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, Archives, 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

Edit-Warring on DiLorenzo

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
You are at 4RR on Thomas DiLorenzo. Please undo your last edit and do not edit war. Use talk and do not disparage other editors. Thanks.

SPECIFICO talk 23:41, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

And where is Steeletrap, with her BLP edits? (She made 9 changes, so let's see you put a warning on her talk page.) You, Specifico, did 11 edits. You might tag your own talk page, especially after putting Lacy Clay's image in the article. Talk about WP:POINTy behavior. – S. Rich (talk) 23:58, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Two additions of material (including correction of bad links and tags) and three reverts in 24 hours for clearly stated WP:BLP reasons (revert of WP:POV photo; 2 changes/reverts to questionable allegations from advocacy sources which I asked to be given time to verify, and absurd claim advocacy criticism is "scholarship"), hardly makes edit warring. Please study WP:Revert and do not leave specious warning notices. 15:50, 23 November 2013 (UTC)Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie)

Comment for the record, not to invite comment from SPECIFICO et al who are banned from my talk page:

• 16:03, November 22, 2013? Carolmooredc (talk | contribs)? . . (11,412 bytes) (+34)? . . (neither article nor DiLorenzo calls it neoconfederate and just another POV attack from POV warrior; same as moving to scholarship) (Note: Steeletrap’s reversion was against BRD; BLP implications again discussed at talk page)
• 15:28, November 22, 2013? Carolmooredc (talk | contribs)? . . (10,340 bytes) (+801)? . . (add ref'd material and, update, cleanup refs)
• 14:44, November 22, 2013? Carolmooredc (talk | contribs)? . . (10,182 bytes) (-282)? . . (SPLC not a academic critic of books; move LoSouth stuff down to "controversy" section; remove duplicative and POV/verbose descriptions; need to verify all this since I'm sure DiLorenzo has said more in self defense against a profitable advocacy group) (Note: BLP implications again discussed at talk page)
• 14:00, November 22, 2013? Carolmooredc (talk | contribs)? . . (10,651 bytes) (+27)? . . ({{POV|date=November 2013}} Undue and Spooner talk sections already discuss some reasons; so needs tags til more NPOV info added and WP:Undue removed)
• 12:56, November 22, 2013? Carolmooredc (talk | contribs)? . . (10,609 bytes) (-86)? . . (Undid revision 582835058 by SPECIFICO (talk)absurd and POV use of a photo in a BLP; talk about WP:Undue)

3RR - Tom DiLorenzo

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.

You are at 3RR on DiLorenzo. Please note. SPECIFICO talk 22:27, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

A second 3RR warning in less than 24 hours. Wow, I wonder what the diffs are for these 6+ reverts. Feel free to post them on my talk page if you like (or use the WP:3RRNB). – S. Rich (talk) 22:36, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Just more SPECIFICO harassment, in addition to other one I removed today. Maybe if I take to WP:ANI this time they'll take it more seriously. But have better things to do for now. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 23:08, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

RSN

Carol, you've done it again at the latest RSN thread. Do it again and you'll be well within scope of a topic ban for WP:TE and possibly even WP:NPA, even though you do not name names. Don't game the system by assuming that keeping names out of it somehow obviates liability. If you have a problem then report it instead of whinging from the sidelines. - Sitush (talk) 00:16, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for advice. I guess unrelenting coordinated attacks by POV warriors is disruptive editing, and there are more than enough diffs to prove it since sanctions were lowered. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 00:29, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. - Sitush (talk) 01:27, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Procedural notification

As a result of a community discussion, the community has enacted editing restrictions, described at WP:AEGS and below.

• Any uninvolved administrator may, at his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working on a page within the topic of Austrian economics, if, despite being notified of these restrictions, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standard of behavior, or any normal editorial process.
• The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length, bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict, bans on any editing related to the topic, restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors, or any other measures that the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
• Prior to any sanction being imposed, the editor shall be given a warning with a link to the community discussion and, when appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.
• Sanctions imposed may be appealed to the imposing administrator or at the appropriate administrators' noticeboard.

These editing restrictions may be applied to any editor, provided the editor has been previously informed as this message does. This notice does not necessarily mean your current editing has been deemed a problem; this is a template message crafted to make it easier to notify any user who has edited the topic of the existence of these sanctions.

Generally, the next step, if an administrator feels your conduct on pages in this topic area is disruptive, would be a warning, to be followed by the imposition of sanctions (although the warning may be omitted). Hopefully no such action will be necessary.

This notice will be logged at WP:AEGS.

I know you're already aware of this, but I felt that procedurally you should be technically notified since everyone else has been. This is a general notification, not one given in response to any specific misconduct. Feel free to remove it. Mark Arsten (talk) 06:35, 25 November 2013 (UTC)