User talk:Carolmooredc

File:Large Sunspot Group AR 9393.gif

Thanks for visiting my Talk page. Enjoy the sunspots and don't let them get you too hyper!
Please post comments about the content of a specific article on the Talk Page of that Article if it is relevant to all editors.

This user wants to see everything in its place. Green Line for Barnstars and Other Stuff
Barnstars/Kittens/et al My Cheatsheet - My Sandbox - /My Sandbox 1 - /My Sandbox 2 - /My Sandbox 3 - /My Sandbox 4 Archive I: 2006-2007 - Archive II: Jan-March 2008 - Archive III: March-Dec 2008 - Archive IV: 2009 - Archive V: 2010 - Archive VI: 2011 -Archive VII: 2012 - Archive VIII: 2013 Link to Newsletters I Need to Read

Gender bias task force

Hi Carol, something here you might be interested in. Best, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:19, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

You're Invited: Smithsonian Field Notes Edit-a-Thon, Friday June 21

The Field Book Project, a joint effort of the National Museum of Natural History and the Smithsonian Institution Archives, invites you to an edit-a-thon on the scientific field diaries held at the Smithsonian on Friday, June 21, 10am-5pm. Activities include new editor orientation and a behind-the-scenes tour of the Smithsonian’s Russell E. Train Africana Collection. Participants will also be invited to preview and test transcribe field book materials using the Smithsonian’s new digital Transcription Center. Coffee and lunch generously provided courtesy of Wikimedia DC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Digitaleffie (talk • contribs) 13:41, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Webinar / edit-a-thon at the National Library of Medicine (NLM)

Join us at the NLM next week, either in person or online, to learn about NLM resources, hear some great speakers, and do some editing!

organized by Wiki Project Med

On Tuesday, 28 May there will be a community Wikipedia meeting at the United States National Library of Medicine in Bethesda, Maryland - with a second on Thursday, 30 May for those who can't make it on Tuesday. You can participate either in-person, or via an online webinar. If you attend in person, USB sticks (but not external drives) are ok to use.

Please go to the event page to get more information, including a detailed program schedule.

If you are interested in participating, please register by sending an email to pmhmeet@gmail.com. Please indicate if you are coming in person or if you will be joining us via the webinar. After registering, you will receive additional information about how to get to our campus (if coming in-person) and details about how to join the webinar. Klortho (talk) 00:43, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Canvassing templates

Posting the lousy canvassing templates is disruptive to the HHH discussion. (They serve NO purpose.) So far nobody has come in to "vote" keep, but when (or if) they do, will you tag their comments too? It was entirely proper to notify Furry about the discussion as Furry was the one that made the stinking change that started this mess. There is no doubt that Furry favored the change, it was originally done by Furry! Adding the whole, poorly founded, canvasing thread only complicated the discussion. The fact that you reverted my removal of the tags and hatting really irks me, and keep in mind that I started the discussion and RfC and I want to keep the section titled Academic freedom! Do the right and sensible thing, remove the tags and rehat the off-topic canvassing discussion. – S. Rich (talk) 16:57, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I do NOT know what the policy is but generally policy is against removing others' tags. And I did fulfill request by person. Please bring to WP:DRN and maybe we can clarify policy and put it in WP:Canvassing article. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 17:01, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

. You just don't get it, do you? You and your warning! Your canvassing tagging and refusal to hat the off-topic discussion just sets you up to be seen as a POV warrior. Alas, I fear you are going to get more than what you asked for. The heading will get changed to homosexual views and the can of worms will really be opened up. – S. Rich (talk) 18:20, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

It's against BLP to change it to that, the canvassing tag is legit or why else would it exist, more guidance IS needed, WP:DRN is where to discuss it. Please take it there. I shouldn't have to because I think I am upholding policy however if uninvolved experienced editor(s) tell me I am wrong, well then I shall take them off. I just do NOT think they will tell me I'm wrong! CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 18:27, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Now that you've posted a DRN, you ought to notify each of the editors whom you tagged as canvassed, as well as SPECIFICO. (In fact, I think you must.) You'll make a lot of friends by doing so, won't you? (And what does BLP have to do with canvassing?) – S. Rich (talk) 19:30, 26 May 2013 (UTC) Also, I hope you will un-archive our earlier discussion. Unless editors know you have sub-pages, that portion of our discussion cannot be found. 19:35, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

It might be nice to give me 3 minutes to do it after my final edit, which is exactly how long it took before I contacted the first person who didn't happen to be you. I contact you within that minute. See [1]. This is NOT about whether Specifico canvassed, it's about the tags. Anyway he's in a WP:DRN right above that AND I already contacted him on his talk page and he didn't bother to respond. Nor did he respond to the discussion on the RfC. In fact he would have a conflict of interest in coming there since he did the canvassing! CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 19:42, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

– S. Rich (talk) 19:55, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Consider:

1. You change the WikiProjects RfC notification by SPECIFICO here [2] with the edit summary "Should the section title for Academic freedom controversy be changed? -- changed biased title to actual title of RfC"
2. You post a RfC notice on WikiProjects Libertarianism here [3], with something different than the "actual title of RfC".
3. You take your name off of the Libertarianism notice, because I had changed the title to the same words you had used in #1 here: [4]
4. So in between these postings (and my revisions) you post the Canvassing ANI here: [5]
5. You post last notification of the RfC on WikiProject Freedom of speech with yet another "suggestion" here: [6]

I repeat, in #1 you wanted the RfC notice changed to the actual RfC title, in #2 you don't follow your own advice, in #3 you don't like the fact that I change the RfC notice to the actual RfC title, in #4 you post your ANI (because SPECIFICO had done the same thing you had done) and in #5 you again ignore you own advice. In the meantime I had urged you to not post an ANI. In the ANI you say you don't know or understand the Canvassing guidance or hope it can be clarified. (And have you noticed that SPECIFICO has not made any comment in the ANI?)

My point is that this RfC notification/canvassing dispute was a needless, useless, wasteful, feckless mess created at your instigation. It was disruptive. The most shameful part is that you don't follow your own admonitions about posting notices. – S. Rich (talk) 05:06, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I have seen multiple notices over 7 years about NOT canvassing and have never seen anyone spam 10 wikiprojects with a content dispute - as opposed to a Wiki help project. And even then I was warned about spamming when given a list of the top watched wikiprojects. Given the extreme hostility towards the subject expressed by those two editors, I think it was the right thing to do. Of course, now I'll feel freer to contact more relevant wiki projects given that precedent now on the record...

I do remain suspicious of the responses - were they what we would have gotten if he'd used either your or my variation (which I think was accurate anyway), or some other NPOV variation, as opposed to fomenting undue interest by people with strong personal POVs?

However, I don't believe in dwelling on it. It's now time to work on a compromise which allows for the fact that some people got upset by a couple comments on "homosexuals" but also mentions academic freedom.

Of course now I'm on a crusade to get into Keynes article the refs I found that Keynes has been described as a "bisexual". Bisexuals are a far larger group in number than homosexuals but they are forced into the closet where they are more easily blackmailed - like our last two presidents. (Dang, can we resurrect the Larry Sinclair article?? Titulating speculation from non WP:RS sources. Oh No!! But they didn't care at ani so Blink it.) CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 12:54, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Editing restrictions

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Editing restrictions. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 22:15, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Forumshopping

You already made your canvassing comments on the RfC. Next, you got nowhere on the DRN. Now, by posting the ANI, you are WP:FORUMSHOPPING. (The DRN remark was not advice to actually take somewhere else, it was saying don't bring up the issue here.) I urge you to withdraw the ANI. I will oppose it in every respect. – S. Rich (talk) 01:51, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, not ForumShopping. From talk page to DRN is a natural progression, given the threat to go to ANI for following what I saw as WP:Canvass and WP:Talk page guidelines. This issue is primarily a conduct issue. WP:ANI should be the next stop if there is no hope of the issues being sorted in an appropriate way. Given User:Specifico's refusal to discuss it at all and User:Wikiwind's threats, it seemed like the thing to do. The template issue was more a triggering issue for the WP:ANI threat vs me so really not related to you as a behavioral issue. So you don't have to defend your own actions. User:SPECIFICO would be expected to defend his own. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 02:01, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Maybe it seemed to be a good thing to do, but it wasn't. SPECIFICO won't have to respond. But you've set yourself up for an ANI. – S. Rich (talk) 03:46, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Collapsing and linking to the ANI was acceptable. I won't bother with the user templates. I can't believe people will put up with 15 Wikiproject postings for something like that!! (Unless I do it with a neutral post and then I'll probably get in trouble. Don't getme started.)

I should have done the BLPN two weeks ago which might have avoided the problems in the first place; I wasted more time re-explaining policy than a BLPN two weeks ago would have taken to put together. (Am i getting paid for this? Oh, that's right, NO!! Must start making money on youtube with funny dog videos or use those finger puppets and make Austrian economics videos or something :-) 14:32, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

May 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Jesús Huerta de Soto may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s and 1 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:25, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Uncivil/bad faith remark on Hoppe page

Carol, please strike your latest comments on the Hoppe talk page imputing bad faith onto me by stating that my personal point of view/biases on Hoppe, rather than concern for encyclopedic accuracy, are the driving force for my decision. I am disappointed that the resounding rejection of your false charges of BLP/canvassing has not prompted you to refrain from making inappropriate and inaccurate remarks to other users. Steeletrap (talk) 18:29, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Third request - not leave messages for me unless part of official proceedings. You said more than enough on the talk page which I answered at this diff] regarding Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Dealing_with_biased_contributors. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 22:15, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

The talk page is the appropriate venue to discuss poor personal conduct, including personal attacks. Urging users not to engage in such behavior is not harassment; please consult another ANI if you disagree -- the results will be the same as the others you've started (unequivocal rejection). Steeletrap (talk) 22:57, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Personal attack heading Hoppe talk page

Carol, please remove your "evidence of bias" heading in regards to me on the Hoppe page. (see: here) That is a personally-insulting heading that compounds your prior inappropriate comments, and derails a substantive discussion into personal maters. Thanks. Steeletrap (talk) 19:36, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

It didn't mention your name, unlike a couple of yours about me. It mentioned a policy concern as described above. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 22:16, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

This is a misleading statement. The text which followed specifically and exclusively related to my alleged biases; therefore it was about me. Steeletrap (talk) 22:58, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Per the quoted policy. Fourth request. Do not post talk related debate here, only official notices. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 23:00, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Clarification: Comments regarding the personal attacks of others are entirely appropriate and encouraged to be posted on talk pages. Please stop falsely accusing me of harassment or violating policy. If you do not want to hear from me, do not make personal attacks on me on other pages. Steeletrap (talk) 23:02, 29 May 2013 (UTC)