User talk:Carolmooredc/Archive IV

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

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)


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 =)

Society barnstar 2.png 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)

Historical context

You might be interested to Google this book[1], Israel, the Diaspora, and Jewish Identity, by Danny Ben-Moshe, Zohar Segev,, 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)
Allaroundamazingbarnstar.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)


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)


Womanpower logo.svg Hello Carolmooredc/Archive IV, 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)



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)


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)


CleanupBarnstar.PNG The Cleanup Barnstar
I Hereby award you the Cleanup Barnstar for your diligent work put into the article City of Ember. It was just yesterday that i was looking at it, thinking, wow this article..needs help! I didnt have the time to fix i added it to my watchlist. Then you came around and fixed it! Thanks! Dillard421♂♂ (talk to me) 17:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. It was an interesting movie. Now I should go back and clean up the couple sections I didn't pay too much attention to ;-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

It was a great book! hehe :) Dillard421♂♂ (talk to me) 18:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm a great believer in the human race constructing a few hundred of (more realistic and historically and technologically savvy) such places because even without nuke war something big and bad is inevitable one of these days and it's our first duty to survive! CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree! :) Dillard421♂♂ (talk to me) 18:35, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Cycle and wave

Hi Carolmooredc. As far as my interests are concerned - waves in physics - I want to stop now with cycle and wave, and go on with other waves. Personally I think cycle (scientific) is too broad to become something useful, other than a new disambiguation page or list. But on the other hand, if you can find reliable references on "cycle" in an even broader perspective, and like to start an article on that, I wish you fun and good luck with that. Best regards, Crowsnest (talk) 02:45, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Communitarianism vs libertarianism

See Talk:Libertarianism#Communitarianism for my comment. Cheers Bjenks (talk) 04:46, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Patriarchy article

Hi Carolmooredc, Would you please return to the patriarchy article? You are needed and I'm hopeful we can manage a better discussion at this time. Please read the new discussion from about May 4. Thanks.--Hammy64000 (talk) 18:12, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Just notice this. So many articles, so little time. I can comment but no time to do adequate research to edit. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


"Considering Israel is going around threatening to bomb Iran, despite whatever El Baradei says, obviously its pronouncements about him are important, but they should be in relevant subsections".

I agree that the commentary of Israel and Iran directed towards each other is significant and reliable. I was hoping you would clarify relevant you think it is not to the Iran nuclear case but to the life and work of ElBaradei specifically. Could you also clarify whether you are favoring an entire section, a subsection, or some amount of material within an already existing section for some of this material? Thanks,-- (talk) 15:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


Hi, I was wondering if you knew the source of File:FBIphoto04-19-93.JPG that you uploaded in July 2008. I did a quick image search through Google, but the only other sites that host the image are mirrors of Wikipedia. The image is currently being used for the Oklahoma City bombing page, and I'd like to fix the image before nominating at FAC. Let me know if you have any questions. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talkcontrib) 17:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Per the note on photo "Federal Bureau of Investigation photographs released to public during 1994 trial." I got it in hard copy from an investigator for the civil suits way back in 1995 and scanned it. Actually I probably have a better scanner now and could do a better version. Evidently no one else has released them. I should put more of them up at wikicommons after re-scan.
I see people don't like title. Have a better idea for one?
Not sure what you mean by fix the image or nominating at FAC. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:37, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
I meant fix the image by changing the title and finding out the source. For the title, you could probably do something like WacoSeigeAboveApr191993 or something to that effect. Could you please add the details of the source to the image's page? If you want to upload a higher-quality image that'd be great, and it's up to you. If you do, upload it to Commons and I can delete this one for you. For FAC, I meant that I was going to nominate the Oklahoma City bombing article as a Featured Article at Featured Article Candidates. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talkcontrib) 17:13, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
OK. Still don't understand:
  • what more you need on source; I also know these photos were shown at the 1995 Waco hearings I attended and have video of and introduced as being from the FBI. Are you saying you need a source that says so? The film Waco: Rules of Engagement probably uses them and would thus identify them. Plus perhaps other sources I have hanging around in boxes (I don't feel like looking through currently). No one else was flying airplanes over Mount Carmel that day so it only can be the government.
  • As I wrote on photos talk page: originally put up photo. Not sure how to do it. mountcarmelfire04-19-93a.jpg would be good. I intend to put up a few more that would be B and C and D. Unless there's another way to do it? Is that name ok?? Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:16, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
For the source I'd recommend editing it to state what you told me above, that you scanned the image from the one released during the trial. You don't need a source saying that you attended the trial or anything like that. We just want to ensure that someone doesn't think that you took it from a copyrighted book, article, etc. If you reword it to discuss that (ex. "The image was provided by the FBI during a public trial, which I scanned for uploading." or something to that effect), then it shouldn't have any problems. Most images here are from web sites and they usually include the url, but since this one was scanned then you can just say that so readers will know. If the images are just different angles, then A, B, C, and D would work. If they're completely different images (different parts of the complex, inside the building, people, etc.) then another descriptive word would work. Let me know if any of this still doesn't make sense. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talkcontrib) 21:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
ok. makes sense. will proceed from scratch but will have to wait til sunday. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
No worries, I'm in no big hurry. Thanks. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talkcontrib) 03:11, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Time flies! Wrote it down this time and will try to do in day or two. CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

<backdent> OK, getting them together and found some great ones I hadn't ever scanned. Am thinking of doing a collage of 4-19. But I know sometimes people delete photos if they aren't used and perhaps they won't all be. Unless I put them on wikimedia, then they'll be safe from deletion? Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:19, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

If it's released under a free license, then there should be no reason for somebody to delete the image. I would like to think that we're trying to get as many free images as we can on all topics as each one may show a different perspective. If it's going to be under a free license you should definitely go to Wikimedia Commons anyway. That's great that you found that many images on the topic, perhaps that article could use some additional images and I may replace the one on the Oklahoma City bombing article once I take a look at the ones you upload. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talkcontrib) 17:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC) CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

More thoughts at ME?

It would be very helpful. thanks! Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:06, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Carolmooredc. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. The relevant subsection is WP:ANI#On-going dispute at ME. Various violations by editors, etc...-- (talk) 13:32, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


Hi, Carol. Just noticed that your last edit with Google Books link has somehow wiped out a chunk of the article and caused a big red citation error warning to present itself. Looked at trying to rectify by repairing the link, but am fearful of even more damage by so doing from a position of ignorance as to the exact result you intended. So, for the meantime, thought a simple revert safer. Hope you don't mind. Regards Wingspeed (talk) 19:08, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Think I've now fixed it, just about. Can see what probably went wrong: an astonishingly long url (as so often with GgleBks) which really needs a compiler or some such. Have tacked it to Belsham's name rather than add to the two notes already at the end of the sentence. Wingspeed (talk) 19:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
I Think the problem was an extra < ref > at the end of the paragraph. CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Category:Jewish anarchists

You go ahead and do it, and let me know. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


Nice job uploading all of the images. I already deleted the original one that was here for you. Thanks again for helping me out. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talkcontrib) 00:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

RSN discussion

Carol, your comments have been the source of some discussion at Talk:Tom_G._Palmer#.22Criticism.22, and now at Cheers, DickClarkMises (talk) 23:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

That might have been too structured a proposal for people to deal with. In fact I had an idea for a whole chart. But never got together. So many wikipedia issues and articles, so little time... Commented on WP:RSN CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

panarchists blog


First, I want to thank you sincerely for the yeomans work you have done on the panarchy article. It is magnificent.

Clearly you are a person of many interests. Still, if you strongly believe in panarchy, I would like to invite you to be an author on our newly developed blog, currently using the address There is not much there yet, since I only started it up on Friday, but it has a lot of promise. I was part of a closed blog called Little Panarchy on Yahoo groups, started by a panarchist in Germany. He enrolled a number of the major players as contributors there: John Zube (Australia), Richard CB Johnsson (a Swede living in Beijing and LRC contributor), Michael Rozeff (LRC contributor), Gian Piero de Bellis (Switzerland), Adam Knott (Seattle area), and some others. That blog has since been shutdown since it became too much to manage for him. I've stepped in to keep the conversation going and hopefully enhance it.

Anyway, I wanted to thank you for what you have done for panarchy, and hope you will consider joining this blog sometime in the near future.

Dwight Johnson administrator for -- (talk) 16:29, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Responding there. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:32, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

More gld info.

The South African Mint Company (Pty) Ltd is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the South African Reserve Bank (SARB). It was established on 1 September 1988 and in October 1990 moved from Pretoria to its current location at Gateway in Centurion. Its main function is to mint coinage under the Reserve Bank Act of 1989. The South African Mint can produce both legal tender and commemorative gold coins, although currently all the gold coins issued are legal tender. Decisions with respect to current and future coin programmes are taken by the Government at Cabinet level. The SARB requires Cabinet approval for planned coin issues, details of which are published annually in the Government Gazette. The coins are then struck by the SA Mint and made available for purchase by the public. The SA Mint currently Source [4] Another basic thing [5] .. I think it is pretty well known information. Regards, skip sievert (talk) 23:24, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey Ms Carol

I would like (with much appreciation ) for an objective eye, opinion and all that on the Arab Professor Nassim Taleb's talkpage pretty pls.LoveMonkey (talk) 00:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I took a peak. He looks very interesting. Article has lots of good sources, a few questionable, but read neither text nor sources carefully. But don't have time to figure out what is going on. Anti-Arab or anti-Libertarian/Austrian or anti-chaos bias - or all three?? Motivate me more. Too many articles, too little time. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:51, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Still the same Ms Carol. Well..The article has a tenacious editor. Taleb as a epistemeological libertarian (aka means he's for Wikipedia) and a Metaphysical libertarian, gets all kinds of very unhappy with him, economists (that he calls conmen) with an axe to grind..Oh all three. Freedom is irrational, but so what. Reason never proves anything but self delusion, life itself is irrational. God is the generator of order and sumbebekos because God is freedom, and freedom is love. And you Ms Carol are one of the Good guys. Your time is always appreciated. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:06, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

[6]LoveMonkey (talk) 03:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

People have free will, as that they can make random decisions. Decisions that are not the by products of external stimuli but are decisions of human agency. If one flips a coin one still has to accept or not accept the coins outcome. By what internal standard does one overcome random choice? Since according to determinism there is no such thing as a random choice. According to determinism no one ever gets into the situation of Buridan's ass. Since that outcome is only one possible outcome no matter what we as individuals do. LoveMonkey (talk) 19:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I wish I had time to study the issues of that article since I do say that CONSCIOUSNESS IS THE NATURE AND PURPOSE OF REALITY and that memory, imagination and free will are its essence, creating the subatomic level on up. Meditate on it!!  :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Panpsychism. Love it!LoveMonkey (talk) 03:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I nominated the libertarian metphysics article for deletion.LoveMonkey (talk) 03:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
I really didn't pay attention to what happened with Lassky entry but it did look overly long. I do think you need a source saying directly that his brand is called libertarian. Don't know if you had one. Voted keep. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
@#$% Now the exact opposite is happening on the antitheism article where an administrator denies that antitheism as a concept could be behind theist persecution. Please help? Take a looky see on its talkpage.LoveMonkey (talk) 13:55, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
It looks like they are removing stuff where no WP:RS uses word "antitheism." Something often down per WP:RS and WP:OR. Just have to hustle up good sources. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

just fyi...

DC 8 (talk) (not certain if you've already received this notice)
--NBahn (talk) 11:07, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Christian Zionism in the United Kingdom

user:Slrubenstein is wondering whether this should go to AfD. I'm a bit dubious about the success of an AfD, perhaps we should just redirect to Christian Zionism or gut it to a stub and start all over, what do you think? Dougweller (talk) 18:47, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

From researching from the UK article it does turn out that that's where Xian zionism started. And there obviously are some groups. So there is enough for a stub or even a longer article. So the question is would there be more/different info than would be in the Christian Zionism article. I haven't quite gotten around to integrating that mess, but I enjoy doing that sort of thing, so maybe I'll take a look right now. So why not give it a few days and see what the Christian Zionism history section looks like when I'm done. CarolMooreDC (talk)
Do you plan to continue working on this? Dougweller (talk) 06:14, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Thomas H. Greco, Jr.

Should this article be deleted? Let us know on the article talk page. Thanks! --Anthon.Eff (talk) 01:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

From the CSD talk page

Duplicated here:

Oh, I'm sorry. I should have pointed you to the right place rather than just telling you "not here"—how rude of me, and I apologise profusely.

The right place is Wikipedia talk:Files for deletion. Sorry again—S Marshall Talk/Cont 23:30, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

No problem. After dealing with this for couple days did know what FFD was. But always good to make it a WP: link just in case.  :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:34, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Project together on Anti Zionism and True Torah Jews

I really do not understand why everyone is anonymous about their identity on FB and Wiki. I like the Amazon approach, put in a credit card, then with a real name you can make a review.

We share a lot and there is a lot I believe that we can learn together with this project. (talk) 18:02, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The best I can advise is to carefully read WP:Policies and maybe practice on less controversial articles because it can be very frustrating trying to add things to controversial articles if you don't understand the policies. Definitely thoroughly read the Talk pages of all articles you are considering editing to make sure a) you understand the content issues and b) you understand the process issues. Then keep reviewing the policies til it all starts to come together. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:59, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Trust me I am to timid to make a real edit at this point, I am looking for someone that wants to bring subjects such as this to wiki - have you heard of this group? if not shouldn't they be in wiki for knowledge sake? if so shouldn't they be in Wiki? I read in your description that you were suprised to find subjects that came up in searches and not good information in Wiki, well here we last thing, why do so few people use their real names? feel free to friend me in FB if you have interest.Chris Connolly 04:15, 26 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snettie (talkcontribs)
They are in wikipedia under their parent organization, Neturei Karta. Please review WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE for why a group of a few tens, maybe a couple of hundred, should not be given more weight than is proper. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 05:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining what he was referring to. Obviously for a small group of 30 or 40 individuals they do get lots of publicity and notability. Haven't really read their article, just added a photo. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Avi, Carol, if you look at my links below you will see that you are completely wrong about the size of the group. Secondly I have enclosed an off subject reference on the Onita Community, a group of only 300 w/no importance in current events that has a Wiki page so that people can learn and not remain ignorant as I, Carol, you (we were are till recently) it seems in not realizing how large this group is. Will clean up later.

<>Chris Connolly 08:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

They go by several names, Jews Against Zionism, Natrona & True Torah Jews each search can link to a central article. Neturei Karta is Aramaic, I do not want to infer that there is an intentional purpose of hiding this group list a group by its Aramaic name - Here are some links so you don't have to go to the trouble of investigating yourself. I believe that your decision was made before you came to this discussion but nevertheless I hope you will investigate what I present here.

The first describes a meeting in 2007 with 1500 in attendance, this is not stating those that could not make the meeting. <>

Second is a visual shot of the meeting showing those in attendance. I would like to use this photo in the Article in English as opposed to the single current Aramaic reference you mention as adequate above. <>

Third is a list of 14 Rabbis recommended in Europe that belong to this movement, or group that believes in the three oaths of exile. Again this is a list of the Rabbis, so it is natural to assume that the believers are more numerous than your stated 40. <>

This article gives a snapshot of previous attempts to list this group in wiki, the worlds Encyclopedia. The last is the surprised section. I was one of the surprised and am even more surprised that someone like CarolmooreDC is not familiar with this group. A group that has representatives in Jerusalem, 15 rabbis and perhaps more in Europe, and a gathering of 1500 in New York City. <>

I now understand why the Orthodox do not serve in the Army, I have never heard of three strong oaths, this is a key section that I think that Wiki needs to give an Orthodox perspective on. I feel very ignorant to have not know that it was not possible to be Jewish and not also a Zionist. How is this possible? How is it possible that CarolmoorDC,(I am guessing you are Jewish) have not heard of this group? Or did you and the rest of the world is ignorant? <>

I have a new found respect and love for Judaism that I did not think possible and would only like help in putting these thoughts out into the worlds encyclopedia. As side note I was kicked off of FB today when I joined the John Hagee Ministries fan site for the first time and left a respectful msg. I might expect to get this reaction from a Fundamentalist group but not from the Wiki community. Respectfully I end with a challenge for follow -- אמת -- Truth Even Unto Its Innermost Parts (note I am glad that their motto is not only in Hebrew:) Chris Connolly 21:40, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I did Not understand you were referring to a particular group among the many Jews who love the Torah. In fact I've run into them many times at various protests.
You are saying that someone tried to get the info in those links above into the Neturei Karta article and it was taken out? Unclear. Whatever the info, it is helpful if WP:RS have also covered that information, giving it WP:Notability for inclusion. Wikipedia also has its commandments :-)
My G-G-Grandmother was a Portguese Sephardic Jew who for reasons still unknown married a Catholic and family Catholic ever since, except me who quit in 1964 after a series of more transcendent experiences :-) . CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:48, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
thanks for the background, I hope to share my background in FB. I suspect that the FB block is temp, so long as I will never bring up this group again and not have their website on my profile page.

Again I would expect such thinking, or the refusal to consider another point of view from Fundamentalist Christians but not FB nor Wiki where Libitarian thought rules (except with this groups shuned status), all thought and knowledge should be out there. It in a question of why I refer to this particular group, rather it is a question of why Wiki does not refer to them. Reading more I have come to realize that secular Jews despise this group so it seems, and if you look at point four I make you will see what I mean and therefore marginalize them as ultra-Orthodox. Please give me some comments on the links. respectivllyChris Connolly 08:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Answering at end of thread and not in the middle -- it's true I was thinking of the group as being the 40 odd guys who I've seen show up at at least one event. I'm sure they have a couple hundred others who didn't show.
I don't know what FB is. Oneida community article could use better refs. Busy with other articles right now. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Carol Moore of DC, FB is Facebook - I have a friend request to youChris Connolly 06:17, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:Yisroel Dovid Weiss in 2005.JPG

File:Yisroel Dovid Weiss in 2005.JPG is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Yisroel Dovid Weiss in 2005.JPG. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Yisroel Dovid Weiss in 2005.JPG]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 02:10, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Your comments on JayJg's page

I would strongly urge you to recuse your comments on Jay's page. If you wish to violate wikipedia policies and start playing the "partisan" card, please note that the complaint was brought by those who may be perceived to have an axe to grind against JayJg, and their numbers at WP:AE were about equal to others. The reason the discussion was closed was that there was no violation. Comments such as yours only go to further the divide between editors attempting to collaborate on articles in the sphere of the Israeli-Palestinian discussion, and for someone who is member of WP:IPCOLL to act in a way antithetical to the project bodes ill for all of us. -- Avi (talk) 15:17, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, changed to something more constructive per User_talk:Sandstein#Premature_closure_of_AE_request.3F. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:00, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Carol, in line with that, you've apparently followed me to the Unification Church and antisemitism article, and stated there that the article is "really part of ongoing attempt to use wikipedia for partisan purposes" Could you clarify exactly what you mean by that? Who is involved in this "ongoing attempt", and what are those "partisan purposes"? Alternatively, you might want to just strike those comments, since they violate Wikipedia policies. Jayjg (talk) 21:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

You are correct. There are so many partisans against Unif. Church who would use that issue as the big stick to beat them with, it's counter productive to even begin that specific discussion. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Hmm. The article was created by an ardent Unification Church supporter, and, from what I can tell, has mostly been edited by Unification Church supporters. I don't really know who, if anyone, is actually "partisan against" the Unification Church, much less using this fairly obscure topic "as the big stick to beat them with". Jayjg (talk) 02:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I just suggested merging Unification Church antisemitism controversy to American Jewish Committee, since that is the main subject of the article. Please comment on the AJC talk page, if you like. Steve Dufour (talk) 18:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

and delete

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unification Church antisemitism controversy (2nd nomination).Steve Dufour (talk) 18:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


An article that you have created is currently up for deletion. Please take a moment to respond.Ikip (talk) 00:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't create it as I note there. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:46, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


I see that many of your articles are up for deletion. I am sorry to see this. I am a member of a group of editors who helps build articles to become notable. I would be thrilled to see you become a member.

WikiProject Fisheries and Fishing
Hello, Carolmooredc.
You have been invited to join the Article Rescue Squadron, a collaborative effort to rescue articles from deletion if they can be improved through regular editing.
For more information, please visit the project page, where you can >> join << and help rescue articles tagged for deletion and rescue. Ikip (talk) 00:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for putting my article up there. I might watch page for the occasional article I do want to support, if it's not too busy.
But what other article is up for deletion? Unification one isn't mine, but I supported deletion since material belonged in main Unification article. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey Ms Carol -2

I hope all is well just checking in to say hello and hope all is happiness. To give a smile today.LoveMonkey (talk) 14:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Still out of town but back tomorrow - will this hiatus cure my Wikiaddiction? Ho ho ho :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 11:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Well in the words of Chuck Berry "You know ya never can tell".LoveMonkey (talk) 12:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Revisionist historians

Your comments on Bush in Florida regarding revisionism is very interesting. I therefore wonder what you think of the distinction between the revisionists such as Gabriel Kolko, etc., and the Holocaust deniers. It seems to me that Bush took advantage of the distinction, and caused more confusion. I'd like to know more about your understanding of "revisionism." --Ludvikus (talk) 16:26, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

You'll have to give me a link to what I said since don't know and no time to look around. In general re: Holocaust there is a spectrum from real historians looking for facts, some of whom go about their business unharmed and others who get attacked and intimidated for straying just a tad from the "official line," all the way over to crazed bigoted haters of Jews (and probably others) who look for any reason to attack them. Teasing out who is what when they are close on the spectrum can be difficult and in interest of intellectual freedom more, rather than less, leeway should be the norm. CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


Hello regarding your removal of contents on the ISM article , I think the article you say is missing is here: . Please amend as you feel appropriate. rkmlai (talk) 02:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

That's the article they were replying to, though don't have WP:RS to that effect. And the original article was not up at all except at "anti" sites so who knows what it really says. Couldn't find New Republic reference either, but the CNN description was good enough so I used it. CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:40, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

October 2009

Nuvola apps important.svg You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Gilad Atzmon. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. tedder (talk) 21:22, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Since you obviously don't see BLP implications, please note I have now brought this to WP:BLPN - here - asking explicitly for administrators assistance. I asked for assistance from the Admin who asked for it to be unprotected and got no response. CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:34, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


At present, RfM/WikiProject Economics Guidelines appears to be aborted, by the departure of one of the disputants. The dispute itself is certainly not resolved, and in theory the Mediation Committee could accept a new request, sans the departed disputant, sans others who didn't want to continue, and avec new users who wanted to be included. There is some possibility that the alienated disputant will return before the original Mediation is declared really quite sincerely dead. Otherwise, you want to watch for a remounting and join that. —SlamDiego←T 14:35, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, if you really think that you should be included in the Mediation, then please add your name to the list here: New Mediation. (This is not the RfM, it is where I am polling editors to see who would wish to be included in the Mediation.) —SlamDiego←T 11:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll watch and see what the results of your query are. Meanwhile I should read the pages in question :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:18, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
The Request is apparently stillborn, as the disputant who quit the Mediation has not quit the dispute, and the Chairman of the Mediation Committee has declared that they will not accept a Mediation that does not include all disputants. So, if you wish to comment on the dispute, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Economics would be the placed to do it. For my part, I'm too appalled at having the option of orderly discussion blocked to actively participate in the dispute right now.
In the long run, the attempt to creäte de facto policy labelled “guidelines” is sure to fail. Any attempt at enforcement of those guidelines (claiming that an editor who violates them is disruptive) will run afoul of the combination of their not being accepted by the non-“mainstream” editors and of their ostensible derivation from preëexisting policy. If an editor cannot be shown to have violated actual policy, violation of the guidelines won't mean a thing. So the “mainstream” editors will have to appeal to actual policy, which is exactly what the more problematic editors amongst them wanted to avoid.
But I really wanted the whole “mainstream” campaign stopped in its tracks. It's one thing to make sure that the reader can both recognize the mainstream as such, and understand it on its own terms; it is entirely another to prevent the reader from being able to respond to other theories in any way other than the way in which the mainstream responds to them. —SlamDiego←T 00:43, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
I understand your frustration - even without reading the current policies yet. Which will have more time to do after get a paid job out of the way this weekend. CarolMooreDC (talk) 10:49, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Your lack of good faith

The last two sentences in this edit show an appalling lack of good faith. Is every person with whom you disagree going to be tarred with the false accusations of your choice? I would counsel you to 1) remove the accusation and 2) think deeply before you use it again, as continued improper accusations are usually indicative of someone who cannot edit wikipedia in accordance with its policies and guidelines. -- Avi (talk) 03:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The sentences in question being (just changed to): One certainly hopes these sorts of numbers on various pages are not an example of the success of the CAMERA_Israeli_lobby_campaign_in_Wikipedia. That would undermine Wikipedia's credibility. I don't name names and am talking in generalities about issues in a number of articles, which I have now clarified. If this issue can be covered in the CAMERA article, why not in administrative discussions, including where there already have been discussions of accusations of antisemitism have been thrown around lightly and concerns about tag teaming? I mentioned WP:tag team to make it perfectly clear.
If I were you I'd be more concerned about User:Drsmoo smearing away at Gilad Atzmon - which you unprotected - reinserting non-WP:RS and out of context language removed previously by an admin and by various editors in the past. 90% of his edits of the last six month have been on this article or related discussions of the article. As I document, he has been warned in the past not to attack Atzmon on the talk page which he used to do frequently. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:56, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Just notifying you of this, in case you have any input. Cheers, Master of Puppets 05:47, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your note. Reply on your talk page.CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:08, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
I'll reply on my page to keep discussion centralized. Cheers, Master of Puppets 03:48, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Do you know this Carol Moore?

You might be interested to know that there s a Carol Moore mentioned at Conflict escalation#Systems view. — Sebastian 20:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

That unsourced tidbit is me. My article was AfD recently. Probably same guy who started it way back when who put that in too, since Gandhi and systems theory was his big thing and that's what he perceived in my writings. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm confused. You appear to pass the notability threshold, so why was your article deleted? Your book, The Davidian Massacre is cited all over the place. If this isn't the very idea of notability, then what is? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carol Moore (2nd nomination) is a wonderful example of groupthink in action. It's amazing to think that that all of these people are wrong, yet they feel so confident in their error by numbers. Viriditas (talk) 02:58, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Mostly cause no one wanted to rewrite it to focus on notability, despite lots of refs I stuck in there. (Original was a wp:or mess. I cut it down to about 8 lines of straight facts and added a bunch of refs, but my participation (explained in detail on talk page) was an excuse for those who wanted rid of it anyway. Finally, 3 or 4 people who disliked my (opinionated and assertive as you've seen) edits on other articles somehow knew about it and jumped in and opined against it. Just motivation to get more notorious, is the way I look at it :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 11:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Carol, I would be happy to write your bio if you want it on Wikipedia. Of course, I would need you to point me in the direction of the best sources on the subject. My understanding is that you are most notable for The Davidian Massacre, and while some critics questioned your conclusions, the consensus on the matter was that your research was needed and provided a good source for anyone studying the topic. Since there must be book reviews out there, that would help as well, particularly any sources that focus on your life. BTW, the one thing that interests me the most about you is your interest in decentralization and how it ties in with nonviolence. Viriditas (talk) 11:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
That would be great, if you really want to do it. But perhaps wait til early next year to give that set of nullifiers a chance to forget. Here's the link to the deletion discussion. They did come up with some interesting arguments I kept in case want to get rid of someone else's bio some day.
I am going to put up a "references" page on my own biography web page (including scans of most WP:RS articles no longer on line mentioning me), ones already in article and several good ones I later found but didn't want to pile on, so there's a choice. So those will be available in case I get famous and die suddenly. Ho Ho. Will tell you when that's up.
Also, are you familiar with my article NONVIOLENCE AND DECENTRALIZATION? (Here with like others.) Am trying to focus less on wikipedia and more on putting all my articles (plus new ones to be written) into some self-published books for those who still read those quaint artifacts. :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 11:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
I'll take a look at the article, thanks for the link. Have you experimented with podcasting and YouTube? You might be surprised at how effective it can be. Viriditas (talk) 11:59, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm not a radio person but is chockful of my DC protest videos and starting to do music videos of my songs. Plus have another more anonymous YT site with (I take the fifth amendment) video put together cleverly to illustrate nuke war issues. Far more popular than my own site. CarolMooreDC (talk) 12:04, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. You've got some useful material there. Listen, I just thought of something. Whenever you have some free time, would you be able to give a "peer review" of two articles? This would involve simply commenting on the talk page. The two articles are hippie and Counterculture of the 1960s. The problem with the hippie article (that I see) is that there is 1) original research that several editors refuse to remove 2) not enough information about 1968 3) not enough sourced information about the "legacy" of the hippies. As for the counterculture article, there's too many problems to mention, but you will certainly pick up on it when you read it. You seem like the perfect person to help improve these two articles, but I realize you are busy with other things. All I'm asking is that you put on your task list and take a look at some point and if possible, leave some comments on the talk page about how we can improve both topics. Also, if you have any images we can use for either article, that would be greatly appreciated! Thanks, again! Viriditas (talk) 12:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

<backdent> I do have a Wikicommons page and am slowly populating it with a bunch of photos I've picked out, starting with ones I can use in existing articles. Will look at other articles. 1968 was a big year. Will take a quick look and put on my list. Problematic editors do waste a lot of good editing time, that's for sure!! CarolMooreDC (talk) 12:24, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

That An/I

Hi Carol. The An/I sunk by Protonk is well dead, but you could still add your two cents to the current An/I; it's all grist to the mill. Skip has left a trail of discouraged editors in his wake, and I can't see anything short of arbitration working (if that works?) :/ --Geronimo20 (talk) 20:52, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I threw my two cents into both of them. Oi! Oi! Oi! 04:26, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Request for arbitration

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Skipsievert and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks, The Four Deuces (talk) 19:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Planning Discussions Now Ongoing Regarding DC Meetup #9

You are receiving this message either because you received a similar one before and didn't object, or you requested to receive a similar one in the future.

There is a planning discussion taking place here for DC Meetup #9. If you don't wish to receive this message again, please let me know. --NBahn (talk) 04:55, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Gilad Atzmon

Hello Carol. I just got back from vacation. I'll see if I can help with the article during the coming week or two. You and Drsmoo might want to consider an WP:RfC. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 00:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

My response here. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Please don't continue your debate with Drsmoo on my Talk page. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 18:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
No problema! ;-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:14, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Christian Zionism in the United Kingdom

Just wondering if you were still thinking of cleaning this up. Dougweller (talk) 19:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

One gets distracted by other articles. ;-( Had actually done some research and come up with refs for some of the more mundane, accurate info before that. Maybe I'll take a look. Thanks for remembering. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:12, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 06:14, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Gilad Atzmon / AN/I

Hi Carol. The reason I don't want to roll up my sleeves and start editing the article is two-fold. First, I'm not that interested in Atzmon. Second and more importantly, I don't want Drsmoo and you jumping in and edit-warring over whatever changes are made to the article. The two of you have done it in the past and there's no reason to believe both of you won't do it again. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: This discussion: Or maybe you didn't like the solution the two of us DID come up with last time? [Talk page] of post-protection discussion? Note that it was not a perfect version and I noticed at least one point you made in the spring I didn't get til this fall - and Drsmoo never got no matter how many times I repeated it.
Obviously Drsmoo and I, left to our own devises, creates a problem. However, my new strategy is to not be involved at all and let others deal with Drsmoo - if such others will do so - because he is FAR more problematic than me.
However, if such people don't appear, I still think Drsmoo can't be allowed to rule the article through his habit of inferring antisemitism, constant edit warring and refusal to understand clear points no matter how many times they are made. That's more of problem than my merely being too stupid to figure out how to deal with him sooner. And having little help in doing so except for a mediator who took two weeks to stop his constant attacks on me and then refused to opine and didn't get the issues anyway. Remember how frustrated you told Rd232 you were with failure of the ANI? Such failures of wiki process are becoming very common!
My crime in some people's eyes might be their feeling I think Atzmon is NOT a raving antisemite but rather a really pissed off former Israeli and IDF member who wants to trounce all over these he's mad at in an obnoxiously theatrical manner. Some partisans think such thinking is as - or more - dangerous than real antisemitism, of course.
You have admitted your own biases against him saying his antisemitism is notable. Plus you wrote that my proposal for the section "sounds like an anti-Israel diatribe masquerading as an article about Gilad Atzmon," even though I used Atzmon quotes which other editors insisted be in the article, trying to do so within the context of the secondary sources which used the quotes. And you created your own version which had some problems I critiqued in ensuing edits and edit summaries. We don't have to debate what I just wrote, because my larger point, of course, is that you are hardly a neutral editor in this article.
Frankly calling for my banning from wikipedia for problems in one difficult article where you have your own biases does call into question your Admin NPOV. Also, note that I read somewhere Admins can't threaten people with blocks - as you did recently to Drsmoo, though I did report it in my complaints - in articles they are currently editing. I don't know about ones they are NOT currently editing because editor(s) are so difficult. :-)
Anyway, all of the above is in argument for others to get involved with article and I'll be quite willing to step back if they do - except maybe putting new WP:RS notable info on talk page - . CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:21, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Planning Discussions Now Finished Regarding DC Meetup #9

  • You are receiving this message either because you received a similar one before and didn't object, or you requested to receive a similar one in the future. If you don't wish to receive this message again, then please let me know either on my talk page or here.
  • Planning — for the most part, anyway — is now finished (see here) for DC Meetup #9.

--NBahn (talk) 02:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)