User talk:Carolmooredc/Archive III

Jewish Lobby

Hi. Good job on the Jewish Lobby article! It has been a disaster for a long time now, to the extent that I find it hard to assume good faith on the editors behind it, but I think that now it is looking fairly balanced. Good work! (I'm not editing much these days due to real life activities, but I check in some times to see what is going on). pertn (talk) 11:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes you gotta take a stand and hang in there - esp. since the old POV article could be used to ruin innocent people's lives! Carol Moore 16:11, 18 March 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Sorry about going astray on the mediation page. I think the improvements on this article are huge. One of the main problems with the whole "is JL a antisemitic slur" debate is that WP's OR policy often makes it hard include facts so obvious that few RS comment on it. A problem now (still in my opinion, I have got to quit this!) is that the discourse on whether it is antisemitic or not is dominated by the pro's. The obvious opposite is not that it is not antisemitic, but that one can not assume there to be antisemitic motives in a phrase (itself) that may really refer to specific entities that do exist, e.g. lobby groups representing Jewish interests. I suppose only few RSes would bother to write this, and thus the article would become imbalanced. Due to OR policy, trying to show that it is used non-antisemiticly by many notables, will not do. I think one should try to urge more neutral editors to look at it. I agree that what is in the article should be based on RSes, but in this case I have a feeling that the OR of recognizing what is the common usage of the term should inform what RSes one includes. pertn (talk) 07:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for comments. This actually is a good article for learning wiki policy since it's such an excellent example of the frustrating points you made. But if we just keep searching we do find refs that work. You can see how freaked some people get when we come up with a linguist willing to link a couple of the phrases that are used interchangeably. :-) I just am trying to get happy with progress so I can focus more on other things, but hate to see wikipedia used to smear people! Carol Moore 02:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Hi. I was reading around, and stumbled over a quite interesting dispute in NY Times. You have probably seen it already, but in case you haven't, it may be interesting with regards to the issue with Mearsheimer and Walt and the term Jewish Lobby. [1] which is a reply to Leslie Gelb's article [2] where he consequently uses JL instead of IL in the review of M&W's book. Interesting, but I suppose you have already seen it. If not, I hope it may be to some help with balancing the article. Cheers. pertn (talk) 20:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually Jayjg had put in the part where they deny using the phrase - conveniently leaving out why they felt compelled tosay something about it. He did same thing with a WashPost quote. Brought that up yesterday. Carol Moore 23:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

"Why they felt comelled to say something about it" wasn't particularly relevant to and article about the term "Jewish lobby" - though, of course, it might be important to those with a political agenda who felt they had to push that agenda on Wikipedia. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? pertn (talk) 11:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure it is, if people are trying to say that only antisemites use it when actually mainstream and Jewish sources use it, as W&M say - but you do not want in article. WP:idontlikeit Carol Moore 02:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Involvement with the Jewish lobby article

Carol, I saw you are involved with the discussion regarding the resolution of conflict on the Jewish lobby article, so I've left a note in relation to my full protection of the page on the talk page of the mediation page, located here. Thank you for your time. Regards, Rudget. 17:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course, the mediation could go on for ever. Meanwhile how do we get new quotes in there if they pass mediation? Email you? Carol Moore 17:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Carol, don't be surprised; I moved your question and my answer to your question re: early usage of the phrase to the Entymology section you added at the end. My answer was that G-Dett is the one who says she has a 1921 usage; the oldest I found was the 1959 usage cited in the OED. Cheers, Jgui (talk) 19:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Any articles featuring false charges antisemitism?

Noticed the discussion here Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_1#Antisemitism and that your suggested changes not made. All such mentions also kicked out of Jewish Lobby by regular suspects. Given all the "See Alsos" under antsemitism it almost seems the subject could get its own article, though obviously there would be a big brouhaha. Carol Moore 11:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

I guess so. There is a huge WP:OWNership issue over at the Antisemitism article. I jutst can't be bothered fighting over it. It just isn't worth the effort. No amount of sources can convince someone who doesn't want to be convinced. // Liftarn (talk)

Jeri Ryan

That image is inappropriate for the article on Jeri Ryan. Please see WP:IUP and WP:FUC. Thanks. --Yamla (talk) 02:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

RS Noticeboard

You posted the same comment twice by mistake I think ... on the RS Noticeboard. Just a heads up. Feel free to delete this.PelleSmith (talk) 03:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC) Cheers.PelleSmith (talk) 03:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Carol, regarding your second question I think it would be good if we had more detail about the source and the content in question. Thanks.PelleSmith (talk) 16:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Missed your first message and just noticed today. are you talking about Ruff? Carol Moore 18:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

JL comment

You suggested on the JL mediation page that "this should be given a time limit like one week for discussion and mediation ends". Personally, I think this is a very bad idea. Arbitrary time limits do not allow a full discussion; especially for those editors (like myself) that can only edit occasionally. I hope you will reconsider the benefits of such an approach. Thanks, Jgui (talk) 14:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Carol, I know it is frustrating, and I know we seem to stating our case into a vacuum. But I also think we have made a great deal of progress in mediation, although it may not be obvious. And I warn you that it is a very bad idea to walk away from mediation, since it is used to claim that parties were not being sincere in mediation - it will hurt your editing career at WP as well as the case to improve the article. I know you have not walked away from the mediation - you have only expressed your frustration with the process - so I hope you will come back and clarify that, and make it clear that you want to continue as long as there is the possibility of making progress. Feel free to email me if you wish. Thank you, Jgui (talk) 05:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Breakdownnationscover.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Hi Carolmooredc!
We thank you for uploading Image:Breakdownnationscover.jpg, but there is a problem. Your image is currently missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. Unless you can help by adding a copyright tag, it may be deleted by an Administrator. If you know this information, then we urge you to add a copyright tag to the image description page. We apologize for this, but all images must confirm to policy on Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks so much for your cooperation.
This message is from a robot. --John Bot III (talk) 15:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Mediation is confidential

As has been mentioned before, mediation is a confidential process. As such, it is not appropriate for you to copy comments from it to an admin noticeboard. I have deleted the comments you copied. Thanks for understanding. Shell ^babelfish 05:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Jewish lobby mediation

I've created a new mediation page so that we can try this again, hopefully with a better result. If you wish to join, please sign here. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Meetup/DC 4

If you're the Carol Moore listed at this page, please consider coming to the May meet-up. And if you are that person, even if you can't make the meeting, would you do us a huge favor by letting the others who indicated an interest, via meetup.com, in such a meeting, also know about the May meet-up? -- John Broughton ( ) 20:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Vote requested on the Jewish lobby mediation page

Carol, you just left a comment, but didn't vote on the latest proposed agreement. I voted in favor; could you please add your vote there as well? Thank you very much, Jgui (talk) 16:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Gilad Atzmon and BLP reliable sources

Hi Carol

I have responded to your comments at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Gilad_Atzmon_allegations_WP:RS?. I only discovered this by chance, and I think it would have been courteous to notify me of this. I certainly don't want to get into a dispute with you; I have generally agreed with your edits. But on this article, and a few others, I clearly have a somewhat different approach. However, as I believe you can see from the edit history and talk page, I have attempted (despite severe provocations) to edit the article carefully and cooperatively, and have indeed often acted to delete egregious attacks on Atzmon or restore comments by him and his supporters.[3] [4] [5] My interest is in maintaining an encyclopaedic article, which includes both Atzmon's own views and criticism of these, without any descent into abuse and name-calling.

But there is a difficulty, since much of the material -- both for and against Atzmon -- is self-published, and found on weblogs and other "unreliable" sources. This includes much which I would like to include, but have refrained from so doing in order to use only acceptable sources. There is also material (including personal attacks on me and others) which I would prefer not to link to on Wikipedia. However, if you are interested in discussing this further, you are welcome to email me via my talk page. RolandR (talk) 08:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I replied there saying: I brought it here for a quick opinion because a) the WP:BLP rule seems to be when it doubt on libel or sources, cut it out; b) having brought more reliable leftie sources to RS noticeboard and seen them trashed by some (not most) editors, not sure how they would fair on RS noticeboard; c) knowing Atzmon does aggressively go after those he feels smear him for corrections or replies; d) knowing Wikipedia currently being sued for defamation, I thought it prudent to bring it here for defintive answer as opposed to talk page where would have to bother with possible partisan bickering. Or maybe I should go straight to Wikipedia:Dispute#Turn_to_others_for_help help. Carol Moore 12:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

My Background so you can evaluate my changes to Libertarianism

Hello Carol, i appreciate your assistance with the Libertarianism article.

I wanted to let you know a little bit of my background so you can evaluate what I am saying. I have studied Libertarianism for years, and attend meetings of both groups monthly. (Both call themselves Libertarians in the U.S.)

I can direct you to books that can explain the whole history of both movements if you'd like. Books that include both movements in it's analysis. There are actually more than 2 Libertarian movements, but I was keeping to two to start.

There were actually multiple movements within the original libertarianism. There was a Statist branch, and a non statist branch.

That's a critical topic that should be discussed. Just like there's a statist, and a non statist branch in the new incarnation of "Libertarianism".

I can elaborate more with specific citations on any topic you wish. I have added input towards your sandbox version on the Libertarian talk page. Please look over it.

I'd also ask you to please not treat me combatively. I can understand with the changes why you would become combative, but I would appreciate a good faith understanding with working together.

Thank you. q (talk) 17:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't take combativeness personally. A) See talk where this has been discussed ad nauseam B) See fact that mainstream sources have to be quoted in wiki articles and you can't base your whole point on minor sources claiming THEIR definition is the right one. Please study wiki policies C) There are a lot of wacky right wing libertarian views being presented that I'm also going to go after for poor sourcing. :-) It is frustrating that real right wingers trying to take over the libertarian party this weekend, so in an unusually bad mood. But hopefully they'll lose. Plus i'm focusing on secession now a days anyways. http://secession.net Carol Moore 17:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

I do not take it personally. My concern is that the majority of editors are more concerned with keeping Libertarianism as just theirs, and ignoring the history of it. This concern is bore out of an article which pretends that the history doesn't exist, and keeps it to a small section. Further, the majority of the world considers Libertarianism the original one, and not the U.S. version. This makes the ignorance of it entirely particularly galling from a simple intellectual stand point. q (talk) 17:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

In general, people aren't too interested in lengthy dissertations on OLD definitions of words. The solution remains such reliably sourced info people can't object, except on NPOV and balance issues. Carol Moore 18:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

What do you think of my last well referenced edits? q (talk) 21:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't mean to be rude, but I get the impression that you have a vested interest in the status quo, and are holding to your version of the information regardless of the citations and extensive work I'm doing. I hope that I'm misunderstanding the situation. Thanks. q (talk) 22:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm just working on a well-sourced, balanced alternative right now that reflects reality. Actually after right wing Barr got Libertarian Party nomination I thought it was pretty funny people would be coming to an article that starts out stressing socialism. But other things are interfering so hopefully by next week I'll have a good piece of work to insert, which uses all your stuff except the WP:UNDUE Britannica stuff I already mentioned that goes in a footnote, and we can go to mediation on that if you want. Carol Moore 01:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Interchangeability of terms

Hi Carol

Re "Israel lobby" and "Jewish lobby", have you seen this: "Identifying synonymous terms, and collecting related information under a common heading is also part of writing an encyclopedia. Reliable sources do not always use consistent terminology, and it is sometimes necessary to determine when two sources are calling the same thing by different names. This does not require a third source to state this explicitly, as long as the conclusion is obvious from the context of the sources. Articles should follow the naming conventions in selecting the heading under which the combined material is presented"? RolandR (talk) 10:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Of course certain editors to Jewish Lobby will just say "that's a guideline, not a policy" and "I'll delete anything I don't like -- i mean that's against policy - until the end of time." One can learn bad habits from particularly possessive editors, I'm afraid. But the article is far more NPOV than originally, so if that interchangeability and a few other issues don't get in for a few more months, so be it. It's more important to totally revamp the totally absurd, unsourced, poorly sourced, POV in 4 different directions libertarianism article.

I controlled self and didn't reply specifically to ref to Jewish Lobby article where this has been an issue, as your research of maybe 3-400 of my messages must have shown :-) Unless you have some other source.

But I've said enough on the topic of the recent edit to Atzmon unless 3-4 others suddenly chime in and say it's worth debating further. More interested in watching videos of that disgusting pacific garbage patch right now.

And I forgot to say but will note here that it is NOT wikipedia's job to engage in politically correct language, like rejecting "Jewish Marxist" because it's allegedly a smear according to some people. It depends on context. In some it clearly is, in others not, with Atzmon, it's debatable. Carol Moore 01:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Adam Shapiro

Hi, please be aware that your constant reversions are violating WP:3RR. Please try not to, as the consequences are not pleasant.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

If you read WP:BLP you will: Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research). The three-revert rule does not apply to such removals, though editors are advised to seek help from an administrator or at the BLP noticeboard if they find themselves violating 3RR, rather than dealing with the situation alone. Content may be re-inserted only if it conforms to this policy. I will consult with others. Carol Moore 13:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Libertarianism

Hi, Carol. Thanks for that. Greatly improves the opening passages. As a self-respecting anarch, I was begining to find the excessive & tedious flag-waving a bit embarrassing. Regards, Wingspeed (talk) 00:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Bob Barr as "effective"

I don't dispute your experience of it, but it would be nice if you could find some neutral third party source (a newspaper report, magazine, editorial, etc.) indicating that Barr was seen as being "effective". Cheers! bd2412 T 00:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

As I've written in two edit summaries, that is how the source describes his questioning: "Some Republican congressmen -- especially Bob Barr (Ga.), Ed Bryant (Tenn.), and Steven Schiff (N.M.) -- managed to ask effective questions and make clear points anyway." Carol Moore 01:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Your You Tube Videos

As you may be aware, YouTube has recently come in for criticism over it's handlling of copyrighted works.

I note that you have a number of potentially interesting videos on You Tube that you link to from your talk page.

Instead of supporting troubled proprietary sites, Why not support projects that value creative talent and assist in ensuring that a viewing public can enjoy and expand upon it?

Wikimedia Commons is one project that needs creative content (under licensing that lets people enjoy and expand upon it).

It would be much appreciated if you could see if you would consider migrating videos for which you are the copyright owner to 'open' formats like Ogg Theora, and moving them from 'failed' propriatey sites like YouTube to community sites like Wikimedia Commons, under an appropriate license. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I gave it all a quick look and it's stuff I'll have to study when more into a video distribution head. Carol Moore 15:34, 5 July 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Political Research Associates

Hi Carol. I saw you readded Political Research Associates to the third opinion list. It was delisted because Ludwigs2 gave an opinion on the page. I've since marked his opinion with a subsection header. If there's a problem with this, please let me know. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Missed that his opinion had been entered. Also I didn't realize one opinion enough to take it off the list. Carol Moore 14:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Editor Assistance Question on Possible Deletion of several articles

(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).

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}

Libertarianism

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)

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

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}

afd's

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)

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}

Various perspectives on revolution

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)

Archive II

It looks like you accidentally created your talk page archive in the mainspace. I have tagged it for deletion for you. Cheers! TN‑X-Man 18:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I copied the text. How about telling me how to fix it? Not sure what did wrong. OK, figured it out. Carol Moore 18:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Sommers article

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)

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}

Inappropriate language

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)

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

Sexism on Wikipedia

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)

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)

CRA article

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)

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

Hey Ms Carol

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)

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! [6] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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) )

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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

Hey heres alittle Taleb [7] I am telling you that he covers post-everything. His take on the current stock/credit market crash is rippin! Now thats questioning authority..

LoveMonkey (talk) 17:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

BLP question

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)

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

subprime crisis timeline

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)

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

"Jewish lobby" or "Israel lobby"?

Some time ago, you were looking for a reliable source regarding the interchangeable use of these terms. I don't know if you found one; but I have just found this:

The term "Jewish lobby" is not only scientific; it strengthens and legitimizes the entity it seeks to expose and weaken. First, both Jews and non-Jews are active in the Zionist movement. Second, though many Jews do take part in pro-Israel activities, the majority do not, and a small but growing minority actively opposes them. Third, the phrase draws a categorical and unqualified equation between being pro-Jewish and being pro-Israel. The Israeli media routinely refer to the pro-Israel forces in the US as "the Jewish lobby": they endow a political constituency with an ethnic legitimacy, and thereby hope to place it beyond criticism. Surely the left needs to dispute this sleight of hand, not fall for it.

Mike Marqusee, If I Am Not For Myself: Journey of an anti-Zionist Jew, Verso 2008, p 268.

I hope this is useful. RolandR (talk) 10:14, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Between having a head cold and not thinking much about the issue lately it seems rather confusing to me, but I know it is here for future reference. I've also got dozens of WP:RS google alerts on the subject have to go through too. But my main goal was just for the article to acknowledge that there are non-anti-Jewish uses of the phrase, including a variety of interchangeable uses with Israel and Zionist lobby, of which this evidently is one. Carol Moore 12:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

Sorry, the quote should of course have started "The term "Jewish lobby" is not only unscientific…" (my emphasis). I should remember to read my own comments before saving; and it is a reminder always to check a source rather than rely on someone else's quote from it.RolandR (talk) 16:21, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

New proposal on old sources

You recently participated in a discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard concerning how to use the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia in an article. Similar issues have been raised on a number of occasions, so I've proposed an addition to Wikipedia:Verifiability that would address the problem of how and when to use old sources. Please see Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Dealing with potentially outdated sources - your comments would be welcome. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Epistemeological libertarianism

Epistemological libertarianism is the validation via science of free will as a characteristic of human consciousness.

Epistemological libertarianism follows from Natural libertarianism.
Natural libertarianism is......
Naturalistic libertarians believe that the universe contains an indeterminstic element (randomness), for instance as demonstrated by quantum mechanics, and that human beings exploit this to achieve freedom of choice. There is no separate, dualistic self in this theory: the self is the total activity of the brain as a system.
Epistemological libertarianism is the scientific validation (via stochastics) that randomness exists and that it can be used by human beings to make choices, like Two Face in Batman with his flip of the coin (like gambling see the Monte Carlo method). The free will here, can use randomness through various devices (dice) to side step the causal chain and make a decision.
This means that people confront randomness in various forms in daily life and have ways to "make" a choice other then deterministic ways (see buridan's ass). Since random events have no deterministic causation and as events can be validate epistemeologically. Faith is one example. Also random events are not strictly "subatomic" nor are they strictly in realm of the study and mapping of energies (i.e. quantum physics). There is no way to determine specfic types of human behavior. Since not all human behaviour is logical and or instinctual. Common human mistakes are random in nature. Also human physical characteristics are also sumbebekos/random (eye color, hair color). Due to this, Determinism as an all encompassing theory fails to account for uniqueness as a physical causation (i.e. no song is ever performed exactly the same twice ever by any human performer).
Now Libertarianism (metaphysics) is the overview of both since stochastics are not strictly confimed to the physical, natural Universe. Consciousness is part of this, due to the hard problem of consciousness though I would agree more with John Searle. This means one returns to Kant and Liebniz and that stochatics in essence are abstract knowledge as is all of mathmatics- since math is not physical but abstract.
LoveMonkey (talk) 15:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

PS I understand you are busy. But this is before I forget.

LoveMonkey (talk) 16:03, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

This all from the perspective of Stephen Hawkings. [8] Please note randomness can be used, this is the very heart of what makes the monte carlo method, the monte carlo method. LoveMonkey (talk) 18:49, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll check it out but I heard Bush is going to have his library at a methodist university and he certainly is a gambling methodist, losing all OUR money on his 8 years of gambling. UGH. Carol Moore 21:05, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Voluntaryism

You deleted the data as "original research." But the source of the data exists: herePublicSquare (talk) 15:33, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Please see this user under Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Sarsaparilla Carol Moore 16:57, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

This article appears to directly copy the source. I think it's anyway a copyright violation. The sections "3 Origins" and "4 Earlier Contemporary Usage in America" appears to directly copy this source: here Should we remove it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Edit warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Gilad Atzmon. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. -- Avi (talk) 01:27, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Three revert rule does not apply to violations of WP:BLP, though I will report the violations to BLP/Noticeboard per WP:BLP. Carol Moore 01:33, 26 October 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

Yes, but please remember that BLP does not mean that properly -sourced negative statements can be removed. From my perusal of the history and the arguments, the back-and-forth is more of a content dispute than a BLP issue, especially when referencing Atzmon's own writing in Atzmon's article. If I may suggest, please review the WP:BLP and WP:NPOV policies, remembering that imporper whitewashing is a violation of WP:NPOV as well. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 01:36, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Unless you are specific about what you mean on the talk page of the article, I really can't see a reason to discuss vague statements like the above with you. Note that those doing these big reverts haven't bothered to either, unlike other editors in the past and recently. And I assume you have a problem with this abusive edit summary by an editor who has nothing but complaints about his editing on his talk page. Carol Moore 01:46, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I will drop a note to such on the talk page. However, looking at the article's edit history, you are currently the editor who is in closest jeopardy of 3RR, and I wanted to inform you before you may have violated the guideline and ended up being blocked. -- Avi (talk) 01:55, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

FYI - User_talk:Antifascist#Inappropriate edit summaries -- Avi (talk) 01:58, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for spanking the alleged antifacist. Are you the administrator who intends to block me if I revert stuff before 11:47 am tomorrow wiki time? It seems still to me that Wikipedia:3rr#Exceptions "Reverting the addition of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced controversial material which violates the policy on biographies of living persons." means that absurd piling on of charges of "antisemitism" by poorly sourced, source-twisting, questionable, biased and mere opinion sources can be reverted. Carol Moore 02:10, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea if I will be the one who blocks you or not; I am just suggesting that you do not violate it . Perhaps you should ask for feedback on Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard or post a Wikipedia:Requests for comment for the article, as it appears to me that some of your reverts are not purely BLP-related but more in the line of content disputes. Yes, the process can be glacially slow, but that is the price paid for having the rules apply to everyone equally and not turning wikipedia into a free-for-all revertfest. Thanks. -- Avi (talk) 02:16, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

And in specific, I have not checked through the sources, but a quick glance does indicate that the statement that Atzmon has been accused of anti-semitism may be warranted; the Guardian is a reliable source. -- Avi (talk) 02:19, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I put a BLP/N note on yesterday and today. If you read carefully in the opinion piece the author mentions one non-noteworthy woman accuses Atzmon of antisemitism, otherwise the opinion piece's author dances around the topic. It didn't seem very encyclopedic accusation to me, as opposed to the more specific ones that I replaced it with. Esp. since there already are a number of accusations. And I didn't notice anyone on the talk page quoting any place the author allegedly said it. Shall we copy these last two entries to the talk page, minus first sentence? Carol Moore 02:25, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Right-libertarianism sidebar

Template:Right-libertarianism sidebar has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. John Nevard (talk) 03:59, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Clean-up

On your User Page you wrote:

I started editing Wikipedia in 2006 because Wiki articles on some of my favorite subjects came up so high on search engines and many of them were atrocious. I've barely begun to clean them all up!!

It's hopeless. There seem to be many more contributors with poor writing skills than not. They are generating garbage on Wikipedia at a faster rate than it can be cleaned up! —Quicksilver^{T @} 22:38, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

So true! Because I may not be able to stop bad writing, stupid vandalism, POV changes on articles after I get them the way I like them, I am thinking of having a page on my web site called "My Wikipedia" linking to best version of some of the articles I've done the most work. So even if they turn to crap after I'm able to stay on top of them, at least I've got a record of when the articles were pretty good. Carol Moore 01:47, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Your signature

Please fix your signature so that it links back to your user page or user talk page. The way it is now is confusing and inconvenient. You can fix it by making [[User:Carolmooredc|Carol Moore]] your signature, which will result in Carol Moore when you sign talk page comments. Thanks.--chaser - t 05:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

FYI according to Wikipedia:Sign#How_to_sign_your_posts just signing four tildes is fine, for whatever reason. I just got lazy and figured if did it a couple times on a talk page my fans and admirers could search around. But if it makes contacting me more difficult I'll go the extra mile - if I haven't already signed all over the page or actually encourage people to talk to me. Carol Moore 18:34, 10 November 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

Hey Ms Carol

I thought about what you have said and I feel that maybe this best articulates my position on things [9] LoveMonkey (talk) 18:41, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Good little piece and quotable. Somewhat tangentially, I always say it's silly to argue subjectivism vs. objectivism since facts are on a spectrum from relatively objective to quite subjective. Purely objective, of course, can hardly exist in a world where even the laws of nature evolve. Signing lazily Carol Moore 18:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah I found her and you abit kindred. I thought you could appreciate her work. Her Godell book is just brilliant. LoveMonkey (talk) 13:24, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

PSS Wikipedians are people of the 3rd culture as she clearly demostrates by her definition of the 3rd culture as a bridge between science and art. LoveMonkey (talk) 13:26, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Rahm Emanuel

{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)

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)

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)

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, .

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)

Question for you

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)

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)

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

Good edit on Rahm Emanuel article

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)

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)

Help put an end to drive-by template tagging

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)

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)

Rahm

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)

Inconsistency?

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)

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)

War by other means

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

RFCBio

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

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)

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)

user page violations

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)

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

Your recent edits to your userpage

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)

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)

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)

Signature problem

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

RE:Sami

I noticed that you are working on it, so I went back to my last involvement[10], 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)

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)

Advice sought

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)

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)

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)

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)

Irgun

Since you were the only editor who seemed interested in how accurately the article represented the source in this discussion [11], I would be interested in getting you opinion on this [12]. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Confusing me with someone else

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)

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

Sonia Johnson

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)

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

Re: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (text formatting)

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

RE: Irgun

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". 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."

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)

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)

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)

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)

Thread on Jayjg's talk page

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)

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 [[13]]: 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)

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)

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)

David Abrahams (Labour party donor)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Re: "new bumiller link since old one wasn't working" edit

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)

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)

Benjamin M. Emanuel

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)

A difference of opinion is surely not vandalism,

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

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)

How can we get this article renamed?

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)

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)

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

Epistemeological libertarianism

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). [14] LoveMonkey (talk) 19:19, 29 December 2008 (UTC)