User talk:SPECIFICO: Difference between revisions

This is SPECIFICO's talk page, where you can send her messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22Auto-archiving period: 60 days

Hi Specifico,

I understand and appreciate that you undid my edit on Deflation in Japan - I went off-topic and was too polemic.

However, I see the results in Japan: LONG-TERM persuance of anti-deflationary measures (i.e. propping up prices) in a SYSTEMICALLY, i.e. demographically driven, shrinking market (as opposed to temporary upset) preferently supports today's asset-rich and hurts the asset-poor, whilst being funded by an ever rising national debt that is shouldered by all. This only postpones repayment of todays debts into a further deflated future. Surely, this is not in the interest of competitiveness, a properly functioning market and can only increase wealth inequality and asset concentration?

I wonder whether these important broad consequences could be more explicitly stated in Wikipedia for someone like myself who does not have an economics degree. What edit would you propose?

Greetings, Thomas

In good fun here... I'm going to intervene and cut you off for blowing by your quota at Talk:Alliance for Securing Democracy#RfC about Glenn Greenwald's criticism. No more comments for you, you've made quite enough. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:54, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're what? Huh? Is this the joke or am I still waiting for the joke? Whatever. @DrFleischman: Not pinging for a reply, just to close the loop. If you care to look at the history of this and other articles you'll see that the bludgeon is one or two folks who appear to have, er, Russia issues. You know, Mother Russia and like that. This has been going on since the early days of this article. Thanks for your visit. In all seriousness I am amazed that the GG fans decline to respond to the specific problems with that content. You are +/- the 10th editor to point them out. Cheers. SPECIFICO talk 21:56, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• When you thanked me for this edit I thought you were going to weigh in at Talk:Paul Erickson? We could really use some help. Basic differences on core policies are interfering with development of the article. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:59, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple IPs have been edit warring on Angela Cappetta including 98.116.2.234 and 98.116.139.161, as well as NoMuppetsEver. You and User:Lopifalko have both been patient and have tried to explain some of the 5 pillars but the vandalism continues. Perhaps semi-protect the page...or maybe just nom for delete as it only barely meets WP:NOTABILITY, much is non-verifiable except for WP:PRIMARY, and its not worth the WP:VANDALISM. Thoughts? Thanks.72.43.150.10 (talk) 21:30, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the next steps would be Sockpuppet investigations on the 2 IDs and 2 IPs at that article and Thomas Roma or its possible an Admin such as Bbb23 would have a look and sort it out. I don't have the time to do anything further for the moment. SPECIFICO talk 21:43, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Latest IP received a time-out. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:08, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thx. SPECIFICO talk 22:38, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks 72.43.150.10 (talk) 00:52, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So no response from Bbb23 here, but NoMuppetsEver is continuing to edit war the Angela Cappetta article, even after the 48 hour ban. Advice? 172.58.232.219 (talk) 13:57, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nice and reasonable comments. Unlike some other contributors, I do not spend a lot of time in the project. I can quickly come and try to fix something without giving too much thought to the previous history or whatever. That is what had happen on this page. This is also the reason I should generally avoid editing any pages that became a matter of prolonged disputes. On the other hand, based on my experience, everything can be quickly resolved if everyone is genuinely interested only in improvement of content and knows the subject. Having a prolonged dispute about something is a red flag that something else is going on on the page... My very best wishes (talk) 13:40, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree entirely. In my real life volunteer and community activities, I regularly interact with other dedicated volunteers who collaborate to sort out complex problems in a constructive work environment. WP is a great and important project. Unfortunately, when editors bring a personal agenda or when they lack the cognitive or emotional wherewithal to deal objectively with complex issues, their singular and undue zeal will overwhelm our community processes in the short run. But my experience has been that in the long run, good consensus articles emerge and prevail. SPECIFICO talk 14:02, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Darouet: Stop it with the personal remarks and aspersions about the undersigned on article talk pages.
SPECIFICO talk 15:42, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Baby Jesus version" - I clap my hands vigorously. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:38, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

😁 SPECIFICO talk 13:56, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Factchecker_atyourservice 03:46, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

😁 SPECIFICO talk 03:49, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Am I doing the right thing with this edit at Mexico–United States barrier? Two separate editors (at least, I think they are two separate editors) have reverted me and I just want to make sure I'm not on the wrong track. I think the questionable source (right wing anti-immigrant hate group) of Trump's data is relevant to the article. -- Scjessey (talk) 10:34, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looked fine to me. Made a copy edit. The solar panel thing is still repeated, maybe could be improved. CIS bit is well enough sourced, and there are plenty of other sources on it. SPECIFICO talk 13:04, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That looks good, thank you. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:24, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm 2A02:4780:BAD:25:FCED:1FF:FE25:109. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source, so I removed it. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! WP:BLPGROUP applies. 2A02:4780:BAD:25:FCED:1FF:FE25:109 (talk) 19:37, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to have violated the 5-revert rule, so I expect you'll be wrapping things up soon. Thanks for your visit. I love these long names. It's like British nobility of the Edwardian era. SPECIFICO talk 19:41, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm 2A02:4780:BAD:25:FCED:1FF:FE25:109. I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. . "Bugger off" is a PA. Keep it civil. 2A02:4780:BAD:25:FCED:1FF:FE25:109 (talk) 19:38, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bugger off again. My sentiments. SPECIFICO talk 19:39, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I saw you post on Phmoreno's talkpage about a related concern and similar behavior on the part of the editor. Right now he is edit-warring to add commentary from a Hannity segment into the article on Alfa-Bank. Could you put the article on your watch list, if it's not too inconveniencing, and help out? I'm going to "ping" Jzg here as well, as I saw him commenting on the user's talkpage.. GreyGoose (talk) 02:11, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look at the page. If somebody claims that Hannity videos are RS for anything, I suggest you go to RS/N, where you'll find third party support and help dealing with the problem. SPECIFICO talk 02:17, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice. He now added Circa.com as a citation, which I thought might be better, but I now see it is owned by Sinclair Broadcasting, which is a mouthpiece for the Trump agenda, so I'm not even sure that should stay. For the time being I have at least re-worded the statement to make it more neutral and accurate. GreyGoose (talk) 02:47, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My experience with that editor was that he is a do-it-yourselfer who is not very well attuned to the concept of mainstream reliable sourcing. I found a tendency to original research and use of sources only marginally connected to the subject matter they were supposed to verify. He's quite energetic, which is an unfortunate trait in such cases. The only way to deal with it is more eyes on the pages, through noticeboards, RfC's and third opinions. Otherwise you'll just get frustrated and he is not likely to care what you think. Just my opinion and experience. SPECIFICO talk 03:33, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Phmoreno has had the DS alert, and has been notified recently of DS issues. I will leave a reminder, if this continues then it's topic ban time. Guy (Help!) 07:58, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again SPECIFICO and JzG. I got this message [1] on my talk page that accused me of "canvassing" in posting this thread. Was this thread "canvassing" and prohibited? If so, what would have been a better alternative? GreyGoose (talk) 07:06, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What the heck are you doing adding a notability tag to the Positive Money Page when it has just passed through an AfD process comfortably? Please stop your disruptive editing. Reissgo (talk) 16:08, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You prefer another AFD? SPECIFICO talk 16:22, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Of course the sockpuppet was at that AfD as well. If you continue to disrupt this article pushing primary and POV content and references, it's only going to call more attention to the appearance of COI for you and the others who are pushing these "initiatives." SPECIFICO talk 18:07, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are the one being disruptive. Imposing your own made up standards for reliable sources. What the heck are you doing telling an editor "What is the array of independent, reliable sources written directly about this organization that you believe establishes notability beyond all doubt?"... and this is after your failed AfD attempt.

The standard of sources required is supposed to be commensurate with the claim being made. I.e. a minor uncontentious detail does not need a peer reviewed journal paper to support it. You are the one that needs to read the Wiki pages about reliable sources. Please stop undoing edits you disagree with based on your misinterpretation of Wiki policies. Reissgo (talk) 09:38, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're not really cut out for this kind of work. Have you considered other hobbies? Volunteer work in social services or civic improvement can be very rewarding. Have a peekie-boo at WP:COI - the one that your sockpuppet comrade enjoyed flashing at passers-by. Ciao. SPECIFICO talk 13:04, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Have you heard about this? Very important, hiring the right people. According to the Washington Post [2], Burkman fired Doherty in July after he talked to reporters without permission. This raises the question, what did Doherty say to reporters that Burkman didn't like? Might it be this kind of thing in that Newsweek piece from June 20th? “If this were a professional hit person, they failed,” says Doherty, the team member. “Nothing we’ve seen supports [the theory of] an assassin.” [3]. The Profiling Project web page says that they are 'once again' recruiting volunteers. Geogene (talk) 21:24, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. Profiling project flashes the brand of George Washington University, then it turns out this may mean it offered free food to grad students, etc. How does this kind of stuff get in our articles? "Wikipedia, the encyclopedia any fool can edit" ? Thanks for the note. SPECIFICO talk 22:17, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Specifically, you used non-neutral wording "this material is obviously part of the longstanding BLP-smear conspiracy theories about Seth Rich" in your notification to another user.

Additionally, you should also take care not to allow others to canvass you to articles or discussions for the same reason. While you cannot control what people post to your user talk page, you can control what actions you take (or don't take) as a result and should recuse yourself when people may be trying to leverage your well-known viewpoints to sway such consensus processes. This is particular egregious when the topic area is post-1932 American Politics which is subject to broadly-defined discretionary sanctions and specific sanctions imposed on certain articles and users. -- Netoholic @ 02:04, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No I told a trusted Admin, per my earlier warning to you on your talk page. SPECIFICO talk 02:37, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"trusted Admin" sounds a lot like "selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you". -- Netoholic @ 02:46, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This comes far too soon after this prior warning, but this post was not neutrally worded nor brief per WP:CANVASS. It stated a conclusion and rationale rather than simply informing others of the discussion. I've hidden it and replaced it with a properly neutral message. Consider this a 2nd warning per above. -- Netoholic @ 03:13, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You should not mess with other editors posts. NPOVN is the opposite of canvassing. Nothing wrong with expressing a concern and link to the article. Undo whatever you did and put your own 2 cents in if you wish. SPECIFICO talk 03:20, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, OK, so we hate each other with a passion - but putting all that aside for one moment, I am puzzled at your accusation that I am a proponent of "deflationaist" theories. Just for the record I have no desire whatever for there to be any deflation in our economy. Deflation is a bad thing. I personally would like the money supply to continually rise at such a rate that we have inflation. My favoured rate of inflation would in fact be at a higher level than the common 2% target so favoured internationally - I'd like to see something more in the 3, 4 or 5% region. So you can go on with your hobby of slinging abuse at me but please, don't call me deflationist. Reissgo (talk) 20:41, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of this project is to build an encyclopedia. You are manifestly here for the purpose of promoting your crank political agenda. Your opinions are irrelevant to this project, but when you place your promotion of any view -- even saving the lives of innocent children -- above the purpose of Wikipedia, then you don't belong here. You should in a nutshell, cease and desist your activity here and if you wish to resume do so in a way that respects this project and the dedication of all the volunteers who share, and aspire to advance, its mission. PS nobody here cares about you one way or the other, let alone hates you. We all just wish you'd stop messing up our work here. SPECIFICO talk 20:55, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think I abide more closely to Wikipedia principles than you do. You are clearly allergic to the idea of Bold-Revert-Discuss. You misrepresent Wikipedia policies to others when you revert their edits, you do not assume good faith and you make frequent personal attacks and threats. It's no wonder you are topic-banned. Reissgo (talk) 22:27, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I nearly never agree with you on Wikipedia, but I think in real life we could have great conversations. Here is a virtual cup of tea intended to reflect that. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:25, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ernie. Likewise I am sure. As you know, I have an open hospitality policy on this talk page, so you can always come here to chew me out or worse when the occasion arises. SPECIFICO talk 20:10, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Anythingyouwant and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks, Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:16, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is definitely a problem with bad editors who don't know how to read sources or apply WP policy, but thankfully there are users like me who can call such editors to heel. Factchecker_atyourservice 18:00, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SPECIFICO, accusations about other editors (Anythingyouwant, who is reasonably civil and emotionally stable, is nonetheless one of the most dogged and resourceful POV pushers and disruptive presences on articles relating to American Politics. His record in this regard is well-documented in his AE history as well as in the Arbcom case in which he was banned from Abortion-related topics. ... diehard anti-abortion activists such as Anythingyouwant ... his many and persistent misdeeds on American Politics ... Anythingyouwant is a poster child for NOTHERE editing. He is a relentless POV-pushing wikilawyer, skirting penumbra of policy and the limit of the law on WP. His lack of contributions outside his narrow area of interest and his years-long disruption argue for a simple ban from WP.) require evidence in accordance with point 5 of WP:WIAPA. Please ensure that your statement conforms to all relevant standards of behavior on arbitration pages when you are next online (clerks may, in their discretion, take action over your statement before hearing from you, though I personally won't). Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 13:34, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin, your comments intrigue me. As the survivor of an ArbCom case, and later vindicated, there was no such consideration at the time. Outright false and libelous statements, conspiracy theories about my supposedly highly illegal misdeeds (RICO) in real life (accusations made out of whole cloth), which included outing me, were allowed without any objection from others, or opportunity for me to counteract them. It all happened so fast that I was paralyzed. Real life enemies had created accounts and convinced a mentally ill editor to start an ArbCom case against me. (I'm not even sure if that person is still alive, or if they finally actually took their own life, as they often discussed.) It was a hellish experience. Is this some new policy where behavioral guidelines suddenly apply to such proceedings? I later also learned that BLP does not apply to editors. An editor literally gaslighted me and I was not defended. "BLP did not apply." I have been under the impression that "anything goes" in such proceedings. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:10, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, Specifico's description is pretty factual, and not a PA. It's just unpleasant testimony from a witness. I do agree that diffs should be provided. In my case they were not always required, rendering the proceedings a kangaroo court. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:12, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Specifico,

As there's been no reply here or editing of the text in question, upon review I have removed the section. There is no restriction on you taking part, and I do not intend to create one over this, however if you do resubmit the evidence, please consider the points raised above. Regards, Mdann52 (talk) 15:08, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mdann52: I do not question your good faith, but you have made a rather surprising and unfortunate error here. You cite a section of NPA, but you fail to recognize that Arbcom is a place where we do discuss editor behavior. My comments were not "your mother is a rabid monkey" or "you are a lying insect" or anything like that. Indeed, I acknowledged Anythingyouwant's cordial and mature mien. My comments therefore were not personal at all, but instead presented a considered evaluation of this editors behavior. Because it was a general characterization of ten years' misconduct I did not cite individual diffs but instead listed the various Arbcom and AE venues where the detailed evidence could be found. I also acknowledged that I did not have the time at the moment to present long detailed arguments that would have rehashed evidence already on record at those locations. Subsequently, other editors did present ample documentation that followed up on my statement. As noted in the comment you deleted, I have presented similar evaluations of Anythingyouwant's behavior at AE where dozens of Admins have read them without erroneously calling them Personal Attacks. Rather than ask an Admin or Arbcom to review your deletion, I'd simply request that you undo your action and let it lie. I have no current intention of returning to that proceeding, since many other editors have subsequently picked up on my comment and affirmed its view with detailed discussion and diffs that I have neither time nor interest in this week. I hope you are able to recognize the error that you and MONGO made in this instance and that you will restore my comment and we can all move forward. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 15:24, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

^{( Buttinsky)} BR...you said, "I later also learned that BLP does not apply to editors." Where did you learn that? The reason I ask is because at WP:PA, it states the following under the section title External links For policies related to attacks against living persons in general, whether or not they edit Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, and the first sentence in WP:BLP states: Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. Last time I checked, WP editors are "living persons", unless they're not living, and that includes couch potatoes. ^[FBDB] SPECIFICO, see Wikipedia:Casting_aspersions - you decide if it supports your defense or if you need to add "evidence". ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:56, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I think BLP applies to editors, but I got no help. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 18:16, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I understand - and can even relate in some ways. ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:25, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Atsme. I believe I pointed to the AE and ARBCOM cases where there is evidence for everything I said. And this is not a fresh case where the evidence has never been adduced. It's an appeal that itself has now created even more evidence of what I referred to. WP is not a bureaucracy. Except sometimes? Thanks for your visite. SPECIFICO talk 19:36, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SPECIFICO and Mdann52, here's another cute one by Anythingyouwant. After Mdann52 removed SPECIFICO's comment, Anything took it upon himself to restore just a part of it - the part of the opening sentence where SPECIFICO says Anything is "reasonably civil and emotionally stable". He then leaves it trailing off with "is nonetheless...."[4] Mdann, is it allowed for him to edit under another user's heading like that? --MelanieN (talk) 17:02, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ironic. Also, I note that others have pointedly called Anythingyouwant a "liar" and although diffs are provided, Anything does not concede that they prove the validity of the tag "liar" and so they arguably could under some erroneous theory be called Personal Attacks as well. I'd also be remiss if I didn't ask Mdann52 whether he was canvassed by MONGO, after MONGO falsely accused me of a personal attack and dismissed my reply on his talk page? Moreover in light of other editors' references to my remarks (now invisible) in the ARBCA thread, the damage done by erroneously deleting my comment far outweighs any possible benefit from deleting my statement, now affirmed by many other editors. SPECIFICO talk 17:09, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Did not "canvass" anyone at any time. Was alerted by email to this thread since you felt free to assume bad faith of me and not ping me. That myself and at least one other editor as well as 2 arbcom clerks have opined that your remarks were personal attacks, we all must be suffering from some mass delusion or well, I dunno.--MONGO 17:43, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MONGO hjas not been in communication with me on this matter. I've removed the partial revert, and I'm discussing with other clerks what they want to do moving forward - I think providing diffs may well be the easiest way forward however. Mdann52 (talk) 17:46, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's quite clear from my pointers to prior AE and ARBCOM locations that these were not personal attacks w/o evidence. I acknowledged that. Frankly assembling the great number of diffs that would be required to conclusively "prove" my evaluation is beyond anyone's resources. That's not an operational standard. It's very clear that NPA is not breached here and I reserve whatever right I have to pursue all available remedies at my discretion. You'd be deleting 1/2 of all Arbcom posts if you applied the same standard to all of them, and that would not serve any community interest. Thanks for your note. SPECIFICO talk 17:52, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

fyi [5] SPECIFICO talk 19:59, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's great news sunshine, but you can kiss my peephole today. Factchecker_atyourservice 02:30, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is that a personal attack? I've never had one before. I'm blushing. SPECIFICO talk 02:36, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Message received from WP "there has been a failed attempt to log into your account from a new device." No publicly available evidence has identified the perpetrator. SPECIFICO talk 20:24, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Please_help-_who_tried_to_break_into_my_account? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:26, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Crap. Same message here, shortly before leaving for work. I had to change my password. What's going on? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 20:47, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wait ! I thought you and I are the same gal. I can't take this! My ears are smoking. I will never edit any more American Politics articles. I am going to edit animals and fishes. SPECIFICO talk 20:56, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair I have never seen you and Bull in the same room at the same time... Suspicious... PackMecEng (talk) 21:47, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve never seen me and Einstein in the same room. Must be a reason. O3000 (talk) 21:49, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which begs the question...How do you know when there's an elephant in the room? ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:54, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"My roommate got a pet elephant. Then it got lost. It's in the apartment somewhere." -- Steven Wright O3000 (talk) 22:02, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When the elephant's physician holds a press conference. SPECIFICO talk 22:03, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

LMAO! This is better than Comedy Central. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 22:09, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see you. SPECIFICO talk 22:13, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One morning I shot an elephant in my pajamas. How he got into my pajamas I'll never know. He said he was never there and that I made the whole thing up for political reasons. Then he paid me $130,000 to keep quiet about it. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:26, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do I have a lawyer for you! O3000 (talk) 22:29, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Schrodinger's elephant. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 23:15, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Watch it. My cat dropped her quantum physics studies when Schrodinger came up. Or, as the Brits might say: Schrodinger’s cat is dead. Long live Schrodinger’s cat. O3000 (talk) 00:18, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gzz I'm an ME and even I think you guys are nerds PackMecEng (talk) 00:43, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have a habit of butting in to discussions just to attack me or make some kind of off-topic insult while repeatedly hinting at something you refuse to explain. This thing about me referring to "Mueller's leaked wish list of interview questions" is a perfect example.

Your first 'Um, gee whiz. It was not "Mueller's list'. Better to read the sources before you start flashing the italics." response simply implied I hadn't read the source (or some other unspecified source) but said nothing about why my comment was (supposedly) incorrect.

Your second comment added nothing new:

"Just to connect all your dots for readers who might be misled by this insistent denial: The questions in the leaked document are not written by Mueller and it is false to say they're Mueller's questions. And anyone who has actually read RS reporting on this revelation would know that."

You're still saying I'm wrong without explanation, you're still claiming I haven't read the cited source (or some additional source you still don't hint at), you don't say why describing a list of questions Mueller wants to ask as his wish list of questions is somehow false, you're not hinting at a different way of describing the list that wouldn't be "false", hell this isn't even article content, I was just supporting soibangla's inclusion of the interview questions.

Would it kill you to just explain what you mean and not take constant digs at me? Factchecker_atyourservice 16:01, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) "You seem to have a habit of butting in to discussions just to attack me or make some kind of off-topic insult" The behavior you're pointing out is not limited to you, FCAYS. Just sayin'. ;-) -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:06, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for butting my talk page Wink, come back any time! SPECIFICO talk 17:40, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I use simple English prose and folks rarely have any problem getting the gist of my messages. That bit about "Mueller's list" is a fundamental and critical misrepresentation of the document and its source. Come back any time with more complaints. Always welcome here! SPECIFICO talk 17:13, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for including the second extract above. That's the explanation you say I didn't provide. I didn't read your whole message first time around, sorry. SPECIFICO talk 17:25, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since you are using simple English prose and folks rarely have any problem getting the gist of my messages, are you going to at some point explain what the "fundamental and critical misrepresentation of the document and its source" was?

I am glad I am welcome here and I am especially glad that you are enthusiastic about using language straightforwardly and getting right to the point and I cannot wait for you to do that at some point soon because this is something like the dozenth iteration of messages on the subject!

For example you could tell me who "wrote" the questions, what that has to do with presenting them as questions Mueller wants to ask, and why it is false to refer to them as being "Mueller's" when it is described in the reporting as a list of questions that Mueller's team gave Trump's legal team?

Oh boy, the anticipation is too much, I cannot wait for the astoundingly complex Wiki-insights, too complex to even hint at on the talk page, that you're about to drop on me! Jesus such times we live in! Factchecker_atyourservice 17:40, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus, Joe, and Mika! Did you read my second reply above?? It's here SPECIFICO talk 17:45, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

if that is the one referring to the following quote then yes """"""Just to connect all your dots for readers who might be misled by this insistent denial: The questions in the leaked document are not written by Mueller and it is false to say they're Mueller's questions. And anyone who has actually read RS reporting on this revelation would know that.""""""""" Factchecker_atyourservice 17:47, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2 points. So what was the purpose of your visit today? SPECIFICO talk 18:05, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To re-re-re-re-re-state the painfully obvious, the purpose of my "visit today" is to ask you to explain what you are talking about, e.g. whose questions you think these are, who "wrote" them, what you're basing these beliefs on, etc. etc., as some vague half-assed half-way explanation for your claim that, in your precise words, "[t]hat bit about 'Mueller's list' is a fundamental and critical misrepresentation of the document and its source"

Or in other words, attempt to explain your nonsensical rambling... Factchecker_atyourservice 18:19, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SPECIFICO: Reminder ping! You were just getting to the point where you were going to explain what you were talking about! I'm sure of it. Please don't delay further in explaining how I made such a "fundamental and critical misrepresentation of the document and its source" because I want to understand your totally straightforward and sincere criticism that wasnt a pretext for pointless sniping! Factchecker_atyourservice 22:10, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

[6] [7] [8] Reissgo (talk) 16:54, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget to sign your posts, mate.

It's a BLP violation and you have failed to respond to my concern that's been on the talk page for a month. And you are edit warring with various others. I almost never revert more than once but in this case, I have reverted twice. You might bone up on the definition of revert whilst you're attit. SPECIFICO talk 16:35, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what your particular "concern" is - and this request belongs on the PM talk page not here. Reissgo (talk) 17:05, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I forget -- did I drag you here against your will?? SPECIFICO talk 18:54, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You appear to be involved in an edit war on Positive Money

While the three-revert rule is hard and fast, please be aware that you can be blocked for edit warring without making 3 reverts to an article in 24 hours. You are not entitled to 3 reverts and edit wars may be slow-moving, spanning weeks or months. Edit wars are not limited to 24 hours.

If you are unclear how to resolve a content dispute, please see dispute resolution. You are expected to cooperatively engage other editors on talk pages rather than reverting their edits. Note that posting your thoughts on the talk page alone is not a license to continue reverting. You must reach consensus.

If you feel your edits might qualify as one of the small list of exceptions, please apply them with caution and ensure that anyone looking at your edits will come to the same conclusion. If you are uncertain, seek clarification before continuing. Quite a few editors have found themselves blocked for misunderstanding and/or misapplying these exceptions. Often times, requesting page protection or a sockppuppet investigation is a much better course of action.

Continued edit warring on Positive Money or any other article may cause you to be blocked without further notice. Tanbircdq (talk) 17:35, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Hallo!" -- SPECIFICO talk 18:54, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You must be new around here. Maybe template me a few more times to be sure I get the message. Then be sure to stop by the article talk page and respond to the problem I identified long ago when I first removed this content from the article and explained why. Before you resume editing that article, please read our BLP policy that states, in part, Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. SPECIFICO talk 18:05, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Positive Money. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. By the way Positive Money is not a BLP i.e. the article is not a biography of a living person. Tanbircdq (talk) 18:47, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BONUS -- 4 templates get one free!

Go for it! SPECIFICO talk 18:51, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch! You've used a template to send a message to an experienced editor. Please review the essay Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars or maybe listen to a little advice. Doesn't this feel cold, impersonal, and canned? It's meant in good humour. Best wishes. PackMecEng (talk) 19:29, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And now one of the edit-warriors has made a lame attempt to justify his source and content on the article talk page and it's quite clear there's not the slightest justification for this edit and not the slightest attempt to find anything better. SPECIFICO talk

Weren't you aware that anything that makes Trump look bad is part of the Trump exemption policy followed by some editors?[9] -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 19:11, 8 May 2018 (UTC) BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 19:11, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please tell me why my suggestion on the talk page of Adam Schiff concerning an article I found provoked sharply negative replies from you? When I have an interest in articles, I am pleased if somebody brings in a new possible resource. Please help me learn to become a better editor. HouseOfChange (talk) 02:04, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think you did the right thing bringing it to the talk page. Thanks for that. I didn't intend to be harsh, just to point out that in the context of Schiff's career and responsibilities, this kind of trivia is not worthy of mention in an encyclopedia article. SPECIFICO talk 03:08, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind reply here. I worried that there was something wrong about mentioning it on the talk page, but I think I see the error was in the lightness of the material I was suggesting. This is helpful, and I will learn from your suggestion. HouseOfChange (talk) 03:16, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notifying that I've filed a request about you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#SPECIFICO. --Netoholic @ 03:29, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have closed the thread about you at AE reminding you of the behavioral standards expected of Wikipedia editors, and warning that not following them in the future will likely lead to sanctions. This has been logged at the arbitration enforcement log. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:26, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Thanks for your time and attention to these matters. SPECIFICO talk 14:11, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, by the way, for this. In terms of ideas for changing the approach, a couple of days ago the idea crossed my mind to look at the revision statistics of Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:MrX/w and rank editors by the number of edits and number of bytes contributed to the page, and then filtering out users who expressed moderate views on what really was a "meh" issue (Compassionate727) or who came over from AN/I (Tryptofish). The idea was to identify editors contributing to the general "battleground" noise and doing things other than advancing our goal of improving the encyclopedia. You would have ranked pretty high by that particular metric, slightly ahead of the Factchecker atyourservice user a lot of people are criticizing these days. Anyway I'm not saying you shouldn't contribute to pages like that, but I do suggest something along the lines of making a personal goal to reduce the number of comments and replies on pages like that, especially off-topic comments about other users. I'd also recommend re-thinking the way you interact with JFG. I can see how you would disagree with many of their positions, but from my perspective they are doing a pretty good job of seeking consensus and trying to work collaboratively; going after them personally [10] only makes you look bad. ~Awilley (talk) 17:52, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a look. I am offended by gratuitous scatological rants that add nothing to our discussion. That may be de rigeur among some segments of American or other pop-culture. I see too much of it on TV and in stand-up "comedy" but I think it is very much uncalled for in an editing discussion among people who ultimately must collaborate across educational, cultural and cognitive differences. I'd be pleased to discuss JFG's behavior with you privately but I don't think I should reply in public view. I will look at the MfD and consider what you said. I think it went on way too long and all the issues were really spelled out in the first hour of a several-day thread -- so I have no doubt that I like many others should simply have ignored it after the first round. I'll look at it with your count idea in mind and see when and under what circumstance my participation ceased to add anything to the thread.

Overall, what I think would help is 3-5 times the number of Admins keeping an eye on these Politics articles and willing to hand out sanctions. I've said this repeatedly for a couple of years now. Ironically, NeilN sanctioned me for calling for enforcement on an article talk page -- after a diligent Admin responded to my plea and issued a sanction! - go figure. I think if we had many more Admins they'd be able to keep up on the kind of interactions you are deciphering and there would be clearer and more efficient enforcement. The current environment has way too high a bar for enforcement -- something DS is intended to prevent -- and the AE threads have recently become too prone to ANI-style drama. Admins are volunteers and the burden is just too great for the relatively small number of Admins who appear to be active at these articles. The editors who end up getting banned have in most cases been obvious problems months or years before the system/Admins finally deal with them. We've lost many good editors who decline to work in the chaotic environment. There must be a better way to channel all our efforts into constructive collaboration. A couple of weeks ago I was going to post a "help-wanted" ad at AN for more Admin patrols of the Politics articles. I may still do that - or maybe you could do it at the next meeting of the secret Admin's Lodge.😁 SPECIFICO talk 18:12, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I appreciate the introspection, and I hope my comments didn't come across as pouring salt in a fresh wound. On JFG, I don't think such a discussion would be very fruitful. I tend to give higher "weight" to the complaints of users who I regularly see working collaboratively with users on both sides of the POV spectrum and calling out bad behavior on both sides when needed. For that reason I tend to give more credence to what Mandruss says about JFG than what you say. (I give an even higher weight to what MelanieN says about someone.)

I wish I had the time to dive in and start fixing problems, but these days I'm lucky if I can make more than two edits or posts in a day. The problems you are describing aren't just limited to American Politics though. We just don't have a great way to deal with POV pushers, especially the "civil" (or mildly passive aggressive) variety. POV pushing is hard to spot unless you are a long-term participant or follower in the topic area. But it's hard to be that involved without starting to feel "involved". If you are not closely following the discussion you can't take anything at face value...how can you tell if a report is from a POV pusher cherry picking diffs, or whether the "opposes" and "supports" stacking up are coming from uninvolved users or partisan warriors? It requires you to do a whole bunch of digging to uncover what is actually going on. You're basically trying to learn what the "involved" people already know from months of fighting on diverse pages, but you're trying to do it in an evening. Anyway this evening is late so I'll stop my ramblings here. ~Awilley (talk) 04:25, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Political views of American academics shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Keep it at stable version until clear consensus is reached. Tag it. Hold an rfc. Whatever you like. --Netoholic @ 16:23, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This warning is totally out of line. One revert does not an edit war make. O3000 (talk) 17:13, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I used to agree with that, but I've learned differently lately. Its also an edit war to revert tag-team style. -- Netoholic @ 17:27, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This was no where near a 3RR and spurious warnings to experienced editors can be considered a CIV vio. Further, consensus for this misleading text was not going in favor of inclusion. O3000 (talk) 17:35, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Netoholic: One revert by each of two editors is edit warring, but two reverts by one editor is not?[11][12] Sorry, I don't follow your reasoning. If it's some variation of "Yeah but I was in the right", please read the first paragraph at WP:EW. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:36, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Restoring to a pre-conflict, or "stable" version of the article is generally not considered edit warring when WP:BRD has been requested. MrX's edit was the "Bold", so not edit warring. Mine was the "Revert". SPECIFICO's revert was done in spite of the active Discussion taking place, just out of spite to poke at his opponent, so it is edit warring. He should have tagged the section or brought new points to the discussion rather than snap-revert tag-team style. Its a tactic he uses to game the system. I know this pattern. -- Netoholic @ 17:47, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Netoholic, just out of spite to poke at his opponent... - Please comment on the content. You are not anyone's "opponent" on WP. Also, the "tag-team" bit is really not a propos. SPECIFICO talk 17:51, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BRD is good practice; but it is not a guideline, and it was not a tag team. In any case, the editor is certainly aware of 3RR. O3000 (talk) 17:53, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do you wonder if your edit history shows a lot of these tag-team style instant reverts with no intervening discussions taking place on your part? I've wondered. -- Netoholic @ 17:54, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are involved in a dispute which is being discussed at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. GoldenRing (talk) 08:23, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to say this exactly once so I have a record of it. I find your WP:BLUDGEONING of every comment I make to be disruptive and counter-productive, and each brings no new viewpoint or even slight overture towards working together congenially. I realize that for a time after my recent AE request that you might hold some anger or other feelings and want to express them, but following me around and focusing so much on replying just to me is considered WP:HOUNDING.

By my count, you have made 35 edits in just over 2 days since the close of the AE request. 15 of those are direct responses to me, reversions of my edits, or mention my name: [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27]

There was one that was a reply on your talk page, and a couple that are thinly-veiled references to me, but I'll give the benefit of doubt on those. But this still represents about 43% of your total edits devoted to me. -- Netoholic @ 20:50, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We happen to be editing that article. It's active. We both made many edits. I believe you've made more than I over the past 2 days. I first edited the article May 9. You arrived 5 days later and undid my move away from the POV title that had previously been in place. My move was subsequently endorsed by a talk page thread closed to move back to my new NPOV title. I have no interest in you, let alone "feelings" and your statements are without basis. Please move on. You're welcome to share any concerns here but jumping to conclusions or accusations is not constructive. The AE thread was of no consequence and closed quickly without incident. SPECIFICO talk 20:59, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is now I think the 4th time you've made this claim that I reverted your page move. It was Lionelt as seen in this diff. So if you're mentioning that here, not only are you targetting the wrong editor, but you're tacitly admitting to hounding me for a specific perceived wrong. Consider your next reply to me here carefully. -- Netoholic @ 21:07, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Netoholic, hardly surprising as the two of you are currently involved in a discussion. This looks to me like the second inappropriate posting on this page in two days. Perhaps you may consider the possibility that you are hounding. O3000 (talk) 21:00, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]