User talk:SPECIFICO/Archive 19

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Donald Trump on ISIS

Hey Specifico, did you check the source that I retained for the quote? I don't deny that Trump ever said "won against", but I am using the Guardian source to say he said "defeated". Unless you have something to the contrary, it appears your addition of a citation and restoring the quote to the previous version was unnecessary. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:25, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

NYT accurately quotes the video of his words. SPECIFICO talk 02:38, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

And The Guardian accurately quotes his tweet, does it not? Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:41, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Apparently not. SPECIFICO talk 02:44, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

North Korea

Regarding this, is there any part that you wouldn't mind being trimmed or condensed? Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:45, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

I think all the cut text is needed to convey Trump's approach to NK. SPECIFICO talk 23:58, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Presidency of Donald Trump

Check again, I didn't remove anything to do with the inspector generals. Check the version itself, not just the differences, it's still all there. Please self-revert. Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:56, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

That was not the only problem. I've several times told you that when you make several disparate cuts at a time, it is not easy for others to undo problems and your edits are likely to be reverted the same way you made them. Many editors have objected to many of these cuts that unbalance NPOV text. You have replied with denial, and this is very much to the detriment of article content and curated references compiled by many editors over long period of time. SPECIFICO talk 13:43, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

If there are parts of my edit you disagree with and other parts you don't mind, please elaborate on the parts you disagree with. I hope to find conclusions that would satisfy both of us. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:31, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

All your cuts made the article worse and removed curated references. But in general, you will have better luck cutting small single statements per edit, not that I am encouraging any. As is, you are mostly making a lot of work for the many editors who revert your deletions. SPECIFICO talk 22:39, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Busoni

The information is parked here because I saw that coming. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:48, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Wow! Good for you. Do you agree this is discarding a lot of useful hard work, despite the question of whether recent performances are a category of any interest? Do you think a closure review is in order, or is it going to need more effort to retain?

Yes, agree that discarding is bad. I missed saying that all I kept was as I left it, not the detailed recording information. The idea back then was to make it a sortable list of his compositions, - you have to start somewhere. Perhaps a refund to draft space is better than closure review. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:31, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree. There wasn't much substantive discussion at AfD, and we could get it in better shape without to much trouble over time. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk

On referring to others

I am directly asking you to cease referring to other editors when criticising me. You may directly quote others if you feel it is necessary, but saying "as several editors have told you" as you have done many times is inappropriate and disruptive. Thanks. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:57, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

I am among the several editors who have repeatedly implored you to cease your inappropriate and disruptive behavior, yet you continue to demonstrate you just don’t care. soibangla (talk) 19:55, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

That should indicate that we disagree and that there is no use in pursuing the issue with me. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:22, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Onetwothreeip: ahem soibangla (talk) 19:47, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Nothing about describing my actions as inappropriate or disruptive there. If you have concerns with me, feel free to visit my talk page. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:49, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry much about which adjectives are used, 123. Many editors have said you'd be much more effective and less frustrated if you took various criticisms to heart. That would be good for everyone. SPECIFICO talk 22:04, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

FAQ

You might want to watchlist the FAQ, he's made the same whitewashing edit three or four times now. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:15, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Guy - you are more than welcome to use my name. I am happy to collaborate with you. Mr Ernie (talk) 00:35, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Edit at Aziz Ansari

Hi SPECIFICO, regarding this edit to Aziz Ansari, I notice that you and Kolya Butternut have previously edit warred over that section heading. So changing it following the prior conflict could be considered a violation of the two-way IBAN between you. Have you got any comments to make about that? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:04, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello Callenecc. I have self-reverted and will raise the content issue on talk. It's likely that one or the other of us has edited most of the content in that section, so to avoid any such concern, I will not edit that section directly prior to talk consensus in the future. Thanks for your note. SPECIFICO talk 13:20, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:19, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

February 2021

Hello, I'm Jeff G.. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Ethical Culture Fieldston School have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Thanks.   — Jeff G. ツ 02:03, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: What's your concern. My only recent edit there was to correct a spelling mistake. Are you aware of the correct spelling of "restaurateur"? SPECIFICO talk 02:16, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but that is the British spelling; an article on a school in the US should use the American spelling (and a description of an American who runs an American establishment should be in American English), and an objection to the British spelling has been raised by Jimneub at c:User talk:Jeff G.#Hypertext.   — Jeff G. ツ 02:39, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

It is also the American spelling. The misspelling I corrected, with the interstitial n occurs in approximately 10% of uses of the word. Needless to say it was surprising to see you drop a template without checking the facts, based on an unsupported complaint. Every WP article on an American restaurateur that I've seen uses the correct spelling. This has nothing to do with "using American English". You can quickly verify this here. Please reinstate the correct spelling. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 02:55, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Jeff, "restauranteur" is not ENGVAR, but is a misspelling that happens to be more common in the US. See wikt:restaurateur and Restaurateur. It is a misspelling even in America. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:05, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

SmokeyJoe did that.   — Jeff G. ツ 11:26, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, @Jeff G.:. I'm not very familiar with the technical side of WP, but I'm curious. Is that how you generally do "rollback"? SPECIFICO talk 13:53, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

You're welcome. Yes, I was granted rollbacker rights (access to the rollback feature) via WP:RfR on 10 January 2008.   — Jeff G. ツ 13:59, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that, but I was wondering whether when you do these rollbacks they are just with no edit summary like the one that surprised me? SPECIFICO talk 14:10, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Years ago I used my rollbacker to delete a whole slew of edits made by a editor that worked for a pesticide company and repeatedly refused to stop copying stuff directly from the pesticide label and other puffery he got directly out of his a**. And, he refused to make even one talk page entry. Eventually I got sick of it and just rolled back his latest string of unsourced, nonfactual edits. What happened? Nothing happened to him but I was suspended for two days and had my rollbacker rights taken away. Of course I complained but to little avail. One other admin did reduce the time to only one day. That admin that decided that my first WP mistake after many years good service and without any warning is now with Arbcom. That violation remains the only scar on my record here. But I learned a valuable lesson: Just because an editor is an admin does not mean he/she is right and it does not mean that he/she is not an asshole, either. Gandydancer (talk) 16:09, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

@Jeff G: Jeff, I've now learned a little about rollback. My understanding is that it is to be used only to revert clear vandalism as defined. That would not apply to correcting a spelling by a long-registered account, would it? SPECIFICO talk 15:01, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: Sorry I pinged you wrong. Please see my post above, thanks. SPECIFICO talk 03:10, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sorry, I had not seen or heard of "restaurateur" as an actual word before your post of 02:16, 7 February 2021 (UTC) above, I thought the use implied that there were rats at one of Eli Zabar's restaurants. However, given that article Zabar's seems to be used as a WP:COATRACK for info about Eli Zabar (whose article Eli Zabar was deleted), should that person even be mentioned in Ethical Culture Fieldston School?   — Jeff G. ツ 09:41, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I have no idea about the guy. I have lots of these local schools and other community organizations on my watchlist from having followed BLP links and made little edits over the years.

What interests me, and is frankly concerning, is whether you have made lots of these Rollback edits that go beyond the "obvious vandalism" standard for Rollback. Just looking at a few of your edits tagged Rollback, it seemed that you might do these fairly often. SPECIFICO talk 16:50, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: I don't believe I heard back from you in response to my concern, above, that many of your uses of rollback -- like the one that occasioned this thread -- go beyond the authorized implementation of reverting "obvious vandalism". Am I mistaken or missing something here? Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 13:48, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'll use undo with Edit Summary for less obvious cases.   — Jeff G. ツ 09:25, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

References

Slim

I had no idea that Slim had died. If we were to put WP editors on a list of best and on down I would have put Slim at #1. And yet it seems that very shortly after her death comments were closed. How could this have happened? Another editor on my top five list also died recently, Flyer, and her comments stayed open for weeks with comments still being added from time to time. Sign me, "Puzzled". Gandydancer (talk) 08:29, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes. A real shock. I believe there's just a box format. Try the edit link at the top of the green RIP box. SPECIFICO talk 08:36, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

May 2021

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Julian Assange. Such edits are disruptive, and may appear to other editors to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Refactoring others comments is disruptive. See here if you need further explanation of the proper use of the hidden archive template. Cambial foliage❧ 22:38, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Diff please? SPECIFICO talk 22:53, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

There's a diff already in my OP, click "Refactoring others comments". Cambial foliage❧ 23:35, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

OK, first that's not refactoring, and you'll note that in the intervening 3 weeks nobody else apparently shares your concern about my having hatted a snarky off-topic remark. Second, it's generally inadvisable to template experienced users. Third, the template you used does not apply to your apparent concern. Fourth, your edit resulted in confusing formatting, because the hatting was not inented and you forgot to adjust it so that it would be clear to future readers what was referenced in my hat note. Finally, I disagree with you that the hatting was inappropriate, but I am not going to give it any more thought. I hope you will repair the indent formatting. No hard feelings. Come back any time. SPECIFICO talk 00:21, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

About concensus

You ended a discussion about whether or not one should mention Abraham accords on Trump's page, saying that there wasn't any concensus. But there isn't concensus when people on both sides have arguments, while the only argument invoked by the other side was "One should separate Trump the president from Trump the man" : What does it even mean ? Who decide where is the line between the two ? This is a magical argument, I could easely delete any new contribution about Joe Biden saying that one should separate Joe Biden the president from Joe Biden the man. This convoluted notions are open doors for all sorts abuses and I considerer that it was my right to ask for a clarification. I therefore ask you to reopen this discussion until someone clearly explains what does it mean separe the man from the president.--Dimitrius99 (talk) 17:56, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for coming here with your concern. These issues have been discussed extensively and in diverse contexts on the article talk page over the past 5-6 years. On WP, the default is to omit content that does not have consensus for inclusion. Please see the pages on neutral point of view and due weight and consensus. By the time a thread has become repetitive and circular, I believe it's best to move on to other article improvements. Of course no issue is ever absolutely closed and can be revisited if context or sourcing changes. SPECIFICO talk 18:15, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

So if I understand well, since it is nowhere considered in the article about concensus that one of the parts may be of bad-faith, someone working for a politician (and these people exist, in France we have a website enumerating every modification made from IP located in the National Assembly) can indefinitely filibuster any add that he doesn't like, saying that it isn't relevant here, that one should make the difference between the politician and man, etc ? There is strictly nothing preventing that ?Dimitrius99 (talk) 21:25, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

I've given a couple of links you can read to get a perspective on how WP treats the issues you raise. Please consider the content on those pages, which will give a framework for any discussions you have with me or other editors about your concerns. SPECIFICO talk 22:38, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

DS 2021 Review Update

Dear SPECIFICO,

Thank you for participating in the recent discretionary sanctions community consultation. We are truly appreciative of the range of feedback we received and the high quality discussion which occurred during the process. We have now posted a summary of the feedback we've received and also a preview of some of what we expect to happen next. We hope that the second phase, a presentation of draft recommendations, will proceed on time in June or early July. You will be notified when this phase begins, unless you choose to to opt-out of future mailings by removing your name here.
--Barkeep49 & KevinL (aka L235) 21:05, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Re: Dinesh D'Souza

I mean, look at Dinesh D'Souza's article where this has come up perhaps most frequently with ongoing disputes. He is unique. Does the exact label tell us much? Not sure.

I'm not familiar with that particular dispute. Can you briefly summarize it? As far as I know, Dinesh D'Souza meets and exceeds the definition for the far right. What special circumstances exist that might make me change my mind? Viriditas (talk) 17:18, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I've given up on that page long ago. Some of the now-TBANned editors used to hang out there, a bit like what we see on Assange, only that was back in the day when folks actually went to the trouble of filing AE cases and a few good Admins watched the articles. Mostly folks wanted to remove "right" entirely, and call him an author and documentary filmmaker. Maybe even a political scientist -- the same as how they used to call Molyneux a "philosopher". I think there's a flare up recently. Not sure. The talk archives will tell the tale. Not worth the trouble. Who's reading that page? Not sure how many views it gets. He's a bit too boring for 2021 audiences. SPECIFICO talk 17:29, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I had a look. There was a recent RfC here. I said "right-wing" but with the benefit of your analysis and references I see now it's unambiguous that he should be classified "far right". I'm not sure whether all of what qualifies as RS have as clear a distinction as you've shown us. SPECIFICO talk 17:36, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Edit War & RFC violation question

Dear @SPECIFICO:, I have a question about an edit war & RFC violation for you. Over on the Elon Musk talk page, a May 18, 2021 RFC [1] concluded "Musk should not be described as an engineer." Since that time, some who participated in the RFC and who disagree with the RFC's conclusion have been side-stepping the conclusion by putting, in the article, that Musk is a "chief engineer." When I edited that out (as per RFC) and explained on the talk page why I deleted that, my edits get reverted which seems to me to violate the RFC & seems to be starting an edit war. On the Musk talk page, I've asked, nicely, [2] for them to stop their edit war & stop violating the RFC's conclusions, but they've not stopped. So now I don't know what to do? Can you please advise me? Thanks! BetsyRMadison (talk) 17:13, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello - good to hear from you. For starters, I would consult the closer, who is very experienced, and get his take on this. I think the place for this would be AN/EW regardless of whether it's a 3rr issue. As you'll recall with the Joe Biden Allegations article acouple of years ago, this kind of obstruction can go on much longer than you will remain patient. Further, I don't see what the purported job title benefits our readers. Titles are not defined and vary widely among companies. So I would check in to get the closer's take, then consider EW noticeboard, but I would not bother repeating your view, which appears to be correct but which is not being respected. Good luck. If you want another opinion, you could check in at the BLPN or with one of the Admins who's active there. SPECIFICO talk 23:30, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your advice!!! I knew you'd know what I should do. BetsyRMadison (talk) 02:29, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Donald Trump

Heck help us. He's considering another round, if the RFC doesn't end his way. GoodDay (talk) 15:05, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Well there will be a dozen or more books coming out in the next year or so -- by notable and respected journalists and academics -- that will cast an entirely fresh light on the man and his presidency. This article has withstood many false narratives inserted by well meaning and not-here editors alike. There will be bigger fish to fry than the unfortunate rfc go-round.. SPECIFICO talk 16:29, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Refactoring others talk page comments

Hi SPECIFICO. I just want to ask you nicely to not edit my talk page comments without asking me, as you did here on Talk:Andy Ngo. Your edit caused a typo in my comment and also formatted it as a bullet point when it was intended as a direct reply. In the future I'd appreciate you pointing out any issues with my comments on my talk page before you edit them. Thanks. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲^(talk) 01:12, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi. The erasure was an avoidable error and I should certainly have been more careful. The matter of mixing indents and bullets has considerable documentation and while that thread is mixed, a direct response to a bulleted comment is best done as a subsidiary bulleted comment. Unfortunately I do not recall any of the links to the extensive and rather conclusive discussion of this. It's part a style problem and part a software engineering issue, as I recall. Then of course there's my second error, which is that for some reason my comment below yours was not bulleted as it should have been. So bottom line: My apologies for messing up your text but as a general matter I believe that kind of refactor to keep the thread clean is considered OK and even encouraged. Thanks for letting me know your concern. You're one of the most productive editors on the articles I've been watching recently. SPECIFICO talk 02:08, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words, means a lot from such an experienced editor. I read up on Help:Talk_pages#Indentation and I see it indeed clearly states to use the same indentation and list formatting as what you are replying to. Appreciate the tip. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲^(talk) 02:29, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Confusing however, because many editors seem to switch from indents to bullets when it strikes them that they are sharing a particularly inspired thought. Then the thread is mixed and it's hopeless. There's also a difference between colon-followed by-asterisk and asterisk-followed-by-colon. I believe the former is preferred, but you might try both on your sandbox and see what happens. SPECIFICO talk 02:55, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Indeed that is what seems ideal, after my experimentations. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲^(talk) 08:20, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

What is a PA?

Regarding this: do you really think that 'fixing' her comment to make her say I'm ugly was not insulting or disparaging? WP:NPA#WHATIS says: Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. (emphasis in original) Or did you not notice that this is what the block was for? Just genuinely curious here, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 12:14, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello Apaugasma. I've posted my thoughts on this at DN's talk page at this link. I don't view that "insulting or disparaging" language to be the dominant principle in our definition of PA. It's just not enforced that way. I view that as at best an afterthought that was intended to allow the community some flexibility, but it's way too vague to be a standard on its face. Thanks for coming here. See what you think of my response at the link, and feel free to come back with further thoughts or disagreement. SPECIFICO talk 16:35, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

I hadn't really been interested in our PA policy, until I recently found a PA against me mentioned at ANI, and chimed in to insist that this attack really was baseless and really was crossing the line. Now an important part of our PA policy appears to be that often the best way to respond to an isolated personal attack is to simply ignore it, which is precisely what I did until I saw it mentioned at ANI. You are certainly also right that insults and disparaging remarks are generally given a free pass: the policy is just not enforced that way. But civility is one of our five pillars, and for a 'pillar' it certainly does get ignored a lot. To the detriment of the encyclopedia, I think: I know for a fact that the PA leveled against me has had a chilling effect on my willingness to contribute in the topic area where it happened, and even WP in general. It's not a pillar for nothing. I agree with those saying that POV-pushing is a greater threat than incivility, but it becomes a problem when POV-pushing is just being asserted without proof in order to excuse personal attacks (which on closer inspection really is a kind of POV-pushing all of its own). It tends to hollow out our claim that decisions here are made on the basis of policy and sources: in fact, editorial questions are often decided by who gangs up on who.

As for DN's case, I'm under the impression that your argument is that PA only applies to comments about our real-world person, not about our on-wiki persona? That seems a bit misguided to me: in most cases editors make sure to share as little as possible about their real lives, so your stance would seem to imply that editors can insult each other all they want –it's only their on-wiki persona that gets targeted anyway. I think that kind of glosses over the fact that people will take insults as insults, regardless whether they encounter these online or in real life. Online insults have the same kind of undesirable effects as real-life ones. One important difference is that the insults are more or less 'socially quarantined' to the wiki-environment: they may have a (considerable) effect on people's real-life mood and behavior, but at least they don't affect their social rank in offline environments (e.g., you can be bullied here but sit at the top of the social hierarchy on your workplace, or vice versa). But within the wiki-environment, insults and disparaging remarks can bring an editor down, chase them away, decide content disputes, etc., and can for those reasons make a core difference in how the encyclopedia ultimately looks. That's why it's a pillar. As I see it, Larry Sanger was right about one thing: the great tragedy of Wikipedia is that it doesn't enforce its own policies and guidelines. It's indeed no use to more rigorously enforce the policy on civility if the same isn't done for that much more important policy, NPOV. So we just don't do it, and have this kind of mob rule instead.

Anyway, I think I've learned a lot about the wiki-experience by going through this. I now also have a better view of PA's and how they are (not) enforced. My most important lesson: if you don't agree with something, stay away from it, because it's most probably not worth it. It's much more productive to write and rewrite whole articles than to get bogged down in toxic 'debates' over how one paragraph or sentence should read. I'm sorry to have been venting here about this. I hope it may at least have inspired you to some thoughts about what a PA is and how we should deal with them here. Thanks! ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 23:47, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

My point is simply that the dominant point in the PA policy is about attacks on the real life editor. Policy pages often have inconsistent minor text like the "anything disparaging" bit. It's not enforced that way, which is what leads me to know that it's an artifact of the editing of that page and not a principle that is broadly endorsed by the community. There's plenty of overt and passive-aggressive hostility and insult on contentious matters, but the community rarely responds with sanctions. SPECIFICO talk 16:21, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Recent deletion on Julian Assange page

You recently deleted an edit I made on the Julian Assange page saying:

“Remove unencyclopedic, UNDUE, and unspecified text. Without statement as to what in Assange's long saga they support, it is also a BLP violation with respect to those listed.”

I would like to discuss the edit/deletion you made and the justification you provided for deleting. For instance “undue” - these are high profile people – so why are there opinions “undue”. That they chose to speak out on this is surely of interest. I don’t know what you mean (in this context) by “unspecified text” perhaps you could explain that to me? Do you require/ask for a quote from each of the people listed (along with citations) making clear the support they gave Assange? (that can be provided in most cases if you wish.) As for “BLP violation” I think not – these are people who have gone on public record to support Assange – the citations I supplied are clear in that regard – more can be provided. Prunesqualor billets_doux 22:56, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

"Support XYZ" is a very broad and undefined statement. Presumably they do not support every action or public statement in his life. Please review WP:NPOV WP:V and WP:BLP. The place to discuss article content is on the article talk page, but I am not going to tutor you on fundamental WP site policies and practices there. Please read the pages I've linked and consider my edit summary and the text I deleted. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 23:53, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Responding to your concerns regarding my conduct.

Imported from Talk:American Enterprise Institute: Really not helpful for you to do a blind revert without responding to my clear explanation above. There's nothing in the 501(c)(3) about taking policy or analysis positions. It's a prohibition on lobbying and supporting electoral campaigns. Please be responsive here. I fixed the problem identified above, on which you commented, and you don't appear to fully understand the issue. Kindly undo your blind revert or provide a detailed explanation of your sourced and reasoned objection, if any. SPECIFICO talk 15:31, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

I have responded to your substantive concerns on the AEI talk page. With regard to my conduct, I don't know what a "blind revert" is and would welcome you educating me on that term. I did not first respond to your clear explanation for one of your two edits on talk because I didn't know it was there when I did the revert. All I knew was that the edit summary said "ce" and the edit was clearly more than correcting for grammar, spelling, readability, or layout. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 21:02, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for coming here with your concern. A blind revert is undoing an edit without stating any substantive objection or engaging other editors as to the reason for your revert. Now that you have read the explanation, I presume that -- unless there's some further issue you want to raise -- you'll restore the text you reverted. If there's some problem with it, please identify it on the article talk page. The previous text simply reflected a misunderstanding of the 501(c)(3) restriction. SPECIFICO talk 22:46, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Please see my post at Talk:American Enterprise Institute regarding restoring your changes. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 00:14, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

I fear you may not be receptive to hearing this from me.

But, I'll try anyway.
According to Help:Minor edit, "A good rule of thumb is that edits consisting solely of spelling corrections, formatting changes, or rearrangement of text without modification of the content should be flagged as minor edits." In other words, a copy edit that changes text (such as this one) is not one for which checking the "This is a minor edit" box would be appropriate. That said, the example is one for which a "ce" edit summary would be appropriate because it involves "correcting for grammar, spelling, readability, or layout" (quoting WP:COPYEDIT) without changing the meaning of the text. Had the edit changed the meaning then the edit summary should explain the change (or referred to a talk explanation of the change). Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 23:18, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

I've already addressed that concern. My careless, hasty edit summaries do not validate your behavior. You are welcome here any time, even when you repeat yourself. SPECIFICO talk 01:19, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your courteous reply. I completely agree that two wrongs don't make a right. In retrospect, I should have led with the post set forth above. I apologize for not having done that. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 01:51, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Better yet, fix the reinstated bad text. SPECIFICO talk 04:24, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

I hesitate to undo my revert because I am not the one who could properly explain the restored changes in an edit summary. I do not know - as you apparently do - whether 501(c)(3) prohibits support of candidates, parties, or both. And, while I have a guess, I don't know why you removed "grants" from description of funding sources. (If my guess is right then I'd disagree inasmuch "grant" and "donation" are not necessarily synonyms. If my guess is wrong and you removed the word because AEI doesn't have any grant funding then I don't know whether that is true or not.) Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 06:39, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

With far less effort than you've wasted on this nonsense, you could have researched and found a reference. I have no further interest in this. SPECIFICO talk 11:42, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Recent reversion

Please note the new section in Julian Assange Talk page: "Russian intelligence officers working with WikiLeaks?" which deals with your recent reversion of an edit. Prunesqualor billets_doux 11:12, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

altering other users posts

This [[3]] was unacceptable, never change a users choice in an RFC.Slatersteven (talk) 17:29, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for catching this. I was returning to the edit window from another application and instead of bolding my "no", I inadvertently bolded the initial word "no" in @NadVolum:'s post. I'm rather surprised you'd imagine I would do that deliberately or talk about a "warning" rather than a notification on the talk page. Regards. SPECIFICO talk 18:15, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Accidental rollback insted of undo

Sorry I accidentally hit rollback button instead of undo when reverting your last Assange edit, hence no edit summary – It would have said; Your addition of “for ongoing criminal activity” in the Assange page is not meaningful here as Assange is currently in prison. Prunesqualor billets_doux 15:04, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about. The ongoing criminal activity relates to the witness, who is a known criminal, per source. You should reinstate the text you apparently have removed. SPECIFICO talk 15:32, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Sorry - Lost the plot today have reverted Prunesqualor billets_doux 15:36, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 15:48, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

DS violation

This edit is a DS violation. You reinstated an edit that was reverted without opening a talk page discussion. Please self revert and start the discussion to avoid sanctions. Mr Ernie (talk) 23:10, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

A violation would entail 2 reverts by me. What is the first? SPECIFICO talk 23:30, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

It’s a bespoke DS, quite uncommon, but reads “If an edit you make is reverted you must discuss on the talk page and wait 24 hours before reinstating your edit.” I don’t know what you mean by 2 reverts. There are two conditions to this DS, and only one was fulfilled. Mr Ernie (talk) 23:45, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

@Awilley: I am well aware of the restriction, but you have not shown, with your single link, that I reinstated any edit. SPECIFICO talk 23:49, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for opening the discussion. Let’s just figure this out on the talk page. Mr Ernie (talk) 00:26, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

@Awilley: No, Ernie. You apparently came here to harass me with a bogus demand regarding a nonexistent violation. That's why I've pinged an Admin here. I made the mistake of taking you at your word and sel-reverting. My mistake.You appear to stalk various editors who reject your POV UNDUE editing, and hats not OK.@Valjean:.

@Valjean: Sorry Valjean, I think the ping didn't work due to my not having signed the preceding post. Ernie has posted a false allegation that I stupidly took at face value, resulting in my self-revert and opening a pointless talk page thread where he's continued to advocate unverified and unsourced content. I believe you have suffered similar incidents in the past, so I thought you might be interested. SPECIFICO talk 13:12, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Check your own eye for splinters before accusing me of posting false allegations. Useful talk page discussions are not pointless. Here are the sources - [4], [5], [6], [7], [8] - BBC and CNN are top quality RS. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:02, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Ernie, if you do not give diffs to document your claim that I violated the DS restriction, you should be TBAN-ed for it. Let's see the diffs. SPECIFICO talk 14:28, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

You removed text with an edit summary "unsourced text," despite the source right behind the text, I restored the text and added another source, and then you removed that source too. The spirit of the DS says if there is an edit and then reversion, there should then be a talk page discussion instead of additional reverts. I have now produced a further 5 sources for the content, where a fruitful discussion is now occurring. Thank you for starting the discussion. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:59, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

This removal (the "R" in BRD undid a "bold" edit (the addition of a ref which SPECIFICO disputed by "R"eversion), IOW the "B" in BRD. That leaves it up to Mr Ernie to start a "D"iscussion. Since the discussion has been started, just discuss there and stop the sniping. Stick to the content. -- Valjean (talk) 15:06, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Ernie, you are digging deeper and deeper. Please just provide the two diffs that would be necessary to document a DS violation prior to your appearance here. You are well aware that I immediately went to self revert, taking your complaint in good faith to be true (my mistake) and screwed up the revert with a few edits before reinstating it when I realized your complaint was false. Now I'd like to see either 1) an explanation of the violation you claim -- which would be documented by 2 diffs. Or an explanation as to why you came here to present a false complaint. Your repeated failure to respond to that request is hard to understand, but the time to correct that is now. Thank you. SPECIFICO talk 15:58, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

BR, there's really nothing to discuss. It's the familiar unverified content with googled cherrypicked sources that don't address the problems with the original unverified content and blog source. The only reason there is a talk page thread is because I stupidly didn't imagine that Ernie would come here with a false complaint and I didn't give it any thought before honoring his demand. You've complained bitterly on talk and perhaps elsewhere when he's pushed unverified and UNDUE content on other articles. I don't consider it "bickering" to expect honesty and responsiveness from editors here. If you do, I'm afraid you're going to continue to experience the same in the future. My opinion. At some point, when the pattern of behavior is clear, it needs to be addressed. SPECIFICO talk 15:58, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Mr Ernie, I have looked at the article history. Specifico's edit here did not violate the discretionary sanction If an edit you make is reverted you must discuss on the talk page and wait 24 hours before reinstating your edit. It didn't bring the DS into play at all. Specifico reverted your addition of a source, with an edit summary criticizing that source. He didn't revert your revert of his original edit. Never touched it, and still has not. You did get ahead of yourself in accusing him of violating DS. Please read histories more slowly. Me, I have to stare at them back and forth forever to understand what's happening. Bishonen | tålk 16:40, 30 August 2021 (UTC).

Thanks for taking a look and providing some clarity. I brought the issue here instead of a noticeboard hoping to address it directly with SPECIFICO. Their removal of the source triggered a revert notice in my notifications, which I thought was the entire edit and not just the removal of the source. Closer inspection and outside opinions have cleared it up, and there’s now a productive talk page discussion about the topic. Happy to hear there was no violation. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:12, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Ernie, you continue to evade the issue. A single revert would never constitute a violation. The revert notice referred to your edit being reverted. That is not what 24-hr BRD is about. Are you going to give an honest reply, or are you hoping for this to be escalated against you? You don't really think anyone believes you are glad I did nothing wrong, do you. SPECIFICO talk 17:40, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Just reviewed this (belatedly) myself. Mr Ernie reverted a Bold edit by SPECIFICO, and SPECIFICO reverted a Bold edit by Mr Ernie. Mr Ernie has (kind of) admitted fault for the false accusation of a BRD violation. It doesn't look like an apology is forthcoming, and I doubt trying to extract one is going to make anybody really feel better. Best to drop it and move on IMO. ~Awilley (talk) 22:12, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Awilley, your inaction only enables and empowers Ernie to continue this kind of behavior, which is by no means an isolated incident. His failure to respond until an Admin arrived here, and the excuse he presented about a flag that his edit had been reverted once lacks any possible fraction of credibiliity. You have volunteered to take a lead role in the enforcement of DS for the politics articles, and the response you have given above does not address this behavior or do anything to improve and sustain a collaborative editing environment. Even after denying the problem and then googling a list of defective "sources" for his preferred edit, Ernie came here to tell me to "take splinters out" of my eyes. I've seen you post at length at AE and elsewhere about lesser infractions and here most likely your inaction only enables more such behavior in the future. In my opinion, if you do not have the time or intention to monitor the sanction you placed, it would be time to recruit someone else to assume that role so that you don't get pinged when there's a problem. That would save your time and attention and would not lead to pointless dead end requests to maintain a baseline level of honesty, civility and yes, WP:COMPETENCE in these difficult articles. Please consider. SPECIFICO talk 22:21, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Politician & Conspiracy theorist discussions, should be separate.

Howdy, you should make the "conspiracy theorist" discussion into a separate section, from the preceding topic "politician". The former is muddying up the latter. GoodDay (talk) 02:40, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree. Thinking of starting an RfC for the question. ––FormalDude talk 04:09, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Multiple manual reverts and transparency issues

Re. the Assange article. SPECIFICO you reverted an edit of mine where I had removed two doubtful sentences from the intro – in your next edit you manually re-deleted those two sentences and put them in the “2016 U.S. presidential election” section – ok no big deal - but during the same edit you manually re-instating several questionable sentences in different parts of the section, that had earlier been removed. This cannot be good practice as it is easy for editors to miss stuff when several edits are being manually reverted and messed around with at the same time – all with an inadequate edit summary (instead of being individually and more transparently reverted). Please in future if you are going to revert several edits could you do so individually with some kind of explanation for each. Prunesqualor billets_doux 14:52, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

No, this was very well-sourced longstanding article content and I am reverting the removal and sending it back to the talk page. Any concerns can be raised by you, ad the editor who initially cut this content, as you are well aware of what was reinstated. SPECIFICO talk 14:57, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Sorry SPECIFICO that’s just not good enough – It should be clear - the issue I am dealing with here is not about the specific things you changed - but the way you performed the changes i.e. you altered lots of things in different parts of the article, all with one single edit and one edit summary. Not good practice especially on a fast moving page like the Assange one with it’s multiple issues Prunesqualor billets_doux 15:42, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

I understood you the first time. Thanks for your visit. At any rate, you should not reinstate edits that have been reverted without first discussing them and gaining consensus on the article talk page. SPECIFICO talk 16:39, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Discretionary sanction at Julian Assange

@SPECIFICO: Thank you for undoing your third revert within 24 hours to Julian Assange. Please also undo your second revert within 24 hours, made just four minutes after your initial revert to that page. Basketcase2022 (talk) 10:19, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Consecutive edits are single reverts. There was an edit conflict and a simultaneous edit at 10:00 made the third one non-consecutive, which is why I undid it. I hope somebody else examines it and makes the edit. SPECIFICO talk 10:46, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Bullying in advance!

I would invite you to self revert your comment on the FRB talk page [9]. By saying "mobilize the kiddie corps" what you are doing is saying that anybody that answers my request for information is a child - this goes extremely against the principles of Wikipedia. Wikipedia says that you should assume good faith and you are failing to do so. By the way my request for information was genuine. I do not know what the latest editions of the textbooks are saying. I do have a hunch but not strong enough to put money on it. Reissgo (talk) 17:45, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

No, I'm saying that people who have recently purchased elementary economics texts would be among the youngest of Wikipedia editors. You seem to misunderstand lots of things, so it's best not to speculate -- most of all about article content with your Original Research. SPECIFICO talk 18:11, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't know why you put the word "no" at the start of your first sentence there. It makes more sense for it to be the word "yes". The phrase "kiddie corps" is demeaning to any younger person that may contemplate actually answering my legitimate request for information. Your language is diminishing the likelihood of getting an answer. This has got to be against everything Wikipedia is about. So I'll say it again: Please edit or remove your comment. And what is this "original research" that you speak of? Reissgo (talk) 08:07, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing your concerns. SPECIFICO talk 13:45, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Double standards in editing

Your double standards in Tagging my edit and warning me Here should be plain to see as other (hopefully disinterested) editors will note far more clear-cut examples of “NOTFORUM” in preceding contributions like: “criminal turncoat”: “obsess with tawdry American politics” or: “Assange's self-declared 14-year war against America's national security and its domestic politics”. You should either revert, or give the same treatment to these other edits. Prunesqualor billets_doux 10:03, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

That is deflection to avoid taking responsibility for your conduct. I already explained to you that, if Assange's slanders about Rich were true, this innocent victim would have committed a crime against his employer, the Clinton campaign. As to the Otherstuff you keep throwing at me -- take up your complaints with whoever might have said it. You are on a downward spiral to a block or ban, not just from this. I hope you can take a break and start to collaborate constructively instead. SPECIFICO talk 13:10, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Your revert breached WP:OWN

You should be aware that when you reverted my recent edit in Julian Assange you effectively reinstated an edit by Valjean which was placed there the midst of our RFC debate and WAS in breach of WP:OWN. In other words my edit rectified a breach of WP:OWN and by reverting me you reinstated the breach (effectively putting you in breach) – Please be good enough to undo your revert Prunesqualor billets_doux 13:53, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

PS, If, whist performing your undo, you wish to reinstate the misleading and unpopular sentence which Valjean’s controversial and unauthorised edit replaced - I cannot prevent you: as that dogs dinner was considered the last “stable edit” – that’s up to you. Prunesqualor billets_doux 14:01, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Prunesqualer, what do you mean by "breach of WP:OWN"? I have never seen that expression before. Are you accusing SPECIFICO or myself of engaginng in OWN behavior, IOW edit warring to preserve our own content (content we have installed)? -- Valjean (talk) 19:20, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

I should probably ping you about...

... m:Talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_Chief_Executive_Officer/Maryana’s_Listening_Tour Epistemology follows Ontology (talk) 03:02, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Curious what on earth prompted you to ask that? Not that I can comment. SPECIFICO talk 03:09, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Manifestly unjust persecution contrary to the Vision (why is your opinion on Austrian economics unsuitable for inclusion in the sum of all knowledge?), due unintentionally to Wales' co-founding. Are you allowed to comment on the issue on Meta? Epistemology follows Ontology (talk) 03:16, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps misplaced in RSN

I liked your comment that went along with your !vote in RSN re DW, and I commented underneath it. However, I think you may have mis-placed it by putting it under the section "Malformed survey" (a discussion) instead of the section "Survey, The Daily Wire" (where the !votes are being posted). If you plan on moving it to the preceding section, then please drag my response along with it. I didn't want to move your comment, in case it was placed exactly where you wanted it. Platonk (talk) 05:17, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Please feel free to move both. SPECIFICO talk 08:17, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I moved them, as well as the reply-comments that had been added below them. [10] Platonk (talk) 16:19, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

NPOV

Your comment at the NPOV noticeboard is not much of a help, as it is not exactly neutrally worded itself.Slatersteven (talk) 09:44, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Could you be specific? It was just asking for eyes on the page, I think. Anything you would add to attract more editors there? SPECIFICO talk 11:58, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

This (in every forum you placed it) "- a troubled page frequented by various self-described fans of Assange, opponents of the US, and disparagers of mainstream media. ".Slatersteven (talk) 12:53, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Really, another RSN thread about this?Slatersteven (talk) 12:59, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Also, to paraphrase WP:SOUP:

Like someone who spits in your soup in a restaurant, then when you complain says: "Thank you for your comment. [Could you be specific? It was just asking for eyes on the page, I think. Anything you would add to attract more editors there?] I welcome constructive discussion to reach an amicable solution."
— User:Tearlach 16:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Kleinpecan (talk) 13:18, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Sorry folks, but the biases of various editors there have been self-declared at the article talk page repeatedly and consistently -- referring to Assange as "our hero", declaring that we should not follow mainstream sources, etc. The notices were asking for eyes on the article talk page, not to start a discussion on NPOVN or BLPN. The statement of the RfC on article talk said only that it existed -- nothing at all on any viewpoint about it. Spitting in soup is an ugly image to bring here -- you can do better expressing yourself I'm sure. SPECIFICO talk 13:43, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

See WP:Canvassing#Campaigning. NadVolum (talk) 14:22, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

And notices must always be neutral, as in "there is a talk page discussion here", and never "help me fight then POV pushers". All you are doing (see above) is undermining your credibility.Slatersteven (talk) 14:29, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, but no. You misunderstand what neutral notice means. And there was no suggestion in my notice as to the substance of the issue or whether any of the self-identified biases would come down on one side or the other of the RfC or my view. Who said I have any credibility to begin with? It's just a notice, folks can take it or leave it. Have a look or not, as they wish. Your mischaracterization of the notice is disappointing. SPECIFICO talk 14:38, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Slatersteven (talk) 15:39, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

To add to this, I've made a comment in the WP:ANI thread, regarding your behaviour, to which you should probably respond. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:01, 4 October 2021 (UTC)