Talk:Carolyn Moos

Fair use rationale for Image:Moos-Lynx.JPG

Image:Moos-Lynx.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 08:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

This article reads much like an advertisement of Moos's career and website. Do we have any credible analyses of her entire career? And why no mention of her relationship with NBA player and Stanford alumnus Jason Collins? According to several credible sources, they were engaged until recently. 165.124.117.153 (talk) 03:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Moos-Stanford.JPG

Image:Moos-Stanford.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 08:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Poorly sourced and promotional section

...is what I've attempted to remove, but have been reverted [1]. It's fluff, and apparently relies solely on a primary source. 99.136.252.252 (talk) 22:47, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• Additionally, this was given a B rating in 2007, an assessment meriting revisiting. Which is to say, this is not close to a B quality article. 99.136.252.252 (talk) 22:50, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

If you had actually took the time to read it you would see that it is an update on her career, a perfectly legitimate piece of content. If it is her official website then it is a reliable source. Don't go running to a noticeboard just because an editor disagrees with you. -- MisterShiney ✉ 22:57, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

No, most, if not all of it, doesn't belong. A subject's website is almost never a reliable source. This constitutes such a clear misinterpretation of Wiki policy that 'running to a noticeboard' is appropriate. 99.136.252.252 (talk) 23:05, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

99.136 is correct. This section is written in a promotional tone and sourced to the subject's own web site, which is not acceptable at all. Unless it can be found in reliable sources and written in a more neutral manner, it should go. Rklear (talk) 23:37, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Pfft. Sounds to me like you both need to develop a better understanding of different times of writing. No way is this tone unencyclopedic or "fluffy". If you both actually took time to read it through you would see what I mean. The tone is fine. It is neutral and doesn't give any undue weight. It is no different from any other biography that provides an update on a career. As for the official website of someone it is absolutely a reliable source! Where does it say it isn't? However, an official website, may not always be entirely neutral depending on the content. But given that it is a non controversal section, it is fine to be used. Although on that note, I would comment that the links are dead and need to be fixed. MisterShiney ✉ 00:05, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm with Rklear and 99.136.252.252 on this. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:10, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Count me with 99.136, Reklear and Stuartyeates on this. Language like "works with elite athletes", "change people's lives", "she really enjoys children" and "ACE Certified Nutrition Consultant" is clearly promotional puffery, especially when sourced to her own website. The website is OK for basic biographical details, but not for a single thing that can be construed as promotional. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:58, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I've deleted that section and trimmed down some others as well. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 04:13, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

And again I have restored the content. Don't go removing things that are currently under discussion. It's bad faith. How is her current/later career promotional...? Although, some of the language is peacockery. But that is no reason for section blanking. There is a difference between defluffing as the IP user claims, and blanking sections. MisterShiney ✉ 11:38, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

It's a press release. Several accounts have concurred that it's inappropriate content for an encyclopedic article. If any of the information can be corroborated by objective sources then it may be relevant. Otherwise edit warring, and the reversion here as well [2] constitute a questionable insistence on including promotional and non-notable content. 99.136.252.252 (talk) 12:00, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I've templated the article as a press release. 99.136.252.252 (talk) 12:04, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

What do my reversions on other pages have to do with this page? Yeah nothing, especially when it is a non biographical article. So stop spouting that tosh. I see an IP editor reverting content without a justified explanation, I revert it. What is a Press Release? The Article? Then AFD it. I hate editors who whine about articles and don't do anything about it and instead delete content someone has spent time and effort putting in. Especially IP editors who don't even have enough commitment to get an account. -- MisterShiney ✉ 12:25, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Reasonable explanations were provided. There was no 'whining' or 'spouting' from this account--I was bold in removing fluff, and have been reverted, against growing consensus, without a substantial rationale. As for an animosity toward IPs, that's grist for another discussion, and it may come to that. Several admins are aware of my background as a registered and unregistered account, and of my offline work as a writer. 99.136.252.252 (talk) 13:12, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• I've restored the article to Nomosk's last state (removing all the self-sourced material). I've also removed some more material that is either unsourced or self-published from the Personal life section. Putting aside the promotional aspects, WP:BLPSPS does not permit this kind of material to be sourced to her. It requires secondary sources, and it can't remain in the article with a bunch of tags. MisterShiney, frankly your edits here are incomprehensible. For one thing, there is a clear consensus for removal of the material. Second, policy requires removal of the material. Third, your comments about 99. are attacking and uncalled for (full disclosure: I know 99. well and he dances circles around many editors with registered accounts). So, step back and follow the rules.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:07, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I would expect an admin to know that a consensus isn't built in a matter of hours before other editors have had a chance to contribute properly, especially when there is a BLP discussion here and the content issues are addressed. A clear heavy handed approach. Please explain how my comments are "attacking"? Where does it say that her current career updates cannot be sourced to her? Policy interpretation is a wonderful thing isn't it? Especially when that it is meant to refer to disputed content that is uncited and not general every day material that is available after a quick Google search. I just don't see the point in blanket removal of material, which has been there a while, when it isn't controversial or inflammatory and leaving it there for a little while with tags in place for other editors to improve. -- MisterShiney ✉ 14:37, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Lead sentence emphasis

Quite apart from the issues in the section above, I question whether the lead sentence should talk about her being a "model, personal trainer, nutrition consultant". Her notability is rooted in her basketball career, and that really should be the focus of the lede. 99.136.252.252 has added the trainer/consultant part (with sourcing) in the second paragraph, and that seems to me to be the right place to mention that. Rklear (talk) 16:48, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree, and even hesitated as to whether the trainer/consultant information belongs in the lede, given that is of relatively minor note. Support the paring of the first sentence, and have no problem with moving the piece I added. 99.136.252.252 (talk) 16:56, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Carolyn Moos. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061112024540/http://www.carolynmoos.com:80/basketball.htm to http://www.carolynmoos.com/basketball.htm#

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:15, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Carolyn Moos. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120813181023/http://www.gostanford.com/sports/w-baskbl/mtt/moos_carolyn00.html?nav=page to http://www.gostanford.com/sports/w-baskbl/mtt/moos_carolyn00.html?nav=page
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130511055050/http://www.wnba.com:80/playerfile/carolyn_moos/?nav=page to http://www.wnba.com/playerfile/carolyn_moos/?nav=page
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140715025150/http://www.wbca.org/pages/AWARDS_caat_hs_past to http://www.wbca.org/pages/AWARDS_caat_hs_past
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140715064856/http://www.wbca.org/pages/AWARDS_high_school_all-america_game_box_scores to http://www.wbca.org/pages/AWARDS_high_school_all-america_game_box_scores
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.carolynmoos.com/about.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061112024814/http://www.carolynmoos.com:80/pdf/marie_claire_article.pdf to http://www.carolynmoos.com/pdf/marie_claire_article.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://gostanford.collegesports.com/sports/w-baskbl/spec-rel/ask-player1.html?nav=page
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929124340/http://www.wnba.com/playerfile/carolyn_moos/printable_player_files.html?nav=page to http://www.wnba.com/playerfile/carolyn_moos/printable_player_files.html?nav=page

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:48, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Carolyn Moos. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.carolynmoos.com/basketball.htm%23
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.wnba.com/playerfile/carolyn_moos/?nav=page
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061112024814/http://www.carolynmoos.com/pdf/marie_claire_article.pdf to http://www.carolynmoos.com/pdf/marie_claire_article.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:55, 31 July 2017 (UTC)