet there.
I think I would be tempted to re-write the first sentence to read something like:
Allegations of Jewish control of the media have been a recognizable feature of anti-semitic propaganda since the late 19th century, and according to one opponent of antisemitism represent "perhaps the most pernicious anti-semitic canard loose in the world today"...
(where the latter is a made-up quote, but no doubt it should be possible to source something similar).
It also might be worth thinking about changing the article name to Allegations of Jewish control of the media. Yes, I know that other articles in the series don't start "allegations of...", and there are reasons to go for the simpler title and not change; but I think this changed title would make where the article is coming from, and the scope intended, much more immediately apparent.
Thoughts
It seems to me that there are two underlying issues both of which we need to be careful about when writing the article.
Firstly, there is that this is a slur which has been used again and again to do a lot of damage; so people (quite rightly) are going to want the article to make very clear that Wikipedia has no truck with it.
Secondly, however, there are also sensitivities about the media presentation of Israel, in particular whether some groups, that have a particular view of what it means to be pro-Israel, are sometimes alleged to have achieved (or to be attempting to exert) hegemonistic control of presentation of that issue, with considerable power to marginalise other views. I'm certainly not saying that that is necessarily the reality of the situation; but it is a legitimate discussion that can be had in good faith, which WP has to be seen to be above, and presenting neutrally, rather than taking a side.
Strictly speaking, as discussed in the article Jewish lobby, even if that were the case, it wouldn't be "Jewish" control of the media. Jewish views are actually much more diverse than that. But even AIPAC have been known to occasionally forget that, and say "Jewish lobby" when they mean "Israel lobby" (or perhaps even more accurately that should be "AIPAC-compatible take on Israel lobby"). So I think we do have to be quite careful with how we write the article, because these ideas can get blurred, to make it clear that we're not simply endorsing talking-points for those taking a particular advocacy role in the second discussion.
Fortunately, WP's diverse reams of advice and policy have some good advice about how to put some critical distance between WP and the issues we cover. In particular, two standard good bits of advice come to mind.
1) There's no need to say "Hitler was a bad man". Instead, stick to the more concrete issues of what the man did, let the evidence pile up, so then the reader can decided.
2) Emotive labels: again, try to avoid them, and merely set out what the facts are in cold prose. Or, if such a label is important to the discussion, put it in a sourced viewpoint quote.
So looking now at the article to see how it measures up to that, I see a few things that might come up as yellow flags.
The assertion that "Jews control the media" is an anti-Semitic canard, a false statement that is deliberately repeated in order to promote antisemitism.
This is a very strong statement, that slams the door on any discussion of the issue in any context at any time. It sounds like the "voice of Wikipedia" actively imposing a line. I think it is too strident, particularly if people feel it is WP taking a position on issue 2 above. I also have reservations about the word "canard" used quite so bluntly. It's a very rhetorical word, which makes me think of somebody making a speech to consciously put over a particular position. So I don't think it hits quite the [Register (sociolinguistics)|register]] for a serious, sober Wikipedia article.
Hence my suggestion of a different opening line -- one that firmly connects the slur with antisemitism as a historical fact, introduces the key phrase antisemitic canard with its important link, and emphasises that it is seen still to be at work in the world today; but places those last two points in the voice of an attributable source, rather than WP laying down the law. I think this revised sentence still sets out the article's stall well, but does so in a way that nobody could accuse of being in any way not NPOV. Yes, it leaves people to click through if they want a detailed explanation of what a "canard" is, but so be it.
I'd then use the word "allegation" instead of "canard" throughout the rest of the article.
The canard has been documented by Alan Dershowitz, the Anti Defamation League (in their report Alleged Jewish 'Control' of the American Motion Picture Industry), the Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting organization (in their report The Jewish Media: The Lie That Won't Die), and Abraham Foxman (in his book The Deadliest Lies: the Israel lobby and the Myth of Jewish Control).
Instances of the canard that assert biased coverage of the state of Israel are considered to be a manifestation of the New anti-Semitism.
These two sentences seem particularly problematic. In the first, the article seems to be aligning itself firmly with a list of people who have made it their agenda to oppose suggestions that the media may identify itself too closely with the hawks in Israeli politics. In the second sentence, the article seems to be laying down that even making that claim is an example of anti-semitism.
This is well outside what is acceptable per WP:NPOV.
The main section in the article dealing with this aspect of the question is also pretty much of a mess. In my view, this "Coverage of Israel" section should be moved after the analysis and commentary section (because I think it has to be addressed in an analytical framework, rather than just listing asssertions); and the section needs to start by framing the debate in NPOV terms as to whether those aligning themselves with a particular view in Israeli politics have managed to achieve a hegemonic power in American discourse.
The article should of course make the point that even if that were to be the case, it would be to wrong to call it "Jewish" control. But in my view when people do say "Jewish lobby" or "Jewish viewpoint" rather than "Israeli right viewpoint" or "pro Israeli-right lobby", most of the time it's probably due to a not-thought-through verbal shorthand clumsiness rather than actual antisemitism. So the verbal infelicity should certainly be flagged; but that shouldn't take away from that it's whether or not there's an excessively uncritical of Israel viewpoint in the media that is the real topic of discussion and most likely the real issue of concern being expressed in such remarks.
Anyhow, that's some initial thoughts on the article, no doubt not-sufficiently-thought-through and verbally clumsy. Jheald (talk) 23:56, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Carol. I don't do much editing nowadays on Wikipedia. This article doesn't particularly interest me. I am more interested in Western systemic bias, and keep an eye on that article to revert vandalism. --Timeshifter (talk) 00:43, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for reply. Yes, being the fighting Irish, I do like a challenging and even dangerous political debate. (In real life activism I've gotten actual nasty threats for daring to not shut up on Israeli actions when told. And that was usually for far less critical things than I've put on wikipedia.)
Anyway, I agree with your views which will incorporated when I do a sentence by sentence analysis. I actually so far have just skimmed article, hoping Noleander would get the point from broader proposals (which themselves are now evolving to be more narrow). One thing that seems obvious is he cannot mention individuals unless a WP:RS has said that So and So has issued a "canard" and uses a phrase that includes "Jewish control" of (whatever form of media). Something of course few sophisticated people would do. (Problem being so many people are afraid to discuss issues at all in an analytic and neutral fashion, that when they open their mouths they say something stupid they get attacked for; as you allude to.) I do fear that any article on Jewish/ (or better Zionist) influence in media would be deleted immediately under some pretext. Of course, I have more important things in life to do than these battles, but who resist minor battles and successes in wikipedia, when such political successes in the larger world less frequent. Sigh... CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:21, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Since he quit on Dec 1, my guess is he figured too many people were on to him, no matter who he might be a sock of. But that kind of hostility makes it easy to get others to warn editor about possible blocks and bans on the WP:Civility issue alone. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:02, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Jewish control of the media: Scope
I hear you saying, I'm content to just fix the obvious organizational, WP:RS, BLP, WP:synth (when they appear) problems that make the article WP:POV. However, it would be very useful to understand whether you agree that moving analysis of Jewish influence in the media to a separate article would be helpful to deal with these problems.
I feel like I've posed this question several times, and perhaps due to your disputes with others, still don't really know your answer.--Carwil (talk) 13:23, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't want to do that article. If you want to remove all the dubious examples with counter-WP:RS that demand discussion, then it becomes a moot point. However, wait til you see an actual problem with an edit. You may not. Best to move this discussion to article talk page now that you've got my attention. :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:56, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Oren Ben-Dor
Hi Carol,
I'm just getting my feet wet as an editor, and I was hoping to take a crack at expanding the stub on Ben-Dor. But I wasn't able to find substantial coverage beyond his own writings, so I switched gears and nominated the page for AFD. In hindsight, I probably should have approached you first with my concerns about his notability. I apologize if I acted too rashly. In any event, the AFD discussion page is up. I look forward to your input.
Scaleshombre (talk) 09:57, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Seems like things are picking up again at United States and state terrorism. There is a new editor who was originally going to push for the 10th deletion discussion, but it seems like I've at least motivated him not to waste everyone's time there. But now he's trying to tag the article as POV/Synth without explaining why the tags should stay up, other than the usual vague explanation along the lines of: "This article is totally biased. It's citing leftie nutjobs like Chomsky instead of unbiased people (i.e. everyone who unconditionally supports the U.S. government).". I see that you were involved in a discussion about removing unjustified tags a while back, and thought you might be interested. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 23:05, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
In my opinion it's generally best to very carefully avoid commenting on the content & not the contributor everywhere on Wikipedia and especially on sensitive topics like this one. So I don't think that a comment like "some people are so paranoid thinking that the simple title supports the allegation, they freak out" is helpful. There's a reason why topics like anti-semitism, racism, Islamophobia, etc. get people upset: because there are currently living people, some of them Wikipedia editors, who have suffered from such things. That has no relevance to how we should name an article, of course, but it's very relevant in how we should deal with & describe our fellow editors. Thanks for your understanding and all your hard work on Wikipedia this year, and wishing you a happy New Year!CordeliaNaismith (talk) 16:32, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Somebody has emailed me evidence that you are an Anti-Israeli activist. Is it true that you are involved in that type of activity? Do you think it is appropriate to import your real world campaigns into Wikipedia? I recommend reading an essay I started a couple years ago: Wikipedia:Advocacy. JehochmanTalk17:16, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Carol in the past proclaimed herself an "activist" (for a different movement unrelated to Israel) on her home page. when i brought this up in the conflict of interest noticeboard it was buried. Darkstar1st (talk) 17:22, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
That Ani Discussion was closed with the following comment to you: An admin should know better than to come to ANI with what amounts to "I don't like this user's POV". Especially as within this topic any ANI thread is likely to be unpleasantly conflictual. Yes, we could continue talking here until the cows come home and accuse each other of POV-pushing... but let's not.CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:59, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
