Jump to content

Talk:Carly Fiorina

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 2600:8805:9900:5af:e196:1ff3:ef85:e9d3 (talk) at 20:38, 5 July 2020 (→‎Semi-protected edit request on 5 July 2020: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.



Semi-protected edit request on 27 April 2018

Change "She subsequently served as Chair of the philanthropic organization Good360." in the first paragraph to "She currently serves at the Chairman of Unlocking Potential, a 501(c)(3) seeking to develop leaders in nonprofit organizations.[1] Editorali (talk) 19:20, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: The source offered does not suggest the change requested. There is no apparent reason to remove the previous organization and substitute the new organization. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:11, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Brufke, Juliegrace (12/18/17). "Carly Fiorina Discusses New Foundation, What Makes A Good Leader". Daily Caller. Retrieved 27 April 2018. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Concerns with edit descriptions

I am concerned that a specific editor reverts edits and does so without regarding the information provided. The language used to describe some edits is less than professional. If people are editing, they should conduct themselves as editors even if they are only editors on a voluntary basis. I wanted to note that it continues to happen and I hope other editors will be on the look-out.SeminarianJohn (talk) 18:13, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're obviosly talking about my reverts here and here, with "fishing for eyeballs" as the edit summary.
What makes you think I was reverting "without regarding the information provided"? I certainly looked at the information provided, and I found it lacking.
The language I used is flippant but not inaccurate. If you are asking for other editors to "be on the look-out" for slang words like "eyeballs" then you've stepped into a position of suppressing free expression, to achieve a chilling effect. I don't intend to be restricted in that manner. Binksternet (talk) 18:46, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You can say what you would like, but it is indeed flippant and I maintain grossly inaccurate. We all have free expression, but we should act in a professional manner when approaching other people. There is still a such thing as being respectful. Saying things flippantly is not very flattering on a person. I disagree with your reasoning, but I chose to take this route instead of back and forth. Please see Wikipedia:Civility for conduct. SeminarianJohn (talk) 19:00, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do not intend to be disrespected, and I will challenge disrespect and refer back to Wikipedia:Civility.SeminarianJohn (talk) 19:08, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Being flippant certainly does not fall in here. "Stated simply, editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect. They should focus on improving the encyclopedia while maintaining a pleasant editing environment by behaving politely, calmly and reasonably, even during heated debates."SeminarianJohn (talk) 19:11, 14 January 2019 (UTC) Wikipedia:Civility[reply]

You're taking personally a flippant comment I made about Fiorina's attempt to stay in the public eye. Why? Binksternet (talk) 19:30, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Primary Sources – Trump's border crisis

To provide clarity on the use of primary sources. Per guidelines, primary sources may be used, "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." WP:PRIMARY. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SeminarianJohn (talkcontribs)

I have been removing this addition by SeminarianJohn because the primary sources don't show us that this expressed opinion of Fiorina's is important to the topic. The problem here is one of WP:WEIGHT, giving too much credence to Fiorina's supposed influence in the current political landscape, though she has never been elected to office, nor has she declared a new candidacy. To me, it looks like Fiorina is trying to stay in the public eye, and I don't see why Wikipedia needs to support her effort in that direction. Binksternet (talk) 18:35, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I maintain disagreement, and I believe that editions should be explained appropriately and courteously, not with demeaning content. What her goal is we cannot know. What we do know is that this is an update on her position(s) and she is a public figure with a page that should be kept up to date. Again, I believe the WP:PRIMARY would allow the brief straightforward description and source. I decided to not press with further edits regarding that topic because it does not help the page. So, I added this, but I also feel that some editing comments were disrespectful.SeminarianJohn (talk) 18:41, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 5 July 2020

Make that she is a Democrat. She said she vote for Joe Biden in 2020. 2600:8805:9900:5AF:E196:1FF3:EF85:E9D3 (talk) 20:38, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]