User talk:Carolmooredc/Archive VII

Confrontation at Concordia

At this AfD, you voted "keep if sources are found" - I hope you'll consider revisiting the discussion, as independent, reliable sources have not been found. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:12, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

My guess is there are equally "bad" sources knocking the film. Someone should put some of those up and see what happens. If it's a pure propaganda film produced/financed by some other entity it could be merged into that article. Will look again soon. CarolMooreDC 04:47, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure I used to think that it didn't matter if sources were bad as long as they weren't promotional-in-all-but-finances, and that finding opposition sources made a thing notable, but that really isn't what the notability guidelines require. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:24, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I know. Just wondering what POV supporters would think as opposed to more inclusionists ones. (Usually I'm a deletionist on this really bad stuff. Maybe if I watched a trailer I'd change my mind!) CarolMooreDC 14:37, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments on your DC outreach event

Hi Carol! I just wanted to let you know that I left some comments on the DC Wikimedia page about your outreach event. Thanks :) SarahStierch (talk) 18:27, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Responded. Thinking this is something all those newly retired teachers could get into - teaching wikipedia classes and mentoring newbies. Yeah!! CarolMooreDC 21:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Anti-Defamation League

I'm inviting you to weigh in on the discussion taking place on the Talk:Anti-Defamation League#Removal_of_"Individuals" subsection_of_the_Criticism_section, specifically the arguments laid out after User:Al Ameer son's and User:The Devil's Advocate's intervention. Dispute is about the following edits: [1] and [2]. My contention is that the paragraphs removed were in accordance with Wikipedia policy, and thus their continued exclusion from the text isn't justified. My interlocutors, of course, dispute that. Both sides of the issue have debated rather exhaustively; no new arguments have emerged for the last few days; and consensus or compromise don't seem likely. Guinsberg (talk) 23:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Mentioned your work

Mentioned your work here:[3] I think you're definitely onto something though how can you set up a movement to do it worldwide than just in US? Wikipedia is already very heavily US content biased, wp:WORLDVIEW --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 12:03, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

As long as the older generation is collecting their social security (and who knows how long that will last) we might as well be doing something productive! Speaking of WWI vets, my Grandfather was mustard gassed and wounded at the Battle of Belleau Wood and survived three days in dirt before being rescued; then on the way home his ship was sunk but he managed to survive that! He actually wrote up the story in a local Saratoga newspaper, but we've only got half of the article. That's how history gets lost. Unless it all goes on line someday and we can track it down. CarolMooreDC 19:15, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Your example

Hi Carol. The example that you just posted of "poo-pooing" does indeed sound outrageous to me, from your diffs. Dismissed as fishing??? I'm curious, can you provide the diff to that dismissal? Sorry to hear it. I'm posting here, so as not to deflect that ongoing string into a side discussion. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:51, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

These are almost all related to the article about the outrageous Gilad Atzmon, whose article should go by BLP standards anyway, as others agreed at last BLP Noticeboard discussion - but by then I was too tired to do anything about it.

Anyway Referenced sock puppet situation. Though I do say that I do not know for sure who is the original sock puppet. Malcolm Schosha probably was one of them too. Just like all these socks, after getting various flak for their behavior, Goodwinsands stopped editing. If people start working on Atzmon's article again probably some new sock will show up. They'll just be smart enough not to use the same techniques I described that identify themselves - including following me around on edits. But you never know! CarolMooreDC 23:29, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Ahah -- yes, I've always been a bit puzzled by what the criteria are for checkuser, and how they are applied. I've run into precisely the same thing. For example -- a first-time user, ever, nearly blanking (to one sentence) an article of mine that was on the main page as a DYK. So that it failed to be on the main page, for a number of hours. Plus -- the user had the earmarks of an editor who had been sanctioned to stop hounding me. Yet ... same result as yours. "Fishing". It is a mystery to me as well, and I felt similarly indignant. It is one thing to have civil substantive disagreements. It is quite another to sock. I would support all of us being checkusered, all the time.

BTW -- in the interest of full (and related) transparency, I myself was once accused of socking, and briefly blocked. Inappropriately, of course. Because I had multiple accounts for admin purposes ... so that I could have different watchlists .... I used one for example for following list articles only (which I purge of non-notables), and one for addressing grammar problems (such as less to fewer where appropriate), etc. I was un-blocked when the sysop realized that none of the accounts edited the same articles or !voted at the same AfDs and the like. To avoid future confusion I decided to edit from only one account, rather than the permissible multiple administrative accounts so I could benefit by having multiple watchlists. Our rules on multiple accounts could be improved -- while they allow for precisely what I did, the mere existence of multiple accounts is in practice not presumptively OK but rather presumptively NG. They should probably either disallow multiple accounts, or require that they be registered (which is permitted, but not required).--Epeefleche (talk) 23:54, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Whatever one's views on various controversial issues, socks are very annoying and destructive. But I guess caution is the word; why ban someone for mere coincidences? (Like innocently editing the same articles as certain admins; in fact I just clicked save on an AfD and then my heart stopped - "I hope _____ didn't reply to this!") Or, maybe the guys were just FLIRTING with CarolMooreDC? hahahahah

I thought multiple accounts only were for administrative or other wikifunctions, which is how it should be. CarolMooreDC 00:02, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

There are a number of appropriate uses of multiple accounts, including maintenance tasks and to segregate functions (the policy now calls, in that instance, for the accounts to be clearly linked in the main account--a good change). The policy is ever-changing (it is edited 2 times every 3 days on average), but the current state of it is reflected here.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:06, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Libertarian

If you are a Libertarian, you are and have always been considered a member of the Far-Right. In virtually any country, espousing a belief in anarchy is considered a form of extremism, regardless of whether it seems normal to you... Stevenmitchell (talk) 22:16, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

In wikipedia we go by sources, not personal beliefs. For example, your belief that anarchy and libertarianism are the same thing - they are not, even though many anarchists call themselves libertarian. Read the relevant articles. I would be suprised if Root was an anarchist! As I wrote in edit summary: have to have "WP:Reliable sources" to call him far right. Avoid WP:Original research. please see policy If you want to engage in WP:BRD per policy and discuss my revert on the talk page of the article, feel free. CarolMooreDC 22:46, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

• * I don't know where you have been hiding, but since I have been a child Libertarians, as people who advocate the removal and elimination of government, have always been regarded as Far Right. Now, that may be simply be a northeastern U.S. thing, and I do not know where you live or your personal background so I would not be able to assess whether it is merely semantics based on regional differences or simple education.

Additionally, I don't know if you have intellectual difficulties distinguishing what people say intellectually, but I never said Libertarianism and Anarchy are the same. What I did say by implication, is that libertarianism is a derivative branch of the concept of anarchy. But either way, feel free to apply inconsistent standards throughout Wikipedia. Normally we would simply put a "citation needed" post after the statement. Stevenmitchell (talk) 00:13, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Sexagenarians

Hello,

I saw your comment in the CREWE talk page so thought I would stop by to say "hi". I can put the 60+ userbox on my page next month. If finances permit, I hope to attend Wikimania, and hope to meet you. Take care. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:21, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Share a room with 6 20 somethings and you can afford it! :-) You've seen my CarolMooreDc affirmative action for oldsters right on top of the page? :-) CarolMooreDC 02:52, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Rooming with any number of 20 somethings sound both appealing and daunting at the same time. I was thinking more like Motel 6 or even a backpacking tent, but who knows which ship will come in? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:12, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Glancing at the top of your talk page, I see you mentioned your grandfather's service in World War I. My maternal grandfather, born in 1881, was a bit old for WWI service. He lost his first wife in the postwar flu epidemic in 1919, and hired a farm girl to care for his four kids. She became his second wife, my grandmother, and they had three kids, my mother the youngest of them. If it wasn't for the 1919 flu pandemic, I would not exist. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:22, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

My grandmother had the 1918 flu and often told the story of how she almost died. I always hope I'm carrying some special immunity in case it comes back again! CarolMooreDC 01:47, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Reply

Hello, Carolmooredc. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/COI.
You can remove this notice at any time.

Thanks for your queries ,hope I have clarified to you.I support retaining both WP:COI and WP:COIN in short .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:02, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Murray N. Rothbard

Hi, regarding you revision of Murray N. Rothbard, I addressed it in the talk page. --MeUser42 (talk) 16:12, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Women's Workshop page

My original post for my records

Re: Wikipedia:Workshop_for_Women_in_Wikipedia. I'm beefing up WP:Workshop and also working on Gender Gap issues. Did you actually have the workshop mentioned at Workshop_for_Women_in_Wikipedia? Also, were you involved with or know about WikiConference India 2011 which seemed to have three women's programs, if not workshops. Are there reports of any of this anywhere? Is there an agenda/workshop outline for any womens workshops we could add to that page? Should I ask User:Mokshjuneja who also still seems still to be working on workshops? FYI, I did find one more more relevant pictures at Wikicommons that can be added to the Women Workshop article/project. Feel free to tweak either page since you obviously have a lot of experience with workshops. I've only done one in DC so far and doing another one this weekend. Thanks. CarolMooreDC 05:01, 20 February 2012 (UTC

Sorry for the delay in my reply on this.

The Workshop did not happen. We decided to combine the first one with the conference and do subsequent ones, if needed alone, as per requirements that would arise. The decision was motivated with in trying to reach out to more women editors and perhaps even try and get women editors to do this workshop.

I have conveyed your message to the editors involved, who are: User:Bishdatta and User:Noopur28.

Prad2609 (talk) 18:27, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for info. It still can be a general page with various women-related events and workshops and will start making it more general in a few days. So look forward from anything I get from them, especially detail agendas which can be added to the page. CarolMooreDC 18:50, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, User:Bishdatta and User:AroundTheGlobe had gone for an event at Akshara, a gender rights group. You can see an event report here. I have moved from Mumbai because of a job and hence no longer directly involved, though in contact with them. Please do leave a message on their talk page. Thanks. Prad2609 (talk) 14:22, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

You're invited: Smithsonian Institution Women in Science Edit-a-Thon!

Who should come? You should. Really.
	She Blinded Me with Science: Smithsonian Women in Science Edit-a-Thon will be held on Friday, March 30, 2012 at the Smithsonian Archives in Washington, D.C. This edit-a-thon will focus on improving and writing Wikipedia content about women from the Smithsonian who contributed to the sciences. It will be followed by a happy hour meetup! We look forward to seeing you there!

Sarah (talk) 22:17, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Clarification

I did not follow your comment at http://wikimania2012.wikimedia.org/wiki/Submissions/Article_Quality_Assessment_using_Content_Analytics

I'm preparing my presentation and would welcome suggestions from experienced editors. OrenBochman (talk) 19:22, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

My response at his talk page:Content analysis presentation

Couple comments. First, if it can be used to detect/confirm sock puppets, that would be GREAT!! Second, there are topics that are verboten, or poorly covered, or censored by mainstream media: new human rights abusing laws in the US; crimes against African Americans vs. crimes vs. whites; govt busts under bad laws; human rights abuses in Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Israel; etc. In these categories sometimes the only WP:RS on them are non-mainstream political publications and websites, English versions of foreign language publications, etc. where there can be debate on WP:RS, depending on author, etc. Content analysis should not be constructed in such a way to make it look like such sources are defacto NON-WP:RS. CarolMooreDC 14:38, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I can make a state of the art tool to confirm sock puppets. It would be able to do a virtual line up of N users and point out the most likely culprit. It may or may not be good for detection too, that would need testing.

Regarding relaiblity - it is a very hard problem. It is also possible to place ranks against external sources using a number of rules. However, to do so in a "community compatible" way I would have to ask a task force to rank several sources using a code book. (Each item would need to be ranked independently, but the outcome would only be usefull if the indeviduals are close to consensus) This would be good for most situations.

For the debates you mention above these are the hot spots where a independent evaluator would be most usefull. I'd need to study this more deeply before considering these hot-spots. Is there a body of knowledge (tables/talk pages/etc...) listing sources and if they are considered Realiable Source on/off wikipdia? OrenBochman (talk) 15:29, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there is a table of what is and isn't WP:RS. Some clearly are, some clearly aren't, and then there's the middle where it depends on who wrote it, what the source is, what other refs available are, who's editing the article, etc. But if there isn't such a list of what IS WP:RS, then I guess there isn't a worry about the middle ground getting knocked off the list :-) CarolMooreDC 18:12, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikimania 2012 - Submission for discussing excessive deletions

Your submission and mine on the Article Rescue Squadron Panel/Future are much alike. I was concerned to get my submission in before the deadline, but I will be looking for other editors to be on a panel or to at least attend and support a discussion on AfD processes and the future of the ARS, where I have been quite active. Please reply right here, I will watch this talk page. --DThomsen8 (talk) 23:04, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I didn't submit it, only voted for it. Also, have mentioned it on a wikilist where people concerned on topic; will attend if no serious conflict. CarolMooreDC 22:18, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikimania 2012

Hi, I wonder whether you can take a look at my abstract at Wikimania 2012 and if my article is selected, I would like to invite you for my talk (I have no idea about the fate of my paper at present :) )--C.R.Selvakumar (talk) 23:37, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Gender Gap

Heya, I've been doing some background research in my spare time on how and what women on Wikipedia edit, to see how we can effectively work on our outreach sessions involving women, and I was wondering, if you could create User:Carolmooredc/EditCounterOptIn.js with any content. Alternatively, you can create meta:User:Carolmooredc/EditCounterGlobalOptIn.js to opt-in across all Wikimedia wikis. This way, I could go thru what kind of articles you edit, and how you edit, and can help out. I'm pretty active in Outreach sessions in India. Cheers, --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 10:11, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Retirees

Someone planted a bee in my bonnet about recruiting retirees. Ive been bouncing around putting plans together for a sanctioned presentation when I saw an ad at AARP (on the Web) for your DC worshop in FEB. I'm off to work at this moment but soon I hope I can pick you brain and experience to assist me in my plans. You may remember me from the Libertarian group. Although I voted for 5 consecutive candidates I never really considered myself a member of the party. I aways though of my self as a small 'l' libertarian. ```Buster Seven Talk 22:26, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Can communicate on workshops privately for now. "L" wise, a lot of those articles need work. I get too caught up in dealing with WP:Undue criticism and even libel in BLPs and bigoted propaganda in other articles to improve as many "l" ones as I'd like to. Sigh... CarolMooreDC 05:06, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

You're invited: Smithsonian Institution Women in Science Edit-a-Thon!

Who should come? You should. Really.
	She Blinded Me with Science: Smithsonian Women in Science Edit-a-Thon will be held on Friday, March 30, 2012 at the Smithsonian Archives in Washington, D.C. This edit-a-thon will focus on improving and writing Wikipedia content about women from the Smithsonian who contributed to the sciences. It will be followed by a happy hour meetup! We look forward to seeing you there!

Sarah (talk) 22:17, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Modifying a direct quote

Hi, did you check that your additions here comport with the quote as it appears in its original location? At least judging by how the quote appears here, your additions aren't in the original. Also, please see MOS:QUOTE#Linking about wikilinking words within quotation marks.—Biosketch (talk) 09:44, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

OOps, missed the quotes. But still he has to be identified, so why not in parenthesis? Will fix when the 24 hours are done under 1RR. Talk page needs better template. Will fix. CarolMooreDC 13:59, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of access to primary source docs concerning Israel

Hi, Carol. I don't know that I've had the pleasure of addressing you before, but noticed you'd taken exception on at least one talk page to user Biosketch's deletion of links to primary source document copies ( mostly U.S. Government docs, I believe ) hosted by the Institute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy (IrMEP?).

Many of the I/P regulars don't like the organization, and would prohibit it from being cited as a wp:rs. I haven't investigated enough to form an opinion yet of the organization itself as a source, but no one seriously believes the U.S. docs, court filings, and such that it hosts aren't authentic. I thus see no legitimate reason why our readers should be deprived of access to those docs via external links for relevant articles, for example, or in the articles themselves, provided they're used in full compliance with WP:PRIMARY.

So, all that said, I was wondering whether you'd noticed how many articles Biosketch has deleted links to IrMEP-hosted documents from? I looked at his contribution history, and found these deletions:

My intention re each of the eight deletions was to:

(a) Examine each to see whether it was a link to copies of external documents or just to IrMEP's own opinions

(b) Determine whether each deletion had been reverted or not

(c) Determine whether any discussion had taken place on each talk page

(e) Provide a forum for a centralized discussion of these deletions

(f) Provide a link on each affected article's talk to that centralized discussion

I'd wanted to compile answers to the first three (a,b,c) questions for use in preparing a post to some yet-to-be-determined appropriate forum as step (e). Perhaps one of the talk pages for for the Israel-Palestine Collaboration wikiproject would be an appropriate place to site such a discussion? ( I see that you've posted there yourself, on an unrelated topic. )

Anyway, I'm so dang ADD that I really got "lost in the weeds" as I tried to address "a thru e" above, and just ran out of time. It's somewhat discouraging to have to admit it, but despite having spent hours, I got nowhere near completing this task myself.

But I do still think it would be of considerable benefit to the project to have this as a centralized discussion, rather than as eight isolated ones on eight different talk pages. If you have time, and also think a central discussion site for this would be beneficial, I wonder whether you might be able follow up to make that happen? I'm sorry to ask, but I know this isn't something I'm going to be able to finish on my own any time soon. No penalty, of course, if you'd rather not: I understand your time is both limited and valuable, as well. Many thanks,  – OhioStandard (talk) 19:02, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for writing. I had a feeling he was doing that but had not researched. The first thing is to get the policy down, and as you can see from what I wrote on AIPAC and FARA it too me a few posts and rewrites to get it right, i.e.,

• primary sources can be linked if the facts obvious to any reader, even if it may not be possible yet to use any opinions provided by the group itself on its web page; and
• there is evidence other WP:RS IRMEP seriously enough to at least make it clear that these are not forged documents. I made a list of minor WP:RS that use IRMEP as a source; found a Reuters reprint of one of their press releases plus a few less WP:RS uses of them; enough to show that WP:RS do take them seriously. And obviously if IRMEP was pulling any numbers at all AIPAC et al would be all over them.
• I found a couple WP:RS that do take IRMEP/Grant Smith seriously, but they are small or Arab publications, and somewhat opinion oriented, so easily challenged by partisans. But those still might be usable in relevant articles as supplements to what more WP:RS sources say.

Longer WP:RS discussion from 2011 doesn't quite hit the right issues and includes at least one known Israel advocate. Biosketch's unanswered question on WP:RSN and other comments show his own strong bias against the only group that has bothered to put a lot of public and/or declassified information material online on what is often called the most powerful lobby in America.

Probably the best thing to do, after we see what Biosketch's response to my recent comments on AIPAC and FARA are, is to approach him at his user page and explain which ones of those we agree should be reverted or added with appropriate changes. One can initiate and the other chime in with agreements/modifications/etc. I'd have to look at your list of criteria and then all of them all myself now that I've gotten the policy and rationale straight. It shouldn't be difficult for coffee drinking wiki addicts :-)

If he isn't willing to budge, a better written note at WP:RSN that really focuses in on the policy, and only eludes to POVs in extremis, will make clear what the issues are and hopefully bring in neutral editors to straighten him out. Thoughts? CarolMooreDC 19:30, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, Carol. I'd seen the pages you mention. I reverted Biosktech's deletion at Jonathan Pollard, myself, and commented on the talk page there, too, but it does seem pretty inefficient to be having the same discussion in so many places ... I thought about this issue in terms of whether I'd object to the admission of U.S. government documents hosted on a site that strongly supported Israel, eg the Jewish Virtual Library.

I concluded that it might give me a moment's pause, but no more than that. After all, I thought, we have a gazillion cites to the JVL, which discloses its status as an advocacy organization quite explicitly in its many "about us" pages, and we're not even talking about offical government documents, in their case. And, too, I doubt any organization that wants to keep up the same work of finding government documents, by FOIAs and such, would forge such a document. They'd know it'd be too easy to get caught, and that getting caught doing that would shred their credibility entirely.

Somewhat off topic, I notice the BBC only uses the JVL site around 15 times, if my search of bbc.com and bbc.co.uk are to be believed, and then only in their "see also - external links", along with About.com in some cases! I actually got 34 google hits for the JVL at the two target URLs, but around half of those were in the user comments section. The New York Times does use them for uncontroversial facts, like when Israeli political leaders were born, but they attribute those facts with eg "according to the Jewish Virtual Library". This paragraph might give you some idea about what I let distract me as I was trying to finish the item list I posted above. ;-)

I'm not sure the AIPAC talk page is the best place to continue the dialog. It would inevitably be overshadowed by a broader policy discussion on "What do we do when a somewhat obscure but seemingly definitive primary source document is contradicted by multiple secondary sources, that likewise contradict each other?" ( One of the things I did instead of stick to my planned "list", above, was search for AIPAC was founded in, between quotation marks, on Google Books - There are a lot of different answers that result. ) That broad discussion would, almost inevitably, I think, end in "it depends", after megabytes of probably contentious commentary. And who says Wikipedia isn't fun?

A quick final thought: On our SOPA RfC page, another editor remarks that we cite Wikileaks primary source documents in over a thousand articles. I don't know how to verify that, but that's a similar case, I think, of an advocacy organisation hosting offical government documents that aren't easily accessible elsewhere online. We can't cite Wikileaks itself as a wp:rs, but evidently a great many editors think it's fine to cite the documents they've obtained and that they ( and sometimes only they ) host on their servers... No time to check at the moment, but I wonder whether there are discussions about Wikileaks in RSN archives that apply to the question of official government documents hosted by an org that isn't a wp:rs itself? Might they shed some light on the principles that apply re IrMEP, as well?  – OhioStandard (talk) 22:59, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Given the response on the FARA page from User:Jeff Song who ALSO has been making those deletions, I think it's necessary to go to WP:RSN with a list of evidence that it is WP:RS for at least copies of photo copied material (that's really all I've dealt with so far so have to withhold opinion on other material for now). Previous questions basically were "Is this crappy source any good." which obviously will evince a negative answer. Per me comment at FARA page. JVL is just one of several very biased and questionable sources that are considered WP:RS on Wikipedia; it is one of the more innocuous ones and I've used it a few times myself.CarolMooreDC 00:05, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Quick comments on hidden diff links above. Obviously I'm about ready to take on docs issue. In all cases, best to try to find a secondary source and use primary as backup for further research by readers. I haven't decided on how to deal with opinion/analysis material yet, though there only seems to be on example:

• (1): I think it's ok to link the filing after a WP:RS addressed topic, but it seems a lot of stuff has happened since, so not sure if would be WP:Undue.
• (2): I had trouble getting to both sources; WRMEA should be on their web page; the IRMEP PDF wouldn't load and if it's writings, as opposed to docs, WP:RS obviously under dispute and haven't decided if want to take that on, though using the classified docs unavailable elsewhere DOES seem worth taking on.]
• (3): Having another source first would help.
• (4): There obviously are other sources without the date from FARA article that can be transferred there; and then I do think it can be argued the docs can be used.
• (5): Doc seems ok; how relevant that is should be established by another source unless relevant to rest of text which I didn't read.
• (6): FARA already partially dealt with.
• (7): Docs should be ok as external link.
• (8): Docs should have WP:RS describing facts first, which should be findable - at least on Pollard's support site, which probably IS WP:RS :-).

I also found:

• (9) and (10): Here analysis in question, so would have to look more closely at.

CarolMooreDC 19:53, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to hear you coudln't access the pdf for some reason; suggest you look in your e-mail inbox. :-) Re the rest, this is important to me, too, so many thanks for your work. Wanted to quickly acknowledge your most recent post, but should also tell you I won't be able to begin properly reviewing the above, nor other related pages/info for around another fourteen hours, now. Have planned a block of time for the purpose. Oh, you might like to read additional comments re diff #8, esp. noting some of the document scans that the relevant section of The Israel Lobby Archive includes. They're certainly of what might be called "of Historic importance", with capital "H", imo. In haste,  – OhioStandard (talk) 10:53, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

PDF came up this time. Realized Cole was a separate issue and was shown WP:RSN in 2010 so put that info back and put in relevant entry on talk page. Thanks. CarolMooreDC 15:13, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Interest in Astronomy?

Hi again, Carol. I didn't want to clutter up the preceding thread with this, but I noticed the sunspots gif at the top of this page and inferred that you might also have an appreciation for astronomy? If that's so, then I think I have a treat for you!

http://vimeo.com/38409143

It's sidereal video of clips taken aboard the International Space Station (ISS). It might just be the most breathtaking video (not just "space video") I've ever seen.

The video is streamed as a high-definition file ( from an eminently respectable hosting site, btw ), so unless you have a FiOS or faster net connection I'd suggest you start it playing, hit pause, and do something else while you let it load for however long it takes, before you hit "play" again. My internet connection happened to be running very slowly when I first encountered this, a few days ago, and it took five minutes to load completely, for me.

Perhaps you've seen such images before before, but it never really registered for me until I saw this how very thin our atmosphere really is, relative to the diameter of the earth. Maybe we should take better care of it? Note also the Aurora Borealis ( the greenish lights, of course ) at around 16 - 17 seconds - suggest you pause playback there to see them lighting up the ionosphere. Pretty amazing, yes? And pretty amazing, too, to consider that almost all of what appear to be individual stars are not stars at all, but galaxies, like our own Milky Way, which has something like 300 billion individual stars in it, and is around 100 billion light years across. The scale of the universe is just so extraordinary, and this video communicates that reality beautifully, to the extent our senses are able to perceive that.

It's not as spectacular a video, lacking the music and the carefully artistic editing, but on the official NASA ISS site,

http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/Videos/CrewEarthObservationsVideos/

there's also one I can cordially recommend. If you click that link, and scroll down the page you land on, you'll find the 10 March 2012 video entitled "Over the Terminator" that was taken as the ISS crossed over the terminator line, which separates day and night on Earth. What I like so much about that one is that it makes clear that there simply is no "up" or "down", ie that those concepts and correpsonding perceptual phenomena are strictly local accidents that we experience and enjoy here on earth.

At the risk of sounding ridiculous, I'll mention that I actually experienced that recognition myself once, with emphatic clarity of perception, years ago, late one brilliantly clear summer night, for about 20 minutes, looking out into space. There's no way I can actually communicate the subjective nature of the experience, but it was one of the most beautiful and moving perceptual shifts I've ever had, actually. I suppose it sounds "new age" or some such tosh to say this, but the actual experience was undeniable, to me. Anyway, a bit too much information, perhaps, but I do hope you enjoy the links. Cheers,  – OhioStandard (talk) 09:17, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Very cool. Will check it out. My special interest is effect of sunspot cycle on human behavior (Solar variation being most relevant) ala Alexander Chizhevsky - another article I'm behind on improving because I spend too much time dealing with war and agents of war... Sigh... CarolMooreDC 15:28, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

The persona non grata of the List of people declared persona non grata?!

Talk:List_of_people_declared_persona_non_grata#Richard_A._FalkLettres (talk) 23:16, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#non-RSes_being_used_to_establish_reliability.2C_and_RSes_establishing_unreliability

Please don't hector me like that. Aggressively asking me whether I would give the same opinion on other sources ("does Cusop Dingle have same standard for all sources mentioned in this section?"), especially ones which might be considered on the other side of a dispute you obviously feel strongly about, is unhelpful to the discussion — which I remind you is about the reliability of sources, not of other editors — and is a not-too-subtle way of trying to deprecate my opinion, which you clearly disagree with, by implying that my opinion might be based on the political position of the source rather than it reliability. That is offensive and counterproductive. Please don't do it. Cusop Dingle (talk) 17:01, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

You must realize that when you ask a source to meet incredibly high standards, instead of adhere to Wiki policies, you may get rather sharp questioning. (Though I think you read too much into it and take it too seriously.) However, I have now replied in that vein. CarolMooreDC 17:37, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Since my argument was solidly based in verifiability policy, your reply is beside the point. You misquote me by asserting that I said that "we must have a scholarly source addressing the reliability of [a source] directly" (my emphasis) -- I said "ideally". Your misquotation and imputation of bias are not conducive to building consensus on this issue. Cusop Dingle (talk) 18:45, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Here's your whole quote: Ideally one would have a scholarly source addressing the reliability of O directly. I didn't see that here. There's lots of evidence of use of IRMEP material, but I didn't see an objective assessment of its reputation for accuracy Sounds like "must" to me, though I did not quote you, just used the "must" thrust of your whole statement. CarolMooreDC 19:12, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

So you answered a point I didn't make as if I had made it. I withdraw misquoted -- you misrepresented my point. You are clearly concerned to deprecate my opinion because you happen to find it unpalatable. It would be a good idea to discuss the question at RSN on its merits, without the cheap debating points. Cusop Dingle (talk) 19:30, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Or perhaps I misunderstood it? I still evidently don't understand so have gone with Blueboar's interpretation. CarolMooreDC 22:46, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

NPA

It seems clear that this comment So again I raise the issue of WP:CENSORSHIP via extreme nitpicking of sources, as say compared to use as WP:RS for extremely (and some might say extremist) pro-Israel sources like MEMRI, Palestine Media Watch and HonestReporting.com detailed above. and edit summary recruiting of biased editors, WP:IDONTLIKE IT, WP:CENSORSHIP, vs. wide use of pro-Israel sources is aimed at one user who you have previously suggested has a different standard for reliability of some sources than others. That editor, of course, is myself. You will please cease these accusations of bias against me forthwith. I reject them completely as false in themselves, unsupported by any evidence, shameful and disruptive. Cusop Dingle (talk) 16:47, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't the entry say @Biosketch:? That means I'm directing my comments to Biosketch. While I did directly ask you about them, you have NOT defended them. He has nitpicked sources. You haven't directly addressed any of them, just put up a general rule that I disagree with. Biosketch by his extreme pro-Israel comments implicitly supports those three other sources. Again, you are reading in things that aren't there and taking things personally that are not about you. CarolMooreDC 16:53, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

"Biased editors" is plural. Please be more careful in what you write. Your comments are not appropriate for RSN. Cusop Dingle (talk) 17:05, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I was referring to Biosketch's use of editors: topic that's frequently a source of conflict between editors throughout Wikipedia. and his plural editor s and all the biased editors that edit on that topic and bring their biases to try to stifle the use of FOIA released documents. Again, not about you and an appropriate response to his comments. CarolMooreDC 17:11, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Grass

Hi, the 'sic' was there because the paper mis-spelt Grass's name. Please don't bring in conflict where there isn't any. Go gently. Span (talk) 14:05, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

[Sic] traditionally goes immediately after the issue in question, i.e., spelling of name; it seems I've seen that done even in title before. Putting it at end of the title - without making clear it's the spelling error in question - makes it look like the whole title is in question, which obviously would be POV. Anyway, I properly noted the "sic re spelling of name after the title so no one else would get confused. Thanks. CarolMooreDC 14:53, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Your HighBeam account is ready!

Good news! You now have access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Here's what you need to know:

• Your account activation code has been emailed to your Wikipedia email address.
  • Only 407 of 444 codes were successfully delivered; most failed because email was simply not set up (You can set it in Special:Preferences).
  • If you did not receive a code but were on the approved list, add your name to this section and we'll try again.
• The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code.
• To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1; 2) You’ll see the first page of a two-page registration. 3) Put in an email address and set up a password. (Use a different email address if you signed up for a free trial previously); 4) Click “Continue” to reach the second page of registration; 5) Input your basic information; 6) Input the activation code; 7) Click “Finish”. Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive.
• If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate
• HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
• Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 20:35, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Reliable sources

Thank you for soliciting a clarification of my views on this topic, in which I have been remiss in responding to. I was aware of the distinction you made between hosting documents and self-published material, and responded with that in mind. I did not feel that I would be contributing anything original to the discussion that had not already been expressed by more experienced and competent editors. My personal views seem to have been adequately presented by Cusop Dingle, and I think it is unwise to discriminate in this fashion, the extent of the unreliability.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 15:28, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Looking again I see that you did mention both types of documents and struck that question; still not clear if you actually saw the list of sources regarding IRmep. Also, Cusop Dingle said a lot of things, sometimes seemingly contradictory, and got mad when I tried to interpret what he said ;-( Oh well.... But just wanted to make sure you saw the (now one) question. Thanks. CarolMooreDC 15:53, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Arthur Krystal

Thought you'd want to know: I've started an article on Arthur Krystal. It's pretty bare-bones. Maybe you'll add to it? Kap42 (talk) 12:22, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Great motivator! Thanks. CarolMooreDC 18:08, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

WikiWomen's Luncheon at Wikimania 2012

WikiWomen's Luncheon at Wikimania - You are invited!

Are you a woman attending Wikimania 2012? If so, join us on Saturday, July 14, for the annual WikiWomen's Luncheon (fka WikiChix Lunch) This event is for any women attending Wikimania. Pick up your lunch, compliments of Wikimania, and join us at 1:30pm in the Grand Ballroom for a lively facilitated discussion hosted by Sue Gardner. We look forward to seeing you there. Please sign up here. Sarah (talk) 15:06, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Mitt Romney and Afghanistan

Hi there. I've been watching your edits at Political positions of Mitt Romney and it looks like you and I have a very similar view of what should and should not be in the section. I just wanted to give you a heads-up to check out a post I just put on the Talk page. Cheers. Belchfire (talk) 03:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree that people have to go through and clean up section by section with an NPOV eye, remove dated and unsourced material, and keep out the opinions, as just said on talk. CarolMooreDC 03:51, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I just caught your reply over there, thanks. Belchfire (talk) 03:57, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Personal abuse

FYI RolandR (talk) 09:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Looks like s/he's good and blocked. CarolMooreDC 15:41, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Organized Jewish Community comment

Hey Carol (or Ms. Moore),

I don't know for certain, but I believe you intended to make that section a subsection of "Anti-Semitic controversies." This is what it was before we agreed on removing it until an RS showed up. It's also unsual for specific sections devoted to minimal issues like this, rather than an overall section that discusses previous accusations as well.

If this was your intention, then you can go ahead and change it to subsection (or I can do it if you want). If it wasn't your intention, then let's discuss it further on the talk page.

Thanks. --Activism1234 21:30, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I won't bother to move this. I made that change on the 26th, a couple minutes after I made an error. Not sure why it appeared wrong at some point afterwards. CarolMooreDC 21:10, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Gary Johnson

Our America Initiative was made and is run by Gary Johnson. That's why it was considered a reliable source for Wikipedia page Gary Johnson. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VictorVVV (talk • contribs) 08:07, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh, duh. I should have searched to see if it had an article. Thought it was some flakey right to life site. CarolMooreDC 15:11, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Your HighBeam account is ready!

Edited version as reminder - Don't forget about it!! CarolMooreDC 03:13, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

• The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code.
• HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
• Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 20:35, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

It's a start

Norma Jean Almodovar Sarah (talk) 18:51, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Amazing. Somebody jumped right on it! Thanks. CarolMooreDC 23:21, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

New project

Hi Carol. Hope all is well. I'd love your input on my new project, check out the talk page for specific questions. No pressure if you're busy! Thanks for taking a look :) SarahStierch (talk) 21:28, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I am absurdly busy playing house-redecorating and dog wife (married to house and dogs) and not even working on my manifesto which has an August 26th deadline (after missing 7/4 and 7/14) and fooling around on articles where most annoyed, as opposed to most constructive. Sigh... Have watched your page and will keep this note up til read through it. Can't wait til Wikimedia has new feature where can see all notices across various projects. More work for free!! CarolMooreDC 22:14, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey! No problem, I understand about being busy. If you do find time to lend a hand with your thoughts and feelings - yahoo - if not, I'm always grateful for all you do here :) Give my best to your "husband(ry)" and house :) SarahStierch (talk) 23:51, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Your free 1-year Questia online library account is approved ready

Good news! You are approved for access to 77,000 full-text books and 4 million journal, magazine, newspaper articles, and encyclopedia entries. Check your Wikipedia email!

1. Go to https://www.questia.com/specialoffer
2. Input your unique Offer ID and Promotional code. Click Continue. (Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive).
3. Create your account by entering the requested information. (This is private and no one from Wikipedia will see it).
4. You'll then see the welcome page with your Login ID. (The account is now active for 1 year).

If you need help, please first ask Ocaasi at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com and, second, email QuestiaHelp@cengage.com along with your Offer ID and Promotional Code (subject: Wikipedia).

• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a Questia article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free Questia pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:Questia/Citations.
• Questia would love to hear feedback at WP:Questia/Experiences
• Show off your Questia access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/Questia_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check the applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi EdwardsBot (talk) 05:02, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

"Categorization policy"

Thank you for advising me of your addition to the Cfd page.

Just one point not relevant to other editors. A comment like "someone has to to explain categorization policy to this fellow," while I am sure is meant in a good natured way, can come across to a relatively new editor such as myself as ungracious.

To explain, as a new editor one strives for the improvement of Wikipedia and attempts to learn the skills and behaviour to be a responsible Wikipedian. But just as, I am sure, the most experienced admin can occasionally find themselves opposed to consensus on one matter or another, we occasionally violate an editors understanding of policy.

To use a specific example from this case, there is nothing in WP:SYN that makes it obvious that my created categories violate this policy. The written text of synthesis discusses not constructing new logical sylogisms to imply original conclusions from sourced materials. It seems to me that this policy has been extended, through use, to apply to the current situation. This sort of implied policy is a perfectly valid legalism, and experienced editors will likely be entirely aware of them. But, they are invisible to the inexperienced.

This means that, to an inexperienced editor, policy can occasionally seem arbitary, and violations happen by accident. Which ties back to my original point, my first impression of your comment was that you were implying exclusive aceesss to some kind of elite knowledge, not to be shared with a newcomer like myself. On reflection, I realise that you were not implying anything of the sort, but perhaps another newcomer would have left Wikipedia with that impression.

Sorry if I went on too long, but I hope I have shared some food for thought. --Andrewaskew (talk) 04:11, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

It's called "Don't bite the newcomer." I personally was a very stubborn newbie who had to be smacked around a few times before I really started studying policy and taking it seriously. I've also gotten in habit of passing things I think might be controversial past appropriate talk pages or Wikiprojects. Categories for Discussion is also a place to discuss making such big category changes.

But also frankly a lot of males just ignore the opinions of females and when someone whose name appears male doesn't seem to get the point, it can feel like, "oh, there they go again." as opposed to "Maybe they just need it explained by a few more people." Of course, the latter is one reason I did take definitive action like a Deletion request - since fact there was another related one made it clear it was warranted. One way editors can take policy issues seriously is to see a bunch of other editors agree. CarolMooreDC 23:45, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I've been studying policy (student of logic, I can't help but be fascinated by the rules), but I'm finding that there's a difference between reading policy and understanding it's application. Lately I've been finding that alot of my good faith changes are being reverted, but I don't fully understand why. Reading policy only provides hints, my understanding is incomplete. I'm hoping to grow in understanding, but feeling a trifle discouraged.

I would like to get more involved in Wikiprojects. I thought I should learn more on my own. But I'm realising that if I joined some more Wikiprojects I'd be more connected to consensus.

The gender issues you suggest had not occured to me. Most of the time I'm happy to ignore gender on the internet (I don't assume gender on the basis of name or behaviour). I feel like if we just act as though it didn't make a difference, then it wont. Maybe I'm being overly idealistic.

I personally take policy very seriously. I have noticed some editors have a tendency to assume that if policy says they're wrong, then policy must change! The policy system is much more important than any individual edit, page, or editor. But the edifice of policy implications that have built up is important too. It is these implications that can be difficult for a newer editor to grasp.

Once again, thank you for your time. I hope one day to have done as much for Wikipedia as you clearly have. --Andrewaskew (talk) 04:24, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

It is frustrating, even after you've been here a while. You have to assertively go looking for answers which I do even now. For example, I didn't think Categorization Discussion was best place to discuss my initial problem with "Examples" category and get more advice. So I asked in the talk page what to do. If you go to WP:Dispute you'll see a list of places to bring issues when there are issues among two or more editors, who sometimes DO have legitimate disagreements over interpretations of policy and need noninvolved opinions.

One also can do what I did not. Search for a policy. I should have thought to search for Wikipedia:Classification rather than asking you from whence you got that idea. So the problem remains the categories that you linked to, not the classification system itself. It took me 6 years on wikipedia to learn about that. Wikipedia is for the stubborn, not those easily discouraged. CarolMooreDC 15:36, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Backstage at the Smithsonian Libraries

Backstage at the Smithsonian Libraries is part of Wikipedia Loves Libraries 2012, the second annual continent-wide campaign to bring Wikipedia and libraries together with on-site events. Running this fall through October and November, libraries (and archives) will open their doors to help build a lasting relationship with their local Wikipedian community.

Organized by Wikimedia DC, this event will take place on October 12, 2012, and will include new editor training, a "backstage pass" tour of the National Museum of Natural History, and an edit-a-thon. Everyone is welcome to attend!

Kirill ^[talk] 18:41, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

WikiWomen's Collaborative

WikiWomen Unite!

Hi Carolmooredc! Women around the world who edit and contribute to Wikipedia are coming together to celebrate each other's work, support one another, and engage new women to also join in on the empowering experience of shaping the sum of all the world's knowledge - through the WikiWomen's Collaborative. As a WikiWoman, we'd love to have you involved! You can do this by: Liking the WikiWomen's Collaborative on Facebook and share your tips, projects, and connect with other WikiWomen Join the conversation on our Twitter feed Reading and writing for our blog channel We can't wait to have you involved, and feel free to drop by our meta page (under construction) to see how else you can get involved! Can't wait to have you involved! SarahStierch (talk) 02:21, 5 October 2012 (UTC) (UTC)

NOR NB re SVR

Hi! I was going over the SVR article this evening and came across the SVR NOR NB issue you've raised. I have to admit that I found it a tad confusing at first but left you a response there. My schedule's a bit hectic the next few days but I'll get back to you for any questions you may have as quickly as I can. Best, Vttor (talk) 00:33, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for reminder. Forgot all about it and have responded. CarolMooreDC 02:11,

Talk Page Edit

[When you said, " You don't interrupt a person's points with your comments." http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Festermunk&diff=519617814&oldid=517263109], can you find the specific clause in Wikipedia's talk page guidelines that says you don't interrupt a person's points with your comments?Festermunk (talk) 20:39, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Reply at Festermunk talk. CarolMooreDC 21:14, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

As per your quote here," I added my full comments above yours; I'll keep on doing it. " I should point out that many people do do that. Also, I'd like an answer to my question please, can you find the specific clause in Wikipedia's talk page guidelines that says you don't interrupt a person's points with your comments?Festermunk (talk) 14:17, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

As put on your talk page:

Per the link I provided you above : Interruptions: In some cases, it is okay to interrupt a long contribution, either with a short comment (as a reply to a minor point) or with a heading (if the contribution introduces a new topic or subtopic; in that case, one might add :Heading added for REASON by CarolMooreDC 14:27, 25 October 2012 (UTC) below the heading to make the nature of the change clearer). When introducing an interruptive break, please add — USER NAME OR IP , — (continues after insertion below.) before the interruption. One may also manually ensure that attribution is preserved by copy-pasting the original signature to just before the interruption. However, this assumes a really long thread and the editor doesn't object, which most do and I do. CarolMooreDC 14:27, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

" You don't interrupt a person's points with your comments.", If you read the interruption's section, you'll find that it disproves your claim completely.

Continued edit warring RT (TV network)‎

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Comment: As the template makes clear, just reverting things that you don't like when your initial revert was reverted (and by someone else, not me) and doing so under the pretext they are being discussed at the talk page, is a problem. Continuing to interrupt a person's talk page entries after they object and hassle them about it is also disruptive edit warring behavior. I just want you to be aware of what I perceive your behavior as being and as admins might also perceive it as being, should it continue in this pattern. Festermunk (talk) 14:47, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Copying my edit warring notice to you onto my page is just harassment at this point. CarolMooreDC 14:53, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

You must've forgotten the part where you put the edit warring notice on my page first. Festermunk (talk) 15:15, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Later note: Festermunk got blocked for a week for edit warring and battleground behavior with warning he'd be banned next time. CarolMooreDC 02:17, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration

Since you are so adamant about this disruptive editing charge, can you request an arbitration regarding this issue?Festermunk (talk) 14:53, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

this is usually the first recourse, per the title of the RT talk page thread. I have started a thread. Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#RT_.28TV_network.29 CarolMooreDC 15:20, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

As per this edit I've responded to your dispute resolution and await your response. Festermunk (talk) 20:11, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I will. Have higher (and or easier) priorities right now. CarolMooreDC 20:14, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Threaded discussion formatting

Regarding DRN discussion: would you mind moving your most recent comments (four?) up into the "Threaded Discussion" section immediately above their current location? That way each of the 8 issues can start having its own thread. Does that make sense? --Noleander (talk) 15:34, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

You mean just answer under each of your sections and sign?? I think you should explicitly ask us too so Festermunk won't claim that's the common way of doing it, as opposed to by invitation. :-) OOPS... just saw you did just that so will comply. CarolMooreDC 15:38, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Edits on RT

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Festermunk (talk) 17:23, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

As I wrote there:

For guidance on this issue I recommend editors look at this September 20th block of Festermunk for editwarring on RT (TV network). Also see this editor/admin revert of Festermunk blanking his talk page which contained his October 31st block for edit warring and battleground behavior on RT (TV network), as well as rejections of his block review; as well as this editor/admin revert of Festermunk blanking the talk page again. I think Festermunk needs intensive mentoring to understand Wikipedia policy on edit warring. "

FYI. CarolMooreDC 19:14, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

About that RM

I didn't want to say this on the article talk page because it seamed like it might be inappropriate to do and largely irrelevant.

In responce to what you said about "Explain the problem at the talk page" and "Greyshark should have explained his problem", I don't think the normal discuss on the talk page is going to work here between me and Greyshark. I think his reason for making that revert he conceders that edit to be POV pushing.

It's part of a larger dispute between me User:Dlv999 and him that got somewhat heated that we have had no luck resolving. The gist of the dispute is that Dlv999 and I objected to [4] [5] [6] and [7] because we felt that they were strongly against established precedent. I don't know if I'm explaining this well, I'm tired, but you did seam to want to know why jumped right to something like an RM, instead of starting a normal discussion, and the reason is that I don't think a normal discussion would have worked. That and I think that either the lead is incorrect or the title is. You seamed to be trying to offer me advise about talk page discussions and Dispute Resolution and stuff, and I your a member of WikiProject Dispute Resolution, So do you have any advise on how to resolve this dispute. Maybe it wold help I explained this after I got some sleep. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 08:50, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for explanation. I've been staying up too late doing wikipedia myself lately! (And sleeping too late in AM.)

Anyway, WP:DRN is the place to go. I just had a helpful resolution with very difficult person because it made it clear he was impossible and he ended up getting banned. So if you get a good volunteer (I don't actually do it, just support it) they really can make the person discuss the issue rationally. Under WP:ARBPIA if the person refuses to try to resolve the dispute and keeps edit warring they too can get blocked for a while. Though IF you also have been warring you do can get a block. So at least you tried another way to resolve issue. But WP:DRN is best place to go with this. And make sure you name or at least notify other parties who have been involved in the discussion, depending if they are involved right now.

PS: What does "agents extablesed precedent" mean?? CarolMooreDC 18:23, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll keep that in mind. "agents extablesed precedent" was supposed to be ""against established precedent". Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 23:35, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Sense the UN vote Greyshark seams to now oppose the use of the word "Palestinian Authority" in that context (he seams to prefer "State of Palestine" instead) so our dispute would seam to be largely if not mostly moot. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 13:41, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

In the many articles I've been watching last couple weeks (though did just unwatch most of them) I saw a variety of strong opinions on when and where to use State of Palestine. So think someone has to get a good list of WP:RS on the topic together and then start an RfC to see if we can get a consensus. State of Palestine article probably best place to do that. check out current didcussion there if you haven't already. CarolMooreDC 21:52, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

DC Meetup #33

December 10 is Ada Lovelace's birthday! Not only was she the world's first computer programmer, but also the world's first female open source developer! Come celebrate with Wikimedia District of Columbia at Busboys & Poets for an informal get together!

The Washington, DC event will be held on Monday, December 10, 2012 at Busboys & Poets on 5th St NW & K St NW near Mt Vernon Square. The area is easily accessible by the Red Line Chinatown stop and the Yellow Line and Green Line Mt Vernon Square stop, as well as by WMATA buses.

Kirill ^[talk] 14:08, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikimedia DC Holiday Party and Wiki Loves Monuments Exhibition

Please join Wikimedia DC and four other local media nonprofits—the National Press Club's Young Members Committee, 100Reporters, IRE and the Fund for Investigative Journalism—in winding down another year with a night of well-mannered frivolity.

The festivities will take place on Friday evening from 6:30 PM to 9:00 PM in the Zenger Room on the 13th Floor of the National Press Club, located on 529 14th Street NW, near Metro Center. There will be meat and vegetarian appetizers as well as a cash bar with specially reduced drink prices all night long. In addition, we will be exhibiting the finalists of the Wiki Loves Monuments photo contest at the event.

Hope to see you there! Kirill ^[talk] 04:33, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I was there. Not a "Free Julian Assange" t-shirt in sight from all those investigative reporters. But a fun event! CarolMooreDC 19:11, 15 December 2012 (UTC)