User talk:SPECIFICO/Archive 20

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Removal of DNC leak material

I recently inserted the following into the article: “The leaked e-mails revealed an acrimonious split within the Democratic party, with senior D.N.C. staff sharing stinging denunciations of Clinton’s rival leadership contender Bernie Sanders”. The edit was almost immediately reverted by you with the excuse “UNDUE opinion” – This really has to be some sort of (not very funny) joke. I don’t believe you even had time to read the Guardian article from which the information was sourced. I would like to request you reinstate my edit and apologise for his (yet again) disruptive behaviour. Prunesqualor billets_doux 16:57, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

I think it is UNDUE opinion to cherrypick a partisan statement, Please pursue consensus on the article talk page. We need to get the article right. There is no rush. SPECIFICO talk 17:03, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

I have to agree with Prunesqualer. Many people don't realize why the leaks were significant for the Clinton campaign. This explains it. Such context is important for readers. Right-wingers often mistakenly, because they are lied to in their media bubble, think it was much more serious (maybe illegal acts or collusion with Russia) matters that were revealed when that was not the case. The leaks were merely embarrassing, and that's all.

Of course, the fact that only the Democratic material hacked by the Russians (who also hacked the Republicans) was released is also significant and evidence of the nature of the Russian support for Trump. Top GOP politicians are essentially living in a state of sustained blackmail, as they know that embarrasing material is being withheld only as long as they continue to back Trump and support the Trump/Russia agenda. This may explain why so many GOP politicians have acted so weirdly, as if they are compromised. Like Trump, they are wittingly or unwittingly acting as Russian assets. -- Valjean (talk) 17:43, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

I presume you do not agree with them about the personal attack and demand for apology, so I think any content discussion belongs on the article talk page. In general, I think that section needs a thorough re-write and that whatever omissions currently exist are not likely to be improved by adding bits and pieces. SPECIFICO talk 17:47, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

I was only referring to the content issues. Omissions are often fixed by "adding bits and pieces." -- Valjean (talk) 18:29, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

In this case, though, I think there are larger issues: wikileaks content vs. Assange bio content -- making points by SYNTH juxtaposition rather than secondary and tertiary source contextualization -- UNDUE content from opinion or incidental media, etc. SPECIFICO talk 18:36, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Rutine reversion of my edits

The regular reverting of my edits often under often unorthodox situations as in: here when you reverted me after three minutes flat on an edit where the RS alone would have taken five minutes to digest) has become tiresome – and now: here you have reverted, claiming there is “no consensus” for my edit, but have made no effort whatsoever to sound out other editors on the subject ie you cannot know if there is consensus - in other words by your reasoning every single edit that adds material to the page can be automatically reverted because it “has no consensus” – I’m assuming in the name of consistency you will revert every unsounded additive edit made on the page from now on? Prunesqualor billets_doux 20:39, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

You cited "per talk" to reinstate this defective article content after it had been challenged. All your complaints above appear to be projections of your own misstep. My prayer is that some day you will reach the point at which you can look back and understand how flawed your participation has been. Thanks for your visit. Come back any time. SPECIFICO talk 20:52, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Deletion of Green New Deal section of Paul Krugman's bio ...

Per your rollback reason for deletion of Green New Deal section of Paul Krugman's bio ... 1) How can the BLP constraints be construed to bear on a direct quote of Dr. Krugman? 2. If " Cherrypicked" and "article text over-generalizes from the source" is going to be claimed as a justification for deleting content then the reasoning for claiming same needs to be explained. How can a direct quote of Dr. Krugman be construed to be "over-generalize[d]"?

See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paul_Krugman&curid=313701&diff=1055265029&oldid=1055217306&diffmode=source Deicas (talk) 21:45, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

It's UNDUE. Please see WP:ONUS, WP:WEIGHT and WP:BLP. Please also undo your reinsertion of the fresh edit I reverted. There is no consensus for this and more importantly it's a BLP violation to select one of tens of thousands of statements by an individual -- several years in the past and quite vague -- and insert that in the article. You can use the article talk page to pursue consensus. SPECIFICO talk 21:52, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

DONE. Please see Talk:Paul Krugman#Attempt to delete information on Dr. Krugman's support for the Green New Deal Deicas (talk) 22:36, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

You did not self-revert your reinsertion of the disputed text. SPECIFICO talk 22:55, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Please note, I have removed it as a violation of Deicas's topic ban. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:32, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Wow. I had no idea about that. I am always grateful for Admins who take an active role in monitoring articles and stepping in to obviate reports to the drama boards. Thank you. SPECIFICO talk 00:39, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

November 2021

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia. Cambial — foliar❧ 23:19, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't know what concerns you. Perhaps you should explain either here or at Arbcom Enforcement? SPECIFICO talk 00:07, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

RE: Email

Hi. Unfortunately, I'm not available to correspond privately with you at this time. But if there's anything I can clarify on-wiki, please do not hesitate. El_C 20:59, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, You appear to be legitimizing OP's personal animus toward me -- out of all proportion to any substance of the complaint, which got no community support. And why ping a sample of 2 editors when there are dozens of others who have collaborated in that article with me, including several respected Admins you could engage privately. Have you read the talk page and archives? I would find it hard to believe I'd be near the top of any Admin's list of unconstructive editors there. And as I know you're aware, those who, like me, are least eager to engage and mine thousands of diffs for reports and sparring at the drama boards are frequently the ones who most stabilize articles like this one. No need for a reply here. Thanks for your note. SPECIFICO talk 21:06, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, where is it that you would you like me to reply at? El_C 21:23, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi it sounded like you were busy so I am fine with an email when you have the time or never if this ANI thread can be let lie, per community indifference. If you think I need an AE sanction, that's something we should discuss. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 21:25, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, the reason for me not wishing to discuss any of this over email isn't because I'm busy, it's because I prefer to keep matters on-wiki and on the record here. Anyway, I was about to ABAN you, but just to be extra-sure, I've asked two editors from the talk page whose names I recognized what they thought. Otherwise, you'd already be sanctioned. El_C 21:30, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Oh. I misunderstood "at this time" -- But surely you realize that, being relatively unfamiliar with the dynamics of that article and talk page, it is likely that a larger sample would give you a better perspective on things there. A small sample and narrowly stated questiion may in general be less likely to be representative of the population there. The article has been edited by several Admins whom you know and respect and there are half a dozen editors whose behavior you might scrutinize if you choose to take a more active role in enforcement at that article. At any rate, I am going to be involved local community activities starting soon and will probably not be editing or commenting much over the next week. SPECIFICO talk 21:57, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

That's okay, SPECIFICO, I'm looking for views on the matter by other editors at this point anyway. El_C 23:55, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello I'd be glad if you could help me out with this one

Is a scholar who has written an article noteworthy if it's on the topic which the page is about, and it has been published in a established scholarly journal? I'm just wondering since you removed the article from mr Freeman, which is a online edition.

Pauloroboto (talk) 12:29, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

BLP Noticeboard Filing on Igor Danchenko as "indicted Steele dossier source"

Please note that you were mentioned here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Brookings_Institution#Former_Brooking_analyst_Igor_Danchenko_was_indicted_for_lying_to_the_FBI Deicas (talk) 22:40, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Discussion of incident

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Cambial — foliar❧ 04:29, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

• This is a discretionary sanctions issue regarding BLP and AP with the page under "Consensus Required". Your complaint is without merit, but once again you've gone to the wrong forum with it. DS issues are reviewed at WP:AE. Also, you should be careful to avoid any appearance of canvassing, for example your notification of a single editor whose only involvement was a gratuitous user talk page comment, while omitting all those who may feel they were involved in the article and article talk issue. SPECIFICO talk 15:24, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

• It's not been reported as a DS issue. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:29, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

• I've already addressed that at the ANI page. I see you are continuing to edit war the article text today. You should be aware that the text you and others keep reinserting is not the text in the RfC -- a fact that might be uncomfortable for you if you ever need to defend your actions on that page. Further, as has previously been indicated, no consensus -- closed or otherwise -- has been expressed for the other part of your repeated insertions, to wit: the trivia about someone or other telling an unnamed congressperson about their concerns. You really ought to undo your pointy repeat. No reply necessary here, but you may also wish to consider acknowledging your misrepresentation of the RfC text, lest others fail to check it and follow your lead. SPECIFICO talk 20:56, 16 November 2021 (UTC) @Basketcase2022:21:02, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

  I don't know if you've been following the topic, but Basketcase2022 has been blocked as a sockpuppet. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:43, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:36, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

December 2021

It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote—in order to influence Julian Assange. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you. Cambial — foliar❧ 22:31, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about. Links to the user talk pages please? SPECIFICO talk 22:37, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Here's the diff to remind of your edit half an hour ago where you pinged just your own choice of editor from an earlier discussion. Links to the canvassing policy are in the message above for your benefit. Cambial — foliar❧ 22:45, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

That is not a user talk page and that is not canvassing. While you're here, I urge you to review WP:RFCBEFORE. In my opinion, these articles about controversial subjects require a great deal of editor patience to resolve content and sourcing issues that arise. You appear to be impatient and precipitous in many of your actions, an approach that can lead to frustration and dysfunctional stalemates. I believe that @Slatersteven: joined me in expressing disappointment in your rush to an RfC when there were both detailed talk page discussion and the ORN thread recently begun. SPECIFICO talk 22:56, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

It is canvassing. Bye. Cambial — foliar❧ 23:17, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Note wp:point, Canvasing in retaliation for canvasing is still canvasing this edit (by your definition) [[1]] is canvasing.Slatersteven (talk) 10:41, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Viktory02

I probably should have included a smirk emoji, or a sarcasm tag. I was agreeing with. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:47, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Not sure the Admin would get it. SPECIFICO talk 19:43, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Preemptive apology for undone revisions

Hi Specifico, I recently noticed your changes to two pages namely Jerome P. & Federal Reserve.

I noticed you removed the mention / additional information I provided on inflation. These both, to me, seem highly relevant pieces of information that are consistent with their respective sections. On the FED page: a simple overview of CPI readings over the decades + a statement on current CPI readings seemed innocuous. The CPI is most definitely noteworthy and the sourcing was using multiple sources that I checked for reputability.

On Jerome P. - the information pertaining to inflation is also highly relevant as it is what he has been talking about during every FED meeting over the last 2 years! Particularly under the covid19 response not mentioning inflation seems strange considering it is part of the FED mandate for price stability and part of his job as chair to comment on these matters. It impacts 300+ million Americans + the rest of the world and as such is definitely important to include.

The information placed was factual, not quite sure what to say really but state that I believe it is most definitely noteworthy and relevant to the page(s).

Thanks again :) Bob (talk) 21:32, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

@Blockchainus Maximus:, as Wikipedia editors we must reflect the narratives presented in proportion to their weight in mainstream reliable sources. You appear to have personal views as to inflation and related topics that you are inserting out of proportion to their significance to the pages you edit. It is not up to us as editors to "connect the dots" or assemble bits of information in ways that are not amply observed in mainstream discussions of the related topics. That's why your edits were out of place and why I reverted them. They violated our principles of WP:NPOV WP:WEIGHT and WP:ONUS. Please read this page about the editiing process and collaboration. It is not constructive for you to re-do edits once reverted. The next step is for you to go to the article talk page and see whether you find consensus among editors to supoort your view. Please undo your re-insertion of those edits and launch talk page discussions if you wish. . SPECIFICO talk 22:06, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: Thank you for the quick response - I have reverted my changes to the FED page and started a conversation on the talk page. I have also heavily cut back on the inflation in the J.P. article and reduced puffery wording and kept strictly relevant / pertinent information. Thanks again! :) I saw your message on my page - I will try to avoid editing political pages :/ Bob (talk) 22:20, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

OK. It would be best if you reset the Powell article, which is covered under the Discretionary Sanctions related to living people to the text before your edits, i.e. the one I reverted to. But by all means state your views on the talk page and perhaps they will find support among other editors. SPECIFICO talk 22:24, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Pompeo and Assange

If you want to remove "Some of its sources stated that they had alerted House and Senate intelligence committees to the plans that Pompeo was suggesting" from the Julian Assange article set up a section about it for comment. It was put in by an RfC, a talk page discussion is needed to remove it. I can't just go ahead an do it any more than you can. The Yahoo article says

There is no indication that the most extreme measures targeting Assange were ever approved, in part because of objections from White House lawyers, but the agency’s WikiLeaks proposals so worried some administration officials that they quietly reached out to staffers and members of Congress on the House and Senate intelligence committees to alert them to what Pompeo was suggesting. “There were serious intel oversight concerns that were being raised through this escapade,” said a Trump national security official.

so it can't be removed as a policy violation against RS like you said. I said I wouldn't mind it going but I never said I would undertake to remove it nor did anyone else. NadVolum (talk) 08:55, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, no. Two reasons: First, no WP:LOCALCONSENSUS can negate core site policy. Second, in the discussion preceeding that RfC and even within the RfC thread, there was talk page consensus to remove the attribution of murder and kidnapping plots to Pompeo. But at any rate, my comment was prompted not by the past RfC but only came up when you repeated that unsupported extraordinary claim against Pompeo a day or so ago. It's ordinary course of business that other editors will respond to whatever you post on a talk page, so please consider taking a more careful approach to such comments. I also must say that RfC's are generally intended to be a final step only if necessary -- not a first step -- regarding content discussion. They inhibit collaborative development of consensus by unduly constraining alternatives and unnaturally structuring discussion. In my opinon the current RfC you launched is the most extreme example of one that's likely to fail and end up frustrating you. Finally -- in this diff you [[WP:CANVASS|canvassed] an editor whom you appeared to expect would agree with your POV on your RfC. I note that you did not give me a similar notice even though I too had commented in that thread without posting a !vote. Thanks for your visit. No need to reply. SPECIFICO talk 15:20, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I never mentioned Pompeo, you did. And if you feel so strongly about it go and start up a section about it, if not in the Assange article then at BLP if you feel that supports your case. And I did have a discussion before about the content butfor some reason nobody contributed any actual content then. You did not post at the top level or I wouild have sent you a similar note. NadVolum (talk) 15:38, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Standards for appending a "Controversies" section to entries for academic institutions

Hi.

Many entries for academic institutions here on Wikipedia include a section that detail, in a neutral and objective manner, controversies related to those institutions. For example, the Wikipedia entries for Milton Academy in Milton, MA and St. Paul's in New Hampshire have a "Controversies" section that provide information and references to highly publicized cases of sexual harassment, abuse, etc.

So I am unsure as to why the recent controversies unearthed by the Philadelphia Inquirer regarding the Curtis Institute continue to be edited out of the Wikipedia entry for Curtis. There have been more than 30 articles in major publications on this topic, the Institute commissioned an independent review of the allegations, and the independent review confirmed the allegations, and the Institute published a statement admitting their culpability in the whole affair.

If other editors at Wikipedia feel strongly that controversies related to sexual harassment do not belong on the pages of academic institutions, then they should go ahead and edit them out of ALL of the pages of academic institutions, instead of just on this one page for Curtis.

Its fine to have standards and rules and regulations, as long as they are evenly applied across the whole site.

Many thanks Sandline121 (talk) 16:48, 15 November 2021 (UTC).

I have already twice advised you to use the article talk page to propose and gain consensus for this sensitive content. It needs to relate to the institution and must not unduly disparage any living persons. See our policy on such content.Also, if you have any real-life relation to the institution or to any individual involved in this matter, you should disclose it on the article talk page. See WP:COI. SPECIFICO talk 18:58, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Perfect. I totally understand so let's have this conversation on the Talk page. In my view, my edits related to the institution and did not disparage living persons. Since you also are an "editor," perhaps you would be so kind as to edit the controversies section so that it aligns with Wikipedia policies, instead of just deleting everything? You clearly have a great deal of experience as an editor, and this seems like a fine opportunity to do some editing, as oppose to deleting. As to real-life relation to the institution or any individual involved, I have seen Ms. St.John perform at the bandshell in Central Park and attended an after-concert party that she attended. Does that disqualify me from inserting a section about a major news story related to the artist and the musical institute she attended? I believe my controversies section was very balanced and factual and did not contain any hyperbole and also was totally material and in the public interest - if someone was considering sending their son or daughter to Curtis, they would be well served by such a section, which would surely factor into their decision-making processes. Sandline121 (talk) 14:50, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

CARRYING ON THIS CONVERSATION IN SEARCH OF CONSENSUS Would you accept the insertion of a "Controversies" section if it followed the approach taken on the entry for Milton Academy? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_Academy#Controversies

Here is the text below: "In February 2017, the academy announced the results of a nine-month sexual misconduct investigation by T&M Protection Resources. The firm interviewed 60 alumni, parents, current and former staff and came to the conclusion that four former employees had engaged in illegal sexual conduct with students in the 1970s and 80s. The most egregious abuse came from a drama teacher named Reynold Buono who had abused at least 12 male students before being terminated by the school in 1987.[10] On June 27, 2018, Buono was arraigned in Norfolk Superior Court on three counts of rape of a child and three counts of rape of a child with force. Six of those counts were reversed in 2019 and four were reinstated in 2020 by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.[11] The original District Attorney alleged the rapes happened while Buono was teaching at the school between 1975 and 1987. Buono was terminated in 1987 after admitting to molesting a student and had been living in southeast Asia.[12]

In 2005, the school expelled five members of the boys varsity ice hockey team for rape/sexual assault of a female student. Following the county criminal investigation and prosecution by the state of Massachusetts, the three defendants over the age of 18 were found guilty of rape in adult court, and the two who were 16 at the time of the incident were found guilty in juvenile court.[13][14] This incident was used for fictional accounts in both print[15] and a Lifetime movie.[16]

Thanks for having a look. And also, I am not sure why this is deemed "sensitive" content? Sandline121 (talk) 14:27, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi SPECIFICO. I am waiting for a response from you, so we can continue this conversation in TALK and resolve this minor disagreement over content ourselves.

If you do not respond to my kind invitation to continue this conversation in TALK, I will then seek out alternative means of resolving this minor dispute by requesting a review by a third party.

Thanks for your timely attention to this matter. Sandline121 (talk) 15:57, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

About the Third Opinion request: The request made at Third Opinion has been removed (i.e. declined). Like all other moderated content dispute resolution venues at Wikipedia, Third Opinion requires thorough talk page discussion before seeking assistance, which requires back-and-forth and one editor here has only responded one time. If an editor will not discuss, consider the recommendations which are made here. Sandline121, you're persisting in attempting to talk about this on this user talk page. Let me strongly suggest that you make a request for what you want on the article talk page instead of attempting it here. Specifico is correct that that's the right place to do it, not here. — TransporterMan (TALK) 22:37, 16 December 2021 (UTC) (Not watching this page)

This looks to me like a Single Purpose Account that's been trying to disparage living persons involved in the Curtis Institute abuse matter. –They don't engage responsively and IMO a block is in the cards as soon as anyone takes the trouble to report it. SPECIFICO talk 23:29, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Responding to a suggestion you made in the View History section, I just now added to the Curtis Institute Talk page. I wrote my own opinion there, that the widely reported and admitted history of abuse should certainly be included. Coming to this page now, I find I agree with Sandline121 and do not understand why this information would be deemed "sensitive". I have not the slightest personal interest either for or against Curtis, only having stumbled across Curtis when researching other topics. I have done many small edits on Wikipedia pages, but have never been involved in any real dispute or anything requiring mediation, so (I admit) I do not fully understand all the procedures involved. Hopefully interested others such as yourself will "talk" more there at the Curtis Talk page, if that is really needed. I fail to understand why it is needed at all! but if it is, please do add your two cents and/or explain. Thanks. David Couch (talk) 09:32, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions topic area changes

In a process that began last year with WP:DS2021, the Arbitration Committee is evaluating Discretionary Sanctions (DS) in order to improve it. A larger package of reforms is slated for sometime this year. From the work done so far, it became clear a number of areas may no longer need DS or that some DS areas may be overly broad.

The topics proposed for revocation are:

• Senkaku islands
• Waldorf education
• Ancient Egyptian race controversy
• Scientology
• Landmark worldwide

The topics proposed for a rewording of what is covered under DS are:

• India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan
• Armenia/Azerbaijan

Additionally any Article probation topics not already revoked are proposed for revocation.

Community feedback is invited and welcome at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions. --Barkeep49 (talk) 16:59, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions topic area changes

In a process that began last year with WP:DS2021, the Arbitration Committee is evaluating Discretionary Sanctions (DS) in order to improve it. A larger package of reforms is slated for sometime this year. From the work done so far, it became clear a number of areas may no longer need DS or that some DS areas may be overly broad.

The topics proposed for revocation are:

• Senkaku islands
• Waldorf education
• Ancient Egyptian race controversy
• Scientology
• Landmark worldwide

The topics proposed for a rewording of what is covered under DS are:

• India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan
• Armenia/Azerbaijan

Additionally any Article probation topics not already revoked are proposed for revocation.

Community feedback is invited and welcome at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions. --Barkeep49 (talk) 04:36, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Abuse of admin power

Please answer this regarding the Ivo Pogorelić article. As this concerns your editing rather than the article itself, I'm posting it here.

I'm questioning your integrity: you removed the sentence about List and Kentner disapproving his playing style (saying it was already covered in the 1980 competition), yet you were the one adding Martha Argerich's comment which was also already covered in the 1980 competition without even providing a source (I had to add it afterwards). You initially removed everything negative about him, including the carefully sourced critiques by List and Kentner and the crucial McCormick source from Fryderyk Chopin Institute, which documented his entire career. I sense an abuse of admin power from you.Jmouritz127 (talk) 18:24, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

@Jmouritz127: SPECIFICO is not an administrator, they're a regular editor just like you. ––FormalDude talk 19:02, 28 January 2022 (UTC) (talk page watcher)

Thank you for clarifyingJmouritz127 (talk) 20:44, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Ivo Pogorelić

Please explain how the following points from your edits of Ivo Pogorelić:

• Your addition of Marta Argerich's review does not have a source (I believe her opinion is true but how you removed others' content as you disagreed with the source while adding an unsourced opinion is highly hypocritical) - now I added the NPR source myself
• Opinion of Peter Donohoe:
  • What do you mean by saying he is not a noteworthy commentator? He is a very well respected classical pianist. Also why does his opinion not matter but Martha Argerich's does?
  • The classical music blog format is frequently used as sources of critic opinions in classical music literature because of the scarce coverage of the topic in modern media. The article in "Slipped Disc" (arguably the most known cmb) by Donohoe was referenced in the McCormick source for example. Also note that "Slipped Disc" is a blog by Norman Lebrecht, not Donohoe's personal blog; he only published an article in it
  • The following BLP pages also use "Slipped Disc" in its sources: Itzhak Perlman, Elizabeth de la Porte, Friedemann Layer; should they be removed as well?
• Removal of 2015 recital
  • You argued that this event is insignificant in his career; well all of the other points (1980 competition, first recording, Beethoven performance, 2005 performance) in the article were also about single events throughout his career
  • Review of The Guardian: how is it not relevant while the 2 reviews of the New York Times are?
  • Unlike other recent performances, this was one with several published reviews
  • I would argue that it should be included but with cautious wording and not an deep-dive description so as not to make it stand out compared to other events
• The word "eccentric" (not even a negative word) is used to describe his playing style in every single source. I wonder why you deliberately tried to edit it out.
• Before I added the sources, most notably the one by McCormick from the Fryderyk Chopin Institute (which you first dismissed as a "weak source"), the article had almost no sources in every section. Parts of Musical career and all of Cultural activities still do not have sources.

Jmouritz127 (talk) 09:51, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Please discuss article content on the article talk page. Please review the policy links I cited in my edit summaries, starting with WP:ONUS & WP:BLP. Also, please read WP:COI. Do you have any relationship to the article subject or content? Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 12:19, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

COI? No, I'm just an avid listener. I actually like some of his performances. It's just that in the classical music world, IP's eccentricities are well known for garnering a fervent fandom and harsh criticism of experts (some like Martha lauded his uniqueness but most others disapproved of his disregard for tradition and distortion of the core musical structure in every piece he plays.Jmouritz127 (talk) 13:47, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Please read WP:COI - thanks. SPECIFICO talk 14:20, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure while you're suggesting I have COI. I don't know him or ever saw him in person. I've listened to many of his performances and I read the literature in classical music frequently.Jmouritz127 (talk) 14:47, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Actually regarding WP:COI, do you have any relationship to the article subject or content? You seem to fervently dismiss criticism for his work, going as far as:

• Editing out a simple "however" in my wording even though it is how the word should be used (to introduce a statement that seems to contrast something that has been said previously), while behaving in an uncivilized manner (calling me a "weasel")
• Removing carefully sourced statements and adding unsourced content (See section below)Jmouritz127 (talk) 22:28, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Notice of neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic United States diplomatic cables leak. Thank you. NadVolum (talk) 00:52, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

“Consensus” on Hillsadle and Claremont

Hello,

Same editor here, my IP must’ve changed. I had a question about your reversions. I looked at the talk pages and saw discussions I was not aware of. However, as for Hillsdale, all I saw was that there was an issue with having “conservative” in the lede, which I preserved. As for Claremont, I didn’t see much discussion about a consensus, and each of my edits had a stated rationale. Were the edits I made really debated to death? I thought they didn’t defy WP:NPOV, quite the contrary. Thanks. 2600:1012:B01A:B631:D40E:FC2D:2D61:DC0E (talk) 19:36, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Both organizations are proudly conservative, a description which is widely found in published reliatble sources that refer to them. For NPOV, we need to reflect the way reliable sources describe them. You could start new talk page discussions, but I'm puzzled as to how it would improve the articles to remove "conservative" from either article, when the two institutions have been dedicated to conservative thinking and publishing for many years. SPECIFICO talk 21:32, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for replying—I do not intend to edit war, and thought “grandfathered” issues are still issues. Anyway, I know the NR and Slate are notable on their own, and think the points each piece make are relevant, but my understanding was that the “debate” would have had to been covered in a secondary source, no? It isn’t on the level of policy (like RS or OR issues), but secondary coverage is important for notability. How do we know the debate contained in the three pieces in NR, newsweek, and Slate (I hadn’t realized Newsweek was an opinion piece too) are notable? I searched for “national review claremont beclown” and could not find the quote covered elsewhere. Just because it’s published commentary in something prominent doesn’t mean it’s notable. Only secondary sources can do that. I’ll seek further comment on the article talk page. Please see my comment on the talk page of Hillsdale on the old 2019 discussion for a way on how to deal with it while keeping “conservative” in the first sentence. 2600:1012:B000:3193:CC7A:E648:667:8B8E (talk) 22:13, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

You should not re-do an edit that's been reverted. Anyway, you need to use the article talk page to gain consensus for any such change. The institute itself and secondary sources correctly refer to Claremont as a conservative institution. Wikipedia simply reflects the WP:WEIGHT of reliable source publications. SPECIFICO talk 23:39, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

I never edited out “conservative” on the claremont page…2600:1012:B05D:4B81:44D6:86CC:2FA0:1118 (talk) 01:11, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Nobody said you did. My comment stands. Don't edit-war. SPECIFICO talk 01:14, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

And you should WP:AGF when people say they won’t and stop repeating yourself. 2600:1012:B05D:4B81:44D6:86CC:2FA0:1118 (talk) 01:15, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Re: your recent post on my talk page

As you clearly have noticed, I am more than willing to engage with editors regardless of whether or not the tone and course of the discussion has become extremely combative and volatile. I also don't make a point of removing posts from my talk page containing back and forth threads between me and another editor. Where I draw the line is posting on my talk page as a means of negative correspondence with others. Editor talk page posts are always to be directed at the editor themselves and are not for side discussions. If you wish to post on my talk page ever in the future you're too leave a message that is for me. Thanks. OgamD218 (talk) 00:54, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Sorry but its not clear what you reference. Link please? SPECIFICO talk 01:45, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

A question regarding your last edit on the page "Critique of political economy"

First of all. Thank you for your edit.

Secondly, I'd like to ask you about it, are you under the impression that there is one single definitive critique of political economy?

Because otherwise that phrasing wouldn't make sense to me, I'd be glad if we could work this out.

Kind regards,

Pauloroboto (talk) 18:31, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Per the thread you started at the Help desk, your work here has not been collaborative, and very little of it has been constructive. Your knee-jerk reverts of challenged content, POV pushing of UNDUE content, and refusal to accept improvements to articles' English diction and intelligibility are highly problematic. I urge you to consider a change of course. I have nothing further to say. SPECIFICO talk 18:40, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm still vaguely floating around this article and mulling it over. I see you complaining a lot that it's part of a set of articles which you say have similar problems, but I haven't found where you give the list yet, what are the others? Is it just Capitalism and genocide? On the face of it that's a very POINTy title, I must admit. (Actually that's not the right link, I mean they're making an implicit point about capitalism, not Wikipedia. So yeah, NPOV as you have no doubt already said many times: but I have always trouble deciding whose particular point of view is the neutral one.)  Card Zero  (talk) 15:45, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

If you have time to volunteer on improving the situation, I'd suggest you review OP's edit history and talk page comments. I've given a little more detail at the Help desk thread. Among the issues are OP's repeated seeding of other articles with links that would mislead readers and elevate the search engine returns for the pages. I'm puzzled that OP ignores the PAGs cited but seems quite facile with citing rather arcane links and editing templates in their own edits. The page move to a title that reflects the article content would have resolved much of the immediate problem, but that one like many others, was instantly reverted by OP. Not much more to say. There's nothing subjective about the NPOV issue. It's straightforward. SPECIFICO talk 17:15, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

But what are the other articles? So far I have two, and the other one (Capitalism and Genocide) got nerfed already.  Card Zero  (talk) 18:12, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Just about everything that user has edited. If you are interested in helping, you could start by having a look at the edit history of that user. They're making lots of cleanup work and demands on other users, which is not a good approach to collaboration. SPECIFICO talk 18:52, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Slatersteven (talk) 15:13, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

As not everyone responds to pings.Slatersteven (talk) 15:13, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Vandal

Hi Specifico. Aardwolf68, a user you warned before is continuing persistently his wrong behavior. This user has been vandalizing Wikipedia since years, with his massive removals provided by misleading edit summaries, continuously adding unsourced and fake stuff, while also edit warring and insulting other users. Would you mind to take a look at it and eventually block him? 109.52.13.53 (talk) 11:51, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Hey, I know it's suspicious coming from the guy who's being reported, but this guy is more than likely a sock of User:Morce Library. We had a dispute that ended up with him getting banned for another sock puppet of a banned account, and I'm pretty sure that he's only here to claim "revenge" or whatever. Another user, @Mr. Crabx, also accused me of not taking wikipedia seriously yet used terms such as "unsourced fakery", leading me to believe that there is, yet another sock puppet. Maybe I'm drawing conclusion, but it's suspicious to me, especially since this IP didn't even ping me. Thank you and I'm sorry to take up your time with this arbitrary pettiness. Aardwolf68 (talk) 18:52, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Nice try wolf. Are LM2000, Muhandes, Sergecross73, SNUGGUMS, Firefangledfeathers and many other users, that found your contributions to be vandalisms, sock puppets of a banned account?--109.52.36.82 (talk) 19:47, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

I'll say it again, those people have been nothing but supportive towards me despite me being a noob and a pain in the ass. The fact that you're cop-pasting everything is just indicative of everything that I'm suspecting. Aardwolf68 (talk) 20:51, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Ok, but they wrote you "You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia" thousands of times and you still doing so. Let's talk about this--109.52.244.230 (talk) 21:01, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm not talking to you, I know the truth and so do you, you being a vindicate asshat isn't helping anybody except yourself. Goodbye. Aardwolf68 (talk) 23:35, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Could you two do this on a page that somebody might notice? Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 23:47, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Fox news bad. MSNBC news good.

My apologies. Sometimes, I forget who controls the flow at the Trump talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 19:31, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about. SPECIFICO talk 22:17, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Short description reverts

Re reverts to Trickle-up and Trickle-Down pages. in both cases my short descripts were, imho, accurate versions of the first sentences! Regards. JdelaF (talk) 03:00, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Those pages have lots of problems. More general short descriptions reduce the propogation of their shortcomings. SPECIFICO talk 22:18, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Citations in Intro

Hi there,

I recently came across an edit you made in the Toxic Masculinity article regarding the removal of “citation needed” tags from the intro section. I’m relatively new to editing and often come across pages that appear to make statements intended to appear objective yet in my view still require citations to credibly establish such statements as consensus views or at the least, show the statement adheres to common definitions or understandings. The issue appears to be prominent within contentious topics or those within social sciences that have competing interpretations depending on the school of thought an editor subscribes to. My question is why you removed these citation needed tags from the intro and what policy or guideline you based this decision on?

I hope this question in no way comes across as hostile or passive aggressive, I’m simply a new editor and wish to understand and establish a mental model on which to base my decisions regarding similar edits upon by getting info from experienced editors.

Thanks for any insights and info you can provide. Sadke4 (talk) 05:42, 25 February 2022 (UTC) Sadke4 (talk) 05:42, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Do you have a link to what concerns you? Please share. SPECIFICO talk 22:20, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your contribution to the page critique of work

That edit needed improvement, but thanks to you the article moved forward! Again, thanks for that! I don't know how this with stars work that I've seen a bit of, but you get the point. Pauloroboto (talk) 19:30, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

You should not have reinstated the 1907 reference that I challenged there. Please self-revert. You are getting close to a report for sanctions, in my opinion. You can't just keep edit warring and pushing your ideologies into multiple pages. This project is an exercise in collaboration, and if you are not patient things will not end well for you. That's all I'll have to say to you until I see some improvement in your conduct. Anything further about your behavior will be in the form of a report to a sitewide noticeboard. SPECIFICO talk 19:34, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello. I read your criticism of my edit and acted accordingly and self reverted, I still think your criticism improved the article, because it made the point clearer.

I don't think I am edit warring any more than you do. The ideology of contemporary society doesn't have anything to do with my edits. If you are referring to my political theory which you merely seem to assume that I have, I can announce that I don't really care much for large narratives which Fox news CNN etc spit out as accepted confines for "thought".

I'm not here to cause trouble and have tried collaborating with you for a long time now. I'll try to either change the way I edit by reading up on the pages that you sent me, or maybe to quit at least the English wiki entirely.

Kind regards, Pauloroboto (talk) 09:23, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello SPECIFICO

It would be interesting to hear why you don't think my recent edit on the page Critique of work suits your taste. I think the suggestion improves the navigation for the user of the wikipedia page in question.

Kind regards,

Pauloroboto

Pauloroboto (talk) 15:06, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Your edit does not reflect the core subject of the article. You are inserting links and UNDUE content about various WP:FRINGE or marginal subject matter into numerous articles. Once your edit has been reverted, you need to step back and advocate for your view on the article talk page or the NPOVN or RSN noticeboards. From what I can see, your editing is frequently unconstructive. If you wish your work here to have lasting value, you need to adopt a more collaborative, less impatient, and more process-involved approach. SPECIFICO talk 15:10, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your response SPECIFICO. I'd like to note that your views of my edits don't seem to reflect the opinion of the other contributors I've been working with, but you are entitled to your opinion for sure.

However on a larger note, since you brought up a meta-discussion on my editing. I think that information wants to be free, and if you don't share that ambition I think Wikipedia is probably the wrong platform for you to engage in.

Regarding the link: The link I have supplied at the page is objectively relevant to the topic at hand and increases the chances that users find what they are looking for. This improves Wikipedia in my opinion. I'd be happy to discuss with you how we could set up a method for better linking users to information than we currently have on the page, but as of now I can't think of a better one than the improved edit which I've just published. However, I encourage you to take a look at the page to see how we can make it even better.

I hope that you'll be able to collaborate with me in this, and engage in the process of making information more accessible for the people on this planet.

Kind regards, Pauloroboto (talk) 15:58, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

The short description is not the place to insinuate a reference to a different topic of marginal significance to the page subject. Have you ever edited here under a different user name? SPECIFICO talk 16:03, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

No, alright thanks for the clarification. But a different topic? I don't really get what you mean by that Pauloroboto (talk) 17:43, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Have you ever edited under any other user names?

Hello again. No but if you switch to the swedish wikipedia you can see that I am active there sometimes as you might know by now, if that counts. But however, do you think that the current version is sufficient or do you want to make any improvements? I'd like to be able to move on with this, since it's after all just a small detail that enhances user experience. But I'd gladly hear your viewpoint if you think that we could improve it further. If not I can check with a third opinion, since that proved useful the last time we got stuck in this situation.

Kind regards, Pauloroboto (talk) 18:36, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

If your purpose is to improve this encyclopedia, you need to read and understand our policies on NPOV, V, RS, and WEIGHT and to stay within the bounds they describe. You are making edits about arcane or fringe topics and using article text, language, links, and other structures to suggest that they are part of mainstream current thought or that defined terms, such as the Marxian "Critique of political economy" are instead to be understood in their ordinary-language meanings. I have explained this repeatedly and in more detail on article talk pages. If you don't take stock of those factors and reflect them in your editing, your contributions are unlikley to last very long. SPECIFICO talk 19:29, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello I am sad to hear that you feel this way. I will check the pages you suggested further, I've looked at some of them already, and I will look at them again when I have time. I think you are wholly incorrect in stating that the topics of which I am editing is fringe. Just because something isn't widely known in your circle in the usa that doesn't mean that it isn't a well known phenomenon, which I am sure that you understand. You can also argue that all critique of political economy is marxian if you wish, but that doesn't change that this isn't the case which you can find out by merely reading the references on the page. Something I now must presume that you have not done. There are in fact authors which are reactionary, more liberal as well as marxian within the genre. I aim to really take into account what you've written here though, and I'll carefully consider if I want to stop editing wikipedia entirely, or stay out of the english version. I did really appreciate one of the recent edits you did by the way. Thank you for that! Pauloroboto (talk) 09:45, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I do not believe you closed my dispute for fair reasons

  I did not violate BLP, because I did not attempt to imply that Joe Biden is a sex offender, I was arguing on the subject of his reputation. The fact is that 31% of Americans believe he is a sex offender, and that 19%  don't. I am not attempting to continue the discussion on the neutrality of that section here, but to challenge your reason for closing it. If there is a better place to do so, please do inform me. 

Warm regards, Thespearthrower (talk) 14:52, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

I would suggest nowhere on this website would be a good start. Please read WP:BLP. If you feel strongly about it, you can ask at WP:BLPN but without repeating your insinuations. The matter of that flash in the pan and discredited allegation is adequately covered and our coverage reflects the consensus of scores of editors who volunteered time and attention to get it right. That is all I'll have to say about this. SPECIFICO talk 15:09, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Signature

You appear to have forgotten to leave your signature at TalK:Joe Biden. A bot didn't even come around and add if for you. Just a friendly reminder, so you can go add it. Thanks, Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 07:15, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Advice

I seem to be in a pattern with another editor and it's getting worse. What should I do? I need advice. DN (talk) 21:33, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello. What's the issue? Diffs or a link, no allegations. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 22:52, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

recent JL talk page 1 JL talk page 2 user talk page 1 where the most recent issue may have started...Thank you so much for taking the time, it is very much appreciated. DN (talk) 23:08, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

You've been reasonably clear in stating your positions with respect to content, sourcing, and policy, so editors who are interested in article improvement can be expected to take account and give detailed responses. The Lott page has been a mess for many years, and it attracts various ideologues and uninformed editors who lack the context to evaluate NPOV text. I've worked on that page from time to time, but you should remember that articles about fringe and self-promoting figures tend to be little-read. So there's little harm done by biased, aggrandising textr simply because it has so few readers. So there are most likely better uses of your time once you've presented your views. Engagement day-to-day isn't likely to have much additional effect. SPECIFICO talk 01:46, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm more concerned about a possible pattern of behavior. See my ping. Thanks for your input. DN (talk) 18:29, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

You can get input from uninvolved editors at NPOVN, RSN, and other site-wide forums. I don't think that any behavior page -- ANI or AE -- is going to view this as an issue about behavior. Yes, the RNC is the national boss of the Republican Party, but Admins are likely to feel that it is plausible to deny that in good faith. Anyway, the text proposed in the RfC there takes account of this objection, so it looks to me as if the content will end up being added to the article. If nothing comes of it in a year or two, it would be appropriate to remove it as having been UNDUE or NOTNEWS. SPECIFICO talk 19:50, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

I truly appreciate your insight here. Thank you for sharing, and allowing me to crash your page today. Cheers! DN (talk) 22:50, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

WikiProject Finance & Investment June 2022 Newsletter

WikiProject Finance & Investment June 2022 Newsletter Hi! Welcome to the June newsletter of WikiProject Finance & Investment. This is our third regular newsletter. You have received this because you have been added to the mailing list; see below for instructions on how to unsubscribe. June Drive: The month-long June Content-creation Drive is now underway. The drive's target is to improve Wikipedia's coverage of stock exchanges. Awards will be given to everyone who improves or creates at least one article in the topic area. Sign up here! Content work: Two articles in our purview have received DYK nominations. Google Wallet was created and nominated by InfiniteNexus and George D. Gould was created and nominated by Ktin. Ktin is currently running in the WikiCup, so good luck to him! UBS's Good Article Reassessment is still ongoing. If you wish to help, leave comments in the nomination. Cheque was selected as an Article for improvement on May 16 for one week. You can see the improvement during that period here. Thank you for participating in the WikiProject. — — Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 07:53, 1 June 2022 (UTC) To unsubscribe to this newsletter please go to the mailing list page.

Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:01, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

May 2022 WikiProject Finance & Investment Newsletter

WikiProject Finance & Investment May 2022 Newsletter Hi! Welcome to the May newsletter of WikiProject Finance & Investment. This is our second regular newsletter. You have received this because you have been added to the mailing list; see below for instructions on how to unsubscribe. April Drive finished: The month-long April Content-creation Drive has now concluded. Our first content drive was a great start for what will be a regular feature of our Wikiproject. We will be doing them every other month, so there's none for May, but I look forward to seeing you sign up for the June edition. The drive's target was to improve Wikipedia's coverage of financial markets. Awards were given to those who participated. June Drive topic for discussion: We're currently brainstorming topics for our June Content-creation Drive. Join the discussion here. Content work: Two articles in our purview have received DYK nominations. Real Estate Bank of Arkansas was created and nominated by Hog Farm and Ranchlander National Bank was created and nominated by Sammi Brie. They're currently running in the WikiCup, so good luck to them! UBS has been nominated for a Good article reassessment. If you wish to help, leave comments in the nomination. Thank you for participating in the WikiProject. — Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 10:22, 29 April 2022 (UTC) To unsubscribe to this newsletter please go to the mailing list page.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:06, 3 May 2022 (UTC)