Leave messages for user User:Carolmooredc on this page

/Archive I - /Archive II - /Archive III - /My Sandbox 1 - /My Sandbox 2 - /My Sandbox 3 -/My Sandbox 4

{Original comment removed.}

I assume you mean last thing you wrote in talk? Obviously I prefer it as terrorist with all those refs and will keep adding the refs to anyone who throws in terrorist, as people keep doing, so no one can say I'm reverting :-) However, getting them to concede "paramilitary" is a first step in that direction, and maybe add words "attacked Arab and British targets" and may be as good as we'll get for the time being. By the way, I've run into 4 or 5 minor news resources that drew heavily from the article, some even admitting it! Carol Moore 22:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

re: your last sentence: Blimey! This further justifies what the Queen called 'certain dark forces' fiddling with WP. Were they not to do so, they would be failing in their duty, as they see it, to their respective sets of taxpayers. Thanks for that reassurance that the fruits of one's efforts don't entirely evaporate into the ether. Wingspeed (talk) 23:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We noticed same thing on Community Reinvestment Act, and then you had people wanting to use those articles as source for unsourced material in the wiki article that was used in the original. So it can be frustrating! There's even a phrase for it, which I forget off hand. Carol Moore 23:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Since we appear to have permitted Rahmbo's WP apologists to succeed (for the time being?) I could contain myself no longer. Have just posted strong words. Strong words, I feel, are called for. Wingspeed (talk) 05:14, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See my response today. In short it might be better to put it in reactions to appointment section. I'll do it by end of day. Have a bunch of sources and just wanted to check out a couple more to use most high quality ones. Carol Moore 19:41, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Have just eliminated both 'terrorist' & 'militant,' and inserted int link as follows: "Emanuel's father, Benjamin M. Emanuel, is a pediatrician who was born in Jerusalem and was a member of the Irgun, a Zionist group active from 1931 to 1948 during the British Mandate of Palestine, which in 1946 blew up Jerusalem's King David Hotel." Let's see what Likudnikoids make of that :) Wingspeed (talk) 12:49, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I think it's a good compromise to just bring up terrorism under controversies on appointment, the biggest benefit of doing so first time Irgun is mentioned is that it would stop all the drive by vandalism of people who don't get to the end of the article where terrorism issue is (at least this AM was raised - til deleted again. I will go to mediation to get a sentence in that section, though will only half heartedly support for reason above in first mention. I'm sure this will keep up with 2-3 drive by Anon IP and other edits on this a day as long as the guy's in office. This Am's Washington Times had an interesting point I stuck in article too. Carol Moore 15:38, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Was going to revert his excision, but have held back. Brewcrewer (am I alone, given the recent banning of a Likudnik edit crew, in sniffing a possibly unconscious whiff coming off that choice of user name?) has now, in the absence of logic, resorted to vandalism:

|url = http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9E0DE1DF173FF936A25755C0A961958260}}

Retrieved on Feb. 12, 2007</ref>, a Zionist group active from 1931 to 1948 during the British Mandate of Palestine, .^[1]

Or maybe it's easier to look at his edit on the page? You're far more experienced than I. Can anything be done about this? Wingspeed (talk) 23:10, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ms. Moore. Perhaps I am misunderstanding you, please help me. Am I to understand that you are simultaneously a proponent of having asignificant portion of the Rahm Emanuel article discussing his father's activities in the Irgun which has been defunct for over 60 years, and clearly stating that the Irgun is a terrorist organization, but you are against discussing Rashid Khalidi's personal (not parental) association with a current, ongoing, organization, the Palestine Liberation Organization that has been designated by the US and others as a terrorist organization? -- Avi (talk) 21:23, 13 November 2008 (UTC)The product of a sleep-and-caffiene deprived mind has been removed. -- Avi (talk) 22:00, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, at this point in R.E. article, I am talking about only adding one sentence and 3 or 4 WP:RS refs to a current ongoing controversy.

Second, I'm pretty sure I haven't read and certainly am not working on the R.K. article so the question is irrelevant. Assuming he is who I think he is, I'm sure there are dozens of people who want to call him a terrorist :-) Carol Moore 21:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I was totally confused. Not only did I confuse Atzmon with Khalidi, I confused you with someone else, so my previous paragraph makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, which accounts for my misunderstanding . You have my sincere apologies for my ramblings, which I have struck out. -- Avi (talk) 22:00, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've done the same myself! Carol Moore 22:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rahm_Emanuel&diff=next&oldid=252184721

The NYT article was too long, and to be honest, I skimmed over it once and did not see the reference to Irgun.

For posterity purposes, I posted (later removed about 20 edits prior to your above-mentioned edit) many additional sources to that information, the best of which were another Ha'aretz article and a BBC article (not sure if you've seen the BBC article). If they get back to deleting the information, you can further prove the material with those sources, the former of which quotes "William Daroff, the director of the Washington office of the United Jewish Communities (UJC)", as I believe you're aware.

Thanks for fighting to keep wikipedia NPOV! TPaineTX (talk) 20:36, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At this point it's best to be on one's best behavior, as frustrating as that might be, and discuss on talk. The POV, UNDUE, SYNTH arguments must be contested. I'm going to give it til tomorrow afternoon to see which of various dispute resolution means to go for first; most important to get truly neutral editors not afraid of getting smeared or fired to arrested if they allow two little sentences on Benjamin's terrorist connection in the article. And maybe Rahm's "joke" too. Being on one's best behavior is best way to get 3rd parties to take one seriously. Carol Moore 23:19, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Carol, this message is in response to your recent edit to Hutton Gibson. Putting template tags at the top of an article without specific discussion tends to be unhelpful and should be generally avoided. In this case it was especially unhelpful since the article does have many citations already. If you feel certain material deserves additional citation, please make use of the {{fact}} tag in the article, and uncited material can then be challenged and removed. Thanks, Robert K S (talk) 00:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When there's that much uncited info it's easier to put on a tag. I controlled self and didn't put up BLP:dispute because any such negative info can be removed without discussion. Carol Moore 01:57, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

This edit left the "Career as political staffer" section with intro that is mid-subject. For some reason nobody noticed it and its been like that since your edit. Do you plan on fixing it? --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:07, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was perusing the articles history, and I was shocked when I came across this edit. Until now I thought you had a very narrow view of WP:UNDUE, thus the importance of the characterization of the groups his father was a part of trumps any wp:undue considerations. But to my amazement you used wp:unde as a basis for removing sourced content which reflected his view of the Israeli-Palestine conflict.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:19, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was five sentences lambasting Arabs and Palestinians reduced to two sentences. If you cut five sentences about media responses to B. Emanuel's membership in Irgun to two, then you could argue WP:UNDUE. Arguing for nothing at all is POV whitewashing. Carol Moore 04:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

For the umpteenth time, he and his father are two different people. If he "lambasts Arabs and Palestinians" it should be given prominence in the article because the article is about him. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 14:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've rather given up in disgust, I'm sad to say. A friend, meantime, has just sent me this Wingspeed (talk) 21:14, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wish I wasn't such a persistent taurus the bull myself, or I could do something constructive with my time. Like organize secession from America's AIPACs and Emanuels ;-) However, it did occur to me that at least one last stab might be cleaning up the unhelpful collaboration page to make it a lean and mean POV fighting machine, including how to use it to get administrators to put sanctions against true POV warriors. NPOV is stronger than WP:Undue, when Undue used to push a POV :-) Of course even honest administrators are afraid of getting tagged as an "anti" if they are too strict on those who would white wash wikipedia. A large number of blogs are noting that Benjamin Emanuel was deleted and its giving wiki a bad rep. I haven't gotten on any of the email lists to bring this sort of thing up. Maybe its time. Carol Moore 23:36, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Carol, WP:UNDUE IS a component WP:NPOV. The actual address for UNDUE is Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Undue weight, so your statement above there is illogical . -- Avi (talk) 15:27, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are right - but WP:UNDUE swings both ways. It's also against DELETING WP:RS material. Wikipedia:Undue#Undue_weight NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Well, duh, one sentence on controversy over father's past hardly WP:UNDUE; deleting it '[is' WP:UNDUE.

And multiple WP:RS, including ones already used in the article, make an issue of his father's past ties, so especially POV to ignore them on this controversy. NPOV noticeboard next on my list to address this issue. Must be some neutral editor on one of them that's not afraid of having their career ruined by being called an antisemite or having JDIF list them on their Hate List of Wiki Editors. (They're scared to list people like me who actually organize peace protests against them, when not taking a break like currently. Ah, but 450 5th St. NW is such a temptation; then post Jan 20 when White House employees entrance beckons. We have to test and see if we can be obnoxious there under Obama as we were under Bush without getting arrested.)

Of course, Rahm's Irgun connection is probably just the tip of the ice berg that's hit the media on him, isn't it. Have we seen any WP:RS if Rahm's passed HIS FBI etc security clearance yet?

Carol chatting away merrily on her talk page... Carol Moore 16:36, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Carol, which is why I'm looking forward to your help with maintaining the information on Rashid Khalidi in his article. The difference between the two is that the sentence you quoted "and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each" is talking about the article's subject. Here, the article's subject was NEVER a member of the Irgun, as opposed to Khalidi and the PLO. Bringing in excess information about the Irgun in an article on Rahm is MUCH more undue than bringing in the PLO (and we're not even discussing calling IT a "terrorist" organization, although I believe you should be in favor of that as well) in an article on Rashid Khalidi. Why do you disagree, if I may ask? Thank you, and thank you for continuing to maintain the discussion on content and not contributors and in a friendly fashion. :) -- Avi (talk) 17:00, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I still haven't read, not to mention am not working on that article or interested in doing so, so at this point that is irrelevant. If I work on it I'm sure you'll notice. I must find that wiki guideline on not comparing articles, tempting as it can be. Carol Moore 17:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I was actually asking for your help, seeing as how strongly you state your opinion, this one would be a slam dunk for you, but if you're too busy, I understand. It's a big encyclopedia. -- Avi (talk) 17:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Once I'm happy with R.A. I promise I'll look at it. :-) Carol Moore 17:13, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Is this better, Carol? Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies. -- Avi (talk) 14:28, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would have been great to give me help when I couldn't get it up 3 times in the first 36 hours. So I have separated comments in case anyone comes by. Carol Moore 15:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Carol, I didn't know that there was a problem with the RfC template. You can always drop a line on my talk page if you think I can help you. Secondly, there is no reason so separate the comments, in that there is no difference as to WHY people come to the page, whether they have watch-listed it, or watchlisted WP:Bio. No one person's opinion is worth any "more" or "less" due to the reason they come to that page, Carol, and your separating the comments creates an improper and artificial differentiation. Lastly, you're welcome -- Avi (talk) 15:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, like Rahm says, if you don't send someone a dead fish you won't know if they mind or not yuk yuk Carol Moore 15:52, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I better start checking my mail -- Avi (talk) 16:31, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The link to your website probably violates Wikipedia:User page#What may I not have on my user page?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be more specific, numbers 1 - 10. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Carol. I noticed you are very concerned about the JIDF, and rightfully so. However, doesn't data such as this imply that there should be the same worry about CAIR-sympathizers? I mean, politically-motivated edting appears on all sides of the Israeli-Palestinian divide, unfortunately. -- Avi (talk) 18:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing things you had to search around the internet to find - as opposed to stuff obviously referenced directly on my web page I link to - is WP:Outing. Not to mention following someone's edits all over the place and commenting on them might be considered WP:harassment. (And saying someone sympathizes with any individual or organization - negative, positive or neutral - shouldn't be mentioned unless you find that on something they directly link to like their web page.)

I have been reading WP:COI and it does appear that going to people's user page and asking them if they are employed or otherwise involved in some way that could cause a conflict of interest is the best first way to proceed, per my unanswered question.

I certainly haven't hidden my Point of View under a pseudonym or first name only, and freely link to my home page so editors can complain about whatever they wilt, which they do from time to time.

But if you read Wikipedia:COI#Defending_interests it states: "An entire article that presents as an attack piece or hostile journalism can be nominated for speedy deletion and will be removed promptly from the site" (sounds like Gilad Atzmon). And then continues: "On the other hand, the removal of reliably sourced critical material is not permitted. Accounts of public controversies, if backed by reliable sources, form an integral part of Wikipedia's coverage. Slanting the balance of articles as a form of defence of some figure, group, institution, or product is bad for the encyclopedia. This is also the case if you find an article overwhelmed with correctly referenced, but exclusively negative information." Rahm Emanuel article more a case of the former than the latter.

This is why we need a truly neutral look for this article. That obviously didn't happen under the RfC:Bio for technical reasons. So better probably to just directly contact truly NPOV editor(s) through other means for comment. Carol Moore 18:55, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Carol, you are mistaken on wikipedia policy on a number of accounts. Please let me explain:

1. It cannot be outing if it is on publicly accessible webpages under your real name which is also your wiki name . I believe ArbCom said as much itself, although that should be selbsverstandlich.
2. As we have similar pages watchlisted, as can be seen from previous weeks of editing; that is certainly not harrassment; another policy you may wish to review.
3. Carol, there are reliable links between you and various political themes for which you have sympathy. May I refrence you to http://carolmoore.net/articles/mideastissuesandemotions.html for an example?

Be that as it may, I have no issues with you or anyone in particular, contributing to wikipedia, as long as they do so in accordance with policy and guideline. It just strikes me as somewhat interesting, that you would be so worried about the JIDF and CAMERA when, honestly, similar allegations could be made about you.

In a nutshell, Carol, you are an obviously intelligent woman, with much to contribute to wikipedia, who also has some pretty strong political views. My advice to you would be to concentrate on what you can add to the project, and not looking for the conspiracy theorists in every corner. You can add much more to the WP:NPOV of the project by engaging in courteous dialogue, bringing sources, working to form a consensus, and abiding by the consensus, than you can by trying to stir the pot of conspiracy theory, make claims of censorship, and deny the legitimacy of those who disagree with you by the fallacious arguments of Guilt by association and argumentum ad hominem. Feel free to ignore these words of advice, Carol, but I'd personally hope that you would act as a helpful balance in the Israeli-Palestinian area, than acting as an influence engaged in contributor and not content based editing. There are some editors, on both sides of the aisle, from whom I have despaired of anything resembling appropriate edits in this venue, some of which are no longer with project. My opinion of you, for what it is worth, is that you can add gainfully to the project, and this area. But the policies and guidelines need to be upheld, and we all have to share the sandbox as it were :). Thanks. -- Avi (talk) 19:34, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are questionable things that I think are up for debate: like the terrorist joke and the initial description of Irgun, that I can give on. But when repeated WP:RS info on questions about how much Emanuel's views/actions are influenced by the fact his name comes from at least one member of a known terrorist group and his father was another member who did who knows what besides pass secret codes to Begin, then I think one has to assume there is an attempt to squelch negative info. If I were to hear from a couple people who I considered NPOV that it was undue, fine. But given these standards, I think it's time to go back to G.A.'s article and cut out some POV crap and add some good stuff. Carol Moore 20:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I really do not think his name has anything to do with his politics. He seems like the kind of individual who is more than capable of making up his own mind, at least when there are no steak knives around :-O. -- Avi (talk) 21:00, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Carol, something in your signature appears to be broken, may I help you debug it? My guess is that it has something to do with the "Raw signature" box in your preferences. Could you try this please?

• Click on "My preferences" at the top of the browser
• Look for the "Raw signature" checkbox, and ensure that it is unchecked
• Click on the "Save" button.
• Reply to my post here, and sign normally with four tildes: ~~~~. Then I can take another look to see if it's working or not.

Thanks, --Elonka 00:34, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I was wondering what someone complained about. Carol Moore (talk) 01:04, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Much better! Is that the way you want your signature to look, as "Carol Moore"? Or would you rather that it said your actual account name, "Carolmooredc"? --Elonka 01:08, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CarolMooreDC is good as long as I don't have to keep cutting and pasting it as before. Changed in prefs so let's see if works. The tildes speed things up! CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:11, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The easiest way to handle things is to simply blank the signature box, ensure that the "raw" checkbox is unchecked, and click "Save". That will automatically give you a standard signature, which will, as default, use your account name. --Elonka 01:32, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you are working on it, so I went back to my last involvement[1], to take a look. I find that my addition was immediately reverted by a one-time anon. I also note that there is currently no ‘arrest’ section. Other stuff in that older version might assist in improvement. Regards,CasualObserver'48 (talk) 05:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for link. I had just made it an arrest-trial section and see there's some stuff of interest - but unref'd. Want to mention a little about investigation and efforts of support for him. Hopefully the rest - which I haven't even read - won't be as bad as the first half! Blame Rahm - wanted to add his ADC story to that article but it was such a mess started cleaning it up - almost done with a total overhaul on wordprocessor. But that lead me to Sami and I get so mad at unsourced smears, off I went. Dang, I must start paying myself for this addiction - oh, that's right, addictions only cost money! I must become addicted to making it. Ho HO Wednesday I'll go cold turkey... :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 05:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Carol,

Wondering if you could give me a piece of advice: User:Jayjg has deleted text I've included in the biographies of Jonathan Chait and Bret Stephens on the basis that these are WP:BLP & WP:UNDUE - see Talk:Bret Stephens. It seems fairly abitrary to me, and using this justification one could pretty much delete any comment from any living persons biography. Do you know anyone who could advise me about this and as to what action I could take?

Thanks,

Colombo Man (talk) 16:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the Stephens case he is actually correct. If the guy was criticized for the statement by WP:RS or lost a job because of it or was made president of AIPAC because of it, it might be noteworthy. Or maybe if you had a list of noteworthy things that others quoted of which this was just one example. I don't know what the Chait issue is but you do need to have some noteworthiness about it. Best to go on to the next debate! :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Carol, I guess I'll defer to your and User:Jayjg's views on this one. Colombo Man (talk) 15:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Best to save your energy for when he's wrong since getting him to stop being wrong usually is a major battle requiring at least 4 against one, including outside opinions and a mediator or two!! Jayjg's original lead of UK lobbying article just denied articles calling it a lobby called it a lobby but I was too busy with other articles to deal with. But if you let them get away with one little thing, pretty soon they're changing name and scope of whole article! CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since you were the only editor who seemed interested in how accurately the article represented the source in this discussion [2], I would be interested in getting you opinion on this [3]. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you confusing me with someone else? I'm anticensorship in regards to the removal of information - not pro. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Sorry!!! CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:12, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just moved the Report on 2007 Feminist Hullaballo from being a reference to an external link, as, of course, blogs are not reliable sources. Hope that is acceptable. – ukexpat (talk) 19:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problema. Best ref I could find since it included her photo. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:43, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I answered your question at the above talk page. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:16, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added the following text to the Irgun article. In light of all the whitewashing of the Irgun article due to Benjamin Emanuel's involvement in the organization, we should keep an eye out for it being erased.

In 1948, the New York Times published a letter signed by prominent Jewish figures Hannah Arendt, Albert Einstein, Sidney Hook, and Rabbi Jessurun Cardozo, which described Irgun as a "a terrorist, right-wing, chauvinist organization in Palestine". ^[2][3] The letter went on to state that Irgun and the Stern gang "inaugurated a reign of terror in the Palestine Jewish community. Teachers were beaten up for speaking against them, adults were shot for not letting their children join them. By gangster methods, beatings, window-smashing, and wide-spread robberies, the terrorists intimidated the population and exacted a heavy tribute." ^[4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irgun#Views_about_Irgun

Note: The error on reference #1 is not mine. The references from my post are #2 through #4. TPaineTX (talk) 19:35, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I confess I haven't been watching that article carefully, just pop in sometimes. More interested in the list of attacks article, but low on my priority list. If they nix the letter bring the issue of Letters 2 Editor from Notable sources to WP:RS/N. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes; I'd added an attack to the List of Irgun attacks during the 1930s as well. In my opinion, each attack should be sourced on that article. TPaineTX (talk) 19:56, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See my talk entry. Also needs to be about all attacks up to 1948; change name, add sourced info. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:20, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment / warning / threat on Jayjg's talk page violates WP:AGF, WP:NPA, and WP:CIVIL.

Please retract or refactor the comment in a manner that does not aggreviously violate user behavior policy.

People have been blocked for less. I am assuming that you can modify your comments / complaint in a manner that will allow serious, civil discussion of the underlying issue. If you cannot, then perhaps a block is appropriate. Please consider this a final warning on this matter. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:40, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dang, so many rules, so little time to figure out how they all work together!! Anyway, have deleted problematic material. So when can you ask someone if they have a conflict of interest if not when you are seeing problematic edits from them? Or have seen a long pattern that makes you wonder? Per [[4]]: The first approach should be direct discussion of the issue with the editor, referring to this guideline. If persuasion fails, consider whether you are involved in a content dispute. If so, an early recourse to dispute resolution may help. Another option is to initiate discussion at WP:COIN, where experienced editors may be able to help you resolve the matter without recourse to publishing assertions and accusations on Wikipedia. Using COI allegations to harass an editor or to gain the upper hand in a content dispute is prohibited, and can result in a block or ban. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:26, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's Wikipedia for you... get into anything heated and controversial, and they'll start throwing alphabet soup at you, and threatening to block you if you don't comply with all the rules (even though one of them is WP:IAR, Ignore All Rules). If you survive all this hazing without getting banned or taking a permanent Wikibreak, you'll become a full-fledged Wikipedian! *Dan T.* (talk) 02:21, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I read about some of your own adventures here, off wiki recently. Amazingly this is only second or third time I've been royally jumped on - for asking (name deleted) if he was employed by some organization that benefited from his stifling info about Israel Lobbying - esp. in the UK - from getting out. Unfortunately I did it after referencing a content dispute. But it is helpful to have alphabets to defend oneself, also :-) Though frankly I do consider wiki-editing an addictive vice and would be delighted if they kicked me off!! Ain't no fame and fortune in it. Maybe I'll go roust (name deleted) a few more times!! ;-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:41, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Carol. I notice you've been trying to uncover the mysteries of the OTRS system. My impression is that including the ticket number is only a way to get other admins who also happen to be OTRS volunteers to know what you are talking about. Since I'm not on OTRS, I have no idea either. I just want to comment on JzG's actions in full protecting the redirect David Abrahams (Labour party donor).

This is not the first time that admins have behaved cautiously with regard to the article of a high-profile potentially-litigious British figure who is often in the news. Since the money the Foundation can call upon to fight any legal cases is approximately zero, compared to the resources of any important person who we could wind up annoying, an instinct for self-preservation does apply at some point. I admit there is no formal policy, Wikipedia:Self-preservation. I won't link to all the details, but suffice it to say that the BLP issues around our article on the British lawyer Giovanni di Stefano were part of a well-known Arbcom case. The UK libel laws are different from the American ones.

After a little time passes, we might reconsider whether we still have to be so cautious regarding an article on Abrahams. Giovanni di Stefano's article seems to be open to general editing, and is no longer so sensitive. EdJohnston (talk) 19:08, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I'm so exercised is that two editors involved in doing this (not JzG who both did the OTRS ticked and protected it against being redirected back to the article) also have been busy trying to gut the article about Israel Lobby in the UK. One of those editors is now being investigated as possible sock/meat puppet but is a powerful admin who keeps up his bad behavior despite repeated warnings and even sanctions. Also the fact that some of the same facts well-ref'd in the Bio aren't ref'd in the Donorgate article, makes me wonder if people are being sloppy or dissembling. Also one of them supports much nastier things on Bios with much less WP:RS. If JzG himself just said, "hey, we can't afford to mess with this guy right now" that would be more credible to me. But he also advances dubious arguments about biased sources only publishing bad things. So I'll give it til Tues or Weds and bring it before the Israel Palestine collaboration page and decide if I should continue to push it. Meanwhile now that I know he exists he's going in the UK Lobby article, with a big fight over the WP:RS I have for it certain. :-) CarolMooreDC (talk)

Hmmm... but if people were to raise a bunch of money for wikipedia, it would feel more comfortable about such suits, wouldnl't they? Will pass that thought around Israel Palestine collaboration page when post on this topic :-) Does wikipedia doe any publicity for itself by the way, including to encourage outside fund raising? CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:24, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Carol, what's the current situation re Abrahams? I noticed that you're still awaiting a reply to your questions of 13 December. Is that essentially where it's at? Colombo Man (talk) 20:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One person said he'd put it up for AfD, but didn't. Probably best not to because I think the tag teams are extremely well organized at this point, given a couple such discussions I've been in/lurked on recently. I figured I'd let it rest til the next times D.A. makes it big in the news, especially if it's on another issue. Just have to remember to look from time to time since it's not worth a google alert. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please make sure BBC profile link stays on the Irgun information. The NYT article does not spell Irgun correctly, and this is the second time the NYT link has gone down. TPaineTX (talk) 22:30, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but I irregularly watch every change; just go back to check on a few that I want to keep from time to time. Yeah, I decided to fix link quick once noticed when looking for the article again for some reason; have copy on computer too. Now I know why I couldn't find Irgun in NYTimes article when searched this time! CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:32, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Thanks for your note regarding this redirect. While it is not the greatest idea to change the state of an article during a DRV, in this case I think a redirect is a good idea due to his mention in his son's article. The Deletion Review was about whether an article should exist not about a redirect and my closure was only saying that the closure was correct in deleting in the article. I saw the redirect when I closed the DRV (although I did not realise it had been created during the DRV) and think it is fine in this case. Davewild (talk) 15:25, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

but a false accusation surely violates WP:CIVIL. Best, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:21, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

liberated territories redirects to Western Sahara and since Richard Falk is not working on Western Sahara issues, one must assume vandalism. If the individual had been more specific showing his/her edits were relevant to the topic then they could have been reverted on basis of POV or fringe since that is hardly the mainstream terminology for the topic, rather an extreme nationalist phrase, especially in the context of this article. So even then it sounds rather like vandalism. For example, if someone went into Israel article and changed all mentions of Israel to "occupied Palestinian territories," also not a mainstream phrase. Also the article has a history of vandalism so it is easy to consider extremely questionable edits to be vandalism. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:32, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How can we get this article (List of Irgun attacks during the 1930s) renamed to List of Irgun attacks?

I am not a wikipedia expert, so I have no idea. TPaineTX (talk) 20:30, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's easy to do - you just click the MOVE tab, next to HISTORY and it will give you a box to rename. However, to avoid problems I'd first list a few post 1939 attacks so no one can complain that your change is not relevant! CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:51, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok; done. Feel free to add more to the list. TPaineTX (talk) 23:57, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From Taleb himself.
Epistemeological libertarian-someone (like myself) who considers that knowledge is subjected to strict rules, but not institutional authority as the interests of organized knowledge is self-perpetuation, not necessarily truth (just like goveernments). [5] LoveMonkey (talk) 19:19, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Carol. I must be missing something. I did go through the talk page before making this edit, and have just done so again, and can't see the consensus about short lead, etc. Who objected to the long-standing quote from what I reckon's a pretty good article in the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (certainly much better than the Stanford one)? Or, more importantly, on what grounds?

Always seemed to me it was a good two-sentence way, from a neutral source, of summing up much of the article's content - which, of course, is supposed to be a major function of any lead in the first place. The current startling terseness, apart from anything else, seems to militate against, rather than further, that end. Are you still battling with the Rahmbo fans, by the way? I gave up in disgust. Really admired the way you kept tussling against the Praetorian guard. I just couldn't hack it. Found the whole phenomenon quite sickening and even sinister. Regards Wingspeed (talk) 18:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I shortened it a few months back when someone was messing with it and figured since it had stayed that way it was consensus. I personally thought it was too wordy and unduly stressed differences. On the other hand, I won't put up a fight about it if you want to put it back. I also don't have a problem with saying some people call lib. a synonym for anarchism if done the way I describe, as I told the editor a couple times.

I decided to let events characterize Rahm, rather than pulling out my hair to get in the briefest mentions of certain issues. I've put it in the "pulling out my hair" category on my userpage :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Friend of mine (Heathcote Williams) has just come up with a good coinage: ObamaRahma. Which enables us now to refer to the dazzling ObamaRahma display team. Which I've just done on the excellent Lenin's Tomb. If you don't know it, best one-man blog I know of, with possible exception of Wood's Lot. Thank you for your tolerance; I will reinsert that quote. I think, in the context, and in the absence of anything better, it's quite important. I agree with you that the anarchism/synonym sentence needs to be there. Wingspeed (talk) 20:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've uploaded File:ZionistLobbyDayLeaflet2009.jpg, and indicated that it's used under Wikipedia's rules for non-free images. However, it's not presently used in any articles. Wikipedia policy requires that non-free images be either used or deleted, so if this image isn't used in an article in the next week, it will be deleted.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 10:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now there is a pro-active extroverted bot, at least its owner is watching; maybe too early! I have no problem with it, except that it shouldn't appear like an advertisement prior to the announced date; that sounds un-wiki. It seems just so perfectly planned for the new Prez's first full day at work. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 14:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I should break down and put it in the UK article during this short period that everything isn't being deleted. However, I believe it could stay on wikicommons if not used, right? :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Carol - I just came across your comment on "genre" vs. "form", etc. -- which you posted at the bottom of the page. I think you probably meant it to be part of this discussion, so you might want to move it to the correct section if that was your intent. Cgingold (talk) 23:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure that's what you meant to do, so I went ahead & moved it, as other editors were starting to add their replies. Cgingold (talk) 23:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now I do realize that the article about neolibertarianism is flawed from the beginning and deletion is the best thing to do, and your assertion on the "OR/BLP" materials, although I still cannot completely subscribe too, has certain merits to consider. And for all of your great expertise on libertarian issues and other political things, there's a barnstar =)

		The Society Barnstar
		I bestow the Society Barnstar to you, Carol Moore, for your knowledge and contributions to Wikipedia on political philosophy. Wandering Courier (talk) 01:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Yow! Thanks. :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:30, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might be interested to Google this book[6], Israel, the Diaspora, and Jewish Identity, by Danny Ben-Moshe, Zohar Segev, et.al, and find Chapter 12, The Reflection of Israel within British Jewry. It may assist with historical context and editorial perspective for the amazing number of nitty-gritty edits that you have performed on several articles. Chapter 7 is equally enlightening elsewhere. Regards and congrats on the Barnstar. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 06:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mucho gracias! But maybe B. Hussein will register them all and solve that problem (Ho HO :-) so I can work on articles that are more fun and less duty-driven. CarolMooreDC (talk) 05:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Could you please add description and source info for File:FBIphoto04-19-93.JPG which you uploaded? (What does the photo show? Where is the photo from -- who took it, where did you get it?) Thank you. Cheers, -- Infrogmation (talk) 13:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Info is in there now. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]