User talk:SPECIFICO/Archive 10

Please note
Note that Thucydides411 and Darouet act as a tag team and have since 2011. They might know each other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.99.105.57 (talk) 14:24, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Erichaim was part of the tag team, but dropped out in 2012. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.99.105.57 (talk) 14:27, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Deep Throat? Is that you? Mystery meat for lunch. 🍖  SPECIFICO  talk  14:29, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * SPECIFICO, I have the honor of introducing you to Azul411. -Darouet (talk) 15:12, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Snow
I don't think us tangling endlessly at article talk helps other editors. But we can tangle endlessly here! Per WP:Snow, "Especially, closers should beware of interpreting 'early pile on' as necessarily showing how a discussion will end up. This can sometimes happen when a topic attracts high levels of attention from those engaged (or having a specific view) but slower attention from other less involved editors, perhaps with other points of view. It can sometimes be better to allow a few extra days even if current discussion seems very clearly to hold one opinion, to be sure that it really will be a snowball and as a courtesy to be sure that no significant input will be excluded if closed very soon."&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:37, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You already know that in my opinion you are the least obnoxious of the crazed pov pushers. First off, you appear to be a mature adult who is acting out of conscience and conviction rather than an inflated self-regard and battleground video gamer mentality.  I'll stop repeating myself on the talk page, because there are plenty of other editors on that page with their own assessments of the situatrion. There's no point in my trying to change anyone's mind -- theirs or yours.  Stop by any time.  Your pal,  SPECIFICO  talk  20:04, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * "You are the least obnoxious of the crazed pov pushers" is not a compliment, but a backhanded way of personally attacking Anything (and unnamed others) as "crazed" and "obnoxious." (SPECIFICO's reference to a phenomenon she dubs "battleground video gamer mentality" is also intended to smear me for editing articles other than American Politics—not accurately, of course, since SPECIFICO doesn't know me personally, but an ad hominem just the same.) SPECIFICO's constant personal attacks and aspersions against other users (e.g.,, , , , )—to say nothing of her systematic POV-pushing and misrepresentation of sources—would surely have resulted in an indefinite site ban years ago if she shared the politics of .TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:07, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I accept all compliments: backhanded, underhanded, disingenuous, grudging, mistaken, et cetera.😎&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:14, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Whatta crock. Anything and I are old friends. We get along just fine. SPECIFICO  talk  22:19, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I love you bro. Except when you drive me nuts.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:24, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I hate everybody equally. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  22:26, 16 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I want whatever you guys are drinking. Objective3000 (talk) 22:39, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * We're not drinking. We're smoking. ;) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  22:53, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, as the Lucretius theorem states, one man’s X is another man’s Y. The old Roman clearly stole it from van Morrison: . Objective3000 (talk) 23:30, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * AKA Kushner's Lemma.   SPECIFICO  talk  23:59, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, whether it is love vs. hate, or right vs. left, the Horseshoe_theory often applies. BTW, is there a cure for syndrome? Objective3000 (talk) 00:16, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * There is. It's called "a hobby other than editing Wikipedia". And on that note, I'm off to bring down a Bolivian drug cartel. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  00:36, 17 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm having a delicious Grolsch, after tequila cocktails and tacos. I also think that *you* (insert your own persona) are the least obnoxious of all the a-holes in this joint, and your friend is even less obnoxious. Yay! Drmies (talk) 01:11, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Grolsch is fine. Good thing it's not a "Bud". SPECIFICO  talk  01:15, 17 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Wait--Anythingyouwant, SPECIFICO, I thought y'all were roughly on the same side in these political disputes. I need to get this straight, because allegedly I'm on Marek's side, and I thought that Specifico was also a Marek sock, so I should support Specifico blindly, which should mean that I oppose Anythingyouwant blindly? (But I've seen Anything make sensible comments, so they can't be on the wrong side???) Y'all please write up a list so I can stop looking at people's arguments and stuff. *lesigh* Drmies (talk) 01:17, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Looking at people's arguments is so yesterday. I am always wrong and SPECIFICO is always right, so anyone who supports wrongness should reflexively support me.  You don't want to be a goody two-shoes who always supports rightness. &#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:21, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clearing that up. Please ping me next time you do something blockable. Drmies (talk) 01:38, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Mais oui. Certainement.  Being underhanded is sometimes a winning strategy.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:45, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * When arguments become heated, I only read every other word. Much quicker, and frankly more interesting. One thing I’ve learned. The more sides an editor is accused of, the fewer sides the editor is actually on. Objective3000 (talk) 02:34, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Good point. Personally, I have not had an "opinion" since 1999.  It takes too much time and effort. That's why it's so relaxing to edit WP.  All's you have to do is look up what the sources say and put it in the articles.  SPECIFICO  talk  02:38, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * As long as they're Vox, Think Progress, The Bill Maher Show, the WaPo editorial page, etc!😂&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:51, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Words to ponder
"By not admitting your guilt, you're proving your lack of remorse."
 * Isn't it obvious one cannot regret what one denies having done? Yes, I know, you'd have thought so. But OUTRAGE!!

SPECIFICO talk  03:12, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Puzzled
I'm puzzled. For some reason, in the course of this edit at the Trump Tower wiretapping allegations article you changed some of the dates in references from "month day, year" format to a couple of other formats: sometimes "day month year" and sometimes "2017-09-18", which is not even listed as an acceptable date format at MOSDATE. I'm puzzled because 1) The article says at the top of the page to use mdy format. 2) That is the standard format for U.S.-related articles. 3) WP:MOSDATE says "Where this manual provides options, consistency should be maintained within an article unless there is a good reason to do otherwise. The Arbitration Committee has ruled that editors should not change an article from one guideline-defined style to another without a substantial reason unrelated to mere choice of style, and that revert-warring over optional styles is unacceptable.[1] If discussion cannot determine which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor." I know that you know these things, so I am completely baffled by these changes - maybe some kind of error? - but they obviously need to be reverted back to the original format of "month day, year". Will you do that, or shall I? I counted seven such changes but I may have missed a few. --MelanieN (talk) 18:36, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah, now I think I see what happened. Those wrong date formats had been in the article, but Emir of Wikipedia changed them to MDY a few edits before yours. You were probably working from an older copy of the article which you then copy-pasted in as your edit, so that the uncorrected dates were accidentally included. --MelanieN (talk) 18:49, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for catching this. I never would have figured it out.  SPECIFICO  talk  18:53, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Please stop your revert warring at the Admin's talk page. There's a really important point there -- one that I hope both you and Thuc will consider -- and it has nothing to do with a "personal attack". SPECIFICO talk  17:06, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I hope you will carefully consider the outcome and advice on that thread and refrain from any further disparagement of other editors or their behavior. If you feel anything warrants ANI or AE attention, those avenues are always available to you. However, as is clear from the recent round of complaints, they need to be well-formed and carefully considered with respect to site guidelines and policies.   SPECIFICO  talk  13:41, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring
You've reverted three times today at Alliance for Securing Democracy. Please self-revert and bring your concerns to the talk page. -Thucydides411 (talk) 00:12, 28 September 2017 (UTC) Thucydides411 (talk) 00:12, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Forget it. I've clearly stated why you should not keep reinserting this nonsense into the article. We can't shoehorn whats-his-name into articles about everything on which he's self-published his opinions. Find some strong solid well-sourced content and if you wish to work on this article, you can add that and everyone will thank you for it.   SPECIFICO  talk  01:26, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Here as luck would have it, there's some real news about the Alliance for Securing Democracy this evening.  They've been tracking the Russian interference you insist never happened. Maybe you can find some support for new article content in the latest reports. That would be great.   SPECIFICO  talk  01:33, 28 September 2017 (UTC)


 * You didn't respond to the bit about edit warring. The Intercept is a solid source, and you can't just dismiss it with ridiculous edit summaries about "chatter." -Thucydides411 (talk) 04:30, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

You have exceeded 3RR at Alliance for Securing Democracy in little over 24 hours, and this would very likely be interpreted as gaming the WP:3RR rule. I have left the required warning on your talk page. SPECIFICO talk  18:54, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Another revert. You're racking up more and more revert violations at that article. I am at a loss to understand what good outcome can follow this behavior. Please roll back your violations and let the other editors have a hand for a while. SPECIFICO  talk  00:34, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Demeaning other editors on Russian election intervention page
First of all, if I want to debate what you call "trolls" on their suggestions to articles, that's my business - you insult me by denigrating that conversation as "dancing with trolls" or "diversionary bullshit". Second, I think you need a lesson on what "assume good faith" means. I assume that editor is earnestly attempting to improve the article, for lack of any evidence to the contrary. Even when I agree with you on content, which is most of the time, your manners sicken me, as you consistently mock and belittle other editors. I cannot believe that you could have been an editor for as long as you are and not realize when you've crossed the line. I'd suggest you revert your comments. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 19:14, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * That editor has appeared previously with the same complaint, and various editors gave him a patient explanation of the issues. But look at what he said. He said we should "include the proof" -- well, that would be easy enough for him to do.  But he didn't. He has done nothing to contribute to improvement of the article.  Instead he raised a red flag to rehash the tedious discussion as to the nature of the evidence and the mainstream press and other coverage of the events.  There are many fine and intelligent, hard-working, and well-informed editors on this article who work very well to sort out difficult and complex issues.  A reminder not to feed unproductive, repetitive tail-chasing is not a denigration of anyone, simply a reminder not to fall into the trap of repeating the discussions as to why the discussions are unproductive.  It is a diversion and it is BS. Sorry. Fringe POV pushing is a very corrosive element on many articles -- and of course the long history of that in American Politics and related topics is what led to the two Arbcom cases and the current discretionary sanctions.  Your statement that I "consistently mock and belittle other editors" is false.  There are at most a handful out of the hundreds of editors I've recently interacted with who would ever elicit any sort of negative response from me. "Consistently"?   SPECIFICO  talk  19:24, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm speaking generally here and not necessarily about one specific case. You should be aware that there are conspiracy theorists out there on the larger Internet that advocate for Wikipedia talk pages as a venue to spread their bullshit. They know that getting into high profile articles is difficult, but they also know we have core policies like Assume Good Faith that give them a lot of leeway to "just ask questions" about the mainstream narrative, and "expose the censorship that goes into Wikipedia articles". Talk pages aren't supposed to be free speech zones, but this is a participation trophy that we too often just give them for free. You must be civil, but please don't go out of your way to accommodate their agenda. The "needs a proof section" thing was a fairly transparent political statement designed to draw attention to the fact that the "proof" is all classified and (by implication) that it's fabricated or doesn't exist. Geogene (talk) 00:17, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * If only I were as articulate as Geogene, I'm sure I wouldn't have been hatted and rehatted and so forth. What's also germane is that on this particular article, of all places, editors should be aware of how fake news and fringe POVs are propagated on the internet.  Sadly, we have a certain small number of editors who have bought the bacon so to speak and come on to these American Politics articles all fired up to "right great wrongs" and promote non-mainstream POVs.  They may be acting sincerely but incompetently -- an unfortunate term, but at least it preserves AGF.  Or they may be coming to WP as activists, which is certainly not within our mandate.  Psy Ops is an important part of the Russian interference. This isn't to say that we have "Russian Trolls" in our midst here, but we do have folks who have been influenced by non-mainstream "reporting" and discussion on Reddit or other internet discussion boards or fringe websites.  We also have folks who are not broadly familiar with mainstream journalism, its practices and standards and limitations.
 * The policies and guidelines of the Wikipedia community are remarkably and admirably robust in helping to sort all this out. Very often the tipoff to a dysfunctional discussion will be a minority of editors rejecting WP policy, explicitly or not, or claiming that the WP community is "biased", or falsely claiming that rejecting bad content or sources is some kind of "personal attack." Anyway, where there are many editors, the articles end up continuously improving.  Where there are few editors, e.g. at Murder of Seth Rich before Fox News went a step too far with it, the goofy stuff tends to persist.  In the case of the Russian Interference article, the wind is at our backs, and the fringe POVs have become less numerous and less viable as time has passed.  Eventually we will have a clearer narrative as to what occurred and how. Even in the past month or so, the Alien Mind Control thing  has been fleshed out with a lot of mainstream reporting as to cyber warfare on mainstream internet sites like facebook.  It's generally been best not to get too concerned with the fringe POV editing that pops up from time to time, because the facts continue to marginalize those POVs.  But every once in a while, the spectacle of a talk page rehash of basic denials of well-sourced material is just too painful to watch.  And I say that as one who posted 2-3 times in that thread, so I didn't exactly resist the bait myself.  SPECIFICO  talk  01:17, 10 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I forgot to give you a real warning, but I see there is already enough commentary here. Drmies (talk) 02:21, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks we are all trying to sort this out. SPECIFICO  talk  02:30, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Alliance for Securing Democracy GG section on the TP
ICYMI s/he responded to you. Wingwraith (talk) 23:24, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello. Thanks for the note. I think it's at the point where nobody pays much attention to that editor one way or the other, per WP:DENY - always personal attacks and never article improvement or thoughtful contributions, so far as I can tell.  Keep up the good work with your article improvements.  SPECIFICO  talk  23:42, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Can you please explain why you made this revert? The function of the tag was to qualify his criticism which I would've thought was something that you wouldn't have had any objections to as I was under the impression that we were taking a similar approach with regards to the GG source and content. Unless someone has hacked into your account... Wingwraith (talk) 07:24, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi. The Greenwald bit does not belong in this article. Certainly no opinion belongs in a section that is giving a basic description of the organization -- a section that short be succinct and objective before we build any further article content concerning its actions, possible biases, successes and failures. GG is more or less self-published at "the intercept" -- it's his organ, for which he garnered some vc funding.  You may note that on its home page it features him in the menu where one would ordinarily expect a table of contents or the like.  I have not seen his opinions seriously presented in secondary RS discussion, so I regard this as tantamount to self-published POV and UNDUE for this article.  He is not a significant voice in the public discussion of this topic. Labeling him doesn't solve the core problem, so I reverted it.  Unfortunately in articles with few followers, the fanatic POV editors will often prevail until either the article garners more active editors or their POV becomes manifestly untenable and they set sails for other thinly-fished waters.  Thanks for your visit.  SPECIFICO  talk  18:50, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm going to be persistent about including this tag back into the article. I agree with you about virtually all the points that you've raised about the GG source and that ideally this issue would not even arise in the first place, but the problem is that we live in a reality where the discussion is monopolized by a couple of "fanatic POV editors" which makes it impossible to get rid of (as you put it) the core problem; hence my minimalist position that the least that can be done about it is to qualify the criticism. Surely you understand this point? Wingwraith (talk) 21:13, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi. I understand your approach. But I think the best solution, in any event, is one I tried that got a knee-jerk revert from Thu-know-who. The best solution for the time being would be to separate the GG opinion/insinuation from the description of personnel and place it in a new section called public reaction or something like that.  What do you think of that?  You could restore your edit and move the whole thing to a fresh location that makes clear it is opinion and not description.  SPECIFICO  talk  22:35, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree with the wisdom of your separation proposal but the problem is that it is most likely just going to get tag-team reverted...again. So I stand by the minimalist position that I proposed which was to put the label in (which makes it clear that GG's description of the ASD personnel are his) and just leave it at that. Surely you would concur to this? Wingwraith (talk) 03:37, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Can you respond to the immediately preceding post above? If you don't I'll take your silence as consensus. Wingwraith (talk) 20:37, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi. I think it would be constructive to put it in a separate section along with some of the other commentary or reaction to this group. I don't think it's a good idea to anticipate that some editor is going to make a bad edit and to compromise policy and sound judgment in order to accommodate any such action. The GG piece is a diatribe that I would say is bordering on crazed.  He may have some longstanding political POVs that triggered this, I don't know.  He's not a significant expert. If he were, we'd see mainstream independent publication of his statements.  So in response, thanks for your note here but I don't agree and I think that eventually GG will either be removed or that mainstream reasoned comments will be placed alongside his in a separate section.  His comments are ad hominem disparagement and have nothing to do with the activities of this organization.  At best they represent some kind of expectation he may have that only bad stuff's coming out of this.  Hard to make any sense of his writing.  SPECIFICO  talk  22:15, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * With regards to the tag issue I'm going to respectfully disagree with your position and ask that you do not revert my re-addition of the material back into the article. I really cannot see why you would have a problem with that proposed edit as its a criticism of GG's views and in any case doesn't interfere with your proposal to create a reaction section for the article (in which, if successfully adopted, you/we can put his views); just think of the tag edit as a stop-gap measure. In the meantime, perhaps you can raise the issue on the talkpage? I'm confident that what would result from that discussion would be better than the response that you've gotten already a la the tag-team reversions. Wingwraith (talk) 22:51, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi. I already split the opinion from the description here leaving GG's opinion in place, but this was quickly reverted.  Until there are more editors on this article, motivated POV editors will always have the upper hand.  It's best not to get into edit wars in such situations, it's pointless and a waste of time and attention.   SPECIFICO  talk  23:37, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I am aware of that which is why I kept bringing up the point about the tag-team reversion. But like I said I would still encourage you to start the separation proposal discussion on the talkpage not least because my instinct tells me that there'd be something that could be had for your/our side from that. Wingwraith (talk) 02:04, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I've already made that point. I didn't see any constructive response to my suggestion. If you feel like pursuing this, that would be very constructive. If it turns out that there's engagement rather than more edit-warring, perhaps I will have some useful further comments. Thanks for the suggestion.  Remember, however, that there's no way you can force others to be collaborative, and sometimes it's just not worth the trouble after several attempts have been crushed.  SPECIFICO  talk  02:10, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * But my point is that you didn't raise your perfectly reasonable proposal on the talkpage and since you were the one who first attempted to do so directly with your edits on the article content it'd make more sense for you to raise the issue. That said I respect your decision if you didn't want to do that given the history of the tag-team reverts that you've had to deal with. Wingwraith (talk) 05:55, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring at Casualties of the Iraq War
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. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: 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. I advise you to stop edit warring immediately. -Darouet (talk) 01:48, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.


 * Hello. Welcome to my garden. I've made only a single edit to that article. Perhaps you confuse me with someone else?  SPECIFICO  talk  01:58, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.

Nassim Taleb
Why can't people know who his parents and ancestors were? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meg_Whitman If you don't like family history on wiki pages than you have some work to do on Meg Whitman's page.
 * Hello. Thanks for coming here to inquire. I do not find any significant discussion of his ancestry in WP:RS coverage of Taleb, and I believe that it does not meet the standard of WP:WEIGHT.  It's not relevant to his professional work and the fact that WP:OTHERSTUFF is found in other articles is orthogonal to its presence in this one. Maybe it's undue there as well? I don't know.  SPECIFICO  talk  16:53, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Here are some sources https://geneticliteracyproject.org/glp-facts/nassim-taleb-financial-risk-analyst-turned-anti-gmo-propagandist/
 * That appears to be cut and paste from the Wikipedia article we're trying to improve. This happens from time to time.  I think that if his ancestry is considered important by mainstream observers of his work, it should be possible to find many Reliable Sources that discuss it.  My current impression is that this will not turn out to be the case, but by all means have a look  if you think it will be fruitful.  SPECIFICO  talk  01:44, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Money creation and Bold-Revert-Discuss
I note you undid my title change with the comment "revert POV move without consensus or discussion". This yet again shows your reluctance to adhere to the wiki policy of Wiki Bold-Revert-Discuss. Wiki encourages editors to be bold and make edits without discussion or consensus. Then if it turns out that another editor disagrees, they may choose to revert and then take part in a discussion. Where is your discussion? If you repeatedly revert my edits without taking part in discussions on the talk pages then you are essentially forcing me to seek consensus on all my edits before making them. You should not make it you business to prevent me from following the normal wikipedia procedure. Please will you either take part in the discussion that I already started on the talk page or undo your revert. Reissgo (talk) 22:41, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Digital goods
Hello,

I think your removal of my content is unjustified. I am simply reporting the contents of the abstract of a peer-reviewed scientific paper that has been covered and similarly interpreted by Discover Magazine and the Boston Globe. If you can point to any error in the content I have reported, I would be very interested as I am a world-renown expert on this topic and would love to learn more about it from other folks with similar expertise.

Thank you.Carey.Morewedge (talk) 01:27, 1 November 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carey.Morewedge (talk • contribs) 01:17, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Please see the above comment regarding your message to me. If you cannot find error in my addition to digital goods, then I do not believe you are justified in removing it.Carey.Morewedge (talk) 01:27, 1 November 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carey.Morewedge (talk • contribs) 01:21, 1 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I identified why I do not believe it belongs in the article and I referred you to the WP guidelines and help pages that would enable you to function within the norms of this community. Please read them carefully and apply their guidance.  If you can cite a reliable source that cites your work as a "world renown expert" in the context of a discussion of this topic, that would help.  Thanks.  SPECIFICO  talk  01:46, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I did cite such a work. If you would care to read it I believe that you would be satisfied. For your reference, the Boston Globe and Discover Magazine have both written independent and similar summaries of the work described here. I find your editing to be unreasonable in this instance and have made note of it to other editors in the dispute conflict board. Please indicate your own expertise in this area. I have published in peer reviewed academic journals on this topic. I assume you have not. Thank you. Carey.Morewedge (talk) 03:44, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps you could share what you are a Dr of and illuminate me of your expertise. I hold a Ph.D. from Harvard University in Psychology. Carey.Morewedge (talk) 03:45, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * irrelevant. Done. SPECIFICO  talk  04:14, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * S - On CM's Talk page I and others have been advising to cool off, via trying to explain what Wikipedia is not. From replies, think got it. Sort of. However, in Digital Goods article, some third party dropped in and reversed your deletion. From looking at THAT person's past contributions, not a clue why might have put a hand in here. David notMD (talk) 21:14, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The whole thing is a bit strange. He struts his Harvard PhD and then blusters in rather stilted clumsy English, almost as if it were really someone else doing the edits. The appearance of the IP doesn't put the whole thing in a favorable light.  In a couple of the articles he visited his contributions seem at least plausible, so I left those alone.  The others, including the one reinstated by the IP, seem like low-grade academic nonsense and would not be cited here without his involvement.  SPECIFICO  talk  21:32, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm just a (biochemist) bystander, so will leave to you and others to sort this out. I will add in the world of medicine-related articles I often see people waving their credentials around (MD, PhD, ISS (I'm So Smart)), and then departing in a huff. David notMD (talk) 22:29, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Silly topics anyway. Ciao. SPECIFICO talk  22:49, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Please stop bullying me
Wikipedia asks that editors are civil with each other but you keep on making comments which appear designed to humiliate me. I don't deserve it. Reissgo (talk) 18:32, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Nobody's bullying you and nobody's supporting your thoroughly unsupported and unwarranted AfD in the topic area you've long disrupted. Wikipedia is a work area and we all can support our colleagues in their work by collaborating with thoughtful adherence to site norms and policies. SPECIFICO  talk  19:03, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * What was the purpose of sending me the link to an article on the history of French banking from 1909? Was it genuinely supposed to be helpful to me? Reissgo (talk) 08:51, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I just thought in case you ever wake up one morning and really want to learn about money and banking issues you could see that there is a real world history and real facts and issues that go beyond your pet theories and ruminations. Good luck. There's a ton more where that came from. Read Mill for starters.  SPECIFICO  talk  20:18, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You are a bully, a moron and a liar. Reissgo (talk) 21:05, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Your Remarks On My Talk Page
You made a series of accusations on my talk page.


 * You said, "It's not helpful to repeat your edit with the comment 'I'm right' in the edit summary." I did not make the comment "I'm right" in the edit summary or anywhere else.


 * You said, "The references you added are weak - marginal sources and promotional blurb." I cited to New Republic, Townhall.com, the Shreveport Times, MinnPost.com, and Salon.com, among others. None of these sources are fringe. I also cited two sources where Brooks describes himself as a moderate. Are his own words not good enough for you?


 * You said, "Mainstream RS refer to [Brooks] as "conservative" and therefore WP must reflect that." Mainstream sources describe Brooks's ideological orientation in a variety of ways, and I included those descriptions--including the word "conservative"--in my edit.


 * You asked/commanded me to delete my own edits, which I will not do. I believe that they improve the article, and I will defend them. I have, however, brought up the issue on the talk page.

You are out of line with the accusations you made. Also, I noticed that another user has accused you of bullying them. Please note that I don't back down from that type of behavior.SunCrow (talk) 22:14, 11 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I warned you politely to stop edit warring. Pretty standard stuff.  Thanks for responding by coming to the article talk page. I have replied there.  SPECIFICO  talk  22:18, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

AE
You were reverted because you had commented in a hatted/on-hold discussion. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:04, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh I see. Thanks for the explanation. I guess I had already opened the edit window when the discussion was hatted. At any rate, I think there's no harm leaving it under the hat. Either it will be archived and forgotten there or it will be ready to go if that AE thread is resumed following the resolution of the ANI. Does this seem right to you?   SPECIFICO  talk  20:10, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * *shrug* Probably doesn't matter either way. I'm not doing anything with it, at least... -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:21, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Personal beliefs and neutrality
I've come to the point where I tune out your messages. Although you are apparently acting as an advocate for your personal beliefs, I think you can be better than that if you tried. I asked a question previously about neutral editing that you didn't answer, so here's another chance to take a crack at it.
 * Would you agree that when we work on the Russian interference article we shouldn't consider our own personal beliefs about whether or not there was Russian interference?

--Bob K31416 (talk) 18:37, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Please don't pose leading questions to other users on article talk pages and user pages. If you're interested in communication and article improvement, that is not an effective mode of communication. Thanks for your visit.  SPECIFICO  talk  19:18, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * In this context I think that's an improper objection. In any case, maybe the question will be something for you to consider yourself privately in your evolution as an editor. Bye. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:12, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * QED. You may have noticed that for all your participation in nearly a year of talk page threads on the Russian interference article, you have not managed to garner consensus for any article improvements. SPECIFICO  talk  15:55, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

DS violation
You just violated Discretionary Sanctions at Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. Are you going to self-revert, or do I need to take you to AE?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:58, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Of course, there's no notice at the top of the talk page, but I now see that from a desktop PC there is a notice at the edit page, so I'll undo. Your edit is abusive and to claim either that Bloomberg is not RS for this or that "2004" per the cited RS is not correct are preposterous. So after I undo my edit, I suggest you reinstate the RS content. Disruptive edits like that are not helpful.  SPECIFICO talk 21:06, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Article Review
Hello, SPECIFICO! Thank you for reviewing Product based theory of economic cycles. Regarding COI, I can say that I study economics and recently prepared my review of main economic theories of economic cycles. I mentioned that "product based theory of economic cycles" was missed at Wikipedia. If you don't agree with the text it's okay, but at the moment article is looking incomplete. If there is any possibility to reformulate the part of the text you have deleted, I would be glad to do this. Let me know what you think about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gevlare (talk • contribs) 17:26, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello. Thanks for coming to discuss.  I think you'll find the most knowledgeable folks to advise you on conflict of interest at WP:COIN.  I am not familiar with the many ways WP deals with that.  With respect to the article, I think the product cycle is a different matter than the Product Based Theory of Business Cycles in general.  Is the latter your own original work, or are there others who have written about this?  SPECIFICO  talk  17:49, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Long story short: Raymond Vernon has expanded the initial idea of Theodore Levitt and stated that in different countries the same product can be at a different phase of its life-cycle. Vernon also stated that developed counties are implementing new technologies into production earlier than developing countries, as the result, there is a growing inequality between developed and developing countries. Further studies aimed to provide the evidence of the theory within separate industries like semiconductors (http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00036846.2012.697123?journalCode=raec20 is a good example). Georgiy Revyakin empirically proved initial Vernon theory and called it "Product based theory of economic cycles" to differentiate it somehow from previous research, which used "product life-cycle" more as a theory of international trade rather than independent theory, which can explain fluctuations within economy. Considering that, my suggestion on the next version of the article is as below: - Rename "History" into "Conception" - In the end add the phrase "Initial Vernon theory takes its evidence in the research by Georgiy Revyakin, who proved that economic cycles in developed countries overrun economic cycles in developing countries. Within this paradigm, economic cycles with different periods values correspond to the life-cycle of different marketable goods. The financial sector in its turn play a secondary role and distort parameters of economic cycles: their amplitude and initial phase." Gevlare  —Preceding undated comment added 18:56, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Right, but Revyakin does not appear to be a notable theorist nor to have been cited or his work discussed in any secondary independent reliable source publications. Without such citations, it would not be used in a Wikipedia article.   As to the theory itself, I'm not sure it's convincing. We do not see large parts of the world using outdated technologies like vacuum tubes or steam engines or even LP records, although all three do still exist in usable commercially available forms.  I think that the evidence shows technology diffusion to be rapid and pervasive. At any rate, you still need to deal with whatever COI you may have editing these articles.   SPECIFICO  talk  19:52, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Do you think that developed and developing countries are using the same technologies in their production? It is very naively to think that for example USA and Vietnam are producing food and instruments of production using the same technology. It varies greatly. Just take a look at efficiency of different industries of different countries: efficiency of electricity usage, land fertility etc. You will understand that you may be mistaken Gevlare   —Preceding undated comment added 20:15, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * My opinion is not what matters to WP article content. In my opinion these "theories" are incorrect. And the production function for t-shirts, electricity, and automobiles reflects the state of technology. Where along that function anyone chooses to produce (and why) is a separate issue. At any rate, from your point of view, there are two things you can do - find Reliable Source references for this theory and go to COIN to get advice about how to disclose any conflict of interest you may have.  Unless there's anything new you need to discuss here, I'm afraid I've offered everything I've got.   SPECIFICO  talk  21:51, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, I will delete the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gevlare (talk • contribs) 22:08, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, you shouldn't just delete an article once it exists. I suggest you go to the WP:TEAHOUSE and request assistance from an experienced editor there. Good luck and I hope you'll work on many more articles. SPECIFICO  talk  23:27, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't see any purpose to do this. All the best, Gevlare —Preceding undated comment added 08:48, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Comment
It is usually obvious when contributors are interested in the subject and want to improve a page, or when they never edited a page before but follow other contributor(s), revert their good edits, and provide no substantial arguments on the article talk page. When the latter happens, my experience tells it would be best to avoid editing the page(s) of contention, at least for a while, especially when the pages are about a combination of words, rather than about some important factual events. Good luck! My very best wishes (talk) 05:55, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes. I had a similar thought. Thanks. SPECIFICO  talk  06:52, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * G showed up at Teahouse asking for help deleting the article, after deleting all content and finding out that did not delete the article. I added a note to G's talk that the process is Articles for Deletion. David notMD (talk) 09:41, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

DRN for Useful idiot
Hi SPECIFICO, I'm not sure of your interest based on the conversation above, but I've opened a DRN discussion regarding Useful idiot here:. Feel free to comment as you like. -Darouet (talk) 17:29, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You've misstated the locus of the dispute and the talk page engagement has not been exhausted. The problem with "useful idiot" has nothing to do with the Soviet Union. In my opinion it's that a diverse bunch of current-day folks are determined to avoid being seen as "useful idiots" of Russia, domestic American political activists, and other perceived oligarchies. That's the dog in the closet.  And BTW, we do deprecate the POV-pushing of banned editors on WP.  SPECIFICO  talk  18:12, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree: the modern usage of the term should be included. In addition, according to the book "They never said it", these quotes were widely circulated in the Soviet Union (of course they were, this is basically a matter of fact), but the authorship by Lenin was not proven. Including something like that in page would be just fine. Indeed, I remember that one of these quotes was attributed to Karl Radek. My very best wishes (talk) 19:52, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Bah
Don’t screw with Winnie-the-Pooh, buddy. 🙂&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:50, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I deny sexual assault, although I may have had a crush on it after the age of consent. SPECIFICO  talk  18:40, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Following me to Van Vuuren
Specifico, did you just follow me to Hugo Van Vuuren? -Darouet (talk) 00:00, 7 December 2017 (UTC)


 * As in WP:HOUNDING:
 * "the singling out of one or more editors, joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor."
 * You've never edited at Van Vuuren, you clearly followed me there. I earlier asked you not to harass myself or other long-established editors by posting frivolous warnings on their talk pages: . -Darouet (talk) 00:13, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Don't worry. SPECIFICO  talk  03:09, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * My favorite tune!!! Atsme 📞📧 00:49, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Kris Paronto



 * Shucks. That's my specialty. And a girl always likes to get flowers, even at my advanced age. SPECIFICO  talk  20:36, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

FYI
CAPS LOCK IS CRUISE CONTROL FOR COOL... Atsme 📞📧 00:44, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * My dear, you know I think you're cool and I'm on record also thinking you're a bit over the edge. But you are my fave, and I know how to keep safe from the fringey stuff.😘 SPECIFICO  talk  00:55, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 😂 Ok, but keep in mind - my hats are made of the best material available, so when I'm not wearing my Felthat.jpg 10x beaver, you can bet it's top quality ManWearingTinFoilHat.jpg Reynolds Wrap. Atsme 📞📧 01:06, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Righ ANI
I brought Righ's edits up at ANI here. Their recent comments are beyond the pale imo. Thought you might want to know since you seem to be the primary target of their ire. Fyddlestix (talk) 04:25, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note. There's some discussion in various sources that neo-Nazis may claim Jewish connections because it triggers a loophole in some websites' anti-hate speech policies. So for example if a Youtube account, just for example, is owned by someone claiming Jewish heritage, then their hate videos are less likely to be removed by the host.  SPECIFICO  talk  23:36, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Can you believe 2018 is right around the corner?
Happy New Year Atsme!! Thanks for the lovely card. SPECIFICO talk  23:49, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Your deletion of a header "Controversies"
Hello. Happy holidays. I found your deletion of a heading "Controversies" .. which related to what in common English would be viewed as controversies, to be perhaps less than appropriate.

Your logic was that the RSs themselves did not use the word "controversies." But that the events were controversies was clear.

And Wikipedia, for reasons of copyright, urges its editors to use their "own words."

And Wikipedia has all manner of commonly (or less commonly) used section headers, such as "Early life," and "Education," and "Career," and "Personal life," where I dare say the RSs do not use the phrase in question. Would you next delete all those instances?

Here, for example, you can find many instances of the section header controversy being use, and within them I am confident you will find that many of the indicated RSs do not use the same word.

Not only do we have section headings of that sort .. apparently in the thousands. We also have article that use the word controversies. Are you saying that if no RS uses that precise word as to each asserted controversy, the Wikipedia article cannot be called, say, Fox News controversies or Dungeons & Dragons controversies?

I do think you are over-reaching. Perhaps others will chime in (even recognizing that a talk page must be a page of one's friends-in-arms).

Thanks for reading.--2604:2000:E016:A700:C09E:75AB:8F65:49B8 (talk) 04:17, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi. What was controversial? Was there any dispute? SPECIFICO  talk  04:25, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Grigory Sokolov's article, for example. His controversy re refusing an award, etc. See here and here. And also his visa controversy. You stated that the word controversy cannot be used, because no RS had called these controversies. 2604:2000:E016:A700:C09E:75AB:8F65:49B8 (talk) 04:57, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * There is only a mention that Lebrecht has been involved in controversy unrelated to Sokolov. SPECIFICO  talk  13:56, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

 * Back atcha K.e. as they say in the States. Many happy returns. SPECIFICO  talk  01:13, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Your signature
Please be aware that your signature uses deprecated  tags, which are causing Obsolete HTML tags lint errors.

You are encouraged to change
 * : SPECIFICO  talk

to
 * :  SPECIFICO talk

—Anomalocaris (talk) 19:39, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * done.  SPECIFICO talk 19:50, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks! —Anomalocaris (talk) 21:33, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

History
Per your comment here - just noting that a couple people who've weighed in there have some marks of bad behavior in their history...Anyways, hope you're doing well. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:00, 12 January 2018
 * Did somebody mention you there? They shouldn't have, cause you weren't asking to be scrutinized.  SPECIFICO talk 19:25, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Haste makes waste
Hahahahahahahahaha... !!! --. My sides are aching. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:09, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Hail Comrade Quinn. Good to see you back at the difficult articles.  SPECIFICO talk 15:10, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Glenn Greenwald revision
Hello Specifico,

I see you undid the change re Greenwald at the Allard Prize. Thought it was noteworthy because of the protests at the Allard Prize ceremony against Brazilian Operation Carwash - which Greenwald had criticized before (he lives in Brazil). But at the Allard Prize he defended OCW. Not to mention that the Allard Prize is world's largest for anti-corruption etc. I can throw seven or eight other citations on it if you like - Globe and Mail newspaper (Canada's largest), PostMedia and video of Greenwald, also Jimmy Dore show re Greenwald's speech at the Prize etc.

I just don't get how that is not noteworthy. Hey.. I'm new and still learning, but to just bam!! delete something with no talk seems a tad unfriendly. Talk? — Preceding unsigned comment added by J266 (talk • contribs) 14:21, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello thanks for coming here to discuss. It's often tough to know what is noteworthy when considering article content about recent events and living people.  Do you feel that this will be a significant detail of Greenwald's life as we view it, say, 5 years from now?  If so it should be possible to find many additional sources that present this as an important event.  Globe and Mail is good.  Are there several others that explicitly present this as a significant part of Greenwald's life?  Thanks.  SPECIFICO talk 14:27, 17 January 2018 (UTC)