User talk:Carolmooredc: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 15:54, 18 November 2014

Green Box Links to Barnstars, Archives, Other Stuff Please post comments about the content of a specific article on the Talk Page of that Article if it is relevant to all editors. Otherwise I may move it there. Thanks. See here for my Arbitration-related topic ban info.
Barnstars/Kittens/et al My Cheatsheet - My Sandbox - Sanbox 1x - /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 - Archive IX: 2014 Link to Newsletters I Need to Read

This user wants to see everything in its place.

Last of the Mohicans

	The Working Man's Barnstar
	For being the "Last of the Mohicans"--one of the few women who has not been driven off the Gender Gap Task Force or the GGTF ArbCom case.

Hi, Carolmooredc. I have seen this rather amusing barnstar floating around and cannot think of anyone who deserves it more than you do. You have continued to Assume Good Faith, and have patiently answered even the most hostile statements, long after anyone else would have lost patience and concluded that they were being trolled. Just for the record, this is no longer a gender-specific barnstar, but the irony of the original version is just too perfect. Regards, —Neotarf (talk) 13:50, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I actually looked up WP:NOTSUICIDE and I don't get it. As I asked at talk "Does it mean we can kick obvious trolls butts? Or that we should quit rather than commit suicide?" Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 13:56, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, ha, enjoy. —Neotarf (talk) 15:01, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Feminists Engage Wikipedia

	The Feminists Engage Wikipedia Award!
	If Adrianne Wadewitz were here, she'd give you this award for all you have done! Djembayz (talk) 23:28, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Back at ya! But you know my definition of feminist: any woman who doesn't take any bull in any part of her life. So that's most of 3.6 billion women on the planet :-) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 23:55, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some thoughts

I've been following the arbitration case and the happenings at GGTF for a while. You've got a lot to offer wikipedia - clearly you're passionate and knowledgeable, do a lot of research, write well, and have tons of energy. As is true for many of us, it seems that your greatest strengths here can also be weaknesses. Your passion can sometimes lead you to say things without thinking things through or having evidence to back them up, to speak in broadly-formed generalities that don't always hold true, and to speak in terms of others' motivations instead of their behaviour. I understand why and how that can happen, especially when you've been targeted by a group of editors: you feel backed into a corner, entrench your position more deeply, and react to things instead of responding to them.

I hope that at the end of the day, you're still here at Wikipedia, but I'm concerned that if you continue down the behavioural path you've shown in the last year you'll end up booted. Not because you're "uppity" or "outspoken" but because of your focus on other editors and their behaviour instead of content. Good luck to you and I hope to see you around. Ca2james (talk) 15:54, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 39: / Line 39: @@
 |}
 :Back at ya! But you know my definition of feminist: any woman who doesn't take any bull in any part of her life. So that's most of 3.6 billion women on the planet :-) <small>'''[[User:Carolmooredc|Carolmooredc]]  ([[User talk:Carolmooredc|Talkie-Talkie]])'''</small> 23:55, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
+== Some thoughts ==
+I've been following the arbitration case and the happenings at GGTF for a while. You've got a lot to offer wikipedia - clearly you're passionate and knowledgeable, do a lot of research, write well, and have tons of energy. As is true for many of us, it seems that your greatest strengths here can also be weaknesses. Your passion can sometimes lead you to say things without thinking things through or having evidence to back them up, to speak in broadly-formed generalities that don't always hold true, and to speak in terms of others' motivations instead of their behaviour. I understand why and how that can happen, especially when you've been targeted by a group of editors: you feel backed into a corner, entrench your position more deeply, and react to things instead of responding to them.
+I hope that at the end of the day, you're still here at Wikipedia, but I'm concerned that if you continue down the behavioural path you've shown in the last year you'll end up booted. Not because you're "uppity" or "outspoken" but because of your focus on other editors and their behaviour instead of content. Good luck to you and I hope to see you around. [[User:Ca2james|Ca2james]] ([[User talk:Ca2james|talk]]) 15:54, 18 November 2014 (UTC)