Talk:Carlos Latuff

Incorrect Early Childhood and Marriage Sections

I deleted the early childhood and marriage because Latuff himself stated that neither of them contain even remotely correct information about his own life. See his journal entry at http://latuff2.deviantart.com/journal/12537737/ . Besides Wikipedia policies state that "controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately." Dancewiththesky 17:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

from Vfd

On 17 Feb 2005, this article was nominated for deletion. The result was keep. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Latuff for a record of the discussion.

AKdH/NPOV

I feel the quote "According AKdH,"the cartoon stands for the extermination of the Jewish people and the state of Israel" is not a NPOV so I removed it. That is simply one groups interpretation of a cartoon.Unklelemmy 20:02, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

You're right. Although it is a shockingly racist cartoon - unless its meant to be ironic!

pov sentence deleted

Sentence deleted: " Latuff's drawings are inspired by a deep jew-hatred. As every genocidal antisemite, he likes to compare the Jews to the Nazis."

changed picture to more relative artwork

the picture in this is out of touch for the style and contents of latuff's work. so i updated it, (used with permission) -Wolfe 05:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Not just Israel

Shouldn't the article point out that he's not just anti-Israel, but also anti-America and anti-McDonalds?

Likud threatening Latuff

I deleted the sentence on a site linked to the likud threatening latuff, because it gives a misleading impresion. The site doesn't really threaten him in the way which is implied.

I rephrased it a bit so that people can draw their own conclusions. // Liftarn

I removed it because it appears to be a minor spat on some personal websites and blogs, none of them reliable sources, and only mentioned here for the purpose of POV-pushing. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Stubbing

I have stubbed this article since beyond the first sentence it is entirely unencyclopedic and pov. The article was more akin to something one would find in a political pamplet rather than any kind of encyclopedia. I must say that I find it hard to believe that even a unabashed partisan could write such an article. I would re-write the article, but I must admit that I am only semi-familar with the this cartoonist but it is obvious that a stub is preferable to what was present before.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 13:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, but why don't you tell us what is "unencyclopedic and pov". It looks to the point and is well sourced. // Liftarn

Well sourced? I was unable to find even one reliable source on the page; can you point me to any that were reliable? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:37, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Then you couldn't have bothered to look very hard, but why not use the {{fact}} instead of blanking almost the entire article? // Liftarn

Actually, I looked quite hard, and I didn't blank any of the article. I didn't even edit it. I will now, though. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:45, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Is that a threat? // Liftarn

Huh? Jayjg ^(talk) 16:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Because it isn't only about not being properly sourced, the entire article is unacceptably pov. Unless someone rewrites the article to better abide by the npov policy, it cannot stand.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 07:48, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

In what way is it "unacceptably pov". If you feel that way you should put in POV banner and state your objection on the talk page, not just blank the article. // Liftarn

Your reasoning does not make very much sense. I'm sorry if you cannot honestly understand that there is anything pov in the article, but it would be clear to just about any person that this article needs a rewrite. If I only meekly stated my thougths on the talk page, nothing would happen and the article would stay in its sorry state. You obviously seem to want this so I suppose I can understand why you don't want someone to actually edit it, but that is not what wikipedia is about.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 08:29, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Please assume some good faith here and state what your problems are. Just blanking the article will not help your case. // Liftarn

I don't believe that I have done anything that shows a lack of good faith, there is a difference between stubbing an article and blanking the article. It is relativley common for editors and administrators to stub an article as an interim measure to remove pov or otherwise inappropriate material until one can rewrite the article to better conform with policy. If you want the article to be full and complete you will rewrite to address my concerns rather that simply reverting me and ignoring everything that I have written.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 11:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

So far you haven't written anything substantial that I can ignore. Please state the nature of your problems with the article. // Liftarn

The tone of the article is completely pov, passages like "Latuff decided to support the Palestinian people, through his art, against the long-term Israeli occupation" do not even carry the pretense of neutrality, while the events which could be used to portray the alternant view of Latuff that one would expect to find in an encyclopedia article about someone or something as controversial as the wider subject, are all either one sentence descriptions as in- "In Israel a local branch of Indymedia websites was sued in 2003 for showing latuff's cartoon of Ariel Sharon kissing Adolf Hitler", or are sandwiched in between praise of Latuff that gives the impression that only crazy hate-filled right-wingers are opposed to his work. While the passage- "In September 2006, a website associated to Israeli right-wing party Likud", attempts to treate a mainstream political party that is actually rather moderate as if they were extremist reactionaries. The tone of the article is totally inappropriate, since I did not write the article I was hoping that those that did would be encouaged to rewrite it by stubbing it.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 12:06, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Let's break it down to analyse it. "Latuff decided to support the Palestinian people" Yes, the sources support that. "through his art" Well, obviously. "against the long-term Israeli occupation" Since 1967, i.e. almost 40 years. That can be described as "long-term". anyway, I have rewritten it a bit. The passage on the Likud site states what happend. It says nothing about "extremist reactionaries", altough it does say "right-wing" while they may more be centre-right. I've fixed that too. // Liftarn

You are correct to say that it describes what happens, but it describes these events in a very pov and biased tone.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 13:12, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Since you are the only one to see it that way could you please explain what is POV and how you feel it should be changed. // Liftarn

Actually I'm not the only one to feel that way, in fact in the last day or so that I have been here there have been two people who have expressed or implied agreement with me while only one person with you. I have given a few specific examples of what I am talking about, but the easiest way to npov this article would be to simply rewrite everything as matter-of-fact as possible and give equal footing to different viewpoints.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 16:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Your examples have been fixed. Everything is written in a matter-of-fact style already. And what do you refer to when you write "give equal footing to different viewpoints"? Fine, dig up some anti-Latuff stuff and put it into the article. I have googled for a while, but haven't found anything yet. The article does include quotes from the Likud website and clearly represent a different viewpoint. // Liftarn

If thats your honest belief then I will do my own rewrite when I get the chance within the next couple of days.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 19:27, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I've given it a try. I think the article also has a better flow now. Before it was just a bunch of facts stacked on each other. // Liftarn

I've removed some of the worst of it, and asked for reliable sources for the rest. This is the biography of a living person, so we must be especially careful to use only top quality sources, and not include anything that could be seen as defamatory. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

By the way, what on earth gave you the notion that various blogs, or The Illuminati News website were reliable sources? Jayjg ^(talk) 17:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

They are reliable sources about themself and their own views. // Liftarn

A source like "The Illuminati News" would only be acceptable as a source on an article about "The Illuminati News", and even then only in a very limited way.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 12:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

As Moshe says. This is a Biography of a Living Person. If I see that material from blogs and "The Illuminati News" in there again, I'll simply revert from now on. If you add information that could be viewed as defamatory, or dangerous to Wikipedia, you will be blocked. Add only verifiable information from reliable sources. Take this seriously. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:12, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah, the double standard strike again. Please check Talk:Adnan Hajj photographs controversy#Blogs_as_sources where blogs are considered perfectly OK and Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources#Blogs again where it seems to be a gray area. // Liftarn

There's no double standard; blogs are not reliable sources unless they're notable blogs. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

A blog is a blog. Making distinctions is impossible. // Liftarn

Nonsense. Some blogs are famous, like Boing Boing and Little Green Footballs. Some blogs are written by famous people, like Andrew Sullivan. And the rest (the vast majority), are non-notable. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

LGFB is perhaps infamous, but that hardly makes it mroe reliable. // Liftarn

Added two reliable sources in Portuguese language (a interview with Carlos Latuff made on 1999 and a news from one of the biggests Internet Service Provider on Brazil: Terra Networks). Lots of articles on English Wikipedia have sources in non-English languages. 555pt | msg | msg on w:pt 16:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Added another one, from a news agency of Partido Comunista do Brasil. 555pt | msg | msg on w:pt 16:40, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is against ORIGINAL RESEARCH, and having Latuff overlooking his wiki page is certainly a breach!!

Noble Jew

NPOV

I believe that the links section should be rewritten, and then the POV issues could be considered solved. 200.178.22.27 18:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

removed original research/POV adjective "racist" in intro

i removed the adjective "racist" from the first sentence, as this would constitute either original research or POV, depending on whether you consider it to be a factual type of description or an opinion.

If someone wants to, s/he could summarise NPOV content of the article and put in the introductory sentences, e.g. "has been accused by XXX to be racist in charges that were dropped by the judge" etc. (i'm not making a real summary here, just showing the NPOV style).

i put in "controversial" - since i think it's reasonably NPOV to say that someone who has been the subject of a court case and who, it seems, Likud would like to assassinate, is controversial.

Boud 22:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Maariv?

the link claiming to be a source for him being printed in Maariv does not prove anything -- 790 20:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

edits by James Force

The controversy is already sufficiently covered in the article. The unsourced edits add nothing new but NPOV problems. Sources for these assertions would be helpful, but may not fully address POV issues. --Bhuston 17:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

NPA

I had to remove a couple of sections filled with personal attacks. May I suggest the participants get familiar with Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Further actions will have to be taken. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 03:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

BLP

As it says on the top of the page "This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous.". Now some editors who should know better have repetedly inserted the unsourced comment that his cartoons are "antilocution cartoons that demonize". I've added a comment about it at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard to get some input. // Liftarn

just to make things clear, what word would you use to describe those cartoons? (i'll look up some citation from the JDL and others for you sometime later this week) Jaakobou 13:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

"critical" would be a neutral word, but it would be best to use a reliable source to avoid original research. And by the way, I don't think a right-wing terrorist group can be consididered to be a reliable source. // Liftarn

(1) please explain to me what is exactly criticised in the cartoons on dispute... sharons' affection for hitler?? of maybe for loving to kill other people??

(2) i'd appreciate a proper citation for the terrorist claim on the JDL.

(3) don't you think that your doing a bit of POV pushing here?

Jaakobou 18:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

If you have a source which calls them "antilocution," we can say "The cartoons have been called "antilocution" by XYZ." We cannot call them "antilocution" in any definitive sense, because that's clearly an editorial comment on their content, which we can't make. FCYTravis 20:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

you have a point, i will find a couple sources that say "hate speech" when i get a little extra time. Jaakobou 10:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

FBI calls JDL "a violent extremist Jewish organization"here. Anyway, you still need a reliable source for your claims. // Liftarn

I believe you said Terrorist... i'm waiting for a reply on question number (1).. and (3). Jaakobou 10:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Those questions are irrelevent. // Liftarn

i think all your recent edits which relate to israel-palestinian matters are irrelivent POV pushing^(diff) and your use of the words "terrorist", "non-sense" and "critical" just further illustrate my point... honestly, do you have a desire to improve wikipedia material or delete anything that doen't work well with a possible/alleged^{(diff),(diff),(diff),(diff), - one of my favouritves: (diff)} agenda? as a matter of fact, this article has seen an attack by Latuff himself and possibly a few of his frineds^{let's play the hide and seek game} (right after he was caught by an IP check) in an attempt to say that calling his "critical" cartoons by any other name is "unfair" (diff). in any event you don't have that much to "worry" about "BLP", since there's plenty of material about this fellow and it will be refrenced, eventually, where it belongs despite the attack on the page. Jaakobou 13:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Quite frankly I don't care what you think. I find it rather telling that you define asking for sources as "irrelivent POV pushing". Can't you just get on and improve the article instead of going on a personal vendetta. // Liftarn

you're asking for sources and immediately delete (less than 24 hours after adding a tag) while dubbing the text as "non-senese" despite it's factuality. with regards to your style of editing on this article and israel related articles, i.e. disregarding opinions of other admins (who are not called "jaakobou") - i would definately think that this could very well be percieved as POV pushing... and yes, i will get material when i find some time... on a side note: i don't have a personal vendetta against you and i find it propostereous that you even imply such a thing. Jaakobou 14:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Well you did some wikistalking. And as for removing unsourced, controversial material it is required per Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. // Liftarn

Disputed

flickr.com is not a reliable source. And you can't call the International Holocaust Cartoon Competition "Holocaust denial conference" without any source (the source you give talks about the International Conference to Review the Global Vision of the Holocaust and that's an entierly different thing). // Liftarn

Link farm

These are the forty eight external links which were in the article, in the order in which they are given here, when I first saw it today. The majority are embedded in the text of the article. Quite a few are duplicates and near-duplicates.

• [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48]

External links "should be kept to a minimum of those that are meritable, accessible and appropriate to the article." (WP:EL)   I have added {{cleanup}}, {{External links}} and {{NoMoreLinks}} to the article as a start.

Nothing—nothing—in Wikipedia:Reliable sources or any other Wikipedia policy or guideline supports such a monstrosity in an encyclopedia article. For an article this size, there should really be fewer than ten. Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided also merits particular attention. — Athænara ✉ 09:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Carlos Latuff does not approve this article.

Latuff has stated himself that he thinks this Wikipedia article is a joke and should not be taken seriously. This can be read on his journal, titled Don't trust on Wikipedia.

Should this article be proposed for deletion? TheOneTheyCall 19:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

considering that latuff himself has reverted things he didn't like on this article (look it up on the history) and that he attended a holocaust denial propaganda display. i'm not sure latuff's own interpertations make his article on wiki less or more notable. his activity for the independant however, makes him a fairly notable character and therefore, I will not support an AfD proposal. Jaakobou 21:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The journal entry is about false data (the BS about his family and mother), if you like to readd information, do so in a critisism subtitle and not in the main article. Peewack 06:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

It appears it was added by User:Eternalsleeper[49]. It gave some links[50][51][52][53] that perhaps can be used to expand (and fix!) the article. // Liftarn

wait a second. a month ago, i try to insert some information from a ben heine interview with latuff where he put a link to it from his devArt journal and latuff supporters repeatedly removed the citation and link on the premisis that "it's a blog" here's the edit. this was then removed by you liftarn, on the premisis that "it's a blog"[54]... so now we follow blogs all of a sudden? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jaakobou (talk • contribs) 08:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC).

Good point. It's still a blog, but now it's approved by the subject himself (as far as I can tell) so now we know (sortof) it's genuine. But you are right that generally blogs should not be used as sources. // Liftarn

Wikipedia should not generally be linking to blogs as sources of information. The policy is "Links normally to be avoided [include:...] Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority." (Although blogs can be a first point of call, which might cite more authoritative sources or give info that can be verified elsewhere.) However, blogs noted by Lifarn seem to me, on the whole, to dall in the "recognized authority" category. None of them are simply personal blogs of individuals with axes to grind, but are fairly serious websites. The [Ben Heine interview on his blog, which appears to be approved by Latuff, is a good source even though it is published on a blog. The Voice of the Republic interview is not on a blog and seems like a good source, unless Latuff or others claim it is not authentic. Iraq Slogger is technically a blog, but appears to be created by serious journalists and cites its sources pretty clearly. Palestine Chronicle doesn't look like a blog to me.

Personal information that Latuff disputes should not on any account be here, unless there is a strong reason to believe it is true and it is very clearly contextualized (e.g. something like "X alleges that... by this is denied by Latuff himself", with citations of sources of both allegations and rebuttals). The disputed info has now been removed, which seems right to me.

The section Published works seems to me to contain contentious material that ought to be in the Controversies section. I think I'll go and do that now. BobFromBrockley 10:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Latuff has personally told me is is gay but does not want this information revealed because he says it is irrelevant and should not matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul T. Evans (talk • contribs)

That would be original research, on http://latuff2.deviantart.com/journal/12537737/ he writes "If I had a gay relationship I would have no problem making it public"... // Liftarn

New Photo of Carlos Latuff

I don't know if I have editing privileges on this page. I would like to suggest that since the non-sourced photo of Latuff was removed, why not use this one from his web site? http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/19193141/ Photo by Zulmair Rocha reflects his interest in Palestine issue. Carol Moore 03:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

I see on April 21st the old photo was put back. I don't know how long it will last. Here is one that is actually by Latuff himself so maybe that will have less of a problem, though reading the type of copyright required, not sure. Yet other of his art has been allowed to be put up. http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/53023131/ The photo policy sure is complicated!!

Carol Moore 18:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

Pick whatever photo you will find, all of them give off the same flamboyant impression! And he swears it's not true! [[User:Noble

Jew|Noble Jew]]

Gay art

Shall we post something about his gay art collection that is accessible on his page [55]? He has several pictures of gay pride from Rio de Janeiro, a picture of "thinking about being lesbian" and a couple others. What do ya'll think? eternalsleeper

It could go under the Themes section perhaps... Do you have some examples? // Liftarn

Yes, you can see his gay art [56] or [57] it appears he removed the drawings of 'girls who like girls' and a 'gay preacher.' eternalsleeper

So what we have is not cartoons, but two photos from a gay pride parade. Hardly worth mentioning unless we can get a WP:RS for it. // Liftarn

I still have his gay cartoons, not sure why he deleted them. If you want I can send them to you :)

eternalsleeper|eternalsleeper

Sorry, that's no good. // Liftarn

Why are you sorry? He removed the homosexual drawings from his websites. I am cynical as to why. But I have my own assumptions, most of which are obvious. No reason to be sorry. But I think we should add a picture of his gay photography to show that he is interested in other things then politics.eternalsleeper

Why should they be included? In what way are they notable? And why isn't it politics? // Liftarn

It's well know the gay people enjoy, ahem, little rights in Palestine or Iran and Iraq (as opposed to Israel). I guess eternalsleeper wanted to highlight the irony of the fact Latuff sympathises with the people who would opress him if he was born there and not in Brazil, while calling the world-leading in tolerance Israelis the "Nazis". --HanzoHattori 12:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Latuff obviously support opressed peoples, regardless if they are gays, Palestinians or native americans. // Liftarn

Latuff obviously supports those who pay him when he makes antisemetic hate art or nazi comparisment to any leader he doesn't like. if he were a ture supporter of oppressed people he'd go after lebanon, egypt, yemen, iraq, syria.. maybe to iran and sudan... not israel. Jaakobou 13:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Well there is no reason just to show his anti-Israel work, there should also be a section that shows his gay support. I wouldn't go as far to say he supports all oppressed people... there are millions of oppressed people in Islamic countries which he wouldn't dare to touch.... I have never seen his work on native Americans... eternalsleeper

Oh, there was this pic where a Native American said "I am Palestinian" for some reason. And I've seen one showing how the evil UN soldiers are opressing the people of Haiti or something (yes, I know the Haitians are black now). --84.234.60.154 14:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually most of his work is (of obvious reasons) about various South American issues. For instance about Chiapas[58]. As for oppressed people in Islamic countries there is the entire Tales of Iraq War series.[59] // Liftarn

Hmmm, has anyone considered WEB SITE GLITCHES? DeviantArt is not controlled by Latuff but evidently one of those free sites where what you do not PAY for is what you get. For example look at this incompletely loaded Latuff work I ran across!

Also, I just want to remind us all that gay and straight are not the only options. After all probably 50% of humanity would swing both ways if it weren't for all the taboos on bisexuality. Hey, maybe even 50% of the editors of wikipedia editors would swing both ways in a truly free world :-)

Carol Moore 16:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

It's only opression by the EVIL AMERICANS. In "the entire Tales of Iraq War series" Saddam Hussein, the tyrant who eventually had homosexuality a capital crime, is presented as a hero, directing Iraqi freedom fighters from heaven (I'm serious), and the "Iraqi resistance" is only killing the American occupiers (who in turn slaughter innocent Iraqis left and right, I guess all these mosque or marketplace truck bombs are driven by them too). It must be some sort of alternative-reality Iraq, like his fantasy versions of freedom-fighting Palestine and Nazi "Israhell". --84.234.60.154 14:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it is well past time to ban Liftarn from further editing of this article for his incessent POV violations and continuing vandalism. He has continually re-edited the accurate descriptions of the Iranian conference in which Latuff eagerly participated as a pro-Hitler pro-Nazi affair - which it WAS! It is therefore of interest in assessing Latuff's motivation for his willing collaboration. Liftarn's own page demonstrates his hard-core "anti-zionism" (which in his case MIGHT or MIGHT NOT be related to a deeper Jew-hatred) so he is obviously not neutral on this topic, and clearly wants to slant this entry in this way that most favorably reflects his idol's point of view. That is hardly the appropriate way to compose a neutral encyclopedia entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.68.166.9 (talk • contribs)

It wasn't pro-Hitler, it was pro-Palestinian and anti-Israeli. Invoking Hitler is soooo Latuff (and Godwin's Law). --HanzoHattori 17:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

POV Reverts on Cartoon Competition

I'm not an experienced enough editor to know how to deal with these people who keep replacing a neutral paragraph that refers to WIKI articles with a negative and argumentative point of view paragraph with no sourcing or "original research." I'll leave it to someone else to revert, since I wrote new version. Also note I left the same link in to the cartoon that also is footnote 1, leaving it to a more experienced editor to decide which is the better way to let people see the Latuff cartoon and other winners of the contest.

NEUTRAL PARAGRAPH THAT HAS BEEN REPLACED BY POV PARAGRAPH TWICE: In 2006, Latuff entered, was placed second and won $4,000 in the International Holocaust Cartoon Competition sponsored by the Iranian government that was a response to the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy meant to test Western tolerance for free speech. Latuff's image showed a Muslim Palestinian in a striped inmate's outfit next to the Israeli West Bank barrier, an obvious comparison to Jewish inmates of a Nazi concentration camp.

Carol Moore 15:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc