User talk:Carolmooredc/Archive VIII

This page is an archive of past discussions for the period 2013. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

As a participant of the discussion Talk:Palestine#Requested_move regarding naming change of the page Palestine, you might be interested in discussion Template talk:Asia topic#State of Palestine on changing the title "Palestinian territories" to "State of Palestine" at Template:Asia topic. Thank you.Greyshark09 (talk) 22:44, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I did not create these templates, and do not know much about their use. Especially since it has been a long time since I edited in Arab-Israeli articles.

1RR edit notices normally show up when you click the edit button on a page in an area covered by 1RR arbitration rulings. See

• Wikipedia:Editnotice
• Category:Wikipedia editnotices
• Category:Editnotice templates
• Category:1RR-related templates
• Category:Wikipedia arbitration enforcement templates

Can you find an admin to add some categories to this edit notice?: Template:Editnotices/Page/Gaza War. Please see Template talk:Editnotices/Page/Gaza War. --Timeshifter (talk) 02:25, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for links. After I made a fuss elsewhere someone told me that only admins could add the template to the main article page. So I added that info to both relevant templates. Not quite sure what your request is, but getting tired so will revisit tomorrow. CarolMooreDC 02:33, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

OK. I do not know how to make edit notices show up when clicking the edit button of particular pages such as

WP:AN. --Timeshifter (talk

) 02:42, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

It's getting late, sigh. Only admins CAN do it so you do have to ask them. CarolMooreDC 02:44, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Later. I left a message asking for help at the bottom of this talk page: Wikipedia talk:Editnotice. --Timeshifter (talk) 03:01, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

(unindent). I now see why you have your talk page semi-protected. I have had part of my talk page blanked by several anonymous IPs today. Also occurring with some of my comments, and yours, at

Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/JarlaxleArtemis evidently is very upset about Chuck Hagel - and me. If Those Who Grab/Catalogue/Scan through Everything caught any of his edits there today, he's in big trouble - assuming they don't agree with his sentiments... CarolMooreDC 18:40, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I looked through a little bit of that long-term abuse page. Wow. I was able to get semi-protection on my talk page. There seems to be some progress discussed at Wikipedia talk:Editnotice. I do not have time though to figure that out further though. --Timeshifter (talk) 14:18, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Did you mean to undo J.delanoy's revert of Grawp? --Bsadowski1 06:46, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Which one, there have been so many today? I may have goofed, but he's got some new tricks to make sure his edits or edit summaries remain. I thought I'd made sure I did the right thing. CarolMooreDC 06:49, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Well this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAnthony_Bradbury&diff=532660628&oldid=532651036. I removed the offending username from the edit history. --Bsadowski1 06:52, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I think he must have done his edit 2 seconds before and I got confused or something. Anyway, fixed it. CarolMooreDC 06:53, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Carol, can you please clarify your rev/del request at

Thanks. Should have included the diff; someone caught it. CarolMooreDC 02:43, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

You might be interested in the discussion at Talk:Coat_of_arms_of_the_Palestinian_National_Authority#Scope. I'm telling you this because you were involved at the related AFD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk • contribs) 06:03, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Good work, Carolmooredc: well done. Headhitter (talk) 00:59, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. CarolMooreDC 01:29, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I've received email that uses your name. If you didn't send it, I thought you might want to know. If you did send it, my talk page is the place for such comments. Thanks.

I'm being stalked by long time abuser JarlaxleArtemis who obviously has a new tactic. Guess I better put that on top of my talk and user pages. Thanks!! CarolMooreDC 19:25, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Is the above too much. Obviously it's for more than one fake email so I don't think I'm jumping to conclusions. I'm pretty sure I'm still contactable by email. CarolMooreDC 19:56, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

That's a pretty creepy situation. There's been a discussion about the email at AN/I [1] - dunno whether others had your name or not. I tried forwarding to the functionaries list and got a bounce so gave it up. You might try putting what you wrote above in an

talk

) 01:16, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for info. I commented in my best former legal secretary in DC mode. I haven't heard anyone else got weird emails from me but I mentioned it non-specifically. Hope others add their info to his long term abuse page. If they don't I will. He's obviously self-destructive, in the Irv Rubin/Earl Krugel mode.

Also I looked at Edit Notice but it gave me a headache. I'll just leave up my notice for a few days in case someone misses the Ani. CarolMooreDC 01:39, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Carol, we haven't met but we're both in WMDC. I just got a plaintive note on my talk page from Babel41 ... who I worked with a lot on the Mark Satin article. They erased the message, but you may want to read it anyway. Babel is really very sweet and quite easy to work with, and has amazing historical knowledge from the 60s and 70s that I'd love to see in more articles. I don't know anything about the dispute. - Dank (push to talk) 11:21, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

He does seem nice. I was just asking him to put in a sentence and ref to support a category in several articles he put them on per this diff of me quoting policy. Since evidently most of them were WP:OR, he's deleting the category. There's a lot of confusion and POV in the general topic and its one I'm very involved in editing now so don't want to get tempted into bad habits myself. CarolMooreDC 15:36, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks much. - Dank (push to talk) 16:15, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello. I made a

At the above the http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Libertarianism_sidebar&diff=544135738&oldid=544102038 Edit has me removing your Edit & substituting my own line on a related topic. Such was not my intent. Indeed, when I started editing, CC's was the most recent Edit. If you wish to restore your Edit, please do. If you wish me to restore it, please let me know. Sorry about that. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 02:01, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

No problem. Usually best to just restore immediately and avoid misunderstandings. I did restore it. CarolMooreDC 03:47, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, I was relieved by your restore. But that's not a good enough reason to forget your good point (obvious in retrospect) if there's a next time.

BTW, your previous pithy rv Edit-summary on this page was something to learn from. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 10:07, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

As in "eschew surplus verbiage"? CarolMooreDC 15:41, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. Or, if that was a trick question, yes. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 16:35, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

CarolMooreDC 16:39, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I filed a request at the ANB, here. Sincerely,

• Result: No violation ... Final outcome archive link. CarolMooreDC🗽 13:48, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

i have started a discussion regarding your editing on the separation barrier article at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring Soosim (talk) 06:15, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

• Result: No violation ....Final outcome archive link.
• See also this failed complaint at same time: User:Saddhiyama reported by User:Soosim CarolMooreDC🗽 13:48, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.

1. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.

But you would rather edit war than add proper references. Soosim (talk) 19:11, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

You quoting this diff that I deleted when I misinterpreted you edit notice as meaning you had mass reverted my edits again despite consensus of everyone but you about them. (Even GeorgeLouis deleted an unsourced section after all.) There's really no purpose in quoting an erroneous message removed when one finds one own error. Just add proper references. It's not difficult. CarolMooreDC🗽 02:34, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit that you made to

Commented added by User:Z554 regarding warning about possible Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/JarlaxleArtemis vandalism. CarolMooreDC🗽 14:39, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Z554. Thank you. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 15:05, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Discussion of User:Z554 regarding possible Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/JarlaxleArtemis. CarolMooreDC🗽 22:05, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Someone just pointed me to Spakegreg2, who's never made any edit that didn't attack you. Do you want them to be revdelled, or should they stay? If you want them to be removed, I'll be happy to remove them for you in order to prevent people from saying that you were violating WP:INVOLVED. Nyttend (talk) 23:44, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what "revdelled" means but his one edit makes it clear he's a sock of Jarlaxle needing banning. F CarolMooreDC🗽 23:46, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

WP:REVDEL; do you want me to suppress the contents of his edits? Nyttend (talk

) 00:04, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Best for all concerned. Another new one tonight I just tagged is User:Pokeysalsa who left a nasty message here. Thanks. CarolMooreDC🗽 00:09, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I got most of them, and someone else had already gotten the one that I didn't. Blocked Pokey and revdelled it as a BLP violation, since the message contains an unproven negative allegation about a living person. Nyttend (talk) 00:20, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to my world! CarolMooreDC🗽 00:22, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Yep, look at the recent history of my talk page...Nyttend (talk) 01:46, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Yup, he's obviously got a lot of time on his hands and likes to pretend he's doing something useful and honorable by "saving Israel" or whatever. Obviously something has to be done about it by Those In Charge Here. Being a libertarian I don't like to see laws drawn up too broadly and easily applicable to any imagined or imaginable situation, but there are still interpretations of fraud that Wikipedia itself could find within existing law that it might feel comfortable with. But they have the big lawyers so we'll let them figure it out. He's managed to piss off about 50 admins and a bunch of users by now, so it's just a matter of time before somebody or other official (fed, state, DIA, SS, process server) comes knocking at his door in So. Ca. (Everyone knows his name, though I won't say it here. Many details about him easily found from internet search of his handle.) CarolMooreDC🗽 04:18, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

• FINAL RESULT HERE - block him 72 hours. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Z554_reported_by_User:Carolmooredc_.28Result:_72_hours.29

Thanks for the welcome. In response to your question, yes, I did do a lot of editing on Wikipedia anonymously prior to recently getting an account. But don't worry; I have never been banned and was only trying to improve the article you mentioned. I got the account because I wanted to try creating articles. --1ST7 (talk) 22:50, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I want to add a map of Uhehe and surrounds to the Hehe people article. I have found one via Google Books, am I allowed to screen-shot it and use it in the article so long as I attribute to the book? I feel quite certain your answer will be in the negative, but perhaps there's some quirk I'm not aware of. Hence the question. As we English don't say, though actually we do sometimes mispronounce it: Au revoir!

♣ Herr LudicrousTripe (talk) 17:03, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Just noticed this. I don't think Wikipedia:Software screenshots covers that. But you CAN make your own hand or computing drawing of the map and include that. See Wikicommons. Help image search. I just studied that issue myself today but can't find a link. Sourcing not as strict as wikipedia. CarolMooreDC🗽 18:36, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Danke very much; no need for any Bitte. ◘ LudicrousTripe (talk) 19:39, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

You never did apologize for your mistake. One would be appreciated on my talk page. Thank you. Z554 (talk) 00:08, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I had to figure out what I am supposed to apologize for. After looking at your talk page I assume it's for thinking you were

WP:No Personal Attacks junk from Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/JarlaxleArtemis on your user page which was the reason I tagged you as a sock in the first place, as I wrote in the edit summary. You obviously think it is appropriate to keep it there. So, frankly, I still must wonder... And now I notice in the last few minutes you were blocked again for uncivil behavior. CarolMooreDC

🗽 03:50, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Carolmooredc. After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing
  Twinkle
  .
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of
  good faith edits
  .
• Rollback should never be used to
  edit war
  .
• If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
• Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see

Thanks! Hopefully will make my life easier!! CarolMooreDC🗽 02:01, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the

Are you an admin? Very sorry to hassle you, but I have an IP persistently trying to add highly dubious claims without so much as citing a source. I know the Mau Mau Uprising can be contentious, but that is no excuse for repeatedly trying to introduce unsourced material into the article. Are you able to add protection so IPs cannot edit the page? Sorry. LudicrousTripe (talk) 16:35, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

No, I'm not. Go to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and provide diffs which help. CarolMooreDC🗽 18:01, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Whoops, forgot to say thanks for getting back to me and for the helpful link to this An/I thing! So... thanks! LudicrousTripe (talk) 20:37, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello Carol, I've reactivated the long-standing merge proposal on

Thanks. (Take a look at the citations. An error was produced.) – S. Rich (talk) 17:28, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

didn't see offhand. were you going to fix? As I said in talk, when things calm down and I remember I'm going to verify his use of sources and may fix bare urls - and remove any that look like more there for pure POV padding. ;-( CarolMooreDC🗽 19:04, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Update: I fixed it. – S. Rich (talk) 02:34, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I have started the Stephen Halbrook article. Surprised there wasn't one already. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:35, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Great. Will watch and see what I can add! CarolMooreDC🗽 21:35, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

What is your intent for the your verify tag you put on the article? Gaijin42 (talk) 00:56, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I was wondering what that source says that's worth putting in, since it's not on the books.google page. I'm sure there are lots of articles that say the same thing - except possibly "controversial" which the first ref doesn't say directly. Does it say he's controversial? Other sources don't say that and, except for the one criticism, text doesn't look too much like he's controversial. thanks. CarolMooreDC🗽 01:29, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

that particular text does not say that. I just used that as the first ref as it is a dictionary of notable people on the topic, so it seemed like a good way to jump the GNG hurdle. The controvercial bit I think is a carrot to the gun control editors, and is probalby not to difficult to source from some liberal column discussing him Gaijin42 (talk) 01:38, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Then we should use a specific source and attribute it. Controversial is not necessarily bad, but it should be sourced. I'm bogged down in yard work and personal stuff and putting out wiki fires, so hopefully next week I can add some good stuff to his article. CarolMooreDC🗽 15:27, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

These are serious accusations, and as such have been reported to the Administrators' noticeboard. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User_CarlMooreDC_making_false_accusations_of_libel.2Fthreats_of_banning. Steeletrap (talk) 22:22, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

FYI, me, my response here. CarolMooreDC🗽 00:34, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:06, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

We may not like or have high regard for each other, but the tone of your and my comments/edits needs to get better. We both need to focus on content rather than contributors (i.e. you should cease focusing on me and me on you). While you are welcome to voice complaints about my conduct to the right venues, I ask that in future edits and disputes related to content, you keep the personal stuff and loaded languageout of it, and I pledge to do the same. Failing to live up to this commitment is clearly at odds with WP guidelines and will undermine this community. I hope you agree with my view that we both need to make a change in this regard and join me in trying to make it happen. Steeletrap (talk) 17:57, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

The good news is I reminded myself to treat this just like I treat articles in the Israel-Palestine issue; overwhelm the nasty stuff with good WP:RS info in a Wikipolicy correct fashion so most readers never even get there. However, note that noticeboards are the place where one can comment (politely) on POVs and I will feel free to do so when if feel it relevant and necessary. I think your POV comes out pretty quickly on most article talk pages anyway, so I shouldn't have to play Paul Revere anymore.

Note that you should stop claiming you know what my political views are and I don't have to declare them.

You do know that doing opposition research and making claims about who you think people are can be looked at as

WP:outing

(unless they obviously are using a company/orgs IP or editing their own article, and even then there are proper procedures to follow). At the least get you looked on as being very tacky.

And POVs aren't illegal here anyway; just messing with policy. Running around to policy boards yelling about violations of policy that you don't understand can just make you look foolish. (It took me almost 3 years before I went to one and you see how assertive I am!)

COI-wise, the only people I'm getting any substantial money from is myself from all the money I put into social security for the 30 years I bothered to pay it (at least til the debt is repaid, which may or may not be before SS collapses.) But you won't find me writing Wiki articles singing social securities praises. And I don't think anybody cares about who I got the $164 of other income from last year...but it wasn't Lew Rockwell. CarolMooreDC🗽 18:27, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, it looks like progress is being made. E.g., you two are exchanging actual

WP:love to one another! – S. Rich (talk

) 18:32, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Carol, just speaking as a fly on the wall. My personal reaction to your talk messages is not that you're being assertive at all but just that you are expressing personal rage. The rage is so overwhelming that I can not find any underlying assertion of substance or dialogue that could promote communication or resolution the issues between you and Steeletrap. Just my personal reaction, and I am not expecting any response and please do not be offended. SPECIFICO talk 18:41, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Generally speaking males often experience strongly held and clearly expressed female ideas [replace later for clarity sake with] words or writings as psychotic rage. Have you heard about the Wikimedia Gender Gap project to bring more women into wikimedia/pedia so males will get more used to it? CarolMooreDC🗽 18:46, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

That insinuation is not conducive to the dialogue, Carolmoore. 1) Even if your "general" statement regarding double-standards to which women are subject true (and I think it very likely is), it does not follow that every accusation of rage toward women is motivated by sexism. 2) Even if you think it is justified to insinuate that SPECIFICO is motivated by a sexist sentiment (and I consider there to be no justification whatsoever for that belief), claiming he is motivated by sexism constitutes WP:PA. I cannot speak for SPECIFICO, but I hope we can get passed all of this stuff, and argue specifically over content rather than contributors. Steeletrap (talk) 18:58, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

There's a difference between pure sexism and just not being familiar enough with (dare I say ignorant of) certain types of people in certain situations to react to and deal with them in a rational manner. I don't have kneejerk reactions to others foolishness, though sometimes I do make fun of it. CarolMooreDC🗽 19:01, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

What is a "female idea?" Please do not be sexist. If you do not like my ideas, please do not attack me for my gender. SPECIFICO talk 19:11, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

See clarification above to "words and writings". CarolMooreDC🗽 19:14, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Carol, I am a transgender person who does not identify with my birth gender, so I am not unsympathetic to your *general* statement about subtle biases. But WP:PA still applies. Suppose I were in an edit war with a social conservative who is aware of my identity and whom I regard as acting snidely toward me; I may speculate to myself about her or his motives, but I still have to abide by WP regulations, and calling them out as "transphobic" would constitute a PA. I also must say I do not see strong (or any, really) evidence of sexist bias on SPECIFICO's part. Steeletrap (talk) 19:15, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

You have your opinions and I have mine. But enough of this conversation because it's starting to feel like Wikipedia:Harassment because it is getting off topic into repeated and increasingly unwelcome issues of politically correct ideology and personal style and not POVs or actual edits. CarolMooreDC🗽 19:47, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

This one relates to NPOV. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Concerns_on_WP:Undue_regarding_AIDS_Denial_and_LewRockwell.com. You are encouraged to comment but I ask that you please keep it content related, and recommend that you make your posts concise and limited so we don't flood out the main point of the discussion again. (I was a bad offender there with all the wordy posts!) Steeletrap (talk) 20:18, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I fear our "olive branch" is off to a poor start. You have already falsely accused me of potentially "defamatory" violation of BLP for reporting Palmer's statement that North wants to stone gays to death. You fail to note that 1) Palmer specifically cites and mentions a non-personal source from Reason Magazine for this claim, which were in the article before they were "cleansed" a day or so back. 2)this claim has made been at a host of RS. For instance, at http://www.alternet.org/story/40318/public_stoning%3A_not_just_for_the_taliban_anymore, it is asserted that "North has called for the stoning of gays and nonbelievers (rocks are cheap and plentiful, he has observed). Both friends and foes label him "Scary Gary." Please read up on these facts (I'd encourage visisting the Good Doctor North's Wikipedia entry) and try not to jump to (false and insulting) conclusions in the future, much less publicly make them on my talk page. Steeletrap (talk) 21:08, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I think you better look hard at the real reasons that you are violating so many policies and being so reluctant to listen to anything anyone says; I think it's [remove unnecessary speculative word made when frustrated and ticked off, including by above] frankly. I am going to withdraw from communication with you until others deal with the issue or til tomorrow when I won't be too burned out to do a WP:ANI. CarolMooreDC🗽 21:19, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I wish you had not made this change: [2]. One, you had endorsed my request for a lockdown on the article. (Having made the request, I'd think you'd voluntarily follow it.) Two, it does not cite the Orange County Register, but relies on LRC alone. This is not in keeping with my proposed compromise. I ask that you revert it. Let's get an agreement, then edit within the parameters of the agreement. If the agreement is not adopted, then add what you like. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 00:57, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, I guess I didn't put one and one together. Plus, as I thought about it later, I actually haven't seen articles shut down that often for what is really more a problem of fighting on talk pages than reverting in the article. (i.e., I've only seen it for much worse reverting by more people.)

Just in case, though, I figured I'd get in at least a couple positive things before article shut down. That goal accomplished for the time being, that's that. OCR actually does summarize the article and I quote from that but screwed up the punctuation which I just fixed to make it clear. CarolMooreDC🗽 01:37, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

While you fixed the date range on Talk:Lew Rockwell, the bot has archived too much of the recent discussion. I'd go back and restore the pre-pre-archive rendition, but we have comments that were made inbetween the bot archiving. I'm not sure how to get them back onto the most recent and current page of active comments. (Those less than 25 days old.) Can you fix? Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 04:25, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry. Thought that would stop it from archiving too soon. Guess it revved it into action - or it just didn't work at all. We shall see - I put material since april's newest outburst back. CarolMooreDC🗽 17:01, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Somehow you've fixed the LRC archive. I am so delighted. I had first posted the bot template on the talk page, and a bot came along and archived the stuff. But there was not link to find it, the archived stuff. So I added the archive search box template. Still, no luck in finding the archive. So I "created" one by clicking the little "create" link on the archive box, but the only thing I achieved was an "off-red" colored link -- the kind you get with pages that are in the process of being created. (Is this clear? It isn't to me!) So I waited to see if something would happen. In any event, you have fixed it and everything is hunky-dory. Thanks!!! – S. Rich (talk) 20:44, 11 May 2013 (UTC) PS: I don't think any of the old stuff has been lost. But I'll compare the earliest versions of the talk page and see.20:46, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually it still was not linking to Nav Box's preferred # 2 so I moved it over from the one I had it at and now it's happy :-) So is the archive line, listing all three now. Yeah! CarolMooreDC🗽 21:00, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh, no! I've mixed up the LR and the LRC pages... Back to the drawing board!! CarolMooreDC🗽 21:02, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, I think LR and LRC split at same point so have same original talk pages and then diverge. OI! Still checking. CarolMooreDC🗽 21:06, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, first I see LR was started in 7.03 and LRC in 12.04. I think I copied this to wrong place. But brains are now a bit fried and am pushing up against outside writing deadline. So I'll take a look tonight, including at what I did today. With overlapping discussions, etc, it is hard to tell what is LR and what is LRC and what belongs on what page! CarolMooreDC🗽 21:22, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

The lazy way to sort all of the archives is to copy all of them back to the talk page, leaving just the headers at the top, set the counter on the talk page back to 1 (see my recent edit, someone had done this, which would make the bot add all new archives to Archive 1 unless it was full, to Archive 2 if needed, and then to 3 or even 4 if needed. The bot will automatically leave the counter number back where it needs to be after it is done). The bot will sort all of the threads for you, starting in Archive 1 using that method. Scratch that. I thought that the bot was sorting the archives but it clearly is not. The counter, though, does tell the bot where to put current archives, if not already full. Apteva (talk) 22:20, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I might have accidentally copied something from one talk page archive to other article talk page archive. The safe way is just to go back through the history of each article and look for mass deletions for the archives and see if they check against what is in the archives now. That also catches any possible deletions without archiving or similar goofs. CarolMooreDC🗽 22:36, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

All straightened out; LRC which only has one archive got dup copies of Lew Rockwell which has 3 archives. Oi!

So I deleted the material and I'll do a speedy deletion once I figure out if it's an AfD or a MfD. I assume that an empty talk page archive will be used by the bot - or deleted. Do I assume wrong? CarolMooreDC🗽 23:38, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps it just me, but given that it is undeniable that LRC does give voice to Gary North and Donald Miller as well as others pushing a variety of fringe and conspiracy theories (not just AIDS/HIV denial), my impression of your advocacy at that article is that it is of a piece with your other libertarian advocacy, particularly so since I see your book being used as an authority in many posts on the site. Mangoe (talk) 01:17, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

1. See
   Wikipedia:COI#Categories_of_COI_on_Wikipedia
   . What category am I in, very specifically?
2. What kind of advocacy have I done for any specific libertarian view (or which there are so many) on Wikipedia? What kind of advocacy (ie., WP:SOAPBOX) have I done regarding the articles in question? Is it more or less than other editors' removed material at this diff?
3. If an author on "the site" used a book by me which analyzes federal criminal activity as a source, how is that a COI for me? Where does it say an editor being quoted somewhere by someone as an expert on something is a COI in Wikipedia?
4. FYI, I haven't seen or talked to Lew Rockwell since the late 1980s when I was one of his foremost critics, including on the Ron Paul newsletters (see I didn't even bother to share that WP:Soapbox on the article talk pages); working on these articles recently (and reviewing old talk page discussions) I discovered they publish some questionable material, but it's still a tiny portion of the mass of material they publish by perfectly upstanding libertarians.
5. Look at my last 1000 edits (not counting the reverts of vandalism) and you'll see I spend a lot of time defending WP:BLPs against unfair POV attacks.

In sum, all you are talking about is POV. Some interesting reading by a number of editors on WP:COI vs NPOV at: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/COI Check it out. And feel free to share with me your POV, below. CarolMooreDC🗽 02:52, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I believe I expressed my concerns clearly enough the first time. It seems to me that the presence of these columnists (I mean, Velikovsky??) can be interpreted differently by different groups of outsiders. I'm not willing to fight this to the end, but I am concerned that this is being underplayed. Mangoe (talk) 03:51, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Find WP:RS that discuss the things you think are wacky science and put it in. It can be very frustrating, I know finding sources that support ones viewpoint, even when it is true. I have that on other topics. Actually I found a couple articles that take a sensible skeptical view of mainstream/corporate/govt science from a libertarian viewpoint that I'd love to use just to counter any accusation that it has zillions of such nutty articles, but haven't found WP:RS to use those yet either. However, if articles specifically defend LRC on publishing AIDs/Denial stuff, that could be used to counter what's currently in there. Just have other things to do right now than find such things. Soon. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 15:15, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Srich32977. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Talk:LewRockwell.com that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. I have not removed "nitpicky" or the introductory phrase in the comment, but such impolite, pointed comments do not enhance the best of relations between editors. This is the edit: [3]. – S. Rich (talk) 01:56, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Srich. Your efforts for the community are noted, as was the initial remark to which you refer. SPECIFICO talk 02:06, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, now you guys are being too nitpicky. PLEASE take it to WP:ANI...

I wrote: Maybe you've never gotten a newsletter or magazine from a nonprofit? Ever see the adverts? Websites have adverts too. It's not illegal and it's not commercial. This is rather nitpicky, don't you think?

Specifico wrote to SRich: here:

You think Fred Reed writing in the Washington Times is an expert authority as to what is an independent news organization, but a Cato scholar can't speak to what's journalism, etc. I don't know that stands up in court?

Someone explain to me why the first is a personal attack and the second is not? CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 12:47, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, being fairly new (but quite smart), comes under BITE. (And I have posted his page at times.) Carol, with much, mucho, muchest, more experience (and quite smart as well), you come under either

Focus (cognitive process) on the argument apply. – S. Rich (talk

) 14:17, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Carolmooredc: You demand that others "explain" to you, rather than choose to reflect on your own behavior, which reflection would be appropriate after at least 3 editors have recently admonished you for such behavior. This continues your history of disruptive and uncivil conduct on WP as previously communicated to you. SPECIFICO talk 14:33, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

The difference between the two comments is that the Judge Judy thing is clearly a joke. Would you really be mad at a friend who said to you: "Would you argue that before Judge Judy"? The point is that it's funny, a sharply distinct intention from that of your remarks. Steeletrap (talk) 14:37, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for all the links I never saw before and probably won't again.

Anyway, I do think you are all being extremely nitpicky, some while ignoring actual policy issues. So that's just my humble opinion. "Nitpicky" is a legitimate criticism. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 18:13, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Per

• Removing prohibited material such as libel, personal details, or violations of copyright, living persons or banning policies.
• Removing harmful posts, including personal attacks, trolling and vandalism. This generally does not extend to messages that are merely uncivil; deletions of simple invective are controversial. Posts that may be considered disruptive in various ways are another borderline case and are usually best left as-is or archived.

Gaijin42 (talk) 18:19, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for comment. I did think people were getting a bit hat-happy. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 18:30, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Removal of what comment? If referring to my message above, please note the comment specifically says I did not remove anything. If you are referring to this talk page,

WP:OWNTALK applies. If referring to an article talk page, hatting by me (as an editor who was not involved in the thread) was done on non-article improvement comments in an effort to keep discussions focused. – S. Rich (talk

) 18:35, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Ah, since the template said it was removed, I must have skimmed over the negation in your comment. I still posit that that comment from Carol wasn't really uncivil, but I will strike my admonishion above as TPO was not violated.Gaijin42 (talk) 18:40, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Excessive hatting is still a problem since there has been questionable stuff left up that could be hatted. Should I do so from now on? Or just start long time wasting discussions of why my stuff is hatted and others isn't and go to ANI and let others decide if I should be hatted. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 18:51, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

If the hatting gets to the point of

WP:HOUNDING then take it up at ANI. Otherwise I would probably not reciprocate except in the most needed cases, as engaging in a tit-for-tat rarely leads anywhere good. Asking for a 3rd opinion from an uninvolved editor or admin can often resolve ambiguity on if the hat was justified or not, which can serve to calibrate the thermometer for future hattings if those involved are open to guidance. also Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars Gaijin42 (talk

) 18:55, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

So better to ask an admin than to just unhat un-collapse unfairly collapsed comments?? Iguess that's what I'll do if my buddy SRich doesn't revert his hat.

Also techinically it's called collapsing per the policy page: Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Others.27_comments ...Off-topic posts: If a discussion goes off-topic (per the above subsection #How to use article talk pages), the general practice is to hide it by using the templates {{collapse top}} and {{collapse bottom}} or similar templates.] A criticism is NOT off topic. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 19:06, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

If you think the comment was collapsed inappropriately, I think you can just un-collapse it yourself. If that develops into a controversy, then get an admin involved. However, don't do it just to be pedantic. If the comment was borderline and you don't honestly think you will get good discussion going from having it visible, then I think its better just to let it lie. Again, if this becomes an issue where you feel like you are being hounded or censored, then you can of course escalate that. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:17, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I see that the one in question was uncollapsed. Found another one innocuous in itself and removed that collapse. By the way, the whole COI conversation WAS off topic, I directed people here and someone should collapse that. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 19:28, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Conversations on your own talk page you are welcome to remove yourself at any time, as long as you don't edit other's comments or remove "in-the-middle" comments to make it look like someone is saying something they aren't. The only exception to this is block templates and some other more severe warnings/admin actions (until the matter is resolved). Gaijin42 (talk) 19:31, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, I'm the one who has hatted various comments on Talk:LewRockwell.com. I've hatted thread started by me, solo comments, comments which had replies. Some of the stuff which I'd like to hat was not because it is difficult to parse article improvement lines from the off-topic lines. (All of the hats are available for editors to read. And I doubt that any editor would like to un-hat the comments so that they could add more (off-topic) comments.) Also: I added a "Controversial" template to the top of the page and I've commented to various editors on their talk pages and off-wiki in an effort to keep discussions focused. (Sometimes I feel that if every less-than-civil-or-off-topic posting was commented upon by me, I'd be doing nothing else!) Since the article has an underlying controversial subject, I believe underlying passions flareup, resulting in less-than-helpful comments. Despite the controversy, I believe only two issues need to be resolved: 1. Whether Rockwell's involvement with Ron Paul newsletters should be in the article and 2. That of Ron Paul's post-Boston Bombing comments. – S. Rich (talk) 19:32, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

There's a few more than that... got extension on my deadline and finally got all the notes on what to change from draft one... so trying to finish real world before focus back here on wiki minutia... CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 19:38, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Quite right. I had the two big ones in mind. We still need to retitle/recharacterize the Criticisms section. I look forward to your next edits! – S. Rich (talk) 19:45, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

WRT the LRC talk page remarks (which I have just hatted), you were quite right in saying you were annoyed about the changes, and SPECIFICO was incorrect about posting the off-topic and baseless admonition to you. But you should have known better than to respond on the talk page. His talk page would have been a better place. (I have made a comment there. Please do not add anything to it, because you have already stated your annoyance.) Geez, this stuff is ridiculous! – S. Rich (talk) 00:38, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm banned from his talk page. But this is only the second time I have thought seriously about doing a WP:RfC/User. I'm not the only person who's gotten really annoyed so at least it would be fun for us all venting. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 00:49, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Best COA, then, is to ignore. Adding to the article talk page only ... – S. Rich (talk) 01:16, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by COA. I meant Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct. Maybe they'll recommend some mentoring for the editor in question.

Of course, I disagree with your deleting all that content showing notability, etc. from the article but given that others want to delete any non-libelous material from wikipedia, including your list of writers, I guess I'll have to put up with it til other editors come along and support my view. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 02:19, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

COA = Course of action. (Sorry, an old bit of jargon I've used elsewhere.)

With regard to the Hoppe talk page and your recent comment, I was fine with the editing explanation until the last line: "Please more careful when writing and study WP:BLP and WP:RS policies." This is an admonition directed towards editors who had recently edited the article, and did not address article content itself. Even though the editors are not named, this sort of comment is personal in nature. I wish you would refrain from adding in such remarks. I do not think they are helpful. – S. Rich (talk) 22:31, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I always say things like that when I find big violations like that. I don't get many objections. We all have our own style. Hope we're done discussing varying opinions in editing style and behavior so I can archive this page and make it tidy. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 23:55, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

'Always' doesn't get over the fact that the remarks had a personal nature to them. (If they had been remarks of praise, there would not be a problem.) 'Not many objections' does not mean the comments (on that page or elsewhere) aren't objectionable. (In watching these articles, I've seen quite a few objections. Thus my comments have had the objective of reducing such objections.) How WP editors interact overall is more important than the particular style that individuals may follow. I agree, keeping this page tidy is worthwhile, please do archive it. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 00:14, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Silly jokes are fine with me -- anything to lighten up the discussions. Also, I personally allege to have been sent by

The All to keep things straightened out on Wikipedia, so if editors allege lower ranking credentials, that's fine with me too. . – S. Rich (talk

Being an anti-Imperialist I sometimes see {word left out, use our imagination} in even silly jokes... CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 00:46, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Please furnish the dif to which you refer on the ANI, where you believe I do not "bother to find correct references." It's not ringing a bell here. If you are referring to my statement that Hoppe is an "academic," please state whether you believe a citation is needed for that statement. The text which Sageo was repeatedly inserting included uncited assertions that Hoppe is an economist. Please explain whether and why you think there is equivalency between these two texts as inserted. SPECIFICO talk 22:04, 22 May 2013 (UTC) Just to try to keep this as simple as possible: The fact that Hoppe is an "academic" is amply documented in citations throughout the article including the discussion of the UNV disciplinary action. Consequently, if it turns out that you made that statement about me warring uncited content with respect to diffs 108 and 109 in error, I'd appreciate it if you would strike the accusation about me at the ANI. Thank you. SPECIFICO talk 22:47, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about academic. I didn't even follow that carefully. I'm just saying you too could be sourcing information, not nitpicking everybody else's edits, so that is part of the annoyance of the edit war between you two on it. I was busy sourcing other things on other articles so never got around to that. By the way I DID somehow confuse Bell Daily with a UNLV school paper which is why I initially supported it as a source. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 00:30, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Look, the details are unimportant but I really do not want to have an untrue statement on the ANI about me with respect to those diffs or me adding any unsourced content. I appreciate your forthright response, and I would appreciate it if you'd strike that specific and erroneous accusation about me. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 00:37, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how you get that interpretation from the below so can't really explain anything.

There's no doubt that Sageo's edits on 108/109 have been part of an annoying edit-warring pattern over the last few days on that issue where neither Sageo or Specifico bother to find correct references. (Mea culpa myself on not doing that, in part because of confusion on the nature of one reference.) CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 00:43, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Let me try to say it another way. Sageo was inserting unsourced content. I did not insert unsourced content. Your statement on the ANI appears to me to say that I failed to provide proper citations for content which I inserted or reinserted. The phrase that I didn't "bother to find correct references" suggests that I did the same thing that Sageo did, inserting unreferenced or non-RS referenced content. However, that's not what happened. For that reason I am asking you to remove that accusation about me from the ANI. SPECIFICO talk

OK, I'll put in correct new references and that will make my point clear. I mean you did remove rather obvious descriptors that can be inferred from much of the text like:

Austrian School economist who describes himself as an advocate of (anarcho-capitalism link) It should not be that hard to find refs for most of the terms and I was annoyed that the two of you who were arguing about it would NOT just find better refs. Collaboration doesn't mean one person always hassles the other to do the work while they just nitpick. That in itself is a form of edit warring. On a lot of articles I find it easier to just find a better ref myself than fight with someone, remove the material, go to WP:Edit warring etc. Or maybe I should go more into my thoughts on all of the above. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie

🗽 01:16, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

That is way far afield of the subject of reverting these specific edits. My point which I stated on edit summaries and talk is that I cannot find a RS that calls Hoppe an "economist" so I can hardly be accused for having failed to find one. There is absolutely no equivalence between the conduct of me and of Sageo on this article. After his second revert I disengaged, as you can see from the history. I have not found any RS that calls Hoppe, trained in Philosophy and teaching at an extremely marginal Business School, an "economist." Please consider removing the accusation about me and help avoid further straining cooperation on this article. Thank you. SPECIFICO talk 01:27, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

That was one of several descriptors; did you look for any of the easier ones? I'm just describing my annoyance. I doubt you'll get blocked for it. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 01:32, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Carol I understand that you are annoyed with me, that's no problem at all. But to enter that expression of annoyance in the context of an uninvolved Admin's factual evidence file where the Admin will be trying to get up to speed on the situation and to consider all views, I do not think that was appropriate. That is why I am so cordially asking you to strike it out. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 01:41, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, since you brought the edit warring complaint and totally ignored the WP:BLP violations issues, I probably could have brought up your lack of interest (at best) in that issue. But didn't want to confuse things. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 02:08, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

You're choosing not to respond to my very straightforward request. I have not violated any BLP rule, in fact it was I who rescued Habermas from the BLP violation. But at any rate, a simple 3RR report is not the occasion for you to try to think up any complaint you might insert into the file. This is the last time I'll ask. Please strike through what you now acknowledge to be your incorrect statement about me RE: Unsourced Content. Thank you. SPECIFICO talk 02:22, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Evidently you haven't seen my clarification. Anyway, in my opinion you have been edit warring and not editing collaboratively. I only alluded to that in the most general way. I doubt it will have any real negative impact. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 02:24, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I will set the ANI record straight myself if I see that you've chosen not to do so next time I look at WP. I had thought I was extending you the courtesy of my forbearance while I asked you to do so yourself. SPECIFICO talk 02:27, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Carol, your repeated arguments of "BLP" violations are meaningless because they are completely vague and unspecific. Like your numerous PAs, they have nothing to do with upholding WP policy and all they do is squelch debate. Steeletrap (talk) 15:24, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Please read the numerous postings at

WP:BLP. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie

🗽 15:36, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Vaguely saying "read WP:BLP" is meaningless. Your claims on the talk page consistently fail to single out specific text/claims in the article which violate WP regulations. To repeat myself for the 32nd or so time, your claims are not constructive unless you can point to specific text/claims in a piece, and specifically explain which criteria of BLP (or NPOV or whatever WP regulations you're appealing to) are violated by that text. You just broadly cite such regulations in an indeterminate, unanswerable manner that serves to choke debate. Steeletrap (talk) 15:39, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Steeletrap: I find that your postings on my talk page are just harassment. Please don't post anything besides noticeboard alert type things. If you want to discuss substantive and specific issues, please use article talk pages. Thank you. (I'm not banning Specifico at this point, as he's banned me, though his/her postings are getting quite annoying too.) CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 15:44, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello Carol. Repeating your false accusation of libel against me has no purpose on the discussion re: the behavior of SAGEO. Why on earth bring this up?

The accusation is also false. To remind you of your mistaken reasoning, note that I was accused of libel by you for saying Block accused Hoppe of advocating coercive violence against homosexuals. I don't know the extent to which (very much or not at all) you have been trained in formal logic, but as someone who is extensively trained in this regard, let me assure you that my "libelous" statement is logically entailed by two true statements documented in RS: 1) that Block believes all violations of libertarianism equate to coercive violence and 2) That Block believes Hoppe thinks Hoppe's proposed treatment of homosexuals (the diddy about "physically removing" the gays from society) is a violation of libertarianism.

I believe you know that both of those statements are true, but if not, you can easily confirm that with a little Googling. Since you've accused me of libel, you should at least take some time to back it up. If you don't understand the above reasoning, then please talk to someone who has some background in formal logic. She or he will tell you that if the two claims referenced above are true (and, as you know, they are), my "libelous" statement, as a matter of logical necessity, has to be true. Also note that WP:SYN (which I do not, incidentally, believe my "libelous" edits entailed) is not the same as libel. Steeletrap (talk) 00:28, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Just looked up

Libel and it lead to Defamation. Better word to use because it carries the correct emotional connotation. Obviously there are degrees... CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie

🗽 00:36, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

[Insert: what I should have said originally is in bold at the bottom.]

Carol, please explain where my argument demonstrating that I did not commit libel is wrong, rather than continuing to repeat your false accusation without giving a reason. If you don't see how the two premises necessarily lead to my conclusion, contact someone with training in logic (e.g., someone with a philosophy degree) and she or he will tell you. Steeletrap (talk) 00:52, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:COI

reads: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a vanity press, or forum for advertising or self-promotion. As such it should contain only material that complies with its content policies, and Wikipedians must place the interests of the encyclopedia first. Any editor who gives priority to outside interests may be subject to a conflict of interest. Adding material that appears to advance the interests or promote the visibility of an article's author, the author's family, employer, clients, associates or business, places the author in a conflict of interest.

Those who throw around their alleged expertise/professionalism/etc outside Wikipedia to try to put in material that is against policy, and additionally bullies and belittles other editors who defend policy, already are getting into conflict of interest territory. But then several of us already had several long discussions of your strong negative POV against certain academics and your possible COI with your thesis and advisor which are contained in this deletion diff. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 01:36, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not belittling anyone. I am assuming that you don't understand the argument, since it's (as a matter of logic) true and if you did understand it, you'd acknowledge that and withdraw your charge. It is not "PA" to cite one's training in logic, any more than it is PA to cite one's training in science. You have been documented making numerous PAs on WP and I am happy to compare my record in this regard with you. Finally, your remarks above betray yet another misunderstanding: I have not cited this expertise to argue for any content additions to WP, but merely to argue against your false claims of libel. Steeletrap (talk) 03:05, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

This issue has been discussed ad nauseum on the Hoppe page and I have answered your objections repeatedly. The material is not in there the way you wanted. I consider further discussion here to be harassment.CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 03:41, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

You had added the Snyder comment on the Hoppe/UNLV controversy. How about adding some Hoppe talk page thoughts on expanding Snyder's quotation? – S. Rich (talk) 05:54, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

If someone challenges it. But obviously leaving out half of what he says and then criticizing it is problematic under WP:BLP. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 05:57, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

You put it in, I added another sentence, SPECIFICO reverted (and I re-reverted -- shame on me). I feel the second sentence is pertinent because it is in context and explains further why academic freedom applied in that particular case. (The discussion with SPECIFICO is fairly focused.) – S. Rich (talk) 06:21, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I can't find the diff in question so not sure what you are talking about. The second half of the Snyder comment on academic freedom that I removed since first part really is most relevant? CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 17:30, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

"There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article." Just who are the specific editors? SPECIFICO posted all over the place and I have revised those postings. He complained (incorrectly) about your "canvassing" and I defended you in that matter. (As I recall I said just because people are looking at particular project pages does not mean they have specific viewpoints.) The only specific editor that SPECIFICO notified was FurrySings. (And that was proper because Furry started the whole mess.) The canvassing issue is already mentioned on the RfC. It does not need more attention as it will only distract from the RfC topic. And should there be a discussion about posting the lousy canvassing template? JFC! The talk page has got too much garbage already. Please take down the template. (Or let me do it.) – S. Rich (talk) 15:09, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

See my relevant message just left on article talk page. Please discuss issue there. And read WP:Canvass. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 15:13, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Your notice on the Libertarian project had the same sort of improper editorial comment that SPECIFICO had posted. I changed every one of those notices and I changed yours too. You are unduly complicating things. Adding extraneous (and incorrect) material to the RfC discussion page just complicates matters. Involved editors get to make jabs at you (and me) and non-involved editors roll their eyes. As you mention you left a "relevant" message on the talk page, but I am talking about your behavior, not the article. Please accept a word-to-the-wise, and stop fighting over these non-issues. – S. Rich (talk) 15:23, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think leaving the link and what they want to change it to is more than providing relevant info (since that IS what they've changed it to repeatedly, isn't it?) without charged words that would tell people come and do it. And it's obvious we don't agree on everything :-) CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 15:49, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Now you are really screwing up on this RfC! Nobody contacted Chris or LK. Chris saw the notice on a project and LK follows the article/editors. (Are there notices on their talk pages? No!) Adding the tags just makes you look partisan and/or POV-pushing. Remove those tags. Please just remove them. – S. Rich (talk) 15:46, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Let them explain that. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 15:50, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Now you are digging yourself in deeper. On the EW page, you suggest that Chris & LK made their comments because they saw a "biased" version of the notification. You are not giving them credit for being able to figure out what the dispute is about. – S. Rich (talk) 16:22, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Please go back to the Canvassing talk page and fix your comments. Grammer wise they are confusing. Also, I was not addressing what should be done in any particular affair. My comments can apply to any canvassing situation. – S. Rich (talk) 16:26, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

What is the "EW page". I didn't mention names and giving my opinion. They are free to reply to the tags, it is not your job to do it for them. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 16:33, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

The Edit War notice that Sageo posted re Steeletrap & SPECIFICO. Please note that the thread was closed. Steeletrap received a warning. And the admin commented about the off-topic stuff that was there. Bbb23 said "As for the non-edit-warring claims, please take it somewhere else. It doesn't belong here." – S. Rich (talk) 16:39, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh, what I call WP:3rrn which I noticed also was described as WP:ANEW in warning to User:Steeletrap. Helps to at least put WP: in front of such initials.

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring reads: This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of the three-revert rule. Sometimes it is used for narrow and sometimes for wider complaints. Obviously as I stated Sageo's complaint was not very well put together as a broader complaint so the Admin, rather than totally ignoring it, decided to focus on a narrower warning, which was fine.

The canvassing issue, while not totally irrelevant since I believe he was seeking supporters in an ongoing edit war, is best brought up as part of the broader WP:BLPN complaint. If it was a week day and he was actively editing elsewhere, and you had not changed the RfC notices, it might be subject to WP:ANI. (Gosh, wikipedia does keep my 65 year old mind active, even if it sometimes is hell on the blood pressure!!)

By the way, thanks for finding later refs on Hoppe and the conference and bias proposal. Really creates good and notable broader context, even if in your attempt to remove excess verbiage you made it look like both were motivated by how evil Hoppe is. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 16:52, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Please bring to WP:DRN and do not revert my templates and discussion section. thanks. My last comment here. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 16:59, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Carol, please do not mischaracterize the 3RR issue for which I was warned. I am sorry for having committed this offense, and -- unattuned to the specific rule though I (a noob) was -- I was wrong to revert so rapidly. But the admin in judgment did not speak to any of your absurd libel claims, which have been soundly rejected by the consensus of the RFD on the Hoppe talk page. Please take your false allegations to the relevant authority rather than baselessly repeating them. Thanks. Steeletrap (talk) 23:11, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Please stop harassing me on my talk page unless it is an official notice per policy. Second request. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 23:15, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Posting the lousy canvassing templates is disruptive to the HHH discussion. (They serve NO purpose.) So far nobody has come in to "vote" keep, but when (or if) they do, will you tag their comments too? It was entirely proper to notify Furry about the discussion as Furry was the one that made the stinking change that started this mess. There is no doubt that Furry favored the change, it was originally done by Furry! Adding the whole, poorly founded, canvasing thread only complicated the discussion. The fact that you reverted my removal of the tags and hatting really irks me, and keep in mind that I started the discussion and RfC and I want to keep the section titled Academic freedom! Do the right and sensible thing, remove the tags and rehat the off-topic canvassing discussion. – S. Rich (talk) 16:57, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I do NOT know what the policy is but generally policy is against removing others' tags. And I did fulfill request by person. Please bring to WP:DRN and maybe we can clarify policy and put it in WP:Canvassing article. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 17:01, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

. You just don't get it, do you? You and your warning! Your canvassing tagging and refusal to hat the off-topic discussion just sets you up to be seen as a POV warrior. Alas, I fear you are going to get more than what you asked for. The heading will get changed to homosexual views and the can of worms will really be opened up. – S. Rich (talk) 18:20, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

It's against BLP to change it to that, the canvassing tag is legit or why else would it exist, more guidance IS needed, WP:DRN is where to discuss it. Please take it there. I shouldn't have to because I think I am upholding policy however if uninvolved experienced editor(s) tell me I am wrong, well then I shall take them off. I just do NOT think they will tell me I'm wrong! CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 18:27, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Now that you've posted a DRN, you ought to notify each of the editors whom you tagged as canvassed, as well as SPECIFICO. (In fact, I think you must.) You'll make a lot of friends by doing so, won't you? (And what does BLP have to do with canvassing?) – S. Rich (talk) 19:30, 26 May 2013 (UTC) Also, I hope you will un-archive our earlier discussion. Unless editors know you have sub-pages, that portion of our discussion cannot be found. 19:35, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

It might be nice to give me 3 minutes to do it after my final edit, which is exactly how long it took before I contacted the first person who didn't happen to be you. I contact you within that minute. See [4]. This is NOT about whether Specifico canvassed, it's about the tags. Anyway he's in a WP:DRN right above that AND I already contacted him on his talk page and he didn't bother to respond. Nor did he respond to the discussion on the RfC. In fact he would have a conflict of interest in coming there since he did the canvassing! CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 19:42, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

[[File:|25px|link=]] – S. Rich (talk) 19:55, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Consider:

1. You change the WikiProjects RfC notification by SPECIFICO here [5] with the edit summary "Should the section title for Academic freedom controversy be changed? -- changed biased title to actual title of RfC"
2. You post a RfC notice on WikiProjects Libertarianism here [6], with something different than the "actual title of RfC".
3. You take your name off of the Libertarianism notice, because I had changed the title to the same words you had used in #1 here: [7]
4. So in between these postings (and my revisions) you post the Canvassing ANI here: [8]
5. You post last notification of the RfC on WikiProject Freedom of speech with yet another "suggestion" here: [9]

I repeat, in #1 you wanted the RfC notice changed to the actual RfC title, in #2 you don't follow your own advice, in #3 you don't like the fact that I change the RfC notice to the actual RfC title, in #4 you post your ANI (because SPECIFICO had done the same thing you had done) and in #5 you again ignore you own advice. In the meantime I had urged you to not post an ANI. In the ANI you say you don't know or understand the Canvassing guidance or hope it can be clarified. (And have you noticed that SPECIFICO has not made any comment in the ANI?)

My point is that this RfC notification/canvassing dispute was a needless, useless, wasteful, feckless mess created at your instigation. It was disruptive. The most shameful part is that you don't follow your own admonitions about posting notices. – S. Rich (talk) 05:06, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I have seen multiple notices over 7 years about NOT canvassing and have never seen anyone spam 10 wikiprojects with a content dispute - as opposed to a Wiki help project. And even then I was warned about spamming when given a list of the top watched wikiprojects. Given the extreme hostility towards the subject expressed by those two editors, I think it was the right thing to do. Of course, now I'll feel freer to contact more relevant wiki projects given that precedent now on the record...

I do remain suspicious of the responses - were they what we would have gotten if he'd used either your or my variation (which I think was accurate anyway), or some other NPOV variation, as opposed to fomenting undue interest by people with strong personal POVs?

However, I don't believe in dwelling on it. It's now time to work on a compromise which allows for the fact that some people got upset by a couple comments on "homosexuals" but also mentions academic freedom.

Of course now I'm on a crusade to get into Keynes article the refs I found that Keynes has been described as a "bisexual". Bisexuals are a far larger group in number than homosexuals but they are forced into the closet where they are more easily blackmailed - like our last two presidents. (Dang, can we resurrect the Larry Sinclair article?? Titulating speculation from non WP:RS sources. Oh No!! But they didn't care at ani so Blink it.) CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 12:54, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the

You already made your canvassing comments on the RfC. Next, you got nowhere on the DRN. Now, by posting the ANI, you are

Sorry, not ForumShopping. From talk page to DRN is a natural progression, given the threat to go to ANI for following what I saw as WP:Canvass and WP:Talk page guidelines. This issue is primarily a conduct issue. WP:ANI should be the next stop if there is no hope of the issues being sorted in an appropriate way. Given User:Specifico's refusal to discuss it at all and User:Wikiwind's threats, it seemed like the thing to do. The template issue was more a triggering issue for the WP:ANI threat vs me so really not related to you as a behavioral issue. So you don't have to defend your own actions. User:SPECIFICO would be expected to defend his own. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 02:01, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Maybe it seemed to be a good thing to do, but it wasn't. SPECIFICO won't have to respond. But you've set yourself up for an ANI. – S. Rich (talk) 03:46, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Collapsing and linking to the ANI was acceptable. I won't bother with the user templates. I can't believe people will put up with 15 Wikiproject postings for something like that!! (Unless I do it with a neutral post and then I'll probably get in trouble. Don't getme started.)

I should have done the BLPN two weeks ago which might have avoided the problems in the first place; I wasted more time re-explaining policy than a BLPN two weeks ago would have taken to put together. (Am i getting paid for this? Oh, that's right, NO!! Must start making money on youtube with funny dog videos or use those finger puppets and make Austrian economics videos or something :-) 14:32, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Carol, please strike your latest comments on the Hoppe talk page imputing bad faith onto me by stating that my personal point of view/biases on Hoppe, rather than concern for encyclopedic accuracy, are the driving force for my decision. I am disappointed that the resounding rejection of your false charges of BLP/canvassing has not prompted you to refrain from making inappropriate and inaccurate remarks to other users. Steeletrap (talk) 18:29, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Third request - not leave messages for me unless part of official proceedings. You said more than enough on the talk page which I answered at this diff] regarding Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Dealing_with_biased_contributors. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 22:15, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

The talk page is the appropriate venue to discuss poor personal conduct, including personal attacks. Urging users not to going in such behavior is not harassment; please consult another ANI if you disagree -- the results will be the same as the others you've started. Steeletrap (talk) 22:57, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Carol, please remove your "evidence of bias" heading in regards to me on the Hoppe page. (see: here) That is a personally-insulting heading that compounds your prior inappropriate comments, and derails a substantive discussion into personal maters. Thanks. Steeletrap (talk) 19:36, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

It didn't mention your name, unlike a couple of yours about me. It mentioned a policy concern as described above. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 22:16, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

This is a misleading statement. The text which followed specifically and exclusively related to my alleged biases; therefore it was about me. Steeletrap (talk) 22:58, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Per the quoted policy. Fourth request. Do not post talk related debate here, only official notices. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 23:00, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Clarification: Comments regarding the personal attacks of others are entirely appropriate and encouraged to be posted on talk pages. Please stop falsely accusing me of harassment or violating policy. If you do not want to hear from me, do not make personal attacks on me on other pages. Steeletrap (talk) 23:02, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Per this diff saying you would not stop posting personal unofficial comments on on my talk page - per my four previous requests. Thank you. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 23:08, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Note for my future info: Following removed by Admin after my WP:ANI: : Please remove this disingenuous characterization of our discussion. I was calling on you to cease making personal attacks, not making personal "harassing" comments, which is what your previous warnings were related to. I encourage you to take your false understanding of policy regarding harassment to ANI for another correction. I have no desire to communicate with you on this page, and only regretfully do so when prompted by your personal attacks on me or by your misrepresentations of deleted comments I have made on this page. Steeletrap (talk) 23:17, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

An AFD you recently participated in earlier this month is back at AFD again. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Israeli Violations of the Ceasefire of 21 November, 2013 (2nd nomination) Dream Focus 08:54, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. FYI, the guidance for headings is at

And I thought that was low key to the verge of neutral. As long as I can express concerns in the text. And I am investigating just what discussing big POVs publiclly means so I can do it right next time, tomorrow maybe. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 16:20, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

My concern was limited to the language of the section heading. Again, I'd like to see the sub-section elevated to a section level. The Rothbard edits you are concerned with are not related to Hoppe other than by the fact that the same people are making the edits. (Just because you don't like particular edits in Hoppe is not a sound basis for criticizing the particular edits in Rothbard.) – S. Rich (talk) 16:36, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

They are related as part of broader POV attack, but probably best to deal with each in separate sections. Will do. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 17:35, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I am advising certain editors to look at

Maybe all four of us need one?? I think the expressed POV and intent to go after certain subjects of BLP means someone has to watch for policy violations. It's too bad you have to be a WP:ANI-writing expert to get across this point there!! (Now if it's keeping certain POV editors who have expressed clear intent against BLPs from editing on them, that's fine.)

And the fact that I have been constantly attacked for bringing up pretty clear violations certainly does not mean I should be banned. Especially when You and Specifico also have constantly brought up policy reminders but avoided attacks. I think diffs all around would have to be presented. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 14:33, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Would you like for me to stop having WikiTalk with you? (Four-way or otherwise?) If so, please advise. I am happy to comply – in return I'd like an IBAN that covers (the) other editors. – S. Rich (talk) 03:04, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

It's just off topic to the issue which is coordinated POV and soapbox attacks on articles, esp. BLPs, and how to deal with them. So it should be proposed elsewhere - where I can make all the arguments all over again and get ignored (?).

Or maybe I'm just looking for any excuse to stop editing because it's like writing in sand here, all your work can be gone next month. I know because I've totally rewritten some crap articles in my time. At least my blogs and websites (which are woefully neglected and pitifully outdated right now) and youtube videos will be available in some form 500 years from now and maybe have some positive influence on someone someday - including me in my next lives. ;-)

Rant removed from NPOVN:

I'm tired of spending 1/3 of my time defending BLPs against these attacks and obviously the foundation is not willing to put the energy into stopping them either, even when subjects of BLPs complain to them. In response, they may remove crap one day, but it's back a few days later and the editors who do it over and over are rarely sufficiently discouraged.

Some day some attorney is going to put together a big class action suit representing all sorts of people who have been trashed on wikipedia, win $750 mill and that will be the end of Wikipedia. [Just defending one you win can cost $20 million.] So it's silly for me to waste time on a self-destructive project. (I've felt this way for a long time but this is the clearest case I've seen of editors spewing hostility regarding BLPs and related articles and getting away with biased edits, talk page comments and related shenanigans.) But maybe first I'll start the Academic bias article. Or maybe the Academic foodfights article. Geez...

CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 11:43, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

See NPOVN on why that is difficult. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 00:52, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Rather than "Anarcho-capitalism is now a school of economics??", I think a more neutral heading is "Is Anarcho-capitalism a school of economics?" Why say "now"? Why put "A-C" in italics? Why add two question marks? Headings should be entirely neutral. – S. Rich (talk) 04:20, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

So much for spicing up. But since someone has answered best not to mess with. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 04:24, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't matter if someone has responded. The heading should be strictly NPOV. I'll change to my suggested language -- I think (and hope) both you and the other editor will accept. – S. Rich (talk) 05:30, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

This is just petty nitpicking. I'm getting fed up with it myself and really wish we had Wikietiquette. Maybe we need a WP:DRN on this! Just because you do it right 1/2 the time doesn't mean there can't be big problems with the way you do it 1/4 of the time!! CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 14:46, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Carol - I'm not sure if you did this before or after I pointed out

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

for non-neutral canvassing. Throw it back in the water when you're done, I will reuse it :) --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:52, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Just got here and see it closed pretty quickly. Don't feel up to figuring out why right now.

I thought I'd seen AfDs there a number of times over last couple years. Don't know easy way to search through archives. I'll recommend they put in their message footer what kind of messages are NOT appropriate. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 23:25, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I think the key is (1) neutral notification (2) broad notification (3) inform at the AFD that you notified (disclosure). Whether it's on-wiki or off-wiki, the rules should be the same. If it's a topic about indigenous women, and you just notify feminism and countering-systemic-bias, that's not exactly neutral notification; better to notify indigenous peoples, biographies, and one or two others to round it out. Again, this is just my opinion, and as you can see, nothing happened at ANI anyway (and I think you said a more egregious case was also brushed off), but I still think it's better to try to hew to the rule. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:11, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Disagree with 2 and never heard of 3. Where's that in policy?

As I wrote at AfD, policy says one or more. It's not my habit to do more than one or two, and certainly not to investigate every possible wikiproject. Do you have any idea how many there are? (Assuming people even know there's such a thing as Category:Wikiprojects, or that all relevant projects are there or properly categorized.)

Re: gendergap list, have actually posted 2 questions on that, one last night wondering about the related facebook page. I assume people who know better than me run the list... CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 02:23, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

(2) means a non-partisan audience in the language of WP:CANVASS. (3) is captured here "It is good practice to leave a note at the discussion itself about notifications which have been made, particularly if made to individual users.". re: how many projects to inform, I think to avoid the impression of canvassing, if you are informing projects, you should first inform *all* projects listed on the talk page. Then, if you add ancillary projects, don't just add projects that you think might support your particular POV. So for example, if there was an article about a democratic politician, you would not just inform the democrats board, you would inform the republicans board (hypothetically). I'm not suggesting you need to send to every wikiproject at all - but *only* notifying one or two, especially if they are like "feminism" and "women's history" for example, and thus likely to have a particular POV, can be seen as canvassing, and I would try to notify a few more neutral boards. Finally, notification of *who* you notified is important, so someone else can go notify *other* boards if they felt you missed some important group. Transparency is important... FWIW, I'm not even saying I always hew to this myself, I definitely need to get better, and if you see me not following it please call me out on it...

Also, the ANI thread closed b/c it had descended into incivility, and no-one except the nominator wanted any admin action against you.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:36, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I should have read WP:Canvass more carefully when I made last canvassing complaint. So many policy, so little short term memory...

"you should first inform *all* projects listed on the talk page" - now that sounds familiar from long long time ago. Wish i'd remembered in my last canvassing complaint.

"but *only* notifying one or two,... " need to clarify that in the policy since that's up front and a lot of people don't get down further to read more carefully. Mea culpa.

Well, I'll think about doing a few more per 2, though I'd never post to wikiproject Male chauvinist pig. ha ha ha CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 02:49, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• The only thing I removed since may 22 was [this which edit summary clearly read: (revert to previous; "who" is the below; can't used self-published webpages and little known groups as refs; citation is for "right-libertarianism" is type WP:RS) And one always can remove non WP:RS material when the topic has been discussed repeatedly on the talk page. Please read it and my most recent comment, as well as note I left you earlier about edit warring by putting up all those "Citation needed" on poorly sourced material to make a point. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 17:21, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

First of all I am not agree with you on this. If you want I am so ready to talk more about that, actually please read the Talk Page of the article and if interested lets talk more to see which is true. But I see these all a Lamest Edit War, even it was not an edit war at all in the first place, not by me nor by you. I actually enjoy every time I see your edits and the funny Edit summaries. But When I see your harassment on my talk page, based on nothing just a harassment attack I couldn't believe what I seen there. Never try to put your view on anyone using force even if you think you will make him frightened. It is just not good, & I think it is not just you. I really cannot believe your harassment there based on nothing when actually you were not true, where actually I talked to you on Talk page of the article. KhabarNegar (talk) 17:39, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Just discuss the issues at the article talk page, but do note that all those "citations needed" are really vandalism/edit warring and should be removed immediately. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 17:44, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I never revert your edit, right now also if you change article as we both have good faith it is OK to me, I write something on Talk Page[12], and I'm not following the article feel free to make it as you like, Wish you good day.KhabarNegar (talk) 18:52, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

It became clearer to me the last couple messages that English is not your first language. So it probably makes it particularly hard for you to get in the middle of a complicated edit battle filled with policy talk and frequent dropping of notices on user pages, one that's been going on for years. If you haven't edited in your own language, you might start there, learn the policies and then feel more comfortable coming here in the future. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 21:44, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Strongly recommend you strikeout the rest of the comment. (Or simply remove the whole thing. It will remain in the edit history.) Nothing about competence of an (or any particular) editor in that comment is related to article improvement. Moreover, not well founded. – S. Rich (talk) 05:04, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I think it's totally founded, and he is incompetent by Wikipedia standards, plus a lot of other things, but will reserve for another place. Since no one's responded, guess ok to remove. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 05:08, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Your changes are not much better. (Indeed, worse.) You are commenting on editor behavior, and not on article improvement. – S. Rich (talk) 05:17, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Why not complain about him insulting the subject of the article?? CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 05:27, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Complain all you like -- but not on the article talk page. It doesn't help improve the article. – S. Rich (talk) 05:31, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

So you are telling me to take it to BLPN. Tomorrow afternoon. Beddie byes now. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 05:37, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Take it wherever the hell you like. I make no such suggestion! (And you won't get very far in any case.) – S. Rich (talk) 05:45, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

BLPN is a place to get comments on a) issues like whether OR is allowed in BLPs and b) whether insulting the subject repeatedly is OK. Frankly, the problem is no one went there immediately and fooled around elsewhere. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 05:50, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Polite comments and warnings about behavior are always relevant, including to article improvement. Of course, when other people are just mocking the subject of the article and wikipedia policies, one can get annoyed. A reminder that one has inappropriately expressed annoyance is fine. A broad statement that comments on behavior are off topic just add to the annoyance. Let's all read again Wikipedia:Civility#Dealing_with_incivility. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 12:26, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

In the present case, there is a certain amount of antagonism between you and the other editor. As a result, comments about the other editors on their user talkpages cannot be helpful. But if they are not helpful on the user talkpages, they are even less helpful on the article talkpages. In fact, as I have often seen, they are disruptive. The various essays and guidance on PA, CIVILITY, etc. have one bit of advice that you (e.g., you and any other editor reading these comments) could and should follow – ignore the remarks. See

WP:SHUN for more in this regard. – S. Rich (talk

) 15:19, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

LudicrousTripe (talk) 14:37, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Given the second paragraph, won't move this back to article talk page. Either interpretation really is WP:OR on primary source, so I figured might as well be explicit about what he was saying. I was in a hurry to get out of the house and didn't have time to figure out what seemed best thing to quote on the racialist science (yuk) topic. (Especially given wikipedia seems fine with Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence.)

Just to soapbox on my own talk page: It seems ridiculous to stress any minor genetic differences that may exist (and I have not studied that area at all), given that environmental, health and cultural factors are so much more important that they easily can outweigh whatever minor genetic differences may exist. But Rothbard's personality too often was as much about getting people roused up (for better or worse) than being nuanced, not to mention sensitive! And obviously his Wikipedia article could reflect that overwhelmingly, which would outweigh other aspects of his life. I can imagine the article he would have written on film Idiocracy in which everyone gets really stupid 500 years down the road. :-) CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 15:12, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

My indent error on my 15:07 29 May post in the "Bad Article" was a doozie. I was reinforcing your response; the "view" I referred to was that in the prior post. I just noticed and fixed it. Sorry! North8000 (talk) 14:48, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Missed it, though looking now probably would be good to say which you you are referring to :-) CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 15:24, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

FYI, I have posted a {{Please see}} re the BLPN on SPECIFICO's talkpage. – S. Rich (talk) 05:16, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I didn't see that we had to do it on BLPN page which just mentioned the article talk page, where I put two. Since I'm banned from his page, only want to do it when explicitly required. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 16:14, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Your repeated article talk page remarks about POV, which are gratuitous, feckless, and antagonistic, amaze me. Everyone – you, I, and he – has a POV, and such POVs tend to skew edits. Well, so what? If the edits need fixing, then fixing the edits or commenting about the edits is appropriate. At the same time, if those particular edits are so abusive, that fact will be evident without your comments regarding any particular editor's POV. Throwing in such observations about editors on article talk pages only obscures the discussion. They are ad hominem, nothing more. And in accordance with

Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Dealing_with_biased_contributors So interpret to me what "publicly means"? This isn't only place I've seen such advice, just one that came up first this time around. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 19:56, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

It seems you have a dilema. You can't post stuff on the editor's talk page and the level of POV editing does not justify a NoticeBoard discussion. (Indeed, I have not seen (or I can't recall) administrative action resulting from any of the Noticeboard postings that you initiated. And the particular editor did not have to defend himself on the postings.) At the same time, you can't make specific remarks about particular editors on the article talk page because doing so violates TPNO. In other words, the FAQ which advises a public remark does not give license to post ad hominem remarks. Well, you are not stuck – some of the

POV-statement}}. Then, with a well-crafted specific remark, justify the tag on the article talkpage. You say "This sentence unduly promotes hedonism (or whatever)." But don't mention who added the specific sentence. – S. Rich (talk

) 21:22, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Dealing_with_biased_contributors (and where ever else I saw it) is yet another page that needs clarification.

I would say I got some useful response on all my postings, even if it was not an overwhelming flood. I actually don't usually tag POV unless there's no other problem, and he's always doing something more obvious. And he doesn't even pay attention to clear issues - or respond to them - like the one I complained about on WP:RSN that another editor agreed with. He really is one of the most insidiously disruptive editors I've run into. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 02:32, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm considering taking

He was taken to

WP:ANI faster and can lead to better results. And the DRN did mention it as an option. RfC user probably won't help.

In either case, I'll add a few specific diffs/issues in exactly the same vein. Would do it myself but have been there too often lately on other issues. NPGuy needs to be contacted too; he and I may have different POV on nuke issues, but he's a reasonable editor. Still waiting to see if thunderstorms will zap my connection and/or the power... CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 05:56, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

There's no rush. I still wouldn't mind seeing if he stops participating in the talk when I stop edit warring with him. Let me know when you want to move things forward.

TippyGoomba (talk

) 01:32, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

We can always think positive thoughts :-) Really frustrated today in general by WP. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 02:04, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I'm ready to take him there. It's obvious nothing productive can happen the talk page, he's totally incomprehensible and ignores discussion totally unless his preferred version of the article is reverted. I'll redraft my post above, adding in my recent interactions with him and possibly a few more older diffs. Are there any diffs you would like to provide before we proceed?

TippyGoomba (talk

) 19:36, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Probably best I add mine directly after you, so it's clear it's a second person. But have to run out now for couple hours. I don't think it matters if he responds first. But will do by 8 PM EST in any case, if you get it up before then. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 19:40, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I saved you a seat

TippyGoomba (talk

) 20:07, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

SOTO

You currently appear to be engaged in an

try to reach a consensus

rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.

This is your only warning. You may not remove valid RS account of Soto's remarks at Moscow. Please read the cited source concerning Soto's Moscow remarks and undo your removal of the validly cited account of Soto's statements. You may use talk to state your views, but you may not remove valid RS content without prior consensus.
SPECIFICO talk 03:13, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Per this diff - There was no 3rr. And one revert of material no one has touched before is not edit warring. So it's really WP:BRD - and you skipped the discussion part, as you so often do. (The past removal by two editors of the Milton Friedman sentence which you did discuss and is now at WP:BLP is not related to this edit.) Please read policy more carefully.

Moreover, if one believes a newer source is more accurate in WP:BLP it's a perfectly fine edit. Now I have put back your explicit mention of remarks in Moscow despite it being less credible. See edit. If you remove a second time accurate info that makes it clear what his views are now (whatever they were in 2001), you are in an edit war.

Also see removing or putting back material that is in line with BLP policy, including regarding

Wikipedia:BLP#Balance

of positive material and criticism.

Also note per various edits of yours, quoting

WP:BRD, "If one skips the Discussion part, then restoring one's edit is a hostile act of edit warring and is not only uncollaborative, but could incur sanctions, such as a temporary block." And I've noted several cases on several articles where you have done problematic edits of materials others have reverted without bothering to respond on the talk page. I've also commented on this on talk pages, regarding policy quoted above; next time I'll quote it on the article talk page too. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie

🗽 03:18, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the

No recent comments have been posted at WP:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Repeated_POV_soapboxing. Indeed, there has been no editing by S for 2 weeks. Suggest you tag the Noticeboard as {{resolved}}. – S. Rich (talk) 14:52, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Soapboxing is resolved. NPOVN of second section isn't. I'll let it run whatever is the usual course. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 16:40, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, and your feedback regarding the RFC. I particularly appreciate your objectivity in light of the ANI report I made against you recently (which you might not even have put together I suppose!). I'm sure that we will run into each other in the future, and I hope that we can grow into a good working relationship. BTW, Specifico and srich, etc are heavily involved in this debate (opposing), so be prepared for the same issues you have encountered elsewhere. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:14, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me. I'll change my vote... ha ha ha... You do have me curious though and will have to check. Obviously I have a very thick skin or wouldn't have last 25,000 edits over 7 years. :-) CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 17:27, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Warned ya! ;) Gaijin42 (talk) 02:17, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Please don't align me with any particular editor (or POV). My contributions, I believe, are even-handed. If you have a beef with particular edits that I make, be so kind as to address them specifically. – S. Rich (talk) 02:20, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Apologies, I actually do not have a beef with you particularly, nor your edits - just noting the nexus where certain editors interact together tends to cause strife. You are not involved in the gun control article as far as I am aware, but I do see you often interacting (but not necessarily in concert) with specifico, and so your name popped to mind. Thank you for reminding me to

WP:AGF. I have struck your name from above. Gaijin42 (talk

) 02:31, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Give specifico a chance. I've seen them to be a thinker. Even though they are wrong whenever they disagree with me.  :-) North8000 (talk) 02:36, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

FYI, I didn't even notice mentioning of names since too busy wondering what the ANI was, which I didn't find. (Have a feeling it was the canvassing on the Gendergap list?) Obviously better not to talk about others, unless they severely are violating policies and one is trying to figure out what to do. CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 02:39, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it was the gendergap canvass, it was closed before you even responded I believe. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:43, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I confess, when I saw that it closed before I even saw it, I LMAO... :-) CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 02:48, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia.

Please stop your disruptive behaviour. Your behaviour is verging on harassment. Wikipedia prides itself on providing a safe environment for its collaborators, and harassing edits potentially compromise that safe environment. If you continue behaving like this, you may be blocked from editing.

Please stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

You may not continue these behaviors with impunity.
Consider taking a break from editing Wikipedia for reflection.
SPECIFICO talk 03:19, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Not well founded template messages. I suggest, and urge you, to ignore. Simply delete this section. And then follow my suggestion for an

WP:IBAN. – S. Rich (talk

) 03:40, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

That'll teach me to give explicit "generally speaking" frustrated comments, removed at this diff with apologies to User:Goethean who took personal offense. CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 03:43, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Though obviously three warnings is a bit excessive! CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 03:58, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I've made some remarks on SPECIFICO's talk page. They apply to the both of you. – S. Rich (talk) 04:16, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Or some might say all three of us CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 04:53, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, but SPECIFICO ain't sending me any kisses. If only the two of you would exchange some Wikilove. But all I see is . – S. Rich (talk) 05:17, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

OK, what's the main page listing all those Smileys? Sorry if I get more annoyed by people who announce they intend to discredit people and then make all sorts of disruptive edits trying to do so. I'm just a whistleblower at heart and am never happier when I'm publicizing ill deeds of those who refuse to collaborate in happy wiki fashion because they think we are little more than cultish scientologists. per this diff response to this diff. Or am I being too thin skinned? But as Scarlett O'Hara said, tomorrow is another day... CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 05:34, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Jeez Carol! Don't you get it?? Steeletrap has been out of the picture for some time now. Bringing up old edits from an inactive editor is just adding more bullshit to the fire. Cut it out. By implying that current editors are cultist wackos, using this purely ad hominem and inappropriate comparison, is not publicizing "ill deeds". It is an uncivil, non-AGF attack on your part. Stop it. – S. Rich (talk) 05:50, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

The point is he agreed on Scientologists point. And edits with that attitude. And I think it's disruptive. But if you don't want what you consider uncivil talk, why bring up touchy subjects in the first place?? This why if there are to be IBANs they need to be three way. {No Smiley} CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 05:54, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia.

Please stop your disruptive behaviour. Your behaviour is verging on harassment. Wikipedia prides itself on providing a safe environment for its collaborators, and harassing edits potentially compromise that safe environment. If you continue behaving like this, you may be blocked from editing.

Please stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

You may not continue these behaviors with impunity.
Consider taking a break from editing Wikipedia for reflection.
SPECIFICO talk 03:19, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Not well founded template messages. I suggest, and urge you, to ignore. Simply delete this section. And then follow my suggestion for an

WP:IBAN. – S. Rich (talk

) 03:40, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

That'll teach me to give explicit "generally speaking" frustrated comments, removed at this diff with apologies to User:Goethean who took personal offense. CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 03:43, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Though obviously three warnings is a bit excessive! CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 03:58, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I've made some remarks on SPECIFICO's talk page. They apply to the both of you. – S. Rich (talk) 04:16, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Or some might say all three of us CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 04:53, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, but SPECIFICO ain't sending me any kisses. If only the two of you would exchange some Wikilove. But all I see is . – S. Rich (talk) 05:17, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

OK, what's the main page listing all those Smileys? Sorry if I get more annoyed by people who announce they intend to discredit people and then make all sorts of disruptive edits trying to do so. I'm just a whistleblower at heart and am never happier when I'm publicizing ill deeds of those who refuse to collaborate in happy wiki fashion because they think we are little more than cultish scientologists. per this diff response to this diff. Or am I being too thin skinned? But as Scarlett O'Hara said, tomorrow is another day... CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 05:34, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Jeez Carol! Don't you get it?? Steeletrap has been out of the picture for some time now. Bringing up old edits from an inactive editor is just adding more bullshit to the fire. Cut it out. By implying that current editors are cultist wackos, using this purely ad hominem and inappropriate comparison, is not publicizing "ill deeds". It is an uncivil, non-AGF attack on your part. Stop it. – S. Rich (talk) 05:50, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

The point is he agreed on Scientologists point. And edits with that attitude. And I think it's disruptive. But if you don't want what you consider uncivil talk, why bring up touchy subjects in the first place?? This why if there are to be IBANs they need to be three way. {No Smiley} CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 05:54, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive behaviour. Your behaviour is verging on harassment. Wikipedia prides itself on providing a safe environment for its collaborators, and harassing edits, such as the one you made to WP:No_original_research/Noticeboard#WP:OR.2FSynth_argumentation_in_biography, potentially compromise that safe environment. If you continue behaving like this, you may be blocked from editing.
SPECIFICO talk 17:24, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

At this diff: Frankly I've seen blunter language taken to ANI and gotten held up. See also Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Dealing_with_biased_contributors.

Rewritten to make the point that if you would give a policy based argument maybe this would be over. Refusal to discuss issues when two editors make a point is in itself disruptive. (And LawrenceKhoo hasn't bothered to respond either.) The discuss in BRD is to stop people from getting ticked off and is what collaboration is all about. Refusal is edit warring. Maybe I need to leave that on your talk page. But trying to be more constructive. CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 17:31, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Please read the source. Not synth. Skousan is making the connection in the cited source. Please replace the text you deleted. Do not revert properly sourced content. Thx. SPECIFICO talk 03:01, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Again, you make a false accusation. This is part of the whole ongoing discussion of WP:OR which two editors have objected to. In the past I corrected the Skousen quote which was totally inaccurate per the source. See talk discussion. I also objected to the new Skousen WP:OR and tagged it.

However, I reverted it for the first time yesterday here because you added even more absurd WP:OR re: Salamanca school. If you and LawrenceKhoo really believed you were in the right you would have defended your position at WP:BLPN and WP:ORN. But he ignored the notices put on this talk page (since he doesn't participate in the article talk page) and at notice boards you only came up with disruptive issues which editors at Editor's Assistance already told you were irrelevant. And continued WP:Disruptive editing on this and other articles. This is your second false charge. See User_talk:Carolmooredc/Archive_VIII#SOTO. I think I've given you more than enough warnings on all of this at this point. CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 17:19, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.

Use talk. Simple way to have the world know your concerns without disrupting the improvement of the article. You should be confident you know what is said in the cited sources before you state your view. For example, which source says that Murray is more notable as an economist than as the progenitor of the anarcho-capitalist school of thought, American right-libertarianism, and the Mises Institue. Please give a careful read to the policy. "even if you believe your view is correct..." You may not edit war. SPECIFICO talk 18:36, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Re this diff Wholesale reversion of something you, Specifico, know darn well is controversial is what is edit warring. CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 18:46, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Please review applicable policy and guidance. Please read each of the cited sources. Avoid SYNTH reasoning. BTW, 4 editors agree on the anarcho-capital thing and one lonely you disagree. Lew Rockwell didn't eulogize MR as an economist, in fact who did? He was notable as a political theorist, controversialist, and organizer of minds and men as the Founder of Right Libertarianism. RS: Rockwell. Please undo your ew and contribute additional sources if you wish to contend MR is more notable in economics than political theory. SPECIFICO talk 18:52, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

BTW, FYI, knowing Murray-- he would not have been pleased to be called an 'economist' before a political philosopher, though he would be pleased that I noted his association with Mises in the lede. SPECIFICO talk 19:15, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't know who two of these four alleged editors are or what their reasoning is. And these last two entries belong on the talk page. CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 19:47, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

The fact that you're not familiar with the edit history and do not recall the comments of other editors suggests this would be a good time to review all relevant article, talk page, and source materials relevant to your revert. In the meantime, please undo your edit-war revert and feel free to copy conten-related text to the article talk page. I will not comment further in this thread here. Please review the warnings. SPECIFICO talk 20:20, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

This is a warning, do not clutter up the RfC at Rothbard with personal remarks or other off topic content. The Ives example was cited to refute your contention that the lede must call a person by the occupation by which the person earns a living. It has nothing to do with OR. Please undo your off-topic remark. SPECIFICO talk 19:52, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

RE; this diff. Whether comments are based on policy positions or just personal opinion or even bias is the essence of such discussions. Please see WP:V and WP:RS. CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 02:33, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Hope life is going well in the land of Wikipedia.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:02, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello back. Doing fine! See you recently got a featured article. Excellent! User:Carolmooredc 23:47, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks for the notice. After the multiple bogus edit war warnings and wikihounding, yeah, I am very interested. --Abel (talk) 14:06, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Bad week to do an on SPECIFICO with people vacationing etc. and the issue being complicated. But already had one issue go stale, so thought I better do it anyway. Wikipedia doesn't seem to be able to deal with complicated issues any more and a lot of things that used to get responses don't. Editor drop off really taking its toll. Or maybe they all hate one faction of Austrian libertarian types :-( Among other theories. Frustrating. CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 15:52, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Given that trashing of BLPs is not a big issue anymore, I do believe that Wikipedia eventually could face a class action lawsuit charging Wikipedia Foundation malfeasance if some creepy-assed lawyers ever decided to put one together with 30 or 40 aggrieved subjects of bios. All they have to do is search throughout the BLP policy, BLPN and its header, ANI and other relevant pages and they could do a real big case based on copious written evidence.

At least I've figured out what my favorite Wikimedia essay is. User:Carolmooredc 12:10, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

The guidance for

I am asking in BLP issue where is best place to post. This is not a request for closure. I'll specify this. User:Carolmooredc 16:46, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

The notice board talk pages are best used for discussions about noticeboard procedures, improvements, wording, and the like. They are not "help pages" in which you ask for guidance. Your comments basically say "I'm not sure if I should post something on this notice board or if I should do so on that notice board." How about this -- you might post {{

help}} on this page. As I understand it, lots of experienced editors patrol the help index and respond. (I offer this as a sincere suggestion.) Thanks. – S. Rich (talk

) 17:00, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I read such policy talk pages were for guidance as well, which often helps show what needs to be added to a policy page, and thus posted there. I won't bother to find the exact reference to that somewhere on some "policy talk pages" page. User:Carolmooredc 17:02, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

If you can't remember what edits have been reverted, go to my edit history and figure it out. (In other words, don't make vague, unsubstantiated accusations!) Besides being off-topic as to the RfC issue, your comment insinuates that I don't know what is proper procedure or policy. That is hardly the case. In fact, in this particular RfC, I am trying to resolve the BLP problems in the North article. Read the discussion above and you will see that I am trying to get rid of the OR posted by editors who have an axe to grind. Please remove your post on the RfC threaded discussion. – S. Rich (talk) 17:17, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

CORRECTION -- It looks like I misread your comment about BLP reverts. You were referring to Steele. In any event, such comments about Steele's editing history are off-topic. In this regard they are PA because they do not advance the discussion at hand. Please remove the entire post, including what you addressed to me. – S. Rich (talk) 17:25, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I guess I forgot to save this 1/2 hour ago, so I'll try again. Please do not post anything but official notices on my talk page. (And I assume they will not be frivolous ones.) I experience your constant chiding me to behave as you think I should as to be harassment, even if you are right 1/3 of the time. If you have a complaint or others do they can make official ones, or do it on the article talk page. Thank you. User:Carolmooredc 18:42, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

see: here. Steeletrap (talk) 19:40, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Ah, if only.... User:Carolmooredc 06:21, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for diff. As I clarified to the closing editor here: My saying "Best to stay away from BLPs until whatever doesn't tick me off so much. Also I was not the one objecting to keepng it open, though it was getting rather tiresome.

Best ANI yet on the topic of biased editing and brought a lot of people to bios needing attention.

No response please, you are still banned from my talk page except for official notices, per the relevant ANI last month or two ago. User:Carolmooredc 19:19, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

To begin with, I'm not sure who your talk page ban extends to, so if I'm posting here contrary to a specific instruction then I should say I'm unaware of it and my note here is amoral in that regard. Beyond that, thank you very much for the kitten. I'm not really a "cat person" I suppose, but I can appreciate cute things designed to lighten the mood.

I also wanted to apologise, in a manner of speaking, for the ANI stuff in general. I thought (and I said so at the time) that your "original" complaints against SPECIFICO and Steeletrap related to things that hadn't really reached the level that required administrator intervention. Likewise, in this instance, Steeletrap probably "went off half cocked", though he had a point about some of the comments. To be perfectly frank, I've been a bit perplexed by everyone's eagerness to run off to ANI as soon as a content dispute gets a bit bogged down and ad-hom stuff starts to creep in (which is the way I described it there). I'm not an economist (ha ha, yes, definitely my line) but I understand the POV and passion that people bring to the subject. But after God knows how many noticeboard threads, I can't see why everyone seems to think "it will be different this time".

On a personal note (if I might give some completely unsolicited advice) - please be careful to read diffs and discussions and perhaps read them 2 or 3 times, especially if things are getting heated. The issue that finally prompted me to join the ANI discussion could have easily been prevented had you carefully read the diff in question and realised that the quote you were attributing to someone else was actually mine (though I would also note that the qualifications I do have are completely irrelevant here, as are yours and Steeletrap's). Case in point is this edit where it seems you misread something I wrote and wound up professing support for something that both on the North talk page and the Geller talk page had been rejected by most of those involved, and something you previous railed against. I'm inclined to think it's more a matter of trying to rapid-fire replies to multiple threads in multiple places and not having time to read into the context of previous discussion. So its probably just a matter of being a bit more careful.

I've made no secret of the fact that despite coming to this subject area with zero prior knowledge, I've since come to the opinion that much of the Austrian/LvMI stuff here on WP amounts to a very insular (though large)

The talk page ban is for 3 people who kept coming here leaving me nitpicking (1) or hounding messages (2). I think the ANI vs. Specifico for leaving me so many questionable notices in a few days (after I left him a notice that following me to 4 different pages he hadn't edited before and reverting or commenting on me, all in less than thirty hours, was wikihounding) was justified and was going well til he finally showed up and made a bunch of accusations with little or no diffs at all. You can see how discouraging that might be.

You are right I did misread as I replied to you. (When one is replying to rapid fire if ridiculous attack on ANI, never knowing when some admin will block you (even if it would be a relief!!) you may be a little sloppy.) However, as I said, it did not change the impression given my one huge diff and many other statements that Steeletrap was getting his masters in economics and thus considered self an expert whose views had greater weight.

First, walled garden is an essay. And the lead seems to be more concerned about "This can be a failure of linkage, or it can be an attempt to form a group of articles on essentially the same topic." So 14 articles on aspects of Austrian economics that should be merged into 2 or 3 articles would be a walled garden.

However, WP:RS is the policy and walled garden can't be used to exclude credible WP:RS economists and authors as WP:RS just because they knew or admired an individual or held a certain view). (Steeletrap got shot down when he tried to assert this one on Murray Rothbard.]

But I'm all for a variety of sources myself. And editors have been lazy. Why search deep into bowels of books google when there's so much from reliable sources on Mises and Cato and LewRockwell.com? But properly searching books.google does bring up a lot of material. But someone has got to do the work. The critics don't want to unless it's adding stuff saying or inferring they were incompetent or a bigot. Very problematic on BLPS and Bios of dead people as well.

I've never complained about tagging or immediately removing primary source material if it's just redundant/irrelevant/etc. The problem is removing properly source neutral or positive material even from totally neutral/academic/non-affiliated WP:RS that makes the person look credible, while adding negative material from less credible sources. With coming up with insulting section headers like [corrected later per complaint "Alleged Advocacy of Anti-Gay Violence" ] which was a totally WP:OR interpretation of two sources which ended up at ANI because steeletrap was pissed I pointed out this was a libelous statement. Ridiculous.

And it goes on, and on until editors get disgusted and leave. If ten editors came to a page, opined something they were doing was totally against policy, and moved on, within 36 hours all the same material would be back in. The fact that I have bothered to complain about or question it on various policy boards (

even Srich has done so

) is the reason I get hounded. (Steeletrap recently followed me to a minor bio and asked if it was notable, his first step to an AfD - though all of his have failed so far.) I did go away like a good girl for a few weeks because I do have better things to do than fight with these people. But I really can't see them trash Murray Rothbard and downgrade him from a professional economist (they took that out of the lead til I put it back) to a mere pundit. A couple other editors have come to talk page and said that as result of the ANI.

The newest thing is claiming that 3rr is irrelevant and Steeletrap can revert back to his biased section headers because it's under "discussion"?? It's absurd. Talk:Gary_North_(economist)#Edit_war I again quit the article but I went to Talk:3rr to see if that's some new exception or they'll be violating 3rr on every article on that basis in no time. OI!!!

Enough. Don't want to get the blood pressure up. User:Carolmooredc 12:31, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes,

WP:WALLED

is an essay, but it actually helps to consider it in that context - a short essay that provides general guidance on "a group of articles on essentially the same topic". The BLPs in question are essentially the same topic (or at least "topic area") being fellows of the LvMI and their colleagues. You'll note I haven't cited that essay as a reason to consolidate articles or delete or redirect articles - quite the opposite. I've done so to encourage people to add secondary reliable sources. But I've also encouraged people to question the independence of certain sources from certain other people. I would also do so in the context of a large college, for example. Obviously when talking about the views of an academic from UC Berkley, it would be best to have sources from non-UC campuses/academics. Obviously there are going to be instances where something might be location-specific or unique to a UC program and so only UC people will be in a position to comment. The same goes for LvMI people.

The problem with the "reliable sources on Mises and Cato and LewRockwell.com" is that our own definition of what makes a

WP:WALLED

to "exclude" sources, that is a question of whether or not the sources are "reliable sources" in the first place. In the strictest sense, some might fail, others would be questionable. How can a source on LewRockwell.com be truly independent of a subject who is a regular contributor to that same site. How can an article published by the LvMI be truly independent of a subject who is a fellow of that institute. Of course we rely on the ethics of editorial independence and I've never suggested the editors of those sources are unethical. But where independent reliable sources are available, we should use them. And where an article is supported only by related or "non-independent" sources, editors are right to question those.

On Hoppe, the section headers suggested were simply not "libellous" and I really don't understand the logic of that suggestion. POV, maybe. Agenda-pushing, possibly. Not necessarily ideal, of course. But it helps nobody to mix those terms up with a well-defined legal term. If Hoppe has advocated using violence against homosexual people (which his own language suggests he has) then it's not "libellous" to suggest that "Hoppe advocates using violence against gays". That doesn't mean we can't find a better alternative for a section header but claiming other editors are "libelling" or "defaming" a subject because they paraphrase the subject's own quotes isn't a helpful contribution to that discussion.

As I said in my first comment, these are fairly mundane policy discussions and people are getting way too emotionally invested. Now the suggestion that people are "insulting" the subjects of articles like it's a stand-up argument in a bar somewhere. You'll always respond emotionally if you invest yourself in the defence of someone you don't know and get offended on their behalf. That's just not healthy. Stalwart111 03:40, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

My main issue is NOT an opposition to people pointing out that totally outside sources are needed. It's to inserting libelous content with bad refs or fanatical partisans who practice constant

WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT on relevant policies giving minor issues of interest. (Remember most of my activity until last couple months is dealing with attacks on individuals who make even one small criticism of the state of Israel, not to mention people like UN's Richard Falk. It's a never ending battle. I've had to unwatch most of it for now.) Unfortunately it has been the focus of probably 1/2 my Wikipedia editing over the years. If the Wikimedia Foundation could get around the alleged legal impediments to its getting some sort of personnel into wikipedia to deal with the worst offenses it would be a big help. User:Carolmooredc

14:52, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Sure, but if they did put personnel in place to "deal with the worst" examples, do you really think these would be those? At this stage there hasn't even been enough to substantiate the need for action by internal administrators. Do you really think "external" personnel would concentrate on stuff like this? (I'd be inclined to think, for example, that the Israel-Palestine stuff would be a more appropriate place to start, if nothing else). The problem is that many of these BLPs were seemingly created to be promotional (some by the subjects themselves or their staff/supporters - we know this because they have openly and honestly declared their involvement) and many of the issues are content disputes. You contend that some of the content added violates policy. That's fine - that should be discussed - but it really is still a matter for discussion, in my view. And again, I just do not get the "libel" stuff when we're talking about quoting the subjects themselves. Stalwart111 02:14, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm talking about BLPs in general. I've seen enough crazy stuff on BLPN to know it's a problem that doubtless annoys and discourages a lot of editors. Plus it is the one area (besides kiddie porn) where Wikipedia Foundation tends to pay attention. But whatever. The real bottom line is getting enough editors to say enough times on each problematic article that there is a problem with the edits or to revert them. Learning to do that is important. User:Carolmooredc 03:01, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but to get people to say the edits are problematic, you have to first convince them they are problematic. I, for one, have not yet been convinced that the edits are sufficiently problematic to warrant a warning or talk page vitriol, let alone ANI. Certainly not in the context of a much-needed clean-up effort. As I said, I also wasn't convinced that your edits were sufficiently problematic enough to warrant a warning or ANI either. As far as I'm concerned, the message should have been the same to all - "be nice". I believe the articles are problematic and the group of articles in which they sit collectively have problems too. I have a problem with some of the edits (like some of the cherry-picked quotes, some of the additional commentary and some of the sub-headings) and have said so. But that's a matter of discussing why the edits are problematic and how they might be changed to meet policy/avoid policy breaches. The constant referrals to various noticeboards (while it might seem like a good idea) are just splitting conversations into tiny sections where nothing is being resolved and everyone comes away with no clear direction except to "maintain the range". It's very frustrating and you'll start to lose those editors who have helped advocate for a gentle polish here and there rather than a pressure wash. Stalwart111 07:57, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I guess it is difficult for editors who have not seen a) the ridiculing general statements against the general category of BLPs of which a BLP is one example; b) the most outrageous incidents ("Hoppe advocates violence against gays" section header) and c) lesser versions of the same issues with the exact same rationales by editors with a strong POV on article after article after article (not to mention the wikihounding in its various forms). Plus, when 2-3-4 outside editors have come in and opined that something is very problematic, a week later after they're gone, it's revert to the practically same thing. Sigh... Of course, the best thing to do perhaps is to ignore them til they sufficiently annoy a couple heavy weight editors/admins with more credibility than a mere... whatever... and then NPOV editors can go into all those articles, look at last six months diffs, remove all the crap and put back all the properly sourced positive material that was lost... The sunshine after the storm...User:Carolmooredc 12:32, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Murray Rothbard, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.

Hi, Carol. I'm sorry, I realize it must be a little unexpected, but you may be interested in the important debate that has erupted on my talkpage about an edit you made nine months ago. Well, anyway, you may want to know about it. Here. Regards, Bishonen | talk 12:23, 25 August 2013 (UTC).

I've unwatched the Rothbard article. It's just too painful to watch the back and forth. Keep up the good (NPOV) work. cheers, --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:16, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I've had to do the same thing with a number of articles because just can't spend all my life fighting POV pushers on so many articles. Either Wikipedia is too broken to fix it or we have to wait till some one with great ANI-writing skills and a heavy duty admin are sufficiently ticked to sanction the behavior. Eventually it will happen. User:Carolmooredc 13:20, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

He has said he has a PhD and has published in academic journals. Also referred to himself as a retired businessman (as I recall). He is not working towards a degree. You might make that minor correction to your posting. I do not think Binksternet is libertarian at all. He has, though, defended the Wiki quite admirably. Otherwise Hear, hear! I'd post my own list of diffs, but sadly it would be much, much TLDR and only get lost in the thread. You and some of the other editors have given the community enough to chew on. – S. Rich (talk) 05:55, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Clarified one point, Binksternet clarified other. If there's anything particularly egregious I missed, can't hurt to add your own short note. Not that such lists have helped much in the past. Not when ad hominen attacks as replies work so well.

Big question: should I try to notify some of the neutral/non-involved editors who drpped by, left some good comments, and given up in frustration or just wait til there's a complaint - preferably by noninvolved admin - going somewhere. I think it's absurd to go to ArbCom when the bias issues so egregious, but if it works....!!

Of course, if they deal with these editors, I might have to start editing again to clean up the messes they've made. Sigh... When I'm finally gearing up to work on own stuff after various health/other work delays... User:Carolmooredc 12:17, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I made this posting (1) in relation to the Volokh Conspiracy source, and thought you might be interested in commenting. Steeletrap (talk) 18:00, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Carol, thank you for archiving the first BHL pot. Your other post regarding BHL should also be archived, because the Levy source has been deleted from the article (I was able to delete it because I found material making the same point Levy did -- about the paleo-libertarian attempt at "fusion" -- from the indisputably reliable Reason RS). I ask you to archive it because you are the OP, and I don't want to run roughshod over you.

Incidentally, thank you for posting the Callahan and Ferrara RSN; I look forward to the resolution of those discussions. Steeletrap (talk) 00:15, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Srich is correct in their latest comment at ANI. There seems to be a tendency for you and Steeletrap to drift way off topic. I realise that it might be frustrating whens someone brings up something that happened 2.5 years ago but it is unlikely to affect any outcome now or to attract any administrative action. One reply in rebuttal would probably have sufficed. Similarly, Steeletrap is flogging a dead horse in raising the matter. I'm hoping that Steeletrap sees this because I'm becoming very confused regarding which talk pages I am recently been banned from and so dare not write there! As an aside, I am slightly alarmed that you seem to have been a political activist - you are going to have to be careful how you edit.

I have not intention of getting into a discussion about this note: take it or leave it. I'd also suggest that you don't get sucked into continuing such a discussion here or on, say, Steeltrap's talk page - it will just piss people off. - Sitush (talk) 05:51, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't expect you to reply and will archive this soon. But for the record: my second reply made the point that I had successfully brought him to ANI before for harassment, which is all he was engaging in, bringing up edits from the 2006-2007 period. Note such behavior at an ANI could lead to sanctions for that editor. Steeletrap is banned here and hopefully will remember without my having to remind him again. Just avoid his talk page and you'll be a happier individual. There are many political activists and advocates on WP; some make it their main activism outlet. I actually haven't been active as far as organizing since 2007 since I got fed up with the sexism in peace groups; barely any libertarian activism except opining on message boards, blogs, etc. for almost 10 years. What matters is, is the editing disruptive and against policy, which I don't think mine is. If you do, take me to a noticeboard. User:Carolmooredc 14:00, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.

Your repeated references to @Steeletrap: with the masculine pronoun constitute a personal attack and are unacceptable on Wikipedia. You are well aware from past discussions that Steeletrap is a woman. Moreover, as I believe that she has stated to you her particular sensitivity to being denigrated for her transgender status. I have long been concerned about gender bias within libertarian community and I must also tell you that I and thousands of others within the movement consider any misogynist or anti-transgender slur to be personally offensive. Please strike your references to Steeletrap in the masculine gender and replace with the feminine forms. SPECIFICO talk 15:11, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Carolmooredc, I suggest you

ignore this nonsense. Steeletrap posted the specific gender identification yesterday [13]. Until then it was a transgender userbox, which could be male→female or female→male. But I am amazed that the use of a pronoun becomes a basis for an NPA complaint? The "he" could not have been a typo from omitting the "s"? A little AGF would be in order rather than extending a "concern about gender bias" in a community to the actions of a particular WP editor. – S. Rich (talk

) 15:23, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

There have been several discussions among Carol, Srich and Steeletrap about the latters transgender status and carolmooredc's denigration of this. The infobox has nothing to do with this. Srich, please explain how a "typo" occurs several times and in one short paragraph -- and how would that apply to "his" for "her" ? SPECIFICO talk 15:28, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

As usual SPECIFICO makes false charges without diffs. (A whole Rfc/User could be done on that.)

This is the same SPECIFICO who here was so insensitive to my concerns about Sexism in April. Actually, sexism tends to be tolerated on Wikipedia, as we Wikiwomen have discussed in multiple forums.

Why Specifico is suddenly so sensitive to alleged dissing of someone who has only hinted at their transgender identify as an M-t-F until, user SRich helpfully pointed out, Yesterday [14], I can't imagine. (Steeletrap's comments supporting Wikipedia downplaying Bill Clinton's sexual attacks on women as a mere public image problem by their proclaiming being a proud woman could mean they are a proud female now who intends to be a proud male later, or vice versa.) Now that I know what they allege they are, I'll be careful in my use of pronouns for them.

However, there's a WikiPolicy that people have to accept what anonymous editors say they are, sex or gender wise. Nor is there a law (except perhaps the one that probably will be repealed by voter referendum in California.) We can still use our own personal criteria of who we consider what sex or gender, as far as I know on Wikipedia and in the larger world. Please notify me when that Wiki policy or DC or national law has been passed. Meanwhile, don't harass me with what looks to me like double standard political correctness. User:Carolmooredc 15:43, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

The diff to your attack at ANI is directly below the warning template above. The diff to proof that you were aware of the issue and of User:Steeletrap's gender is here: [15] User Srich also follows the Hoppe page and other talk pages in which Steeletrap has discussed her gender and sensitivity, so we may reasonably infer that he he knew that when he wrote his surprising denial above. SPECIFICO talk 16:08, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[insert] For any reader of this page who may not have seen this, here's information about another link: [16] SPECIFICO talk 17:50, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

That's a link to a section, not a diff. I assume you refer to my legitimate comment about perceived pro-LGBT bias and your false accusation that I said something entirely different denigrating other classes of people. Bring it to ANI, but don't post here any more on this topic. It's just harassment, which I have had to bring you to ANI about before. User:Carolmooredc 16:15, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Question Carol, you claim that you didn't know about my being a woman and haven't made a personal attack on me for my sexual orientation. Can you both please explain, then, why specifically you linked to

I don't have to remind you two again you are banned from contacting/harassing me on my talk page except for any brief official notice? I've brought it (Steeletrap's ban; SPECIFICO's harassment) up at ANI before. The link SPECIFICO added later is to User:Steeletrap's harassment. By the way, I've doubtless called Steeletrap "he" since the October 1 section discussion above (which did not specify if it's a her who wants to become him or him who wants to become her). No one's complained until there's an ANI where their buddy may be removed from supporting them in the topic area. User:Carolmooredc 18:12, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I've left a note about your alleged "personal connection" to Murray Rothbard here.. Steeletrap (talk) 18:00, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Response_from_Carolmooredc my response ending with my opinion you should be sanctioned for this kind of harassment. User:Carolmooredc talk 19:49, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Please remove the comment about MM in this edit [17]. While true, it is not helpful in terms of article improvement or moving the talk page along. Yes, the MM issue is resolved with regard to LvMI; but, instead of simply going forward and removing the improper stuff, I'm giving the warriors another chance to state their case. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 04:04, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

He's been banned and other editors have a right to know about it. I didn't say anything to stop them from saying anything. User:Carolmooredc talk 04:45, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

You didn't have to do this. All you had to do was reply with "See my comments in the section above". Sections are useful things but creating/inserting them to make a point seems to be a tendency on AE-related articles and it won't win you any friends among uninvolved contributors. Someone else - Specifico? - got a ticking off for doing a similar thing in one of the recent ANI threads. Just a heads-up. - Sitush (talk) 10:16, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I thought I'd get in trouble for moving it up and it seemed a way to get attention. Anyway, among this group this has had to be done a few times since they keep starting new sections on same topic and one has to keep moving them up - to no complaints. It's a way to keep in bad edits by prolonging discussion ad nauseum. User:Carolmooredc talk 17:03, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

That is one interpretation, sure, although there was also no need to worry about getting into "trouble for moving it up" because there was no need to do that either. Another person might consider what you did to be refactoring with a

WP:POINT-y intent. I'm not pasisng a judgement on your rationale and cannot read your mind but I can probably count on the fingers of one hand the number of times that I've had to do what you did, and I operate generally in an area that is subject to far, far, more controversy/heated debate and more often than not involves contributors who really do not understand how Wikipedia operates.

I'll be honest, Carole, I'm a bit surprised to see so many people involved in the AE issue who seem to have been around for a while but who have not grasped a lot of the basics. Perhaps it is because they concentrate on such a small subset of our content and those who are involved have evolved to the point almost of having their own rules of conversation etc, although, oddly, they're keen to cite the more widely accepted policy/guidelines when it suits them! Another example of this is the bizarre use of "[indent]" that seems common in AE talk page discussions but has never been seen by me anywhere else. It is very odd. - Sitush (talk

) 00:20, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant "[insert]" above. Please don;t think that I am having a go at you: I'm fair-minded and tend to have a go at everyone! - Sitush (talk) 00:27, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I did far too much work in the Israel-Palestine area, much of it BLP violations on articles, and was finally retiring myself when this concerted editing against certain Austrian economist started. Most of the issues remain focused on problematic entries or removals by certain editors that the rest of us keep fighting over. I've done a lot of research and have lots of material I could put in several articles, but as long as everything is a massive fight, I won't even bother.

I've seen insert in talk pages in the past and actually found insert under talk page guidelines or something just recently, pointing it out to someone. Now all I see there is html for insert that underlines it. That won't be clear to most people. What's more annoying are the unnecessary interruptions to push a POV without any evidence of a need for it or that its an insert. Stay in for another couple months and you'll get even more... well, I will not try to guess you mindset User:Carolmooredc talk 01:25, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I do not think the

OK, I responded to you as well as to her. She didn't mention categories and I missed that discussion. I'll look for it. User:Carolmooredc talk 20:36, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Carolmooredc, As you probably know, I've been watching the disputes at LVMI/Rothbart/etc., and I've been trying to get people to treat each other with more respect and to encourage more collaboration. One thing I think would help in this regard is if you kept your comments a little less personal. I was just looking at this edit, and while you are making valid points, the little personal comments (eg. "How many times...before you get that") probably aren't helping very much. I understand the exasperation of talking in endless circles, believe me, but it would still be best if you stayed in the top couple of tiers in the pyramid at the top of your page. I'm asking everybody to make an effort, so I hope you'll do your part. ~

I am frustrated cause I ran into another two pronouncements from an editor about their low opinion about Mises.org people and their proudly announced biases, and I just can't believe people are allowed to edit with such biases. I think I'm on the verge of another sabbatical until I see someone else has brought them to WP:ANI... User:Carolmooredc talk 08:22, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm certainly not trying to chase you away here. Dealing with bias is very tricky, no doubt about it. I don't have an easy solution here, but I think that making things a bit less personal would definitely be a step in the right direction. ~

talk

) 08:27, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I did get your point and you are right (I actually cut a bunch of stuff after got it out of my system; not quite enough). Frankly, I am starting to get into my "madder every minute mood", which is a good time for a break. Just expressing my frustration with people who, IMHO, are just filled with hate, daring to act like they are so self-righteous about hate. Especially since trashing people as bigots is about the only argument statists have any more. I'm surprised Affordable care people haven't started yelling it to defend the big lie about keeping your health care (unless we've made it illegal; oops, did we forget to mention that?) Just joking around. Too much coffee too late in the PM. Dang! To sleep... User:Carolmooredc talk 08:39, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I'm a skeptic on most things but believe some of our treatment of pseudoscience and the fringe is puerile, inappropriate polemic. I've just read Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Rupert Sheldrake is a BLP mess and the Chopra piece. I've been aware of an ongoing dispute on this topic for some time but haven't read the relevant articles or followed any discussions. Are you able to point me to on- or off-wiki discussions and/or news reports of this dispute? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 09:29, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

The first couple of sentences of Rupert Sheldrake are a worry. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 10:41, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm a skeptic too, especially of mainstream ideology that supports the powers that be! Can you say Galileo affair?? So when you see massive attacks on new ideas/hypothesis that are not on their face totally absurd, you can't help wondering where all that anger comes from. I've had a problem for six months with fanatics trying to paint all Austrian economics of a certain persuasion as fringe crackpots, while saying the ones they like are credible. (Not that they've worked on those articles.) They didn't have much luck at fringe noticeboard (why I was there originally) but they did end up getting the whole series of articles under sanctions. Since it's mostly BLPs they've been trashing, it's hard to just walk away. Definitely opine on Sheldrake but it sounds like you need to make a long term commitment to help make it npov. As I said, it's not as bad as other BLPs I've worked on (like in the Israel-Palestine area). CM-DC talk 16:08, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Please stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. I suggest you very carefully review the "bias" link which you have repeatedly cited as justification for your personal attacks on me and other editors. That link does not state that you may falsely impugn the motives of other editors or engage in various personal attacks. I suggest you revert your hostile personal remarks and confine your future comments to content. If you disagree with other editors' views regarding content, please consider this well-known guide to effective disagreement. I cannot recall ever seeing you land anywhere in the upper part of that chart. Your behavior does not foster collaboration, consensus, or compromise, and it is not consistent with the principles of this community. I urge you to accept this message in the constructive spirit in which I offer it and to consider it very carefully. SPECIFICO talk 23:33, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

First, my response here is not an invitation for you to respond here. Just for the record. You are still banned from my talk page for long winded and I feel harassing comments.

Anyway, sounds like you finally read the link Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Dealing_with_biased_contributors. Congratulations.

At this diff I see an the editor agreed that my statement - which he described as an "accusation of inconsistent application of RS norms" - was relevant and not a personal attack. My statement being: Is it my imagination, or the same 3 editors who thought it was ok to use personal blogs to say nasty things about BLPs think that nearly a dozen independent mainstream publications calling someone a historian is not RS? What could possibly be the explanation for such an anomaly? I think you should consider how disruptive you and your friends' POV is to editing. Why else would we have to keep going to noticeboards to get outside opinions that more and more agree with us; opinions you usually ignore. Plus I see you made some edits at

Jesus Huerta de Soto despite long ago consensus about them. I'll list them at talk when I get around to it. User:Carolmooredc talk

02:20, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Seems that the 'MR as an historian' discussion is now back on the MR talkpage. Why? -- I really don't know. The discussion on the RSN was going on quite nicely. Well, to avoid threads bouncing back and forth between an article talkpage and drama board and then back to the article talk page, you might post a {{Moved discussion to}} template. Whether it will serve to keep discussions focused on the issue is anyone's guess. – S. Rich (talk) 05:06, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

That does sometimes happen, but not necessarily with new people. I actually asked today about having an admin close it at bottom of my initial listing. Share thoughts there. Don't really know if good idea or not. User:Carolmooredc talk 05:33, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Was it Gamaliel who posted the compromise "economic historian" proposal? Actually, it is a good idea. But seeing the extended discussion that results makes me wonder. Well, I've tried to post a couple of comments to get the discussion back on track. – S. Rich (talk) 05:42, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I think four or five of the refs use that phrase. You'd have to look at them all to see what's most common. User:Carolmooredc talk 06:04, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for the welcome. I will check that issues you mention. Sageo (talk) 18:12, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Saw your comment on AN, to notify an editor just post something along these lines on their talk. "Please be aware the topic area which cover Austrian economics is under

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Admins_required obviously still has me confused about what mere users can do. So I now only can go by what is on Talk:Austrian_economics/General_sanctions which just mentions admins. {{subst:Austrian economics enforcement}} says "This notice is effective only if given by an uninvolved administrator and logged at WP:AEGS." So I'm not going to do it. Well, at least I told them that I mentioned them specifically there. User:Carolmooredc talk 18:50, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

That ain't right, anyone can give a notification, per the arbitration committee. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:41, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I understand that, just not sure on using {{subst:Austrian economics enforcement}}. User:Carolmooredc talk 01:14, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Starting fresh today decided to review this and see this whole new policy section in WP:Sanctions written by TParis on Nov 16. (Wet noodle for not studying ANI thread enough.) New "Community" section reads: Any editor may make another editor aware of the sanctions and then log the notification. The notification may not be revoked because it is not a warning about editor behavior; it is a warning about general sanctions. Typically, administrators may not impose sanctions unless an editor is made aware of the existence of these sanctions. Any editor may make another editor aware of the sanctions and then log the notification. I don't see anyone objecting on talk page of policy. The problem is that Bbb23 disagrees and won't change Austrian Economics sanctions page, he'll let some other admin do it. So I'll just leave a message on that talk page asking if a) TParis change ok and b) is someone going to change the templates? (cc: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Admins_required) User:Carolmooredc talk 16:57, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

So, you make a snippy comment at

Assuming you mean latest note at RSN. (Fixed Raico with note.) Considering reminding people about the behavior hasn't changed any behavior, you are largely correct, sir. I'll just have to put my energy into a good list of evidence and then after I've been on my best behavior for a while... So I just chopped a bunch off my response to you at WP:RSN, though I think such general comments are relevant. And there are times when Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Dealing_with_biased_contributors comes into play, especially if there are a lot of new editors who need some background. User:Carolmooredc talk 03:01, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

You recently started some RSN discussions using an "involved/uninvolved" layout. I've started a discussion re same here: Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 16:19, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Please sign it. SPECIFICO talk 21:19, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

This is not what I consider an official notice but a minor example of the nitpicking harassment for which you have been banned from the page. Please learn to use {{unsigned|date=November 2013}} Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 21:22, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
You are at 4RR on Thomas DiLorenzo. Please undo your last edit and do not edit war. Use talk and do not disparage other editors. Thanks.

SPECIFICO talk 23:41, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

And where is Steeletrap, with her BLP edits? (She made 9 changes, so let's see you put a warning on her talk page.) You, Specifico, did 11 edits. You might tag your own talk page, especially after putting Lacy Clay's image in the article. Talk about

WP:POINTy behavior. – S. Rich (talk

) 23:58, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Two additions of material (including correction of bad links and tags) and three reverts in 24 hours for clearly stated WP:BLP reasons (revert of WP:POV photo; 2 changes/reverts to questionable allegations from advocacy sources which I asked to be given time to verify, and absurd claim advocacy criticism is "scholarship"), hardly makes edit warring. Please study WP:Revert and do not leave specious warning notices. 15:50, 23 November 2013 (UTC)Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie)

Comment for the record, not to invite comment from SPECIFICO et al who are banned from my talk page:

• 16:03, November 22, 2013? Carolmooredc (talk | contribs)? . . (11,412 bytes) (+34)? . . (neither article nor DiLorenzo calls it neoconfederate and just another POV attack from POV warrior; same as moving to scholarship) (Note: Steeletrap’s reversion was against BRD; BLP implications again discussed at talk page)
• 15:28, November 22, 2013? Carolmooredc (talk | contribs)? . . (10,340 bytes) (+801)? . . (add ref'd material and, update, cleanup refs)
• 14:44, November 22, 2013? Carolmooredc (talk | contribs)? . . (10,182 bytes) (-282)? . . (SPLC not a academic critic of books; move LoSouth stuff down to "controversy" section; remove duplicative and POV/verbose descriptions; need to verify all this since I'm sure DiLorenzo has said more in self defense against a profitable advocacy group) (Note: BLP implications again discussed at talk page)
• 14:00, November 22, 2013? Carolmooredc (talk | contribs)? . . (10,651 bytes) (+27)? . . ({{POV|date=November 2013}} Undue and Spooner talk sections already discuss some reasons; so needs tags til more NPOV info added and WP:Undue removed)
• 12:56, November 22, 2013? Carolmooredc (talk | contribs)? . . (10,609 bytes) (-86)? . . (Undid revision 582835058 by SPECIFICO (talk)absurd and POV use of a photo in a BLP; talk about WP:Undue)

You currently appear to be engaged in an

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.

You are at 3RR on DiLorenzo. Please note. SPECIFICO talk 22:27, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

A second 3RR warning in less than 24 hours. Wow, I wonder what the diffs are for these 6+ reverts. Feel free to post them on my talk page if you like (or use the

WP:3RRNB). – S. Rich (talk

) 22:36, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Just more SPECIFICO harassment, in addition to other one I removed today. Maybe if I take to WP:ANI this time they'll take it more seriously. But have better things to do for now. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 23:08, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Carol, you've done it again at the latest RSN thread. Do it again and you'll be well within scope of a topic ban for

Thanks for advice. I guess unrelenting coordinated attacks by POV warriors is disruptive editing, and there are more than enough diffs to prove it since sanctions were lowered. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 00:29, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. - Sitush (talk) 01:27, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

As a result of a community discussion, the community has enacted

• Any uninvolved administrator may, at his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working on a page within the topic of
  Austrian economics
  , if, despite being notified of these restrictions, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standard of behavior, or any normal editorial process.
• The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length, bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict, bans on any editing related to the topic, restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors, or any other measures that the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
• Prior to any sanction being imposed, the editor shall be given a warning with a link to the community discussion and, when appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.
• Sanctions imposed may be appealed to the imposing administrator or at the appropriate
  administrators' noticeboard
  .

These editing restrictions may be applied to any editor, provided the editor has been previously informed as this message does. This notice does not necessarily mean your current editing has been deemed a problem; this is a template message crafted to make it easier to notify any user who has edited the topic of the existence of these sanctions.

Generally, the next step, if an administrator feels your conduct on pages in this topic area is disruptive, would be a warning, to be followed by the imposition of sanctions (although the warning may be omitted). Hopefully no such action will be necessary.

This notice will be logged at WP:AEGS.

I know you're already aware of this, but I felt that procedurally you should be technically notified since everyone else has been. This is a general notification, not one given in response to misconduct. Feel free to remove it. Mark Arsten (talk) 06:35, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Can you provide a more specific section to the ANI discussion thread. It would be helpful. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 19:42, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I thought I did. Explain. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:46, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Reply:Frustrating issues in Austrian economics community sanctions area would help the notifyees zero in. – S. Rich (talk) 19:57, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh. That's the template that I always get. I'm sure they'll figure it out. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 23:29, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

As I read the P-I sanctions page, it seems to apply to articles. Unless I'm missing something, I do not see how it applies to noticeboards or editor-editor interaction. Unless there is something specific in the sanctions, I suggest you remove the comment from S's talk page. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 19:18, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

It includes incivility in any forum. Looking at Arbitration page, I think any warning is considered acceptable but put that just in case. I can easily find a couple warnings on WP:ARBPIA to SPECIFICO (and or Steeletrap) on article talk pages when it was brought up as a slur to discredit my editing in Austrian Economics. And this is just an extension of those discussions. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:26, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

The Decorum section refers to civility, etc. – but such principles apply in all forums. I think it is a stretch to say "Editor X mention P-I on this talk page/notice board, therefore the P-I sanctions should apply." When Steele brought up P-I, I responded about how it is off-topic. I hoped it would be enough. In general, for all of us, I'm thinking more and more that

WP:DENY is the best tactic. As much as you wish to defend yourself, WP:Don't take the bait. – S. Rich (talk

) 19:41, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

They are in the wrong for forcing me to defend myself for off wiki comments - the same ones which were discussed years ago on wikipedia. There's a different between subtly trying to bait someone and an all out attack. One must defend self from latter because people tend to remember only the allegations of the attack unless the facts are made known.Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:45, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, they are wrong. But nobody forced you to defend yourself on the ANI. You felt the need to defend yourself. Please note that I reverted the edit and another editor repeated the revert with a "Hell no" comment. I posted a warning and I posted the ANI thread. Thus someone had come to your defense. Note that OP did not do himself any favors by reverting my own ANI comment or by calling the ANI posting "specious". Well, now two other editors have spoken up and asked for an admin to act. The other thread, opened by Sitush, is about the tangential remarks that we see. (I had hoped that RFC/U might be an alternative to the drama page.) Again, I think the best tactic, the best strategy, is to

WP:IAD as best you can. – S. Rich (talk

) 23:19, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

It is your imagination. The ANI on Specifico is resolved. I stuck up for you in that matter, and now I ask you to leave the curtain closed. If you'd like an opinion on whether to open another ANI on another topic, why don't you contact someone on their talk page. – S. Rich (talk) 17:37, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

User_talk:NuclearWarfare#The_rest_of_it. Asked if I should do an ANI on Steeletrap. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:44, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Brava! I urge you again to keep such tangential stuff out of the talk pages. They are the same sort of postings that Sitush was commenting on. – S. Rich (talk) 17:48, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Still, a female must protect her reputation against rampaging editors with scurrilous lies... Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:50, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Carol, I was reading over the ANI thread on you today (I've been largely offline the past few days...out of state for the Thanksgiving holiday and a funeral). I don't think any administrative action is merited, but I would still like a commitment from you to try to refrain from discussing others' motives on article talk pages, and to try and focus more on the content. Does that sound like something you'd be willing to do? (This would be considered non-binding/on-your-honor.) ~

User:Adjwilley: I do agree that I was going on more than necessary about the frequently stated motives of Steeletrap and SPECIFICO (sometimes connecting them to MilesMoney based on his behavior.) However, per my reply on Sitush's diffs (this diff), four of those five diffs weren't the best examples.

• This one, last paragraph, was the most valid complaint, one I had repeated several times in last couple weeks. (After Sitush's talk page chastisement, I did decide it was time for an ANI those kinds of complaints, sometimes towards the end of this coming week. I even started reorganizing all my accumulated relevant files in date order on my hard drive.)
• Three of the diffs were noticeboard discussions where POV and stated motives are relevant. I see I chopped something off one just because Sitush kept bugging me, but I would have to look and see if he was nitpicking or not, given that others subsequently have written that my behavior was OK.
• Talk:Citing sources was a very general problem with no individuals mentioned.
• I do see if one wants to mention being a volunteer, not paid, one has to make sure people see that as not being an accusation they are paid. Or is there some other problem I don't understand with ever mentioning one is a volunteer? Or mentioning too often?
• I don't know if the joke about Friedman also was a complaint - or even a problem.

Bottom line, the ANI against me did again dramatize to the community some of the problems that exist, which was a great relief valve for the complaints that I obviously was having trouble keeping to myself. So given all of the above, I think I'll be controlling my soapbox. On the other hand, I am not going to be a punching bag for those three editors as I have been on that ANI. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 22:09, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm certainly not asking you to be a "punching bag", and I think the commitment to stop the personal comments/discussion of motives will actually keep you out of the way of many punches. That seems to be the primary issue many have with you, so bridling that should make for at least slightly calmer waters. ~

talk

) 01:27, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Carol, your notice on those other editor talk pages included two links that referenced the exact same page and section – "

Thanks for heads up on links; and I thought I mentioned one was closed. I looked at arbitration pages and they want to see previous warnings. Unlike community sanctions, there isn't a template that individuals can put on, as far as I can see, and only admins can. Obviously since I was attacked after SPECIFICO was blocked, they just don't get it. Also, getting a little naggy again, SR... Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:06, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I'll nag you some more. These notifications are the same sort of comments that Sitush and Adjwilley recently talked about. Please dial back. These notifications won't help them "get it" because they are personal. Sadly, if this sort of interaction goes on, we will end up in Arbcom – which I would avoid! You have contributions to make in these articles, so contribute to the articles. – S. Rich (talk) 18:25, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, the defended what SPECIFICO did and then repeated it without diffs, adding more inflammatory accusations. We'll have to agree to disagree. FYI, if you study the arbitration records you see that all this means is if there are a few more ANIs against them for these kinds of accusations and they get blocked again, it would be brought there. Archiving thread now. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:29, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Why you should open this as a "continuation" of the SPECIFICO thread is beyond me. The ANI was resolved, and it resolved in favor of you, and NW should have posted something like {{resolved}} or archived it. The other "sub-thread' about Arbcom is another problem, but at least you did not start it. We do NOT want to go to arbcom, do we? Opening this sub-thread is the same sort of behavior that Sitush talked about earlier. He cited, at some point, put-up-or-shut-up. And I support Sitush in this view. If you've got specific diffs that lay out a case for ANI action, post them as a new, simple, clean, uncomplicated request. But these haphazard postings are not going to work and I am not going to support you in them. I will not be dragged into Arbcom because you won't heed the advice of more experienced editors (and myself). – S. Rich (talk) 04:06, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Admins are allowed to deal with obvious bad behavior in a thread. I didn't want to jump the gun if that's what an admin wants to do - who knows they may. Otherwise, I've had more than enough admin stuff for now. Enough said already on this, hopefully... Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 04:24, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

When you said "So before this ANI gets closed by someone else, I would like to note my objections to the continued attacks on me in this ANI (as well as in this closed one) by Steeletrap and MilesMoney." you obviously did not expect any admin to take any action. You were simply soapboxing, hoping to get the last word in. Consider how this looks! It invites other editors and administrators to waste time reading your latest

WP:REHASH. And rehash is on-point because you have yet to convince anyone about the validity of your complaints. And you are not accepting the independent input that Sitush has provided. I'm not nagging you – I want you available to contribute. But I can see how continued complaints by you will end up in a block. Please take more care. – S. Rich (talk

) 04:37, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

First I said I see this ANI is still open, and that the admin who put the block on has not been online to answer my question about these continued attacks on their talk page. My question being: Do I have to open another ANI? Not getting an answer and not really being sure, I put it out there to see if, as I just wrote to nuclear war when asking him to close, I just threw in my complaint in case you or some admin was really ticked off about ongoing attacks by others on the same topic that an editor was blocked for. I was being a bit passive, since I really didn't want to open an ANI if it was in fact proper for me to complain about others making the same kinds of comments and defending the same off-wikilinking. By the way, thanks for opening the ANI in the first place. Hopefully, end of discussion... Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 04:51, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I know what I left out. It doesn't matter one bit if NW left the thread "open" or if s/he did not answer your comment. Don't you get the point – you were asking editors to waste their time! Just being passive? Come on, rhetorical questions, which don't pertain to the issues, don't go very far. The real point is that you opened another feckless, whiney complaint. Please get this basic message – just stop. Stop. – S. Rich (talk) 05:10, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Agree to disagree. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 00:36, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for digging up the extra sources on HR. I'm not quite sure why MM has latched onto this topic with such furvor, but I hope I handled the situation appropriately. It would be easy to just keep reverting him until an admin called a halt, but that's what we'd call an edit war, and not something I'd want to be half of. I hope that by reporting it to ANI, wiser minds than mine can find a good solution. Anyway, I'm rambling-- thanks again for the sources! --HectorMoffet (talk) 22:46, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

One often can gauge editors' POVs and motivations from edits/statements/etc. but too much commenting on/whining about it on article talk pages can get one sent to ANI, as I recently found out. My motivation? Just doing a little consciousness raising on hypocrisy... Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 23:53, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Hey Carol, I hope all is well with you and that you had a good holiday. As you have been one of the regular editors participating in articles related to Austrian Economics, and I was hoping I could convince you to participate in a small experiment on dispute resolution. It's formatted as a simple question and answer, with a hint of RfC/U, aimed at getting participants to talk with one another, recognize potential problems, and with any luck, commit to fixing those problems. The page is at

I filled it out and it immediately started a massive brouhaha in my mind, so I just saved it for another day. IMHO, the real question is, what IS Wikipedia's way of dealing with extreme partisan pov pushers who come up against editors who have a habit of defending Wikipedia policies against people who want to defame and even destroy others, especially when the defender may more or less agree with the bio subject on some issues AND/OR if the editor feels this is just a matter of pure personal destruction for partisan reasons. Answer the GENERAL QUESTION first and the specifics will fall together. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 00:37, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

That's a real problem on Wikipedia, but I don't have the answers you want. Meanwhile, this little experiment might give some clues as to the solution of our current specific problem. I'm fairly sure I can contain the brouhaha you imagined happening - that's why it's in my userspace. I'd be obliged if you'd just take a few minutes and give it a shot. ~

talk

) 00:54, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I'll go after a couple more moderate people with less Aries and Leo in their charts go :-) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 01:15, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that probably was a bit much. Honesty is good, but it should probably be stated with a little more diplomacy. It's possible to talk about biased editing without the "rage and hate" and speculation of what's in peoples' hearts. If you look at what Sitush wrote, it looks like he said similar things, but it is much less personal and more credible. ~

talk

) 18:20, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

As a subscriber to one of

Just so you don't feel later that you've wasted too much of your time, none of the sources in this edit amount to much at all from what I can see. The usual fringe theorists etc doing the usual fringe stuff & patting each other on the back etc. You are building a house of cards and the Stromberg article is a test case - if that gets deleted then I'll likely be nominating a lot of others that are equally shoddy constructions in the "Polemicists 'Я Us" genre. Find mentions and citations in mainstream publications outside the US - including influential news sources such as El Pais, Le Monde, The Hindu and The Guardian, and books from publishers such as Oxford University Press - and you'll have a much better chance. Bearing in mind

If Deletionism is your game, I'm sure you can find a couple hundred writers to AfD here: Category:Writers. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:09, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

So, you're already turning this into a personalised issue? It isn't my "game" and it wasn't what I said. Is your point that I shouldn't nominate this crap because there is other crap? - Sitush (talk) 18:21, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

@Sitush...tsk tsk on calling somebody's work "crap"; @Carol, that sounds like a

talk

) 18:25, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Sitush's post looked to me like you were trying to make my job harder and piss me off. My point is when editors are trying to beef up a lot of articles that are under attack by vitriolic editors - something you certainly have alluded to repeatedly at WP:ANI, why make their life harder? And why come to my web page and insult a subject of a BLP they are working on which can only look like you are baiting them to get them pissed off?

So pardon me if it just looks like you had an attack of deletionism. (Plus now I just looked at your contributions and half of the recent ones seem to have to do with removing others material.) And you removed the external links on Stromberg which I put back; discuss at talk page.

Pardon my paranoia, but is my editing now to become a target in some sort of revenge move for something that pissed you off a couple weeks ago? Tell me so I can quit editing all together, or at least til you stop watching my contributions. Even those living off the younger generation on social security have only so many hours in the day, and other things to do than editing that will just be repeatedly deleted. Just isn't worth it. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:30, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Carol, I'm sorry if you suffer from paranoia. As with contributors who suffer from various degrees of Asperger's Syndrome, we should try to make allowances but not to the point where it damages the project. Often mentorship is a useful tool in such circumstances. I'm not quite sure how to proceed in these circumstances, though, because I've only ever been involved in such situations here as a bystander. I'd already reverted out the linkspam and that is what brought me here because you are not on my watchlist but Twinkle does its thing. I'll self-revert if you really want to discuss but

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. - Sitush (talk

) 21:42, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I see, no worries. Thanks for the clarification. Interesting that

talk

) 21:52, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Please note that over the last couple years I've saved about six articles on different subject from deletion, so that's why I was optimistic. I'm even starting to feel sorry for MilesMoney now... Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 22:30, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

... this comment about "double-standard sexism". I've no idea what you mean but it concerns me greatly. I, for one, couldn't care less what gender, race, religion etc someone may be and yet it seems to be my recent comments that have triggered your edit. You won't get an easier ride off me because of any of those things but you won't get a tougher one either: I just go straight down the middle.

If you're pissed off about sexism being shown then you should talk about it, not go away in a huff: if there are any sexist people involved here (of whatever "standard") then they need to be told. In fact, they need to have some sort of admin action imposed. - Sitush (talk) 01:33, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, don't have time to respond to 7 years of it. Don't take something not addressed specifically to you personally. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 02:22, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi, you've been asked before not to insert point-y subsection headings at various venues -

When one veers off to another topic, one needs another section. When it starts as a reply to something in a section, I assumed it needs to be a subsection. Does it need to be it's own section? I have no problem with that. But if issues need discussing, they do and dismissing them as pointy is just silly. But please bring these matters up on talk pages where I can find out what others think. Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:16, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

No worries. I can't be arsed arguing. The issue is without doubt going to Arbcom. I'll come out of that ok: your mud simply will not stick because it is flying in the face of my widely-accepted "net positive" behaviour. On the other hand, I doubt very much that you or any of the other regulars - Srich and Bink aside - will come out of it without at least topic bans and probably worse. It is likely to be a tricky holiday period, for those taking holidays, and I'd suggest that you start compiling your diffs now because ArbCom simply will not accept the sort of stuff you have been saying without them. - Sitush (talk) 17:44, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Given that this is not a primary area of interest for you and you haven't been involved long, I don't think you really understood all the history and all the debates that have been had and need to be had. So your standing seems to more as a person who feels they've been dissed by some editors on a few issues. However, the issues really are clear and I am very confidant of my diffs on a variety of policies since I've been collecting them for months and have them nicely organized. You have 7-8 months of catching up to do on on 20 odd articles, tens of thousands of words and couple of thousand diffs. If you really have a problem with the narrower issues you've gotten upset about, take it to WP:ANI again. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:57, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

If you have the diffs then that is great. At ArbCom you get 500 words for your presentation, only occasionally with some leeway given. But, please, do not suggest things such as that I do not know all the history because that would be another example of broad-brush assumption on your part and you'll likely get roasted. One does not have to participate in order to have knowledge and to use it. You are a whining, drama-laden bully, Carol, let's face it. The saving grace is that you are a whining etc bully among a group of whining etc bullies from various perspectives and thus to a large extent cancel each other out. Want the diffs? - Sitush (talk) 01:09, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Why are you in such a hurry to short circuit mediation in an issue you are not even involved in, as I just wrote on Adjwilley's survey page: Also, in mediation it's helpful to focus on issues and not personalities, so this format may have been doomed from the start. If AdjWilly wants to try again, let's list the non-behavioral policy issues that may be aggravating personality issues. As I started to do here in suggesting the dispute resolution noticeboard 5 weeks ago. For example, editors as "experts" and non-academic purpose of Wikipedia; real meaning of fringe" and mainstream; how to look at sources that are experts in their fields but all associated loosely through one or more organizations; meaning of WP:Balance and WP:Undue, etc. etc.

If you started an Arbitration, I think that my main contribution would be to ask ArbCom to send it back to mediation since real mediation hasn't really been given a chance and it seems strange that editors uninvolved in the actual substantive issues in the articles are trying to short-circuit attempts by going to ArbCom. It's sad there isn't more of a focus on mediation in Wikipedia, it can be hard to find mediators, etc. I should have pushed harder myself. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 02:55, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Don't post on my talk page anymore

Your postings have been consistently negative, hostile and, yes, bullying and I experience them as harassing. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:20, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

For my records response. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:31, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Reserving a space for a future edit. – S. Rich (talk) 03:43, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

One can never tell, with proper mediation :-) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 04:28, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

There is a half-barnstar waiting, so don't blow the chance. A more positive and proactive response is needed. – S. Rich (talk) 04:59, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

i.e., someone has to do a

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie

) 05:09, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

No. Steeletrap is reaching out (even now) for a discussion which does not involve personalities. Reply, "yes, Steeletrap, I think we can discuss these issues without involving personalities, agendas, etc. Every comment will be stridently confined to the four-corners of the particular edit (because I think you are so lovable)." – S. Rich (talk) 05:17, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Personalities is not the #1 problem. Until policy issues are settled I have NO idea what % of problem is personalities. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:48, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

The 
guide to formal mediation
, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 22 December 2013.

How many more times must you be asked not to significantly refactor your messages when others have replied to them. Eg: here. Is it confusing and, worse, disruptive. Please stop. - Sitush (talk) 15:53, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Last request was to mention chrono which I did in that and this case. I don't see where that edit goes against Wikipedia:Refactoring_talk_pages. I think it would be much more confusing to put my diffs ref on the bottom than on top. Why don't I ask a neutral admin about it? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:00, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Uh, oh, just noticed you posted here with a nitpicking, non-official notice when an edit summary of your opinion would have sufficed. I'm not a soccer ball, thank you. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:49, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I recognize I am 'permabanned' from this page, but this note is relevant to an official matter (Mediation). I will not be participating until you signed the pledge we talked about. Steeletrap (talk) 15:58, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Steeletrap, are you referring to the "negative pledge"? Seems that such a condition is outside of the

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Guide#Preconditions. The "negative pledge" had to do with editors commenting about each other. The parameters of mediation, by definition, already exclude comments about other editors. Please clarify. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk

) 17:09, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Steeletrap, that point could have been made on the Adjwilley Mediation talk page where that issue was discussed. You've been warned repeatedly to stay away, and yet you come back with something that is hardly an official notice. It's just a questionable demand I have rejected for a number of reasons and I haven't even expressed them all. If you want to announce you are not going to mediation, do it elsewhere. Feels like harassment again. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:25, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I see that you've notified the Libertarianism Project of the AfD regarding Riggenbach. You should also give the same notice to the other Projects listed on the article talk page. Thank you. SPECIFICO talk 05:14, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Look at the policies. They all say one or more. I don't know what else to add. This is NOT an official notice so please don't harass me with this sort of thing. Do you own, as long as it's not on sexology or something equally irrelevant :-) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 05:21, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

A notification either to biography or journalism is problematic. Bio is huge and such notifications would only serve to clutter the project talk page. (As it is, the page has 45 archives.) Riggenbach's connection to journalism is a stretch. (Indeed, there is no class or importance assessment.) CMDC's notice was proper from the get-go. You, Specifico, are free to post notices at other projects too. It would involve the same effort that you took here, but would not involve impingement on AGF. – S. Rich (talk) 05:43, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Srich, for future reference. I actually looked for a wikiproject on writer and couldn't find one; is journalism the catchall? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 05:46, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I think Riggenbach does podcasts. There is a project in that field. Also WikiProject Books would be of interest. At present I'm not going to add those Projects. Perhaps tomorrow. – S. Rich (talk) 06:08, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Note that the Riggenbach AfD was noticed on the Journalism Project page by Sitush. There are other AfD related pages at WP:WikiProject_Biography/Deletion_sorting WP:WikiProject Deletion sorting/People, which do not include Riggenbach. These are not notification listings. Rather, they look like actual AfD discussions, so I am not sure how these pages interact with the current Riggenbach AfD. – S. Rich (talk) 17:40, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

The Books wikiproject does not deal with authors. It refers editors to biography.

WP:PODCASTING is a very small project and does not seem to deal with individuals. So neither of these projects has much pertinence to Riggenback. I have removed the Journalism project from Riggenbach's talkpage. – S. Rich (talk

) 17:48, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I did Podcasts before saw this; and noticed same thing on books. Please don't remove :-) If he is notable on that I'm sure a few of them will come over. ;-) Haven't researched that too much except for one good primary source link.

I'm still trying to figure out how you list things at Deletion_sorting since it's a useful place for a listing and some articles have it and some do not.

As for AfD discussions on them, haven't noticed such in general so far but maybe haven't gone to right pages.

Also, check this out. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:52, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm replying here because a reply at the AfD is inappropriate. You ask here "why the personal attacks". Firstly, you should have grown a backbone by now; secondly, the very fact that you (yet again) had to clarify what you had said earlier shows that your original comment was confusing; thirdly, you give as good as you get with the "spree" thing. Grow up, Carol, and please stop making pointless speculative comments about something that is outside our control, ie: the workings of Amazon. You seem frequently to massively increase the length of discussions by taking them down completely irrelevant byways. - Sitush (talk) 17:50, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

You have been banned from my talk page already for what I consider to be harassment. Yet you commented twice after that. I've reminded you on my talk page. Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:08, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

You asked me a question and I responded in the only appropriate venue., Like I said, grow up. - Sitush (talk)

IF I did, I did for enlightenment of all, answer there. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:15, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Read your fucking edit summary linked in my initial comment above. That was a question and responding at the AfD would have just sidetracked the thing even more - which was precisely my original point regarding your whimsical comments in the AfD. Sheesh, Carol, you could start a fight in an empty room and I've no desire to keep coming to this talk page because of that ... but I can't let you get away with innuendo and stupidity. I've said my bit and that's the end of it. One day, you'll either learn or find yourself blocked and, frankly, the second is looking more likely by the day because you've had seven years to do the first and still do not seem to get it. - Sitush (talk) 18:20, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Phhttt. 18:25, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I believe it's today the sun turns. (Really much darkness and short days here in Norway now). Sorry for not replying to your post at my talk. I have decided to drop the whole thing and in the future mostly amuse myself with the various projects or of this "serious and competent young scholar". Wikipedia has its sides obviously, one has to take it for what it is and simply adjust, I have found. I agree with the concern on your userpage about users who add (almost) "only negative material in a certain topic area because it supports their POV". ArbCom has ruled in an earlier case that the practice of mainly adding negative material is unacceptable if it is done to a particular ethnic or religious group or similar. But I think this principle could be broadened to apply to users whose edit pattern over time is such that 80-90% of their edits to articles consist of adding negative information about persons or groups they consider their opponents; politically or otherwise. This is not a healthy edit pattern; particularly not when it is about persons. Best wishes and A happy new year. Iselilja (talk) 19:56, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for message. You really get to appreciate the sun when the days get longer up there! I was just bemoaning the fact that the neighborhood wasn't having a three day (ecological?) bonfire out in the nearby park celebrating the season, instead hiding in our homes with TV and food and putting up some Solstice Lights without knowing why.

I have a bunch of noncontroversial article I'd like to beef up, and a few almost done. But keep getting sidetracked by the need to "save" the bios of people who I may agree with some important points - even when I disagree with them strongly on this/that/other point. Over 7 years I've done a lot of that. I keep fantasizing some day some kind someone(s) will pay me $10 for every edit. Ho Ho Ho! Let's all have a good 2014. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 02:12, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Carol, the SPI is not going to resolve anything. These are not socks or meatpuppets. If there are other problems, then such problems should be addressed on other noticeboards. But everybody who adds stuff to the SPI aint doing themselves or the project any help. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 05:42, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry happens - meatpuppetry even more. Especially when multiple editors mention it in SPI. If it makes certain editors think twice about constantly backing up each others' policy violating edits, good. But unless SPI admins somehow found out that all the IPs were in the same tiny NW or whatever corner of Connecticut or wherever, I doubt they could prove anything. Must wrap all the kids presents now! Bye. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:10, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

You have misrepresented my statement in this edit. This is unaccepable. As a courtesy, I am posting this formal notice that you should remove/correct your false characterization of my post. I am prepared to seek enforcement of Community Sanctions if you do not stop violating civility and talk page policies. SPECIFICO talk 19:50, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

My apologies. I changed to "my perception" thus we don't have to debate elsewhere whether or not my mere moore perception was correct or not. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:53, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Warning -- Defending the Undefendable

You have again misrepresented me here, snidely attributing to me an edit which I did not make. You should strike through your misrepresentation. If you do not, I will seek to have you blocked immediately per AEGS. If you ever misrepresent my words or actions in the future I will seek to have you blocked without further warning. 02:38, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Later note: My innocent error corrected here. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 01:41, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Per BRD, you should use talk. Please undo this edit.
SPECIFICO talk 14:40, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok, reviewed

Wikipedia:BRD#What_BRD_is.2C_and_is_not which reads: Note: "BRD" is commonly used to refer to the principle that a revert should not be reverted again by the same editors until the changes have been discussed, as that could constitute edit warring, which is a policy that all editors must follow. So Steeletrap was editwarring. I was not. So Steeltrap should get the warning. Thanks for making me go to WP:BRD. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie

) 17:50, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

You are completely wrong and owe Steele an apology. This was the Bold edit, and it was bad. Steele Reverted it, which was good. Then you violated BRD by reverting to restore the original Bold edit, as opposed to Discussing. I was the one who opened a discussion.

Now apologize to Steele. MilesMoney (talk) 23:26, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I quoted policy and it is clear Steeletrap's edit is the bold one. HW's is a revert. Steeletrap's is the edit war revert. Mine undid her edit war revert. By the time we go to you we definitely were in edit war territory. I certainly wouldn't mess with it again. Will wait til discussion and seek outside opinion if the opinions do not seem balanced/compliant with policy. Finding a better source always a better idea, but so many BLPs to deal with, can't spend as much time on non-BLPs. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 01:37, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Also, MilesMoney, please stay off my talk page unless you are initiating an official notice. Your post above could have been left on the article talk page. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 02:55, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

notice you posted on he defunct Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anti-war

I am looking to source Ploughshares Fund because large portions are getting deleted.

Can you point me to a Anti-war wikiproject,others who may help, or help me source this article? At the least watch the article?

Thank you! keep up the great work!

You may also be interested in

Here's a couple searches with good returns:

• Scholar search
• Books search

Google_News_Archive is updating its engine so it's not available right now. But meanwhile you can search specific publications that might have some info Google Newspapers. Good luck! Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:48, 27 December 2013 (UTC)