Leave messages for user User:Carolmooredc on this page

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

Your suggestion about clarifying the entities is a good one and a necessary step on the road to an enforceable policy. I'd suggest there's a million examples we could list so perhaps 'government-related entities' would suffice - mentioning 'militaries' specifically looks out of place. Refining groups as 'SIGs' (perhaps with a link to special interest group) is another good idea.

Finally, on the question of when an interest becomes a conflict of interest, to me it's when there's an "interest" in the financial/business sense rather than the amorous sense (yes it's a pity the same word has double meanings here). That is, the editor or someone close to them (family, friend, [ex-]employer, etc.) could derive some benefit from the edits. Most of these are pretty obvious but casting the net too far unsurprisingly causes significant angst (better results are had from comments like "your edit was unverifiable per WP:V" than "you have a conflict of interest so your edit is assumed questionable"). -- samj _in^out 01:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'll move this to the talk page when get into a head to respond. Unfortunately, i've fallen out of my wiki-editing mode since first suggesting change and so it's been hard to focu. "-( CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated an article to which you have contributed for deletion, because of its lack of citations, despite a request for sources dating back to June 2007. If this nomination is in error, then please post a message to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Republican Liberty Caucus; you may also wish to add a bibliography or footnotes to the Republican Liberty Caucus article, as well. Thank you. Bjenks (talk) 02:45, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Republican Liberty Caucus

Thks for the advice. I probably handled this wrongly. I understand that (as a PROD rather than AfD) it will be up to an administrator after 5 days. Is that right? Cheers Bjenks (talk) 03:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure. They might just delete it if not done right. Check WP:AFD again in it's 3 part sections on how to do it. It's pretty easy to copy the template to the page and fill in the blanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, if you're trying to rewrite it please consider using some of my rewriting of the Views section, I put quite a lot of effort into making it flow better and clearer. old version. Rd232 ^talk 00:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, it's difficult to keep track of who has written what. I'm taking out the worst most jumbled attacks and adding correct context where necessary. I still think each topic should be addressed in a separate paragraph. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:37, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I was trying to do. Sorry if it's not as obvious as I thought. Good luck. (You're going to need it...) Rd232 ^talk 00:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The edits you did that I noticed were good. But it really needed wholesale deleting of most obnoxious stuff that really does violate BLP. We'll see what happens... After all not first dustup on this article I;ve gone through in a year of editing, just most dramatic... PS. Note this. CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps inevitably I think my version is better, not least for readability. Maybe take another look, see if you want to use anything from it ... the diff is hard to read because of all the refs though. my version. Rd232 ^talk 01:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was just cleaning out the worst for now. Recovering from head cold and have paid nonwiki editing job I'm behind on. But thanks for your best link which will refer to. Also, what to do about Rance? He's been rather sneaky about getting his own writings in there without his name being mentioned (though I see his direct quotes now removed.) But he's not as bad as THF and Drsmoo and sometimes helpful in explaining policies to POV pushers over last year. I think someone could go to WP:COIN for an opinion about how big a COI he has, but now that direct quotes out, probably not as much. CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

<back dent
Just got a chance to look at your diff and it is better except for the "quote farm" criticism; I think most of those can be used but better in a views section with separate paragraphs on views. And I think, especially given he has equal footing in a debate with Aaronovitch on the topic of antisemitism at the [Sunday Times]] Oxford Literary Festival this weekend,^[1][2] it is an indication that a jazz musicians views can be politically notable. After all Ronald Reagan was once just an actor and labor union president. :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]