User talk:Carolmooredc

Leave messages for user User:Carolmooredc on this page

---

/Archive I - /Archive II - /Archive III - /My Sandbox 1 - /My Sandbox 2 - /My Sandbox 3 -/My Sandbox 4

Libertarianism lead

Hi, Carol. I must be missing something. I did go through the talk page before making this edit, and have just done so again, and can't see the consensus about short lead, etc. Who objected to the long-standing quote from what I reckon's a pretty good article in the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (certainly much better than the Stanford one)? Or, more importantly, on what grounds?

Always seemed to me it was a good two-sentence way, from a neutral source, of summing up much of the article's content - which, of course, is supposed to be a major function of any lead in the first place. The current startling terseness, apart from anything else, seems to militate against, rather than further, that end. Are you still battling with the Rahmbo fans, by the way? I gave up in disgust. Really admired the way you kept tussling against the Praetorian guard. I just couldn't hack it. Found the whole phenomenon quite sickening and even sinister. Regards Wingspeed (talk) 18:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I shortened it a few months back when someone was messing with it and figured since it had stayed that way it was consensus. I personally thought it was too wordy and unduly stressed differences. On the other hand, I won't put up a fight about it if you want to put it back. I also don't have a problem with saying some people call lib. a synonym for anarchism if done the way I describe, as I told the editor a couple times.

I decided to let events characterize Rahm, rather than pulling out my hair to get in the briefest mentions of certain issues. I've put it in the "pulling out my hair" category on my userpage :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Friend of mine (Heathcote Williams) has just come up with a good coinage: ObamaRahma. Which enables us now to refer to the dazzling ObamaRahma display team. Which I've just done on the excellent Lenin's Tomb. If you don't know it, best one-man blog I know of, with possible exception of Wood's Lot. Thank you for your tolerance; I will reinsert that quote. I think, in the context, and in the absence of anything better, it's quite important. I agree with you that the anarchism/synonym sentence needs to be there. Wingspeed (talk) 20:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:ZionistLobbyDayLeaflet2009.jpg)

You've uploaded File:ZionistLobbyDayLeaflet2009.jpg, and indicated that it's used under Wikipedia's rules for non-free images. However, it's not presently used in any articles. Wikipedia policy requires that non-free images be either used or deleted, so if this image isn't used in an article in the next week, it will be deleted.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 10:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Now there is a pro-active extroverted bot, at least its owner is watching; maybe too early! I have no problem with it, except that it shouldn't appear like an advertisement prior to the announced date; that sounds un-wiki. It seems just so perfectly planned for the new Prez's first full day at work. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 14:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I guess I should break down and put it in the UK article during this short period that everything isn't being deleted. However, I believe it could stay on wikicommons if not used, right? :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced CFD comment

Hi Carol - I just came across your comment on "genre" vs. "form", etc. -- which you posted at the bottom of the page. I think you probably meant it to be part of this discussion, so you might want to move it to the correct section if that was your intent. Cgingold (talk) 23:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that's what you meant to do, so I went ahead & moved it, as other editors were starting to add their replies. Cgingold (talk) 23:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

Now I do realize that the article about neolibertarianism is flawed from the beginning and deletion is the best thing to do, and your assertion on the "OR/BLP" materials, although I still cannot completely subscribe too, has certain merits to consider. And for all of your great expertise on libertarian issues and other political things, there's a barnstar =)

		The Society Barnstar
		I bestow the Society Barnstar to you, Carol Moore, for your knowledge and contributions to Wikipedia on political philosophy. Wandering Courier (talk) 01:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• Yow! Thanks. :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:30, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Historical context

You might be interested to Google this book[1], Israel, the Diaspora, and Jewish Identity, by Danny Ben-Moshe, Zohar Segev, et.al, and find Chapter 12, The Reflection of Israel within British Jewry. It may assist with historical context and editorial perspective for the amazing number of nitty-gritty edits that you have performed on several articles. Chapter 7 is equally enlightening elsewhere. Regards and congrats on the Barnstar. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 06:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Mucho gracias! But maybe B. Hussein will register them all and solve that problem (Ho HO :-) so I can work on articles that are more fun and less duty-driven. CarolMooreDC (talk) 05:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Image info

Hi. Could you please add description and source info for File:FBIphoto04-19-93.JPG which you uploaded? (What does the photo show? Where is the photo from -- who took it, where did you get it?) Thank you. Cheers, -- Infrogmation (talk) 13:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Info is in there now. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey Ms Carol

Good Morning Ms Carol. I hope all is well. And that you have a peaceful and joyful day. To free will! LoveMonkey (talk) 14:35, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey Hey Ms Carol, I added some minor stuff to the libertarian metaphysics article. They are Taleb. I hope your OK and doing great...

God Bless you, and you should be catholic ;>) LoveMonkey (talk) 17:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Took a quick look and as I believe I stated a while back in talk, most of the article is poorly sourced and/or WP:original research. But I don't know enough about to rewrite it properly. However, I do know how to delete all unsourced material, if I ever was sufficiently motivated :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Allaroundamazingbarnstar3.png		All Around Amazing Barnstar
		Well take that then! You epistemological libertarian you! LoveMonkey (talk) 20:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Here's my theory of epistemology from this article (before reading the wiki article which I'm sure is far more objective :-): EPISTEMOLOGY: (the nature of and means of seeking truth) Today science and philosophy suggest that there is no ultimate, unchanging truth. Physicists note that the mere act of observing even subatomic particles changes their motions. How much more easily are affected human actions. Some scientists suggest that even "natural laws" are not static and unchanging but ever-evolving. Logicians point out the impossibility of constructing perfectly logically consistent arguments. It seems neither God nor natural law has created some objective, knowable reality. Moreover humans are incapable of knowing reality objectively. Humans as much "construct" reality and truth as "discover" them. Each of us views reality through a unique "psychic grid" influenced by society's teachings, personal experience and individual interpretation. Therefore, while humans can understand more “accurate” truths, we will always recognize that even such truth evolves and that every individual will view it a little bit differently. Despite the seeming relativism of truth, humans must endeavor to discover the most accurate knowledge of the nature of reality and human purpose. And we must learn how to best combine, as appropriate, the three means to knowledge--intuition, reason (logic) and empirical (scientific) methods--to do so. We do not have to just going along with what the religious, social, economic and political "powers-that-be" call truth or reality. CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Well N.O. Lossky and Gödel's with his incompleteness theorems would bitterly disagree. Lossky was libertarian but well... here's an article I thought I might have already linked to you on objectivism or realism. .[2] This is from Godel who told Noam Chomsky that he was trying to validate that all knowledge is A priori (to be discovered not made). Lossky states it clearer in All is immanent in all! Beautiful. Axiology still works (and quite well) we are just finite beings in an infinite world and this is the problem. Stochastics are very epistemelogical very real. To noesis! As always love talking to you Ms Carol, your wonderful. LoveMonkey (talk) 13:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey Ms Carol. I have noticed something! There is no article at all for The God of the Machine by Isabel Paterson! [3] Why is that? You know us kookz can for right now, still have our say. Hey I didn't do nothing. Hope all is well.LoveMonkey (talk) 18:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Not familiar with that book, though a fan of Koestlers "The Ghost in the Machine." Write up the article! CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh shanaigans! Your a bigger fan of Paterson then me :>P Hey, and you could put the mass killing machine spin on it! Crunch crunch, death to leviathan and all that. Wherez your indeterminate spirit? Also why haven't you looked at or worked on any of Eric Voegelin's stuff? Since all of Ron's supporters keep quoting him on how both parties are really cults? Hey your Ms Carol your not allowed to get angry or hate :>) Remember thatz the way to the dark side of the force. Have a nice day Ms Carol. LoveMonkey (talk) 18:35, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Little confused by your post. On a one hour a day wikipedia diet, which usually is mostly reacting to strange things already worked on or events of day which catch my eye. However, when start working on my next book might work on a few relevant articles cause it's a good way to make myself do research and find out what others think :-) CarolMooreDC (talk)

Eck. Well I hope this doesn't make it so things on wiki get any more Pagan (folky Yeah Ha!)- around here. At that point I would literially have to go. Since I am a libertarian in the philosophy of free will but not when it comes to being depraved :>P Also I am not in agreement with everyone on everything. But I thought that since Paterson was like the godmother of the libertarian feminist movement well you'd be a fan for sure. I mean she is not accepted by everyone. Also I do not agree with Ayn Rand. I also am a big supporter of the Isreal so me and you probably don't agree, but so what.

LoveMonkey (talk) 19:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Possible sock using email with your user name

Don't see how it is necessary to e-mail you for details... Tell me more about this sock. Lord Metroid (talk) 00:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

After thinking about it, I have to be careful not to out someone or share personal info where anyone can see it. I get the impression you are an Admin who can handle this sort of thing? But if might be a conflict of interest for you to deal with it if it isn't a wild coincidence that his email uses your user name in emailing me to deny he is same sock I've been dealing with for a while, who also has worked on things with or against you. Two of 3 people who last handled this sock not doing now; will have to search around to find the third one. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:32, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not an admin Lord Metroid (talk) 01:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Apologies

I was just trying to make light of a rather depressing group. Humor seems to have solved things in my life lately lol. I will gladly change it. Cheers! Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Chas Freeman

Nice rewrite. It flows better than the old version did, and includes the recent controversy.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Practice makes perfect :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:00, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I would like to join Sarek in thanking you for your good work on the Charles W. Freeman article.
Dean Armond (talk) 17:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Invitation

Hello Carolmooredc, thank you for your contributions to articles related to feminism. I'd like to invite you to become a part of the Feminism Task Force, a WikiProject aimed at improving the quality of articles dealing with feminism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the Feminism Task Force page for more information. Feel free to sign your name under "Members". Thanks!

--Grrrlriot (♠ ♣ ♦ ♥ †) 04:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

COI entities

Your suggestion about clarifying the entities is a good one and a necessary step on the road to an enforceable policy. I'd suggest there's a million examples we could list so perhaps 'government-related entities' would suffice - mentioning 'militaries' specifically looks out of place. Refining groups as 'SIGs' (perhaps with a link to special interest group) is another good idea.

Finally, on the question of when an interest becomes a conflict of interest, to me it's when there's an "interest" in the financial/business sense rather than the amorous sense (yes it's a pity the same word has double meanings here). That is, the editor or someone close to them (family, friend, [ex-]employer, etc.) could derive some benefit from the edits. Most of these are pretty obvious but casting the net too far unsurprisingly causes significant angst (better results are had from comments like "your edit was unverifiable per WP:V" than "you have a conflict of interest so your edit is assumed questionable"). -- samj _in^out 01:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I think I'll move this to the talk page when get into a head to respond. Unfortunately, i've fallen out of my wiki-editing mode since first suggesting change and so it's been hard to focu. "-( CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Runtshit

If you check the record at Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Runtshit, you will see [[that this character is generally banned indefinitely (or, in the case of IPs, for five years) as soon as identified. But this does not seem to help; so far, there are 824 confirmed socks (including 140 IPs) and 51 suspected (including 7 IPs). There appears to be an inexhaustible number of proxy servers available to this vandal (in addition to the University of Haifa IPs which he sometimes uses), and admins have not been shy of issuing long bans. RolandR (talk) 16:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Jeez. Hope I don't get any "admirers" like that!! So I guess he gets a two-fer vandalizing articles about critics of Israel that you edit! CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Not only articles about critics of Israel, though he does specialise in these. But also articles on Socialism and Trotskyism, and many others -- I have identified nearly 600 articles that this vandal has defaced. There seems to be no way to stop him. RolandR (talk) 19:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe someone who lost a lot of relatives in the various Soviet purges so hates leftists as much as any anti-zionists. While bad things must be exposed, hate and harassment - especially against targets not involved in any actual crimes one might legitimately complain about - hardly the way to do it. But people do go cr#zy. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so; it's because I am a Trotskyist, and it's someone who hates me. Targeted articles also include London Borough of Waltham Forest, University of Bradford, Jan Potocki, George Blake, Yaltah Menuhin and others with no direct link to socialism or the Middle East -- the only link is that I had just edited them. The clear (and declared) intention is to stop me editing Wikipedia, either by wearing me out or by making other editors so fed up that they decide to remove me. The only way I can see to deal with it is to make all articles by default semi-protected, so that anonymous editors and throw-away vandalism accounts cannot edit them; but this would never be agreed. RolandR (talk) 21:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

So the stalinists are still trying to assassinate people?? CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Neolibertarianism

Hello, Carol. I need to ask you, concerning the blog posting on LDC. Why is it you asked me? Was there something about my tone in the article addition that suggested that? I am just trying to understand what's going on here. Also, (I am not trying to offend you here) do simply have problems with the sources or is it that you personally disagree with neolibertarianism [concerning the deletion of the first article]? Please answer, I am not trying to attack you in any way I swear. If you clear this up than the blog authors won't have anything to go on to attack you woth. ApocalypseNow115 (talk) 17:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The reason I asked you here per WP:COI is that it is obvious some members of the group have been actively editing several articles on themselves; a majority of your edits were on neolibertarianism; they would be most likely to have all those refs you came up with; and probably one of them wrote that article. Don't get upset. People have to check these things out all the time. Over last year I have helped delete or redirect about a dozen libertarian-related articles that were written either as self-promotion and/or with no or few WP:RS references. Part of general cleanup of the topic per WP:policy. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations Carol, someone feels like attacking you. Again, (this is just because I have to) I have nothing to do with this, and I also disagree with this man. But yeah, I just thought you should see this because it, of course, has to do with you and also the neolibertarian article problem. So, I guess you could call it a heads up. ApocalypseNow115 (talk) 04:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I guess when people can't find any WP:RS to back up the WP:notability of their philosophy they have to attack the editor who points out the problem. :=) Also real libertarians know that if you make an agreement or contract to work within the framework set up by others, you don't just violate that willy nilly (though you can work within framework to change it). So promoting a POV without even bothering to have notable WP:RS is a violation of any contract any of editors from that group have with wikipedia. Non-editors who don't understand or agree with policy can whine all they want, of course. Just in case any of the neolib editors are reading. :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 12:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

BLP/N report

Hello, when I responding to your BLP/N report concerning Gilad Atzmon, I fiddled with your indentations a little to keep things neat. I hope this is OK; feel free to undo this if it appears problematic. CIreland (talk) 14:44, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for mentioning. I do it a lot myself but so far just mentioning in edit summaries has been enough :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:47, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I had intended to do exactly that but when the time came to input the edit summary, I completely forgot. Hence the note above; I'm not normally so pernickety. CIreland (talk) 15:00, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm in the middle of responding to you but an editor is changing the facts on the ground so may have to start from scratch... sigh... CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:01, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Republican Liberty Caucus

I have nominated an article to which you have contributed for deletion, because of its lack of citations, despite a request for sources dating back to June 2007. If this nomination is in error, then please post a message to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Republican Liberty Caucus; you may also wish to add a bibliography or footnotes to the Republican Liberty Caucus article, as well. Thank you. Bjenks (talk) 02:45, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Republican Liberty Caucus

Thks for the advice. I probably handled this wrongly. I understand that (as a PROD rather than AfD) it will be up to an administrator after 5 days. Is that right? Cheers Bjenks (talk) 03:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure. They might just delete it if not done right. Check WP:AFD again in it's 3 part sections on how to do it. It's pretty easy to copy the template to the page and fill in the blanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Gilad Atzmon

Hi, if you're trying to rewrite it please consider using some of my rewriting of the Views section, I put quite a lot of effort into making it flow better and clearer. old version. Rd232 ^talk 00:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC)