User talk:SPECIFICO/Archive 21

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

April 2022 WikiProject Finance & Investment Newsletter

WikiProject Finance & Investment April 2022 Newsletter Hi! Welcome to the April newsletter of WikiProject Finance & Investment. This is our first regular newsletter and has plenty of exciting announcements. You have received this because you added yourself as a participant to the project, but will only receive future newsletters if you sign up for the mailing list; see below for instructions on how to do so. April Drive: The month-long April Content-creation Drive is now underway. The drive's target is to improve Wikipedia's coverage of financial markets. Awards will be given to everyone who improves or creates at least one article in the topic area. Sign up here! New layout: The layout of the WikiProject has been greatly improved, with a navigation bar being added to the top of every page and separate pages for assessment and edit requests, templates, resources, and news. Come take a look! Signing up for the newsletter: To sign up for future newsletters about upcoming drives, recent promotions, and other miscellaneous topics, add yourself to the list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Finance & Investment/Mailing list. You will then receive them in your talk page regularly. Thank you for participating in the WikiProject. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 22:02, 17 March 2022 (UTC) To unsubscribe to this newsletter please go to the mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:32, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Rarely a dull moment on your TP

Just dropping by to say hi, and hopefully leave something for you to smile about: A central banker walked into a pizza place & ordered a pizza. When the pizza was done, he was called to the counter. The clerk asked: "Should I cut it into six pieces or eight?" The central banker paused in a moment of thought, then replied: "I'm pretty hungry right now. Best make it eight." Atsme 💬 📧 15:20, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Oh no!! I was there when it happened! Not saying who.. Thanks for the visit. Never a dull moment. SPECIFICO talk 18:15, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

❤️

💚♥️🤍 NikolaosFanaris (talk) 21:17, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

You are making this old gal blush. Just remember that politics and BLP articles sometimes attract editors who have lots of enthusiasm but not complete information about the subjects. Even if this frustrates you, it's better to use the article talk page rather than make article edits that are likely to be misunderstood or reverted. And sometimes, the enthusiasts will be more numerous or more persistent than those proposing good article text. In such cases, keep an eye on the article and return later. You can always go to WP:NPOVN WP:RSN or WP:BLPN. But when you find yourself outnumbered or outblustered, there's no easy solution. SPECIFICO talk 14:19, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Hey there

Just wanted to let you know I will be taking a step back for the rest of the day. Things have been difficult lately for me personally, and there is a lot of strange behavior going on as of late, which I find contagious. I invite you to take a step back with me and breath some fresh air or drink something relaxing. Water your plants, pet your animals or your kids etc.. XD. Take care of yourself and be at peace even if for just a moment. It really helps. DN (talk) 21:18, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes. And John Lott had his day in the sun 10 years ago. One thing to keep in mind is that these pages are not equally important. If the few users looking for John Lott the gun advocate cannot locate his page, that is a far lesser problem than if thousands or tens of thousands cannot find our most important articles on significant subjects. Enjoy your time off. SPECIFICO talk 22:29, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

I saw that Nik was TB at CO, truly a shame since they did seem to be acting in good faith. Things seemed to escalate quicker than I thought they would, and was hoping everyone would just slow down a bit. I thought about adding my two cents but I have decided that you are probably much more informed on the situation, and the last thing you need or want is me mucking things up. I will be watching, in case you would like an uninvolved second pair of eyes. DN (talk) 17:47, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

After checking in at CO, it seems clearer that the body would have been a better place to start than the lead as far as Nik's edit. I'm not sure if he would have run into the similar resistance, or some other predictable counter-argument, but AGF keeps us from making any such assumptions. Just a thought. DN (talk) 22:28, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

In the future

Hello, I just need to make a friendly request for you to avoid pulling me into discussions on editors talk pages that I am actively trying to avoid. If you care to see the response I received from them I think it may shed some light [1] [2], not to mention the new accusations of me that seemed to pop up around the same time [3], strangely enough. Thanks for your continued concern in all of these matters, sorry to keep crashing your page like this but all we can do is role with the punches from here out. Trying to WP:AGF as hard as I can...Cheers. DN (talk) 03:42, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

So maybe I misunderstood their last comment [4], however this was my original cause for concern [5] (wrong diff-fixed), along with Springee's response which I addressed with them here [6](wrong diff-fixed) DN (talk) 17:49, 19 April 2022 (UTC)...DN (talk) 04:13, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

I really would suggest you ignore anything that is inscrutable or upsetting. Both TFD and Springee are civil and collaborative editors. Each of us has our own information set and sometimes editors dive into articles without reading the sources and background information. That can lead to lots of misunderstanding but it is generally nothing personal with longtime accounts. There are some very aggressive and even suspicious newcomers who will make personal remarks, but these generally burn out and attract little support. With respect to the Lott article, it really is unimportant. Lott and "gun control" were controversial in the past but not very much today. The issues have become clear over time. SPECIFICO talk 18:41, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, that is insightful and I will take it to heart. We may still disagree that gun control is no longer "controversial", but it has never been a problem between us. I never understood the respect John Lott has received due to his continuously shoddy research methods, but I understand that he is unique in terms of being one of the few, if not the only prolific scholar that is anti-gun-control. Without trying to sound too cynical, it seems difficult to reconcile being an academic and anti-gun control IMO. Maybe he just has bad luck on his research as he has claimed, but I certainly have a hard time listening to editors, even veteran editors that somehow accidentally poison the well with unsourced claims of "imaginary evil-doers out to get him". Perhaps there is some RS out there that gives more insight into that theory, but I have yet to see any that isn't partisan. Thanks again, and cheers! DN (talk) 19:10, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

DS Violation at Julian Assange

Hi SPECIFICO. As you know, the Julian Assange article is under a discretionary sanction stating "You must not make more than one revert per 24 hours to this article." You reverted material in this edit (despite having consensus from an RFC that occurred in part due to your stonewalling of the content in the first place - added back after the RFC closed). Less than 24 hours later you reverted content that had just been added. Are you willing to discuss this violation here or do we need to go to AE? Mr Ernie (talk) 14:34, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

The first one was not a revert. It was an edit to established content in light of new information and the AfD. There is no prohibition on such edits, otherwise our articles would never change and improve. Please reflect. Such edits have not been counted against DS 1RR. If you disagree, you can ask @El C:, although I'd hope you would not feel it's necessary to disturb one of our busiest Admins on this matter, since another editor has already reverted my edit to the status quo. Up to you. SPECIFICO talk 14:53, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

It was absolutely a revert. You participated in the RFC. It was added with RFC consensus here and reverted by you yesterday here. Calling it an "edit to established content" is nonsense and bad faith - you wholly removed it despite a clear RFC result. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:03, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

The evidence is not clear enough to me, but I don't really want to do any Assange stuff right now, anyway, so best report it to WP:AE. Or maybe WP:AN3. Regardless of the report's venue, AN3's Previous version reverted to parameter is what's needed to prove that the edit in question is, in fact, a revert. El_C 15:07, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) I'd urge a self-revert. I think it's likely that at least some uninvolved admins will perceive your first edit as a revert, given that the language was restored to the article about a month ago. You're demonstrably aware that the language was added back post-RFC, and Mr Ernie has already linked the March edit you "undid". The content you're being asked to restore via self-reversion is not so problematic, I think, that it would be worth the AE drama or a potential block. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:22, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

• The edit was already reverted before Ernie appeared. There was nothing to do. Otherwise I would have considered more. SPECIFICO talk 16:07, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

  If that first edit (now undone) was a revert, your second edit (this one) was a 1RR violation. You can still undo that one, and avoid any potential issues. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:11, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

  Your first revert was reverted. Your second revert was the current version of the article when I opened this discussion. It was just recently reverted by Valjean. Regardless of if was still on the page or not, the DS was violated when you made the second revert within 24 hours. Do you understand that it was a violation? Mr Ernie (talk) 16:14, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if you would respond and let us know whether or not you understand the violation. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:24, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

ec... SPECIFICO, you need to be more careful. In this case, Mr Ernie is right. In general, and specifically here, deleting properly-sourced content generally runs contrary to our mission here, which is to document the sum total of human knowledge as found in RS. Yes, other concerns come into the picture, but don't abuse them. Deletion of reliably-sourced content usually runs contrary to our POLICY to WP:PRESERVE such content. That policy informs us that deletion should be avoided. Instead, we are supposed to fix any issues and improve the addition. Deletionism is generally dubious, unless problems literally cannot be fixed or there is a very clear policy violation. DUE weight and NOTNEWS are often questionable arguments as they are completely subjective personal interpretations, often used by POV pushers of all persuasions. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:20, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

No, Google is (trying to be) the sum total of everything. WP is a coherent narrative of the mainstream views of what is most significant. I know your good work on WP is focused on current events, and that you frequently must work with material that has not yet stood the test of time. But NOTNEWS and RECENTISM, NPOV, and ONUS among others, try to warn us not to do as you suggest. Ironically, you violated the page sanction "consensus required" with your revert. However I doubt Ernie will bother you about it, so all is well. Cheers. SPECIFICO talk 13:31, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Since you seem completely unwilling to discuss your violation, next time we'll just have to go straight to AE for the return of your inevitable Assange topic ban. The alternative is to collaborate a bit more on the talk page and stop reverting content that you don't like. This revert in particular was very bad - you knew the content had RFC consensus for inclusion, yet you reverted it anyways with an irrelevant edit summary, I guess hoping you could sneak it by since it had been a while since last mentioned? The RFC close isn't even in the archives yet, so I'm really curious why you thought you could remove that content. Mr Ernie (talk) 12:46, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

[7] SPECIFICO talk 13:41, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

What does an ongoing AFD have to do with content enjoying consensus from a recent RFC on a separate page? Mr Ernie (talk) 15:03, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Improvements to AssangeDAO

@SPECIFICO: thank you for improving AssangeDAO today, although I don't understand why you would do so, given that you advocate its deletion. Rinpoach (talk) 14:54, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

AfDs need to be edited rigorously to see what remains. In this case there was lots of fluff, e.g. "Assange's plight" SPECIFICO talk 15:26, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Your comment on TIPS language

@SPECIFICO, greetings! Regarding your comment on my edit to Treasury Inflation Protected Securities: you feel that The New York Times is a weak source. With respect, I humbly submit that you're being a bit too stringent. The Times is a well-known news organization, and Wikipedia's guidance on reliable sources favors well-known news organizations. The article I cited was a balanced story that quotes multiple investment professionals at well-known firms - Vanguard, PIMCO, Morningstar, Raymond James. If it would satisfy you, I'd be happy to re-write the language on the Times story to quote by name the people at those firms that made the statements. But I think we should keep the Times citation. It improves the article. It's also more reliable than the 14-year-old post on InvestingDaily.com that now graces the TIPS section. Now that's what I'd call a weak source. Unlike The Times, I've never heard of it, and their About Us statement doesn't impress. Cordially, BuzzWeiser196 (talk) 18:58, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Investors Daily is not RS for anything and should not be used. For matters relating to business or monetary economics, I think it's not hard to find academic or notable practitioners who have published peer-reviewed writings or textbooks. NYT has lots of fluff on everything from cooking to rock concerts and it's not really the best basis for encyclopedic content. It's not as if this were the sort of story for which we rely on news journalists, IMO. I encourage you to find what texts or peer-reviewed survey articles say on the subject. I haven't read the rest of the article, but you are correct that there are many bad sources and outdated content in all the finance and economics and investments articles and your efforts to improve them are most welcome. SPECIFICO talk 19:51, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: Found a potentially useful textbook reference that supports this statement: "Finance scholars Martinelli, Priaulet and Priaulet state that inflation-indexed securities in general (including those used in the United Kingdom and France) are an efficient way of diversifying a portfolio because they have a weak correlation with stocks, fixed-coupon bonds and cash equivalents. They can also be used by insurance companies and pension funds to optimize asset and liability management." I'll keep searching. Cordially, BuzzWeiser196 (talk) 15:41, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that is a much better soutce, and note that it says something quite different than NYT. Good work. What article text would you suggest? SPECIFICO talk 16:12, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

References

Jonathan D. Gray

Hi SPECIFICO. Would you mind having a look at my edit request for Jonathan D. Gray, the president and COO of The Blackstone Group. I saw your name listed as a member of Category:WikiProject Finance & Investment participants, so I hope this will be of interest to you. Current information on the page nearly stops about 3 years ago -- this is to make it more current Talk:Jonathan D. Gray. Thanks so much for your attention. ThomasClements Blackstone (talk) 17:42, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

I will have a look. Maybe tomorrow however. SPECIFICO talk 18:48, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

I made a few edits. While he is an impressive financier and philanthropist, the details of his career don't warrant much encyclopedic content, really. The details of his product and marketing strategies, proposed on the talk page, read more like inside chatter and have yet to play out. All kinds of similar things appear in Bloomberg and WSJ and are of little lasting public concern. SPECIFICO talk 16:21, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. BilledMammal (talk) 03:23, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

WP:PAG

Did you really mean WP:PAG? It seems to be about how to write guidelines and policies? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:04, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Well yes, He needs to follow all the links in the box on the right and read about enforcement, etc. I doubt he's even looked at the page, however. I think he's on a downward spiral. SPECIFICO talk 21:36, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is SPECIFICO. Thank you. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 02:49, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Help with COI request

Hi SPECIFICO. I'm Michael from Sculptor Capital. I noticed your active involvement in WikiProject: Finance & Investment and WP:ECON, and would appreciate your review of my pending edit request. This edit request relates to including the resolution of the lawsuits mentioned in the article. Other editors have helped me improve and expand the page in the past, but they are not currently responding to edit requests. Thank you Michael at Sculptor Capital (talk) 11:42, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello Michael. My quick reaction is that the article needs some work. There is too much primary or weakly-sourced content and the problems that apparently led to the company's rebranding are glossed over. There should be mainstream coverage of that and other aspects of the company's history. The current content sounds more like a sales document leave-behind that describes the company to prospective investors. Presumably that is not what you or the company would want for its Wikipedia article. I suggest you do some searches in NY Times, Wall St. Journal, and other mainstream publications and see how the company has been described over the past many years. SPECIFICO talk 18:00, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Here's the sort of reference that would need to be more closely reflected in the tone and content of the article text [8] [9]. SPECIFICO talk 01:06, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Closing of discussion appeal

Hi. Today you closed a discussion on an edit request [10] titled, "Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 June 2022" on the Donald Trump talk page. You explained, "Request has been answered. Circular discussion is pointless." Your action seems to assume that an editor has the monopoly to make a final determination on an edit, which I don't think is the case. An editor answered the edit request, but I wanted to discuss their answer and build consensus about the edit and the edit request. I believe the closing of the discussion was improper. Supporting documentation:

1. Per WP:CONSENSUS, "Decisions on Wikipedia are primarily made by consensus. [...] Decision making and reaching consensus involve an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines."
2. Per WP:TALKDONTREVERT, "If an edit is challenged, or is likely to be challenged, editors should use talk pages to explain why an addition, change, or removal improves the article, and hence the encyclopedia."
3. Per WP:TALK, "A rule of thumb is that discussions should be kept open at least a week before closing, although there are some exceptions to this."
4. Per WP:ERREQ, "edits likely to be controversial should have prior consensus".

Documentation to consider:

• Per WP:EDITXY, "Responding editors may decline to make any edit, and are especially likely to reject edits that are controversial, violate Wikipedia policy, or do not have evidence of consensus."

Therefore, lacking the closure proper reason and summary reflecting basis on policies or guidelines, I appeal this closure and respectfully request that the discussion be reopened. Thanks. Thinker78 (talk) 16:39, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

• No respected source suggests the election was stolen. It was a landslide by Trump’s own definition. There were 60 some failed lawsuits, dozens of recounts and audits, Trump’s own U.S. Attorney General investigated and said there was no fraud that could have reversed the election. Yes, there were attempts at fraud. Republicans created fake electoral panels in multiple states. 147 Republican Congressmen voted to overturn the election results. Trump pressured Georgia to “find” enough votes to overturn the state’s election. Arizona hired a conspiracy theorist to run his own “audit” looking for bamboo in the ballots to prove they were Asian. Multiple state houses were pressured to disenfranchise voters, ignore the results and send their own electoral panels. A Republican county clerk was indicted for conspiracy to commit attempting to influence, criminal impersonation, impersonation conspiracy, identity theft, official misconduct, violation of duty and failing to comply with the secretary of state's office. There was an insurrection attempting to violently overthrow the election resulting in deaths, injuries to 140 officers, and 862 arrests. New laws have since been passed allowing state legislators to ignore votes. This election was 20 months ago. There is a consensus. Can we move on? O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:01, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

If there were consensus then it would be rather helpful to state it in the closed discussion thread and I would perfectly understand. Because not every editor or visitor to the page is aware of the multitude of threads in the talk page of the article. In addition, I checked the Current consensus, stolen election is not within the items. Thinker78 (talk) 02:28, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

See our policy on consensus and associated links. SPECIFICO talk 02:42, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

DS alert BLP and US politics

Now I think we all are officially "aware"

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:32, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

You really would make better use of your time if you'd check whether users are already aware before templating the most active AP contributors. It would be more helpful to alert those who may not have received the notice or may not understand DS. SPECIFICO talk 19:51, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Making that prior check is a requirement of the DS alert procedures. I admit I may have overlooked evidence, but I looked for Template:Ds/aware on your user page and talk page, and I checked the system log. Since DS Alerts expire after 12 months, I provided you with refreshers. I did the same for some others in the thread, and in one of those cases I only did DS for AP because they already had a current one for BLP. When it comes to time well spent, please restrict your commentary at the article talk to discussion of article improvements. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:06, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

You don't seem to be engaging successfully either on user talk pages or article talk pages that I've seen. But I haven't searched -- maybe it's just where we happen to have intersected recently. SPECIFICO talk 20:20, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Behavorial complaints about me should be posted at ANI/AE NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:54, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

I'd suggest you tone down your telling other editors what you think they ought to do. Nobody is under any such obligations here. This has run its course now. Thanks for your visit and the nice new templates. SPECIFICO talk 20:56, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

suggesting mis intent

Uh no, that's not what the proposal at List of coups is about. I'm the main contributor to the main spot we discuss the label of "coup" to Trump 2020, and I am compiling more research (all of which supports the coup label) at my Sanbox2, which youre welcome to visit. You're welcome to add RS suggestions at the sandbox2 talk page, if you don't want to work them into the section I linked above (or elsewhere). At the list article, adding "possible" PLUS the explanatory LISTCRIT paragraph is just another way of describing our standard P&G in the title and LISTCRIT, nothing more, nothing less. But it should end the drama some folks are injecting as they try to fight the coup label applied to Jan 6. And ending the drama so we can improve content is the actual intent of the proposal NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:59, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Sorry that is not the meaning I intended. I meant to say that the proposal appears to have arisen out of an insistent and repetitive discussion of the matter that was initiated and shopped to BLP (including misrepresentation and straw arguments) by another editor, not you, and that should have run its course quite a while ago and been dropped. I think we should not go overboard trying to satisfy the repetitive claims that have been resolved, including by your additions. I'd also be surprised if the move would put an end to the objections btw. SPECIFICO talk 17:18, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Yeah the other's tendon-whatever editing (never could spell that) is annoying, that's true. A followup please....if the name remains the same, do you support the LISTCRIT I added to the lead as a means to end the drama? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:23, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

PS apologies for reading it wrong NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:24, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Not at all. I have had time now to calibrate your self-expression. More direct is better than less, IMO.

I'll consider the listcrit. On that article, my opinion is a TBAN will end the drama, and nothing less. I was around when that editor was first banned. It took forever to happen, and it was a horror for a couple of years while the behavior was ongoing. It is all very familiar. I was all for lifting the ban based on that editor's representations in the process, but it hasn't panned out. SPECIFICO talk 17:29, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Hope it doesn't come down to that but we all make our choices NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:02, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Me too! Incidentally, I will wholeheartedly support the coup label in wikivoice for January 6 if and when reliable sources start using it, instead of reliable sources merely reporting about other people using it. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:05, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

On the strength of Judge Carter's opinion and the 100+ page analysis by jurists at the Brookings Institute (see the section I linked above) I think we are already there. But I'm not going to be the one to fight that fight until there are more heavy-WEIGHT RS of that sort. The myriad pundits and offhand remarks don't count. I'm talking indeoth analysis by expoerts. (Technically, its a "self coup" NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:14, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Do you recognize that you’re only referring to primary sources? See WP:PRIMARY. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:09, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

What's the legal term for that fallacy? Counterfactual conditional, or something simpler? SPECIFICO talk 19:39, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't follow...what fallacy? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:42, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

"...I will wholeheartedly support the coup label in wikivoice for January 6 if and when reliable sources start using it" I suspect that, unlike some of the AP editors, this one actually does know what RS say. It's just inconvenient. SPECIFICO talk 19:45, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Oh now I get it. I once tried looking up formal fallacies and found a swampland of math theory gobbledeegook that was over my head, or at least my patience. Beats me. If you just say "crackpot" or other vernacular I'll try to follow along..... NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:49, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm afraid she is not a crackpot, just an ideologue. SPECIFICO talk 19:51, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Heh, I didn't even notice that A had joined us. I thought you, Specifico, were saying you'd use Wikivoice. @Anythingyouwant: Please visit Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election#Trump2020CoupLabel and open each cited reference to actually read all 200+ pages of professional analysis. Afterwards, I'll be interested to hear if you have reasons to not live by the promise you just made. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:08, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Feel free to copy the relevant part (minus the personal stuff of course) to the article talk page. Thanks for your visit. SPECIFICO talk 20:10, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Also feel free to review WP:PRIMARY. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:13, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Primary RSs are still RSs and when written by nationally recognized jurists on legal matters have massive weight. Now lets leave Specifico at peace here in their living room. And if you wanna fight about Jan 6, the list is a lousy place. Go to the main article, which I linked above and I'll see you there. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:17, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't think anything is sufficiently unique that it merits copying. The important next thing, at the article, is to develop LISTCRIT. Sorry the party was crashed, S, I was enjoying our two way. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:17, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree. SPECIFICO talk 22:20, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn’t have crashed the party if the party hadn’t been discussing me. 😀 Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:53, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

If there's a discussion of you that requires your participation, you will be notified. Of course, your disclaimer begs the question as to whose edits you were following to know the discussion was happening. SPECIFICO talk 22:55, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

I have your talk page on my watchlist, presumably that’s not forbidden. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:00, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Watching isn't but if the host tells you to stay off their page and you don't, you'll likely get blocked for harassment. And I don'tbelieve your stated reason for showing up here because that's not what you talked about when you arrived. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:04, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

If SPECIFICO at any time would ask me to stay away from this talk page, I will of course. My first comment here was in response to comments (e.g. “that editor's representations”) that seemed to be about me. If they weren’t about me, then it’s my mistake. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:13, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

You have been mentioned on the talk page at Manifesto Against Work

Hi!

I would just like to inform you regarding that you have been mentioned regarding your reverts on the page Manifesto against work.

Kind regards,

Pauloroboto (talk) 17:45, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

In the future, you can just use the notification function {{ping|Pauloroboto}}@Pauloroboto: SPECIFICO talk 18:06, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! I missed that this time! Pauloroboto (talk) 18:12, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Also, I see from your talk page comment that you made a strange and erroneous reference to the 3 revert rule. Please read our documentation at WP:3RR and if you do not understand it, you can get help at this page. SPECIFICO talk 20:39, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Oath Keepers

I reverted your removal of the template. As I stated, the template has been in use on the Oath Keepers page for a number of years. You had not given any rationale for removing the template. The discussion was to form a consensus it appears you acted unilaterally. Why? Myotus (talk) 20:24, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

If you do feel consensus cannot be made you have the option of taking it to arbitration however, I do feel consensus can be reached. Myotus (talk) 20:27, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

As several editors have said on the talk page, the nature of "conservatism" and the actions of the Oath Keepers have changed since the template was added and contemporary sources do not tell us they are conservative. Your recent post on the talk page failed to give affirmative reasons for inclusion and when there is no affirmative consensus to include, the content should stay out of the article.Please use the article talk page. If you are saying you think the default is to retain your preferred content merely because it has been on the page for a while, that is incorrect. Contrary to your statement, if no consensus is reached to include it, then it will not remain in the article. SPECIFICO talk 23:07, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

I do ask sincerely, can you bring up Wikipedia policies that would support your thoughts? It appears you are trying to frame the debate with your title "The case for inclusion" rather than "The case for removal." You appear to be making the judgments by yourself. Also, by "several editors" you mean only two editors. You have made no statement on talk page. Also there is at one other editor that is arguing for inclusion which you are not taking into account. Myotus (talk) 23:54, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) since Jan 6 last year there has been a spotlight on this bunch. Frankly I don't care, but it seems like if you have RSs no more than 18 months old, and say Oath Keepers fall under the "conservatism" umbrella, then the template might apply (and its a question of WEIGHT/UNDUE. If you don't have such RSs then it should probably go away. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:53, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

That's more or less my view as well. I don't think any of Myotus' arguments are well-reasoned or convincing, and I see no rationale for inclusion there. Anyway further discussion should be on that article talk page. SPECIFICO talk 01:02, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi NewsAndEventsGuy, My reason for posting on SPECIFICO's Talk page is not to debate the merits of including or deletion of the template (that is goin on the Oath Keeper's talk page) but rather why they felt the need for unilateral speedy deletion of the template rather than discussing it and coming to a consensus. If consensus cannot be made then there are other avenues for dispute resolution. Myotus (talk) 13:11, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Deleting from the article is one thing, speedy delete is a procedure to vaporize the thing everywhere. I'm not interested however. Carry on. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:13, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Myotus, you are misusing terminology that has defined meanings on WP -- "speedy deletion" and "arbitration". It's hard to follow. Nonetheless, this is a simple content matter and should be discussed on the article talk page so that your views are widely seen by those interested in the article. SPECIFICO talk 13:56, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

My apologies on misuse of both terms, you and NewsAndEventsGuy are correct in the matter. Myotus (talk) 14:02, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Derogatory language

I noticed here that you refer to the Nobel prize winning economist Milton Friedman as "Uncle Miltie" Friedman. Using demeaning names for academics that support views in opposition to your own is the language of a school bully. I remember you using the same trick twice (long ago) when debating me. Please do not do it again. Reissgo (talk) 19:16, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

I will never "debate" you again. Scouts Honor.👸 SPECIFICO talk 19:30, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Request to reopen discussion

Hi. In the talk page of Donald Trump, you closed the discussion started by SandRand97 titled Political legacies. I request that you reopen said discussion because you were an involved editor in the dispute and it was done too prematurely, among other potential issues. I believe this closure was not according to Wikipedia's guidance.

1. Per WP:INVOLVED, "In general, editors should not act as administrators in disputes in which they have been involved."
2. Per WP:CLOSE, Most discussions don't need closure at all, but when they do, any uninvolved editor may close most of them – not just admins.
   1. I have to point out that this was a contentious circumstance where the editor who started the thread didn't agree with you. In addition, I don't agree with your closing.
3. Per WP:TALK, "A rule of thumb is that discussions should be kept open at least a week before closing, although there are some exceptions to this. Any uninvolved editor may write a closing statement for most discussions, not just admins. However, if the discussion is particularly contentious or the results are especially unclear, then a request specifically for a closing statement from an uninvolved administrator may be preferable."
4. Per Template:Hidden archive top (the template that you used), "This template should only be used by uninvolved editors in conjunction with the talk page guidelines and relevant advice at refactoring. It should not be used by involved parties to end a discussion over the objections of other editors."
5. Per WP:REFACTOR, "Good refactoring practices are an important part of maintaining a productive talk page. Discussion pages that are confused, hostile, overly complex, poorly structured, or congested with cross-talk can discourage potential contributors, and create misunderstandings that undermine fruitful discussions. Refactoring should only be done when there is an assumption of good faith by editors who have contributed to the talk page. If there are recent heated discussions on the talk page, good faith may be lacking. If another editor objects to any refactoring that was performed, those changes should be reverted."
   1. I have to point out that the summary of the closing that you made was, in my view, needlessly hostile: "actually, we won't "be here all day" [...] Nobody is obligated to respond to you."
6. Per WP:TALKDONTREVERT, "The goal of a consensus-building discussion is to resolve disputes in a way that reflects Wikipedia's goals and policies while angering as few editors as possible."
7. Per WP:Consensus, "Decision making and reaching consensus involve an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. "
   1. The discussion was closed in the same day, in less than 5 hours, when the regular time advised by Wikipedia's guidance is 7 days, too early to achieve any meaningful consensus.

Given the aforementioned guides, guidelines, policies, and issues, I respectfully request that you reopen the discussion. Thanks in advance. Thinker78 (talk) 21:21, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

The reasons for hatting the thread were given by several editors within the thread. I'm hard pressed to see any grounds for your concern about such a thing. Note that OP said they would not further contest the consenus. Maybe you could have another look at the course of the discussion. None of the flaws were addressesd, let alone resolved. SPECIFICO talk 21:32, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

The stated summary of the closure doesn't justify closing the discussion and it is even contradictory: "@SandRand97: actually, we won't "be here all day", because the WP:BURDEN is entirely on you to show that your proposed content comports with our Policies and Guidelines regarding Verification, Neutral Point of View, and article Lead sections. If you have well-reasoned policy-based arguments and sources, please present them here. Nobody is obligated to respond to you."

A discussion doesn't need to end in a day or sooner, the normal running time for a discussion is a week. I could understand if you or someone else didn't want to discuss the issue all day, but then the correct thing to do is to let others keep discussing if they want. The contradictory thing in your closing summary is that you told SandRand97 that "If you have well-reasoned policy-based arguments and sources, please present them here". I guess you were thinking that a new post should be started and if so why if this is the post that was discussing the relevant edit. Regarding your statement that "OP said they would not further contest the consenus", I have to point out that they weren't accepting your argument about the consitutionality, but the thread is actually about the removal of the text they added. In addition, the editor kept replying after this. And even if out of frustration SandRand97 had dropped of the thread, the issue still needed to be resolved. There was one editor at least, JLo-Watson, who was making a point to include some of the content of SandRand97 in the lead. This discussion needed to be allowed to continue. The closure was premature and improper, given that you were an involved editor in the dispute. Please reopen the discussion and let's avoid further processes with administrators (meaning clarification of the proper procedure or challenge in the proper venue, this is not a warning nor a threat), because to be honest, I rather do other things. But I also like due process and I will stand for proper procedures. Thanks in advance. Thinker78 (talk) 15:31, 29 June 2022 (UTC) Edited 17:13, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm not an involved ed, and I concur that it was properly hatted. The thread asserts a lot of editor opinion, but contains not a single RS. It assserts fact in WIKIVOICE which are inevitably the sort of controversial things that will require inline attribution. Had I closed it, I would have simply closed it by saying, like I usually do with such threads, "WP:SOAP and WP:FORUM click 'show' to read anyway". I'll also comment on Thinker78's pestering of Specifico here. You're just repeating yourself. See WP:Tendentious editing. If you want to talk about Trump's great legacy, fine. Leave here, and start a new thread at the talk page with your proposed RSs and draft text. Be constructive instead of just bickering NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:54, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

NewsAndEventsGuy your attempt to shut down discussion by throwing baseless accusations against me is duly noted. This is not your talk page for you to be telling me to leave, although if Specifico tells me I would certainly oblige, not that I was planning on staying after my previous reply. Btw, I am no fan of Trump, but I guess you are too immersed in your bias to be able to consider that. Next time if you plan to interject in the discussion in someone else's talk page, at least behave professionally. Thinker78 (talk) 16:54, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with any of our personal opinions. The problems with your participation were given on the article talk page. Please take some time to read our policies and guidelines so that you can offer improvements that will be within the requirements for article page text. Also, please do not be impolite to the other visitors on this page. SPECIFICO talk 17:28, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

@Thinker78: worth revisiting -

WP:BATTLEGROUND

WP:Focus on content

WP:SOFIXIT

WP:No personal attacks

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:33, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm also uninvolved and thought SPECIFICO's close was reasonable. I agree with NewsAndEventsGuy that this, your second such post (at least) on SPECIFICO's page, borders on pestering. If you see a close discussion and think there's a diamond in the rough, start a new talk page section focused on the diamond. The rough stuff can waste a lot of editor time. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:10, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

FYI not just here [11] NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:18, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

References

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Nweil (talk) 15:45, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

The content issue should be addressed at the article talk page or, if you feel such discussion has failed, on site-wide noticeboards such as NPOVN or RSN. I provided reasons for my edits in the edit summaries. Thus far I have not seen editors endorse any of your changes on the talk page. SPECIFICO talk 17:23, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Challenging closure of Political legacies thread. Per Challenging other closures. Thank you. — Thinker78 (talk) 19:31, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Notice of Administrators' noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ~~~~"}} I have mentioned you in a thread on the administrators noticeboard.

Kind regards // @Pauloroboto Pauloroboto (talk) 19:02, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Undid revision 1096790182 by 159.182.38.8

Hi, it's in Wiki's article on the movie version of The Bonfire of the Vanities. 159.182.38.8 (talk) 17:54, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

If there is a valid source for it there, you can consider bringing the content and the source over to his bio page, where it may be relevant. It can't stay there in his biography without a source reference however. Thanks for the note. SPECIFICO talk 17:57, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Foundation for Economic Education

I brought the Foundation for Economic Education article (more in a generic sense / interest) at the NPOV noticeboard.North8000 (talk) 00:26, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

3RR issues at Burton B. Roberts

So far, you have made Revert 1, Revert 2 and Revert 3 to edits from two different editors. Both I and the editor who made the original edit you reverted believe this to be appropriate content, which would be a consensus in favor for retention. It's a few dozen characters in an article that runs for 5,000, so it hardly has any weight whatsoever, let alone UNDUE weight. You demand that other people use talk pages, but you make long speeches in your edit summary and didn't use talk pages to discuss, even though the other editor appears to have tried, at which point you demanded a source; that source has been provided and the wording tweaked to address your concerns. You talk about edit warring, but you are at 3RR already. The WP:ONUS you cite has been satisfied.

A WP:CONSENSUS has been reached. The ONUS is now on you. Alansohn (talk) 19:37, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

I'd advise you, with a long edit history that only increases the community's impatience with any disruptive tactics, to step back and not to misuse core policy links such as ONUS, which, if you think it's been "satisfied", you can explain either at the article talk page or at ANI -- your choice. This is not something I can resolve for you. You need consensus. If you're interested in collaborative editing, I would suggest you either go to NPOVN or try to build consensus directly on the talk page, possibly with an RfC if at first you don't succeed. P.S. I've corrected Judge Roberts' name in the header above. Did you not even know his name? SPECIFICO talk 20:45, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

If you have an issue with understanding that consensus is against you and the only argument you can make is that of a typo, I guess you have no case. Best of luck elsewhere. Alansohn (talk) 21:49, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

I can't convince you to understand the issue I have clearly identified, nor do I have any more time to discuss it with you in the absence of any substantive reply to the issue I raised. I may take it to a noticeboard. SPECIFICO talk 23:00, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Apology

I'd like to apologize for attacking you in that AfD and on the talk page. I really should have just asked why you made the revert, since your explanation is understandable given the claims are still unverified. I've also decided to take a short break. X-Editor (talk) 21:29, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. It was a pretty mild attack, actually. Some of the ones from other editors on this talk page are top notch. Best of luck with your break. SPECIFICO talk 22:08, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: You're welcome. I'll be sure to enjoy my break. I honestly really need one. X-Editor (talk) 22:11, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Fractional-reserve banking

Banned user is back (User:Karmaisking). Quacks like a duck with a megaphone. Same 300k screed. Could you please oblige. Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 08:22, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Canvassing

Regarding my comment at User:Seraphimblade’s user talk, and your reply to it, I assume your main concern was canvassing, is that correct? Perhaps I should protect myself by notifying a bunch of other editors too, but I think it would be pointless because I wasn’t trying to get Seraphimblade to come support me at the article talk page, and I don’t want to waste other users’ time by inviting them to a discussion that I’m not really interested in expanding. According to WP:OWNTALK, “the purpose of user talk pages is to draw the attention or discuss the edits of a user”. As I understand, the former may raise canvassing concerns but the latter does not. My note at his user talk was to discuss an edit of his, in particular this one. Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:23, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Cleanup at Julian Assange talk page

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. Thank you. Cambial — foliar❧ 14:14, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

NOTFORUM applies, even on Julian Assange. Your "sandbox" template wrt the Assange talk page is unfortunate, as it evokes an image of playpen. Obviously if that SOAPBOX screed had instead been a "legitimate talk page comment", it would not have been reverted. Thanks for your visit. SPECIFICO talk 14:17, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL at Trump talk

Please be mindful of WP:CIVIL when editing at Talk:Donald Trump. This recent edit does not encourage a cooperative environment that is at the core of Wikipedia. You have already been warned about such behavior at your recent AE visit, and I'd suggest you show more respect of your fellow editors. Telling people "to read some history" is rude under nearly all circumstances, as well as rambling with pointless and unhelpful rhetorical questions. On a personal note, I will not cooperate with you when you behave in this manner. Thank you, Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 19:22, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

I would be pleased if you do indeed step back from these difficult discussions. Frankly, you are not particularly well-informed on the content issues, you are too emotionally involved in your contributions, and you seem not to have heard or understood the many editors who have previously tried to counsel you on these same issues. It's not really helpful to link a thread that you know I have already seen. I won't return the favor, but you should keep all of your previous warnings and advice in mind as you develop your editing skills. SPECIFICO talk 19:34, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

I afraid I won't be able to please you. But in all seriousness, you need to watch the uncivil behavior. I don't think you need me to tell you another AE visit for it could be very bad. I want you to continue editing in the area since you seem dedicated to it and provide a valuable perspective. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 19:54, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

I visit AE from time to time. Generally brought there by folks a lot like you, without any legitimate grievance. SPECIFICO talk 20:02, 21 July 2022 (UTC)