| Revision as of 15:17, 12 May 2013 editCarolmooredc (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers31,944 edits →So. about your conflict of interest: tweak← Previous edit | Revision as of 01:56, 13 May 2013 edit undoSrich32977 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers299,637 edits General note: Personal attack directed at a specific editor on Talk:LewRockwell.com. (TW)Next edit → | ||
| Line 61: | Line 61: | ||
| :::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. ''] - <small>]</small><big>🗽</big> 15:15, 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. ''] - <small>]</small><big>🗽</big> 15:15, 12 May 2013 (UTC) | ||
| == May 2013 == | |||
| ] Hello, I'm ]. I noticed that you made a comment on the page ] that didn't seem very ], so it has been removed. Misplaced Pages 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 ]. Thank you. <!-- Template:uw-npa1 --> ''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: .'' – ] (]) 01:56, 13 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 01:56, 13 May 2013
Please post comments about the content of a specific article on the Talk Page of that Article if it is relevant to all editors.
 Green Line for Barnstars and Other Stuff
|
|---|
| Link to Newsletters I Need to Read
|
|---|
Gender bias task force
Hi Carol, something here you might be interested in. Best, SlimVirgin 00:19, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
LRC change
I wish you had not made this change: . 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)
Lew Rockwell archive
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Oh, no! I've mixed up the LR and the LRC pages... Back to the drawing board!! CarolMooreDC🗽 21:02, 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)
- 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)
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)
DC meetup & dinner on Saturday, May 11!
Please join Wikimedia DC for a social meetup and dinner at Vapiano (near Farragut North/Farragut West) on Saturday, May 11 at 5:30 PM. All Misplaced Pages/Wikimedia and free knowledge/culture enthusiasts, regardless of editing experience, are welcome to attend! All ages welcome!
For more information and to sign up, please see the meetup page. Hope to see you there! Kirill 23:03, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Please comment on Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/April Fools'
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/April Fools'. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 23:15, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
So. about your conflict of interest
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)
- See Misplaced Pages:COI#Categories_of_COI_on_Wikipedia. What category am I in, very specifically?
- What kind of advocacy have I done for any specific libertarian view (or which there are so many) on Misplaced Pages? 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?
- 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 Misplaced Pages?
- 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.
- 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: Misplaced Pages: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)
May 2013
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. Misplaced Pages 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: . – S. Rich (talk) 01:56, 13 May 2013 (UTC)