Leave messages for user User:Carolmooredc on this page

---

/Archive I /Archive II /Archive III /My Sandbox /draft chart

(Moved here from User talk:Doug for unified discussion)
Neolibertarian - Right-libertarian -- Left-Rothbardianism - Libertarian center - Libertarian progressivism - Mainstream libertarianism - Thick and thin libertarianism.

These articles really annoy me because IMHO they are:

• Articles which cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including especially neologisms and original theories and conclusions
• BLP issues since they claim various individuals are part of their faction without providing evidence

Basically one or a small group of people have created these phrases, use them in their small circles, and then put up articles to advertise and promote their ideas.

It's probably not very libertarian to want to delete them, but is it wikipedian? I need another opinion for my peace of mind and advise on how to proceed with most dubious articles, i.e., one by one or all at once? Carol Moore 18:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Carol, I agree, they all seem to be neologisms. If you attack Right-libertarian, I would also plan to go after Left-libertarian or explain why not. Neolibertarian looks like nothing but a definition and Mainstream libertarianism has no cites; I would particularly support the idea that they should be deleted. I probably won't be around to participate, and who knows the discussion might change my mind (or yours) but I don't think it's unreasonable to nominate some or all of these for deletion (curious, how did you happen to ask me?)--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 18:13, 17 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for comments. I found someone who got rid of Left-Rothbardianism so will be interested in his comments as well. I asked because you were listed in editor assistance as someone who knew a lot about deletions. Carol Moore 23:27, 17 August 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

I just wanted to thank you for your recent changes. Somehow over the course of time, it seems that we've both come to some agreement on things as I really like your new input into the page. q (talk) 20:32, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Taking a break but have a lot more want to do. But be warned I'm only going to put in lefty stuff that seems solid and uncontroversial to me since, as said before, I don't have energy to defend more controversial stuff. That will be your job :-) Carol Moore 20:45, 23 August 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Hi Carol, Neolibertarianism. To me this sounds like neoconservatism. To impose one's ideology using the gouvernment is not Libertarianism at all. I agree that they're are different degrees of libertarianism but this one is hidden neoconservatism wanting to call itself something else. 198.103.223.52 (talk) 20:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC) Steven[reply]

It's not quite that bad, but really a variety of libertarian conservatism and i'd prefer to just redirect it there, but they guys promoting it already put up a fuss. So the only thing I could do was cut out all the unsourced material that was clogging up the article. It already was discussed for deletion once and the supporters stopped it. Carol Moore 22:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

i noted in two places you had engaged in a discussion on the talk page about whether an article should be deleted. if you think an article should be deleted and you think it meets the criteria, which both articles did. please just nominate it for deletion. --Buridan (talk) 10:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I have done so in the past, in these cases I had a feeling there were people who are part of a tiny faction who would come out of the woodwork to defend the article and it was better to give them notice and have them work on it there, than to do an AfD and have them spring up there. I had noticed it on one article which I think needs deletion but wasn't deleted 3 years ago because such partisans sprang up. But if the better way is to just go for it, I guess I will! In next few days. Carol Moore 12:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Did you notice that the WP:OR poorly sourced article "Anarcho-capitalist perspectives on violent revolution" had been changed to "Libertarians perspectives on revolution" which was written well-within wikipedia policies? I just forgot to keep the html of the final version or I would remake that second article as "Libertarian perspectives on revolution" (without the "s"). If you would give me the latest html, I will do so. Otherwise I'm going to have to contest it here. Thanks. Carol in dc Carol Moore 17:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Thank you for your message. In future, please sign your messages by typing ~~~~ at the end.

While I'm happy to answer questions, it looks like your question could have been answered and resolved more quickly if you had used my message wizard. It's linked as "Talk" after my name and at the top of my talk page. Why not try it next time?

I have restored Anarcho-capitalist perspectives on revolution. Please move it to whichever title you have decided you want it at. Stifle (talk) 18:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carolmooredc: please do not change the Sommers article to read, 'Hoff Sommers criticizes what she considers politically correct trends within feminism, while others consider her to be antifeminist.' Critics is the accurate term to use here, not others. I'm going to change this back in the reasonably near future, since I don't consider your change appropriate. In fact, since this wording implies that everyone, except for Sommers herself, regards her as an anti-feminist, I consider it flagrant BLP violation. Skoojal (talk) 21:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I made an imprecise attempt to get rid of the redundant use of the word critic. I should have used a thesaurus and will do so now. Carol Moore 21:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Carolmooredc: you recently made an edit that introduced this sentence to the article on Christina Hoff Sommers: "Hoff bemoans the fact that "conservative scholars have effectively been marginalized, silenced, and rendered invisible on most campuses."

This kind of language is completely inappropriate for an encyclopedia article. Don't refer to Sommers as "Hoff", and in addition, don't use words like "bemoans" if you can help it. It makes Sommers's perfectly rational criticisms sound like emotional whining, and though it may not quite amount to BLP violation, it's definitely inappropriate. Skoojal (talk) 03:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please cool down. It was late and I wasn't as careful as I should have been. Carol Moore 17:35, 23 September 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

Hello Carol! I responded to your comment on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Gender_Studies/Feminism_Task_Force about sexism on Wikipedia. I have to say that I have not experienced any sexism here on Wikipedia. The survey sounds like a good idea. What have you been attacked for? (If I may ask, that is.) --Grrrlriot (♠ ♣ ♦ ♥ †) 18:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, one issue is that I do edit on political topics where people are more likely to be contentious, and where there tend not to be too many women at all, so that obviously is a factor. The guy is already in a bad mood that someone comes up with WP:RS sources disagreeing with his viewpoint - and then it turns out to be a female! Usually one is accused of having the most obnoxious view of the most extremist people who might have somewhat similar views, and various pejorative phrases or accusations often are thrown in. Being a libertarian, I've gotten it from both left and right! So maybe this would have to be a survey regarding if more women experience WP:Attack if they appear to be on some specific side of contentious topics. Of course, condescension can be another problem, but that's subjective and not wiki-illegal :-) Looking at my contributions I can probably find several recent examples, and some from past editing issues. But I think the general issue is what matters. Carol Moore 19:11, 24 September 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

Your right, the general issue is what matters. I agree, It could be a survey is more women experience WP:ATTACK. Also, I wanted to say that I took a look at your userpage and went to your website. I just wanted to let you know that I bookmarked your website on delicious. :) --Grrrlriot (♠ ♣ ♦ ♥ †) 19:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Carol. I see you have been heavily involved in editing the CRA article and wanted to pass this link on to you to give you a good idea of how much people are lying to cover the Dems' tracks. Scary: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs

Interestedsister (talk) 20:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt about it. But Bush/the Republicans bear responsibility too for being busy warring to clean up the economic mess. Both sides have big contributors to candidates calling the shots. At least the calls to congress are stopping are rush to bail out the rich cronies. What the article needs is some good statistics and analysis showing better percentage role of this agency's work versus all the other regulatory provisions in causing this. Carol Moore 21:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

I am an editor here too. Hope all is well. If you could, you should check out Nassim's page. He's an "epistemological libertarian" metaphysically speaking (Libertarianism (metaphysics)). I hope all is well and hang in there with the CRA thing. If you need help. You know what to do.. LoveMonkey (talk) 20:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've noticed you editing there. Frankly, I'm not that familiar with any of the sources or arguments there. Just like the idea of free will as being the basis of the cosmos! But haven't found any reliable resources saying it ;-) Maybe Nassim does?? Carol Moore 20:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

Well epistemology is all about reliable sources. Heres the absolute best primer you could possibly ever use. Dostoevsky! [1] The basis of the Universe is randomness (stochastics) and order or logic. This is Byzantine. Notes from Underground is the absolute best as is Demons. And yes you can use randomness, you only need to flip a coin and you are there. Here is the completion of what Dostoevsky opposed with his art -We (novel). This is Zamyatin's devotional to Dostoevsky. I think you might relate to the message of it abit. LoveMonkey (talk) 18:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey is a very funny term in Russian that Gogol was fond of- poshlust. Here is a definition of it as a baser human instinct. "Shower upon him every earthly blessing, drown him in a sea of happiness, so that nothing but bubbles of bliss can be seen on the surface; give him economic prosperity, such that he should have nothing else to do but sleep, eat cakes and busy himself with the continuation of his species, and even then out of sheer ingratitude, sheer spite, man would play you some nasty trick. He would even risk his cakes and would deliberately desire the most fatal rubbish, the most uneconomical absurdity, simply to introduce into all this positive good sense his fatal fantastic element. It is just his fantastic dreams, his vulgar folly that he will desire to retain, simply in order to prove to himself—as though that were so necessary— that men still are men and not the keys of a piano, which the laws of nature threaten to control so completely that soon one will be able to desire nothing but by the calendar."

Good Luck Ms Carol God Bless you. BTW Poshlust is countered by sobornost. LoveMonkey (talk) 18:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the psychedelic message. I'll have to meditate on it :-) Carol Moore 19:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

Groovey! LoveMonkey (talk) 19:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS I was wondring what you thought of Zahi Hawass, and or Mary Lefkowitz? If you get time. LoveMonkey (talk) 12:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Patience. my mind is on economic freedom this week and not ready to make a shift to metaphysical freedom :-) Carol Moore 15:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

I'll be cool. I am just watching out for riff raff. You are a respectiable one (the modern Laura Ingalls Wilder) and I am making myself available Ms Carol. If you need any help contact me though. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nag me next week :-) Meanwhile you know about this? Wikipedia:WikiProject_Libertarianism Not doing much now but soon I may list the worst libertarian articles that need sourcing. I'm a whip mistress on WP:RS when I get interested in an article, assuming I know something about it and online sources easily accessible. Esp. if I do not like what is currently in the article :-) I've gotten about 10 crappy libertarian articles deleted or re-directed to more solid articles. Carol Moore 16:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

Oh yeah. And now in the election cycle eveything is a pain. Hang in there your a saint and much appreciated. I am working to try and develope an article on epistemological libertarianism. But I think it wont last the deletion insanity on here. As for the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Libertarianism again I keep getting edit warred off of libertarian (metaphysics) and the Free will article. These are the ones that I was trying to work on for the project. Free will might need an WP:Office so, ugly ugly ugly. God Bless you Ms Carol. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC) )[reply]

PS you could invite me to the Project though. (I know how Barney of me, be my friend and all). LoveMonkey (talk) 16:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me about it. People seem to think my critiquing Community Reinvestment Act will lose Obama the election. Against Mad Man McCain - an old Bush sniffing crazy glue?? I keep hoping Obama's lying about all the pro-war stuff to win and then goes total peacenik and closes down 600 military bases and brings the troops home and makes them teachers. (not cops, please!!).

Anyway, again I'm not too familiar with either of those topics and when I took a quick look last month didn't find too much online on them that wasn't very POV; but didn't look real hard. And I'm not going looking for all those dense philosophical books to figure it out. I know my own limitations :-) But I have found some good sources to beef up individualist feminism which I got sidetracked from by the long predicted statist economic collapse. Carol Moore 16:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

I can say I noticed the traction. People are being very unfair about the whole mess and cult like in their partisan behaviour. As for the articles I added sources and they got edited out. I complained to DGG and he did nothing-typical. But thats another issue. As for the election. Yicks I am out of it. I think though people should not be hammering you as you have been pretty decent about the whole thing. But no....So here I am abuggin'.LoveMonkey (talk) 16:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, I'm very democratic. For me a notification is an invite :-) Second, I'm used to getting beat up and don't take it seriously; plus I'm one of the fighting Irish! :-) Carol Moore 16:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

I know but someone needs to say or leave you with a positive note. I think your work here is very good or I won't bother. It is not libertarian to make friends easy ;>). Right is right truth is truth and everything else a distraction (teleological Hume-ie!). I dont expect anything from you but I think people need be respectful and YOU are trying. So again just buggin'.LoveMonkey (talk) 17:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its also a shame the Murray article got deleted. You know his stuff is available (along side ol' Kooky Karl's) through the libertarian forum in the years he wrote for it. I think that his article (Left-Rothbardianism) should be restored but never got involved since I have fires of my own. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which Murray article. Murray Rothbard still there. Been meaning to put in some stuff about him being an anti-zionist. So many articles, so little time! Carol Moore 17:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

Yicks was that stuff in the forum. I had no idea. Murray was Jewish though so I dont know. Is he any worse then Noam Chomsky????LoveMonkey (talk) 17:19, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey got busy gotta go. God Bless. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Living in NYC before associated with Libertarians I was very pro-Israel. But hanging out with Murray 1979-82, I became very critical. However, when someone took "anti-Zionist" off his page, I did a quick search and couldn't find a self-identification as one. But his writings could be interpreted as that. Being an anarchist he had more the anarchist position there should not be such a state. Carol Moore 22:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

WOW you got to hang with Murray. Excellent. Thanks for the answer I hope that I wasnt putting you on the spot. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question authority! :-) Carol Moore 16:16, 9 October 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

Hey heres alittle Taleb [2] I am telling you that he covers post-everything. His take on the current stock/credit market crash is rippin!

LoveMonkey (talk) 17:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who's the subject in question? I can't figure it out from the M.I. article. (BTW, I certainly think "market-oriented conservative" is about right.) --Orange Mike | Talk 19:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't want to complicate things too much. Husock is currently described as both in the Community Reinvestment Act article opinions section but I am going to mention some factoids from his book in the upper section and that's where I think I'll have a problem with the other editor, since he already opined in reliable sources noticeboard discussion he only should be described as conservative. Hot controversial topic right now. I'll put that on blp page if it will help, rather than confuse things. Carol Moore 19:51, 3 October 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

Carol, I tried to put in a reference to the NYT to an edit to the timeline but for some reason I don't understand it didn't come out right. The insert was for 28 April 2004, on the net capital rule change. Reference is NYT, The Reckoning, Agency's 04 rule let banks pile up new debt, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/03/business/03sec.html I thought I got all the code right but apparently missed something. Since Hank Paulsen led this initiative while then heading up Goldman Sachs, it really needs to be in this timeline. (A real contribution by the way, thanks to you and everyone else who contributed!) Sorry to ask for help, but I usually only look at Hong Kong related stuff on wikipedia and seldom make a contribution even there except when something glaring is wrong or missing. 219.73.27.78 (talk) 06:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)Michael DeGolyer, HKBU professor pol economy, degolyer@hkbu.edu.hk219.73.27.78 (talk) 06:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you got it in ok. Carol Moore 12:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc