Talk:Carly Fiorina

Concerns with edit descriptions
I am concerned that a specific editor reverts edits and does so without regarding the information provided. The language used to describe some edits is less than professional. If people are editing, they should conduct themselves as editors even if they are only editors on a voluntary basis. I wanted to note that it continues to happen and I hope other editors will be on the look-out.SeminarianJohn (talk) 18:13, 14 January 2019 (UTC)


 * You're obviosly talking about my reverts here and here, with "fishing for eyeballs" as the edit summary.
 * What makes you think I was reverting "without regarding the information provided"? I certainly looked at the information provided, and I found it lacking.
 * The language I used is flippant but not inaccurate. If you are asking for other editors to "be on the look-out" for slang words like "eyeballs" then you've stepped into a position of suppressing free expression, to achieve a chilling effect. I don't intend to be restricted in that manner. Binksternet (talk) 18:46, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

You can say what you would like, but it is indeed flippant and I maintain grossly inaccurate. We all have free expression, but we should act in a professional manner when approaching other people. There is still a such thing as being respectful. Saying things flippantly is not very flattering on a person. I disagree with your reasoning, but I chose to take this route instead of back and forth. Please see Wikipedia:Civility for conduct. SeminarianJohn (talk) 19:00, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

I do not intend to be disrespected, and I will challenge disrespect and refer back to Wikipedia:Civility.SeminarianJohn (talk) 19:08, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Being flippant certainly does not fall in here. "Stated simply, editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect. They should focus on improving the encyclopedia while maintaining a pleasant editing environment by behaving politely, calmly and reasonably, even during heated debates."SeminarianJohn (talk) 19:11, 14 January 2019 (UTC) Civility


 * You're taking personally a flippant comment I made about Fiorina's attempt to stay in the public eye. Why? Binksternet (talk) 19:30, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 July 2020
Hello!

Hope you and your family is all well. My suggestion is to make that she is a Democrat. She said she will vote for Joe Biden in 2020. 2600:8805:9900:5AF:E196:1FF3:EF85:E9D3 (talk) 20:38, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Rummskartoffel (talk) 21:11, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It was clear to me that this IP editor wanted to change Fiorina from Republican to Democrat, which is not supported by any references. Nobody is saying she is now a Democrat. So this request is definitely not going to happen. Binksternet (talk) 21:17, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 July 2020
Hello.

Currently she is a Democrat. She said she would vote for Joe Biden. https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/25/politics/carly-fiorina-joe-biden-trump/index.html2600:8805:9900:5AF:D0C1:7A7C:B27:B04B (talk) 11:13, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: The source you provided reports that she intends to vote for Biden, but not that she is a Democrat. Democrats need not vote for Biden and people who vote for Biden need not be Democrats. Rummskartoffel (talk) 11:53, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Remove political positions section?
The "political positions" section is redundant with the one in her 2016 campaign page. I think that this section should be removed.--Sa57arc (talk) 22:23, 17 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I think removal is too much. Greatly pruning the section here is a good idea, though, leaving all the detail at a campaign page. We should tell the reader her positions on major issues, that she is anti-abortion, for instance. Binksternet (talk) 23:29, 17 November 2020 (UTC)


 * OK. I will think about this some more.--Sa57arc (talk) 03:16, 23 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I read it over again and I changed my mind. I am going to leave it as is.--Sa57arc (talk) 04:29, 24 November 2020 (UTC)