User talk:SPECIFICO/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

Invitation to DRN re UNDUE Ali Watkins article on Russian interference

You are invited to discuss UNDUE issues re your revert of my edit at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Humanengr (talk) 03:23, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Russians!

@Geogene: @Objective3000: We don't know how many Russian trolls are active on WP at any given time, but we do know that we're not compelled to rehash straw-man assertions that have recently been rejected after a complete talk page review. This applies to various threads on many articles. I regret that i responded to JFG recently on Russian Interference talk, but I only did so because I believed that he was sincerely dropping away from that article and saying an awkward goodbye. My mistake. Please consider whether it's a good use of editors' time to renegotiate false and misrepresented POV agendas on the talk page there. Since there's no consensus for these fringe views, the article text ultimately cannot be changed. WP:DENY, WP:CIR and all that. SPECIFICO talk 12:36, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Good point. Objective3000 (talk) 12:45, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Any reason why you bring up "Russian trolls", "false and misrepresented POV agendas", and User:JFG (and probably others, by implication) in the same paragraph? Guccisamsclub (talk) 22:56, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

@Guccisamsclub: Thanks for the notice. @SPECIFICO: You are unfortunately piggy-banking one more undue aspersion|… Do you never get bored? — JFG ^talk 23:01, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

The only mention of another editor, JFG, is that I took you at your word when you explained that your inappropriate rant at article talk was your farewell to this article that you said has not gone as you would have wished. I commented that, since you apparently changed course and did not leave the article, my gracious good-bye was apparently undue. So basically, I have no idea what you and Mr. Gucci are talking about. No other personal reference was intended. Ciao. SPECIFICO talk 23:11, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Fine. I still note that by citing WP:DENY and WP:CIR when talking about me, you seem to consider me an incompetent troll who doesn't deserve your enlightened replies. It's still fine, I can live without your attention, I'll just miss your occasionally funny cultural witticisms. — JFG ^talk 23:36, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

You know what the American politicians say about "protesteth"ing. I'd thought you were following Mr. Gucci's example and moving on to some greener pastures, where you appear to do good work. SPECIFICO talk 23:46, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, I agreed with your point that we should let the drama unfold as the ultimate end was obvious. But, I was uncomfortable with your attachment of JFG to some sort of conspiracy. I don’t agree with some of JFG’s edits, some of which look like WP:OWNERSHIP, but would suggest that you owe him an apology. Objective3000 (talk) 00:04, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't know or care anything about JFG. My point is simply that -- precisely because we know nothing about other editors -- we need to stick to sound principles of interaction. After all, I resemble Hillary Clinton in many ways, but that is strictly irrelevant to my editing here, which sinks or swims on its own. My point was that when editors are behaving badly (as sometimes happens) we should not be swayed by undue personal courtesy. Civility, but not deference beyond what policy and site guidelines prescribe. SPECIFICO talk 00:18, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Fuck guidelines, civility is civility (realizing the contradiction in that statement.:)) Objective3000 (talk) 00:20, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

My point exactly!! Cheers. SPECIFICO talk 00:34, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

5RR on Louise Mensch

18:06, 3 April 2017 17:24, 3 April 2017 11:32, 3 April 2017 22:48, 2 April 2017‎ 19:05, 2 April 2017

Please undo your last edit. Thanks. Guccisamsclub (talk) 18:22, 3 April 2017 (UTC) ‎

BLP violations must be removed immediately. Please work on article improvement, work within policy, and consider the guidance you've been presented at BLPN. SPECIFICO talk 18:57, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Guidance that I have been presented? You asked for guidance and you got it, though that did not prevent you from continuing your edit war. Guccisamsclub (talk) 19:26, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

User talk:Klkl3000

Would you mind doing me a favor and dropping a note about the American politics DS? I'd do it, but I don't want to come across as aggressive.--v/r - TP 00:03, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Sure, and BLP as well. All cherrypicked primary stuff. Doesn't belong in the article. SPECIFICO talk 00:47, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate your cooperativeness. Thank you.--v/r - TP 00:52, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Why did you?

Why did you put that notice on my talk page? You provided no context for your actions so I am confused. I'm unlikely to follow any links someone places randomly on my talk page even if they claim importance. I have no interest in deciphering your intent. - Shiftchange (talk) 12:32, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

It is a notice that is put on the pages of all editors in topic of American Politics. A related notice is found on the top of article talk pages and on the edit screens for those articles. It's not my intent it's WP policy and, as the Notice says, any Admin can provide further information. SPECIFICO talk 14:24, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

@Shiftchange: The notice is not a warning or a signal that you've conducted yourself improperly. It is more of a "heads up" that you're wading into rocky territory and a reminder to go slow instead of kicking it into 4x4.--v/r - TP 15:01, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I understand that it wasn't a warning. What I didn't understand was that its our policy to place it on editors talk page who edit articles about American politics. SPECIFICO has now clarified that. - Shiftchange (talk) 20:19, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

"Bavarian Daily" etc

Question: "...not bavarian daily...", "Maybe the SW deutsche daily again??" -- this seems to call out a user on their nationality and / or comes across as dismissive of foreign language sources. Is there some background behind this that I'm not aware of? K.e.coffman (talk) 03:27, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Nothing to do with users' homelands. There was an extended incident on this article a while back in which some marginal and fringey stuff was cited to cherrypicked references to Suddeutsche Zeitung, just a reference to a sad little incident, now happily in the past. SPECIFICO talk 11:13, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. However, if this is in reference to past disagreements, then it just looks like taunts and bullying. Please refrain. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:43, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

No it's a discussion of sourcing, and it would help you to understand more fully if you wish to review the archives. What I expressed represents the consensus arrived at after much much discussion. Meanwhile please undo one of your reverts that violated 1RR. I leave it to you which one, but we all do need to stick with the DS restrictions for everyone's sake. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 18:57, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

"POV fringe edits"

Re: "one of the POV fringe edits" at Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, please avoid casting aspersions on Talk pages. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:45, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Aspersions is a behavioral issue that relates to denigration of other editors. FRINGE and POV are content issues and are neither personal nor aspersions. Thanks for the visit. SPECIFICO talk 18:21, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

"POV fringe edits" can be construed as being done by "POV fringe editors". It did come across as an aspersion. The better way to formulate the same concern could have been "these edits were not in compliance with Wikipedia's POV policy" or something similar. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:30, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

No, actually you should not misconstrue what I said. Because you appropriately came here to express your concern, I gave you the explanation so that you could avoid misreading such words in the future. Your language sounds a bit convoluted and tortured, but I'm sure somebody could also object to your formulation as an accusation without documentation or whatever... SPECIFICO talk 18:44, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

russian interference

SPECIFICO, How are you? good to talk to you. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia. Thus, I'm not sure what you mean about me edit warring and reinserting "that Clapper bit". The paragraph refers to statements Director Clapper made in October 2016 that Russia interfered with the elections,it is RS, check. Then to statements he made in January 2017 about Russian fake news, it is RS, check. Now he also CLEARLY said in March 2017 that there was NO evidence of collusion between Russia and Trump or Trump's campaign. It is RS. CHECK. Answer me a simple question. Why are the first two "Clapper bits" noteworthy and the third NOT?Aceruss (talk) 04:02, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Breach of two RR

I agree that was the wrong forum, but it also a breach and should be reported.Slatersteven (talk) 09:09, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

My understanding is that Arbcom intended to empower Admins to keep things on track by handing out blocks as needed. There are a handful of disruptive editors who are dragging the community down by discouraging folks who don't have time to waste answering every repetition of settled questions and fringe POV. A mention on the talk page would do that. I perhaps could have linked to AN or pinged Admin assistance. The AE process has devolved to the point where it's getting as bad as ANI. For a full blown complaint, AE is indeed the place for a non-Admin to launch a case, and I believe that AE is the only venue where a topic ban or site ban can be imposed. But that doesn't mean that an Admin cannot or should not issue a block for a bright-line violation. Thanks for your visit. SPECIFICO talk 13:01, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Russian aspersions and hounddog defense

Ladies and gents, an appeal has been opened here [1]. SPECIFICO talk 14:47, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

You are restricted to only using WP:AE or an uninvolved administrator's talk page to request discretionary sanctions be levied against another editor.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:17, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Appealing my sanction

Hi - just wanted to give you a heads up that I'm appealing my sanction I received for casting aspersions against Volunteer Marek. I was unnecessarily combative against you in that dispute, and hope you can forgive me for that. I want you to know that I do appreciate your dedication to the project, and glancing up at your talk page, commend you for being able to keep your cool as you edit in some difficult areas. The appeal is on Sandstein's talk page if you want to read it. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:53, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I recall a lot of bad behaviour from you, but none at all recently, so I will have a look. Thanks for your note. SPECIFICO talk 22:34, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes I took a wikibreak to re-evaluate how I was approaching the project. Wasn't happy with how things had been working out and somewhat came to the conclusion that I was to blame. Mr Ernie (talk) 00:11, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Well that is refreshingly forthright and I wish you well if you become more active here. SPECIFICO talk 01:24, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Discretionary Sanction Violation

In this comment at the edit-warring noticeboard you request a "preventive TBAN" against Thucydides411 to include the Russian election interference articles. A preventative topic ban in those articles could only be applied under American politics post-1932 discretionary sanctions.

You are subject to an Arbitration Enforcement which restricts you to:

• only using WP:AE or an uninvolved administrator's talk page to request discretionary sanctions be levied against another editor.

Your noticeboard comment and possibly this subsequent comment violate that restriction. Please take the steps necessary to correct it. James J. Lambden 🇺🇸 (talk) 23:37, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

I've closed the topic. Please leave it alone and just move on. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:41, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm surprised to see an extremely specific restriction so specifically violated then disregarded by the administrator who applied it, without so much as a caution to the violating editor. I will respect your request and not pursue it but the message it sends is that I was mistaken to approach the editor directly and in good faith before bringing it to AE. James J. Lambden 🇺🇸 (talk) 00:00, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

James, I specifically referenced Community Sanctions, not Discretionary Sanctions per Arbcom Enforcement. That distinction was clear from my words there. Thanks for sharing your concern, but I believe that you are mistaken. SPECIFICO talk 00:05, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

AE notice

Please take note of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#SPECIFICO. Kind regards, — JFG ^talk 23:15, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello

At Murder of Seth Rich, please don't read into my intent things that are not there.

I know it's been difficult with a high influx of users at the page.

But my intent is only to make it a bit more succinct and readable.

If anything, the intro now makes much more clear by starting a sentence of the 2nd paragraph with "Conspiracy theories..." that there were conspiracy theories that are debunked and false and also wrong and by the way also not true.

I think we are getting at the same aims here, which is the intent to represent the facts as documented in reliable sources, and show an informative article to the reader.

The quicker the reader can easily see that from the intro, the better.

Hope that helps you understand my intent. :) Sagecandor (talk) 14:26, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello. I have no concerns about your intention to improve the readability of the text, and I hope that nothing I said on talk would give anyone the impression that I am critical of your efforts. Just that I felt that, in the large number of edits you made, some of them were not improvements. Thanks for coming here to express your view. SPECIFICO talk 14:46, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Okay great! It looks like for the most part the talk page is being used helpfully to work forward on some positive teamwork together ! Sagecandor (talk) 18:49, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks !

Appreciate your helpful feedback and back and forth at [2].

Thanks ! Sagecandor (talk) 18:45, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Good to see real engagement with various editors on talk! SPECIFICO talk 19:05, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Agreed! Thanks for your help with the conspiracists ! Sagecandor (talk) 19:19, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

"Driveby SPA fakenews soapbox cloaked as editing proposal"?

Hi, I saw you removed my suggestion about adding the recently leaked audio to the article at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Murder_of_Seth_Rich.

I definitely didn't intend to cloak anything... I do have an above average interest in this case and have followed it for some time, which is why I felt it appropriate to mention the latest development and registered in stead of just commenting anonymously.

The label you used can be interpreted as somewhat offensive as there appears to be nothing fake about the leaked audio, and Wikileaks does have a rather solid reputation when it comes to relaying facts.

If you would be so kind as to inform me about the criteria you require for relevant information to be referred in the article, I would be very pleased.

Best regards... RedFireDragon (talk) 14:18, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Notice a pattern here ...

Noticing a pattern here ...

[3] [4] [5]

Was this past the 1rr thing yet ?

Worth reporting somewhere at this point ?

Sagecandor (talk) 00:33, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to make of that. This editor has been around long enough to know better. It would be very straightforward for that editor to bring it to the talk page and resolve the issue. I am still hoping we will see better Admin enforcement of the DS. I was encouraged by the outcome of the AE file you opened recently. Very straightforward and no drama. SPECIFICO talk 01:20, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

I think it's best in this case to wait for at least one more incident before reporting this particular situation anywhere. Sagecandor (talk) 01:23, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I agree this is a minor matter. There are far more serious issues that arise from time to time. SPECIFICO talk 01:36, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Is that editor topic banned from ARBAP or is there something about being Jewish that is a problem? What's the context of the issue?--v/r - TP 15:57, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

I hadn't given this any thought since 1 June, but taking a fresh and quick look at it, my impression is that these edits (because they're irrelevant to the topic under any interpretation) promote various anti-semitic narratives and that it's bad behavior. SPECIFICO talk 16:23, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure I see that. How is it anti-semitic to paint the victim as Jewish? Unless someone is trying to tie some sort of "this Jew betrayed the DNC's cause" but I'm not seeing it.--v/r - TP 17:10, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't know. The first step I suppose would be to ask that editor why he thinks it's important. There are other theories circulating that also might reflect poorly on the victim. SPECIFICO talk 17:23, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't know much about the topic to know what those theories are. But I often see religion in biographies so the edits above being described as poor just surprised me. I am interested in the topic, though, I sort of half-believe in the theory involving Wikileaks. From what I know, the victim is a hero at best and a victim of a random act of violence at worst. But just been too busy to keep up to date.--v/r - TP 17:27, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

He's the victim of a non-notable street crime. There's been some WP site-wide discussion as to inserting people's religion into articles, but I'm not familiar with it. SPECIFICO talk 17:40, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

June 2017

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments. Such edits are disruptive, and may appear to other editors to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Politrukki (talk) 16:59, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

There is no place for personal attacks and disparagement of other editors, and article talk pages must be kept clean of such nonsense. Please review WP:TPO

Editing others' comments
...
Removing harmful posts, including personal attacks, trolling, and vandalism...

SPECIFICO talk 17:27, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Editing other people's comments may be considered rude and cause more disruption than simply leaving them alone. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:41, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Not in this case, thanks for your visit. SPECIFICO talk 18:19, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Removing personal attacks is allowed per WP:TPO. Altering legitimate talk page comments without specific reason is not. Please don't do that again. Politrukki (talk) 20:00, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

That was a personal attack and added nothing to any content or editing discussion. Nothing more to discuss here. Thanks for sharing. SPECIFICO talk 21:43, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Spec, much as I understand your edit, and the target is a long-time DE; I considered reverting it myself. The original causative editor will be eventually blocked under his own actions. Patience will out. Just my humble opinion. Objective3000 (talk) 00:32, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

From your lips to God's ears. I guess I was destroying evidence. Obstruction of Justice, maybe. SPECIFICO talk 00:37, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Why do i get the feeling you are tired of dealing with editors you disagree with? Oh, I know, it's because we all are. You will make so much more progress by giving them rope rather than asking for it [6]. Please trust me. DN (talk) 09:01, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the suds. This has been going on for over six months. The unwillingness of Admins to enforce basic policy, even after two Arbcom rulings on American Politics, is undermining this great Project and bleeding good editors to more productive real-life pursuits. The evidence, or rope, is all there in abundance but normal humans with real lives and real-life pursuits and interactions will not mud-wrestle on an ANI or AE thread for the sake of cleaning up WP. The Admins who choose to devote extraordinary time and attention to WP must step up to their role and put a stop to this nonsense. The Russian Interference article alone has lost half a dozen thoughtful productive editors over the past six months and the ones who choose to remain active therefore represent a self-selected biased sample of the larger population of potential contributors. Some of the disruptive editors are competent, and their ongoing disregard of site policy raises serious questions for the community. Thanks for the visit and for your editing work here. SPECIFICO talk 10:54, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Russian interference

The edit you made here [7] removed material that was had consensus for inclusion here [8]. Why was it removed? PackMecEng (talk) 22:22, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

That little bit was challenged and should not have been reinserted. It's bad text. Synth, non-sequitur, and utterly gratuitous in that location. Use article talk if you disagree. That little appendix was not the thrust of the RfC. It's not the bible. SPECIFICO talk 23:45, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

I asked on your talk as opposed to the article talk page in case there was a change in consensus that I had missed. Of course it is not the end all be all, but if you want it changed a good idea would be get consensus on the talk page before removing text that was agreed on from a long long RFC. I doubt anyone would mind talking about changing the wording or even removing that part. But anyhow looks like it was already taken care of by DHeyward.[9] So take care and have a nice weekend! PackMecEng (talk) 00:41, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, lots of caretakers on this article. Editing continued during and after that RfC. Buona fortuna. SPECIFICO talk 00:50, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Archive

Hey just a heads up when you reverted your OneClickArchiver on AE you might want to remove the info from the archive that was added. PackMecEng (talk) 21:56, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Didn't occur to me. I was trying to unhat and read the thread. SPECIFICO talk 21:59, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I know how it goes, I might of done something similar in the past with rollbacker. If the text wraps just right on my watch list rollback from the previous item is right on top of prev... I wish it had a confirmation button. PackMecEng (talk) 22:07, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Hey pal. Good work today. DN (talk) 03:22, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Why thanks, Nip. I will add it to my collection. I've noticed all the effort you must be putting into your good edits recently. Not many have your patience and clarity. SPECIFICO talk 17:33, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

WP:TALKO

@Darouet:. Please review WP:TPO. While it's fine to hat delete or archive threads on your talk page, you should not edit them to change the meaning they convey to other users. In particular, you should not bold other editors comments, which could give the impression that the original poster is shouting. The same thing can be accomplished, with no possible misrepresentation of other editors' comments, by "hatting" any thread with your own comment in the header. Although you may be aware that the bolding was not done by the other editor, future visitors may not know the context and could misinterpret the bolded text. SPECIFICO talk 23:20, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Russian Interference

[10] OK. Have it YOUR way. DN (talk) 03:09, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Not a matter of my way or yours. It's best to let the talk page settle before adding something like this, which is against the tone of the talk thread to date. Also I felt that the position of that new sentence before the two mentions of pundits suggested that the new sentence referred specifically to those two individuals, so it could mislead a reader. SPECIFICO talk 12:00, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your comments at Whataboutism. You bring some sense to those who want to engage in violating WP:No original research. Sagecandor (talk) 16:35, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

What's the Russian word for "useful idiot"? I forget. They're sincere of course, and not real life "idiots" in the least. We AGF. It's always surprising to see POV edits contrary to RS reporting of new evidence and detail. SPECIFICO talk 16:51, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

полезный дурак PackMecEng (talk) 17:09, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO:Thank you, very much, for fixing the blatant attempted whitewash, at DIFF. What can be done to bring in neutral previously un-involved third-party eyes here? Sagecandor (talk) 01:25, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

You can always leave neutrally worded requests at relevant projects -- not sure which ones would be relevant. RfC is a last resort in my opinion. POV editors tend to be more highly motivated than normal, so the outcomes don't always reflect the consensus of the entire community. SPECIFICO talk 02:19, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Agree with you about the timeline to seek things out. Agree with you about the tendency of some processes, which is unfortunate, when dealing with such issues. Hopefully this source I've added DIFF, will help debunk the false myth of the supposed 2008 origins pushed forth repeatedly on the talk page? What do you think of the latest source I just added to the article? Sagecandor (talk) 02:23, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

• Parker, Tony (1994). May the Lord in His Mercy be Kind to Belfast. Henry Holt and Company. p. 136. ISBN 978-0805030532. And I'd no time at all for 'What aboutism' - you know, people who said 'Yes, but what about what's been done to us?

SPECIFICO, what do you think of above cite? This one I think is most likely a primary source, don't think I'll add it directly to main-article-space -- but it does show usage, in-print, prior to 2008. What do you think? Sagecandor (talk) 03:06, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

I was feeling overwhelmed during my last few edits, I faintly remember pinging you on Red Rock Canyon's page. I thought it best to step away a few days, because I know that you are there. Please don't take offense to my hyperbole. My bark is typically far worse than my bite. DN (talk) 00:29, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Ahh, but remember that the bark of willow trees is the source of aspirin. Willow Objective3000 (talk) 00:37, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I never mind direct communication. Think nothing of it. What's deadening is only role-playing pretend-editing that makes no sense and fits no policy or collaboration. Thanks for your visit. SPECIFICO talk 01:33, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Question

Did you intend to replace my straightforward summary "Russian foreign ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova denied the U.S. media reports" with the nonsensical "The Russian foreign ministry advised its followers to avoid reading U.S. newspapers" (reinserting a dead link in the process) with this revert, or (as seems likely, given your edit summary and previous edit) was that simply an unintentional result of your rolling back my other edits? I would like to think, especially given your concern about "irrelevant" Putin jests, that you would appreciate the silliness of Wikipedia ignoring Russia's substantive denial in favor of Zakharova's media criticism (which is not even clearly connected to the topic of the article, and only serves to confuse and obfuscate the issue). Far be it from me to suggest that the Russian Foreign Ministry is a reliable source, but I do think that WP:NPOV requires us to at least pay cursory lip service to its denial; and, if not, creating a "Russian reaction" section with unrelated nonsense is just about the worst possible course of action. Again, I suspect you probably agree, at least in part, and that you were acting with relative restraint, and did not intend to revert all the way back to the old, incoherent version. I certainly hope that is the case, because this really isn't the type of thing that should require massive, acrimonious debates to resolve; I would very much like to restore the relatively neutral version last edited by you at 13:46 on July 23 without, say, an RfC, and without being accused of "disruption." But if that's not possible, let me know.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:09, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate this edit. I don't consider it ideal—in fact, I think Putin's offer to "prove" there was no such disclosure, and the criticism said offer recieved, is notable enough to merit inclusion—but it certainly is an acceptable improvement, and I therefore have no reason to challenge it further. Thanks,TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:52, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

That's funny

[11] - This POV, while honest, is why you and I are often at odds. I acknowledge your savvy and experience, but I don't think bringing up these opinions on an article TP is helping. Editors need guidance and leadership by example. It's fine to blow off steam from time to time, but that requires humility, and the ability to concede one's own weaknesses. What do you say to that? DN (talk) 03:23, 3 August 2017 (UTC) I sometimes find myself rambling on positions when I'm really just projecting...I don't mean to sound course, I'm just anxious as to whether or not I'm communicating my concerns in the right way. DN (talk) 05:00, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi I don't think you and I are at odds, but at any rate my statement was not a POV in the Wikipedia sense. Remember, tagging a source "left" "right" "extreme" doesn't really relate to the operational tests we apply in evaluating sources, their reliability, or their suitability for specific content. Editing is a nuts and bolts thing. SPECIFICO talk 12:07, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I would note that anyone who insists they are "at odds" with a wikipedian for stating that one side of a common issue is better than another in a very specific way is not only announcing their own partisan nature, but strongly evincing an inability to work with people of other political views via the mere fact that they are projecting such an inability on others. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:35, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Continuing the discussion from article space

I'll transcribe it here later on in a collapsed section for any stalkers of yours.

I don't know if I'm better read than anyone else here. I wasn't suggesting that reality actually has a bias, but rather that the liberal view (which is doubtless to tweak our friend's nose in the section above) is more closely aligned with reality than the conservative view. Hence, to a conservative person; the reading of pure facts and neutral analysis with no spin about a given subject would be perceived as reading a liberally biased piece.

At least in America. In Europe and California (definitely not part of America, that), there is a level of liberalism with popular support that remains just as ignorant of facts as the far-right here in the (rest of the) US. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:35, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Well the former pre-Clinton posterchild for what Americans called liberalism was Gov. Jerry Brown, who was dubbed Gov. Moonbeam to denigrate him as being schizoid delusional, more or less. Well now today Gov. Brown is making tough practical decisions cleaning up after the Schwarzenegger thing. But I don't think there are any of those old "liberal" types left in the USA. Bill Clinton recognized that to be a failed political position after Dukakis, Jimmy Carter, Mondale... So Clinton tried to appropriate the center and bring the Democrats on board with that. Clinton managed to withstand the threat of the born again pseudo-conservative Republican southern strategy and to sustain his ability to govern throughout the 1990s. This would further have put Al Gore, also no "liberal", in office were it not for the intervention of Justice Scalia. So the Democrats who win national elections, and win the popular vote even when they don't win the Electoral College, are no longer American Liberals. Anyway, the Republican right had an advantage of sorts, starting in the 1940's with the John Birch Society and the Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce group. These were business people who knew how to build a long-term enterprise, while the Democrats, on the other hand, had a number of intellectuals that included folks like Adlai Stevenson, Norman Mailer, Jerry Brown 1.0, McGovern, and others, who were easy for the right to ridicule. Meanwhile the right built a wide-scale network of think tanks, endowed university chairs, and print publications to insinuate their ideology into the mainstream. Folks like economist Milton Friedman, actor Ronald Reagan, and other colorful but dull figures were cultivated to build the brand. Federal Justices were seeded in appointments that spread the ideology through the everyday workings of the government and built the resumes of folks like Yalie Clarence Thomas and Harvard Man Gorsuch. The result is that what was formerly the turf of the American (non-extremist) Right -- think Nixon, Romney, Bush 1, -- is now to the left of Obama, Hillary and their colleagues. Contemporary media consumers, including some WP editors, get their news from a variety of near-bloggy websites such as Ars Technica and accept consultant-pundits and op-Ed writers as expert authorities. We know that calculated use of social media -- twitter, facebook, reddit -- can be used to point readers to fake news and half-cocked analysis. BTW, how can California and the Northeast not be "part of the US" when they are the leaders in business, culture, technology, and many other areas of contemporary life there? SPECIFICO talk 21:25, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree with your outline of political history, so I'll not comment on that. In regards to your question; I was being a bit facetious. What I meant was that California (and the rest of the West coast) has actual left-wing liberals in large numbers; democratic socialists, who represent the "extreme" left in the rest of the US, are centrist on the West coast, who fill the gap with communists. Groups with far-left ideologies like PETA are a joke on the east coast and in the heartland, but taken seriously in California. Hell, even the Republicans in Cali are known as being a particularly liberal breed, hence the phrase California Republican. Hell, look at the socio-political norms on display in film and television. When was the last time there was a left-wing villian and a right-wing hero? Meanwhile, if you flip those positions, you have scores of titles. But yes, California in particular and the West coast in general tend to be ahead of the curve, with both political parties taking positions that won't be in vogue with the rest of the nation for a few years. Usually positions to the left of the rest of the country. So I simultaneously applaud the West coast for having its finger on the pulse of the American people in a way no other region does, and laugh at the idiots in ELF sulking because the FBI doesn't even consider them a threat anymore. Although (and again: I'm laughing as I type this) the far right still does. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:33, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Oh. I've never been to California. Is it like a very big Amsterdam without the degenerates? SPECIFICO talk 22:43, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Not quite. It's like a big Amsterdamn, but with far less culture and far more degenerates. I used to live in San Diego for a few years. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:56, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

San Diego, USA: Plastic surgery, chalupas, naval base... Sounds like culture to me. SPECIFICO talk 02:01, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, yeah for the chalupas. Chalupas are awesome. But that naval base has... <shudder> marines on it. And there's many more of them nearby. And marines are to culture what explosive diarrhea is to an orgy. But at least they can fight well*. *As long as there's a soldier around to explain which end of the gun to point towards the enemy. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:22, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

You've left me either speechless or aghast, depending on ones POV. Thanks for the visit. Keep up the good work on articles, etc. SPECIFICO talk 17:55, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:18, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Blinked. Missed it. SPECIFICO talk 01:42, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

BTW, SPECIFICO, do you still contend that (paraphrasing) "the CIA never claimed Iraq had WMDs"? (See, e.g., here.) It would be easier for me to assume good faith if you admitted error on that point. I've been proven wrong many times on Wikipedia, and there's no shame in admitting it, but it would be easier to collaborate constructively with you if I saw similar concessions to reality on your side. (Feel free to delete or ignore this if you'd rather not respond.) Kind regards,TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:40, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Dinesh DSouza

Pov vandals at Dinesh DSouza page. Last valid editor that I can see that made changes. If you are not an administrator, ignore report. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.125.141 (talk) 20:06, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

@Thucydides411:

I'm going to wait a few hours because I hate taking editors to enforcement boards. You violated 3RR so I asked you to undo your last edit. If you think I counted wrong, the simplest resolution would be for you to say so. Otherwise, false and irrelevant aspersions and recriminations are just silly, and the EW notice template is required before a noticeboard complaint. SPECIFICO talk 00:15, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Let's be honest: you love taking editors to enforcement boards. Just take a look at how many editors' talk pages you've plastered with warnings, and how many threats you've made (often in vague terms, refusing to provide diffs when asked). And consider how you always pipe up whenever there's any enforcement issue involving people you politically disagree with. You've been hyperactive in enforcement proceedings on both sides, calling for blocks against people you dislike and defending even the most obvious violations by people you like (e.g., defending MPants after they called me an "idiot" and a "moron," while continuing to make regular complaints about WP:PA elsewhere).

A second point: you've been edit warring on Alliance for Securing Democracy. I count three reverts within 24 hours. It looks to me like you're gaming the system, and if you go to a drama board, I'll make sure to point that out and ask for a boomerang.

The POV you're trying to force into the Alliance for Securing Democracy is exactly the same as the one you've been pushing across a whole host of pages on Wikipedia. If you were to at least pretend to be interested in WP:NPOV, it would be much easier to edit alongside you, but when you come to each and every article and try to push through your maximalist position, trying to compromise becomes very difficult.

Nevertheless, I will self-revert this one time. That does not mean that I accept your outrageous POV editing at Alliance for Securing Democracy, nor your stalking of me there. -Thucydides411 (talk) 01:13, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

3rr is a bright line violation. Nothing to discuss, no justification excuses it, and nothing will deflect the community from enforcing it. So, I give you due credit for realizing that and thanks for saving us the needless trip to the noticeboard. SPECIFICO talk 01:22, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

You've been edit warring at that article, and stalking is also frowned-upon in Wikipedia. -Thucydides411 (talk) 01:23, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

By the way, are you also trying to take James J. Lambden to a drama board? Whenever I see you plastering that same warning on people's pages, I immediately suspect you're getting ready to launch yet another attempt to block someone you dislike. -Thucydides411 (talk) 01:26, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

FYI, SPECIFICO threatens a lot but prides herself in never actually taking people to AE. She does comment there often, yes, as is her right. — JFG ^talk 02:15, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

@JFG: Distinction without a difference. SPECIFICO goes out of her way to railroad her political opponents by piling on AE reports initiated by others, as you yourself experienced when her false claims regarding your nonexistent 1RR "violations" resulted in your being restricted to 0RR, which you successfully appealed after admin El C noted: "I was the admin who has gotten many of SPECIFICO's requests to sanction JFG for 1RR violations, but all of these, save one, were not reverts." Combined with her constant personal attacks and insinuations that other editors are "Russian trolls," "misogynist(s)" (also here) and part of "the video-gamer whitewash hordes," I know of no other editor that has done more to create a chilling effect in the area of American Politics.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 11:07, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Chilling effect, indeed. From the standpoint of improving the encyclopedia, my main issue with SPECIFICO's contributions is a tendency to criticism of other editors, off-topic comments and systematic opposition on talk pages with very few constructive contributions in terms of actual editing of contents. Well, here we are on Spec's talk page discussing Spec's behaviour. @SPECIFICO: do you have any comments? — JFG ^talk 11:52, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Fractional reserve banking

I don't understand how you can justify undoing my edit without commenting on the talk page. It appears you do not subscribe to the idea of Bold-Revert-Discuss. Reissgo (talk) 12:43, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

You are a WP:NOTHERE account and have done nothing but POV-pushing, failing to accept repeated consensus against your ill-sourced and original research crusading for a welter of half-boiled, garbled granola. You are unwilling or unable to understand fundamental WP policies as to sourcing, verification, due weight, and other key principles that kind and patient editors have pointed out to you over these many years. I can believe that you don't understand much of anything relating to WP, but I'm not going to repeat it all for you here. Last editor who AGF'd and tried to reason with you threw in the towel a year or two back, iirc. SPECIFICO talk 12:49, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

If what you said was true I would have been banned long ago, yet it is you that has been topic banned. Whatever my characteristics are does not give you the right to bypass WP:BRD. Reissgo (talk) 13:19, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

You have not been blocked or banned, in my opinion, because normal folks don't tend to prioritize their rich, productive, and active personal lives to allocate the time and attention it would take to assemble all the evidence of your disruptive behaviour. But don't fall into the foolish and illogical trap of falsely inferring that, just because you've not seen it yet in the past X days, that it will not occur on day X+ε. Far better to focus on site purpose and policy and don't speculate as to why you haven't been sanctioned. SPECIFICO talk 13:53, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Donald Trump

Hello SPECIFICO,

If you would be so kind, please advise on the following matter:

Page: Donald Trump

Sectioned I added: Arts & Culture

Content was immediately removed by a user, they described it as "trivial". In fact, everything listed was biographical and relevant to the section. Everything was factual and backed up by well respected news outlets (BBC, Business Insider, Rolling Stone, and Donald Trump's personal book published).

It appears their assessment is only an opinion and they provided no description for why the content should have been removed.

I "undid" their edit and explained that their opinion does not warrant the removal of content that is biographical and factual.

Another user at that point said the edit should have been placed on a talk page first for discussion.

That would be agreeable, it's just that I was unable to locate the talk page for Donald Trump to post the material for discussion.

Please advise as to the next steps. For your reference, I have included the original edit here below for your review:

SECTION: Family & Personal Life

SUB-SECTION ADDED: Arts & Culture

When it comes to music, Trump has expressed an interest in singers such as Frank Sinatra and Tony Bennett. Trump is quoted as saying, “There's so much great music. For me, I'd have to say it's a toss up between Frank Sinatra, Tony Bennett, and Elton John. I never get tired of listening to them and probably never will… Any album by any of them is bound to be fantastic.” For concert performances, Trump was quoted as appreciating the reggae music of Toots and the Maytals when he said, “I heard the guest band, Toots & The Maytals, practising out on the set [of Saturday Night Live; Trump co-hosted an episode in April 2004]. They sounded terrific, and I went out to listen to them for a while. My daughter Ivanka had told me how great they were, and she was right. The music relaxed me, and surprisingly, I was not nervous." Trump also attended a Neil Young concert and told Rolling Stone, "He's got something very special. I've listened to his music for years... His voice is perfect and haunting."

In regard to film, Citizen Kane by Orson Welles is reportedly one of Trump’s favorites. He is quoted to say, ”I think you learn in 'Kane' that maybe wealth isn't everything. Because he had the wealth, but he didn't have the happiness."

Regarding his interest in books, Trump has said that “All Quiet on the Western Front” (1929) by Erich Maria Remarque is his favorite fiction novel.

Best regards, Celaur (talk)

References

WikiProject Investment

Hey there! I just re-launched the WikiProject Investment.

The site has been fully revamped and updated and I would like to invite you the project.

Feel free to check out the project and ping me if you have any questions.

I'd like to invite you to join the Investment WikiProject. There are a lot of Investment related articles on Wikipedia that could use a little attention, and I hope this project can help organize an effort to improve them. So please, take a look and if you like what you see, help get this project off the ground and a few Investment pages into the front ranks of Wikipedia articles. Thanks!

Cheers! WikiEditCrunch (talk) 20:19, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

WP:V

I have no idea what "V refers to text not sources" is supposed to mean, but if you're seriously suggesting that article text does not need to be verified by reliable sources, you're mistaken. Furthermore, your assertion that the disputed material is "Sourced below" is an outright lie. It's true that the WP:LEAD shouldn't require sources if it is merely summarizing the body, but that actually undermines your position: That's kind of the whole reason why the "conspiracy theories" language you and your sockpuppet friend repeatedly edit warred into the lead without any corresponding additions to the body was so problematic. For the record, WP:V states:

All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. ... Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed. Please immediately remove contentious material about living people that is unsourced or poorly sourced.

If you can show me where this source states "[D'Souza's] films have been the subject of some controversy, including criticism for espousing conspiracy theories," great; however, if you cannot, the source fails WP:V. This isn't complicated or obtuse, and there's no sense in muddling the issue. Frankly, if you're literally not going to read the sources, the article, or the policies you cite before editing, that suggests a lack of competence.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 15:56, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

"Translation:(TTAAC) I am resorting to personal attacks again because I didn't get my way." Everyone else tuning in, ignore the WP:NOTHERE. Nothing to see here. 63.227.77.251 (talk) 20:35, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: Could you answer the editor's comment about sourcing and verifiability instead of questioning their HERE? — JFG ^talk 23:25, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Instead of what??? Who?? SPECIFICO talk 23:39, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, I know this has been a recurring problem with your edits for years, and you are unlikely to heed this warning, but please do not misrepresent reliable sources, intentionally or otherwise, as you did with this edit: Your source does not say anything even remotely resembling your summary that "[VIPS] has issued several false warnings and repeated conspiracy theories."TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:28, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

The Washington Monthly source was added by @Volunteer Marek:, not me. I added the sentence because it reflects RS coverage cited in the article text, but I saw no reason to remove Marek's additional reference later on. More bones for the broth, and all that. SPECIFICO talk 20:57, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Alright, I see now that that is technically true, inasmuch as you originally added this claim to the lead absent any sourcing, but it remains the case that neither you nor Volunteer Marek have been able to produce WP:RS that support your specific formulation "[VIPS] has issued several false warnings and repeated conspiracy theories." "This lede text is supported by sourced article text" smacks of synthesis.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:24, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Now that you've apologized for the smear and since this is not the article talk page, I suggest you take any concerns over there. Good luck. SPECIFICO talk 21:46, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Just curious

I have seen you referring to Mr.X, as comrade X. What's the story behind that? PackMecEng (talk) 14:47, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

We are all comrades in this great project. I would be tickled if you call me Comrade SPECIFICO. May I call you Comrade Eng? No story. Thanks for the visit. Keep up your good editing! SPECIFICO talk 14:50, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Ha, figured it was something along those lines. I would be honored, Comrade SPECIFICO. Take care! PackMecEng (talk) 14:51, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

@Thucydides411: Your personal attack at Russians

Read WP:TPO:

Your dozens of personal attacks, political soapboxes and NOTHERE meta-comments that reject WP's mainstream sourcing approach all violate WP:TPO. With respect to your the most recent of your personal attacks on @Volunteer Marek:, the removal of such disruption is specifically authorized on that page.

Removing harmful posts, including personal attacks, trolling, and vandalism. This generally does not extend to messages that are merely uncivil; deletions of simple invective are controversial. Posts that may be considered disruptive in various ways are another borderline case and are usually best left as-is or archived.

I suggest you remove your personal attack by means of whatever editing tool you choose from the varied quiver at our disposal here. Needless to say, your reinsertion demonstrates that the first violation was neither unintentional nor a momentary lapse prompted by the intensity of your whatever. SPECIFICO talk 17:26, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

How have you been, girlfriend?

Send me a note sometimes at the old email. I didn't check it for years--forgot the password--and am on it again. Steeletrap (talk) 23:04, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

In liberty,

Miss Steele.