User talk:SPECIFICO/Archive 8

Please stop posting to my talk page.
Please stop posting to my talk page. If you have a complaint about me, feel free to take it to WP:ANI. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:01, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * So hard to understand why a friendly, collegial, non-template reminder of policy would trigger such an angry invitation to escalation that would only waste time and attention. So hard to understand this behavior from editors after they've unintentionally and inadvertently made a mistake, unless the thrill of the battle gets the best of them?  Who knows?   Who cares?   SPECIFICO  talk  16:19, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Stupid Polak?
Are you one of the EEML editors? Your style seems familiar... 107.77.223.185 (talk) 00:34, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Anythinguwant is at it again
I noticed your comments on Anythjinguwant's talk page and though you might be interested in the current controversy which is spelled out on his talk page. This concerns the Trump article and basically he removed the reference to the selective service guy stating that Trump's high lottery number was of little significance due to his medical exemption (1Y). I reverted this deletion and he proceeded to revert my revert, in apparent violation of 1RR, "do not restore content which has been reverted without consensus on talk page." You may be interested in weighing in on this discussion. FYI, I am particularly interested in this section of the article and feel that 1) it is buried in a section titled "Childhood and education" and 2) significant information has been deleted by Anythingyouwant and others. In July 2015, I noticed that there was absolutely no discussion of this matter (his Vietnam service or lack thereof) and wrote a paragraph describing it which remained relatively stable until 31 May 2016 when Anythingyouwant rewrote it. There was a discussion on the talk page which lead to no resolution since there appeared to be no other interest. My point in bringing this up is that Anythingyouwant seems to think that a 1 month interval makes an edit stable whereas he blithely rewrote a section which had been stable for close to a year. Your comments woudl be appreciated.Gaas99 (talk) 06:43, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * This is what happens when Admins fail to enforce Arbcom's decisions. If you feel anyone is violating the 1RR or is otherwise behaving disruptively in this topic, I suggest you file an Arbcom Enoforcement thread.  Thanks for the note.  You also might ping Admin Awilley, who has recently counseled Anythingyouwant on her editing. SPECIFICO  talk  02:37, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * No need, I've already seen Gaas99 complaining about Anythingyouwant on 3 different user talk pages. ~Awilley (talk) 03:05, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Ha. Well, who's going to put a stop to this kind of nonsense? Nothing personal against her. She is quite charming but there are half a dozen similar ones repeatedly at odds with ARBAP2.  SPECIFICO  talk  03:24, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for the delayed response -- I've been travelling for the past couple of weeks (currently in Japan). I appreciate the input and have decided that although I think Anything has violated the 1RR rules I probably will let it slide and try to get some consensus on the talk page. I tried this before when she edited the article in May but there didn't seem to be much interest from other editors. Maybe I will try an RFC. Anyhow, thanks again.Gaas99 (talk) 02:15, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I think that's useless. Wikipedia attracts ideologues who are WP:NOTHERE and who use these articles to promote their political agendas.  Arbcom went through the motions of cleaning out the next a year or so ago, but the Admins don't appear willing to do their job right now.  The behavior is egregious and willful and highly motivated.  I doubt any neutral editor has the energy or concentration to assemble a case against them, so this will continue through the election.  Even Awilley is sitting on his hands after his counsel to Anythingyouwant was roundly disregarded.  SPECIFICO  talk  02:32, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Sexual Harassment edit reversal
I accept that "illegal" does not necessarily mean criminal. That was only one objection. However, what does "In most modern legal contexts" mean? What is a legal context? How many such contexts are there and in what proportion is this behavior illegal? Sexual harassment is not illegal when it occurs on the street. It may be boorish, rude, jerk behavior but is not "illegal." In the US it is illegal only in the workplace and in education. Please tell me what "In most modern legal contexts" means? If you can do so succinctly, then that should go in place of current sentence. You should also provide a supporting citation for that proposition/conclusion. Ileanadu (talk) 01:12, 22 September 2016 (UTC)


 * This belongs on the article talk page. Please raise your concern there so that editors can engage.  Thanks.  SPECIFICO  talk  01:52, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

I did. Ileanadu (talk) 02:07, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

What did you mean here?
Could you please explain this edit? Based on your previous comments and behavior toward that editor it really looks a lot like sarcastic grave dancing of sorts. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:29, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Favor
Would you be willing to remove "numerous" from last sentence of lead? It's a vague term, and doesn't add much. If you would do that, then I plan to add "during past decades" at the end, for a total of 15 words. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:05, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Never mind, I missed the Cassandra Searles accusation.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:24, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Content debate on D'Souza page
A decision was reached in the edit war. We are now moving forward on the article itself, having what I hope is a friendly debate about the content. I started this debate with the subject about D'Souza's photo, which one we should use. Let us know your feelings on it and, of course, remain neutral. For the record: I am not canvassing for your support. Just making you aware of the content debate since you frequent that page. Thank you for your time.Oneshotofwhiskey (talk) 05:57, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Complaint of edit warring by others at Dinesh D'Souza
There is a currently open complaint at AN3 about this article. Each participant has already been notified under WP:ARBAP2. There isn't an obvious 3RR violation, but both sides continue to revert vigorously in the service of what I assume are their personal opinions. One option for the admin who closes the AN3 is No Violation, due to the lack of a 3RR. Another option is to ban both parties from the topic of Dinesh D'Souza for a period of time. Since I notice you have been editing the article and I know you to be a long-term editor who works on a variety of topics, I wonder if you think that the dispute is at a stage where topic bans ought to be considered. Thanks for any opinion, EdJohnston (talk) 22:54, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello Ed. I very much appreciate your reaching out.  I have encountered TimesAreChanging on several of the American Politics articles, and I feel that editor has been consistently obstructive and unwilling to collaborate with editors of any stripe who disagree with him.  He short circuits almost immediately into revert warring and personal attacks on good faith editors.  I have seen Oneshotofwhiskey less frequently.  I find that ID to be constructive and usually policy-based in its edits and comments. Oneshot will sometimes take the bait when taunted by an aggressive editor such as TimesAreChanging and would probably do better to walk away rather than engage, but I see no reason for any disciplinary action.  So I think that a TBAN is warranted for Times and constructive advice to Oneshot to WP:DENY when he's being baited.  Hope this helps.   SPECIFICO  talk  23:13, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't edit articles on American politics. As you can see from my user page, I mostly edit articles on video games and recent Middle Eastern history, including a handful of Good Articles and one Featured Article. Although I have never edited Dinesh D'Souza before, the page was on my Watchlist when it underwent a series of attacks from sockpuppets, IPs, and now Oneshotofwhiskey (who claims to be a brand-new user around for a few weeks, but who is quite obviously too familiar with Wikipedia policy for that to be true). I had a few contentious interactions with SPECIFICO four years ago, during which time he displayed the same mix of incompetence and POV-pushing that got him topic-banned from Ludwig von Mises Institute and should (IMHO) have gotten him topic-banned from all articles related to Austrian economics. (Unlike SPECIFICO, I am not topic-banned from anything.) The strikingly dishonest way in which he pretends to be above the fray while defending (and in some cases restoring) the egregious BLP violations I outlined in my complaint—such as replacing the accepted photo of D'Souza with his mugshot—as "good faith" is a sad reminder that SPECIFICO is just as biased and sloppy as I remember him being—and certainly not a neutral party to take advice from. The case for topic-banning me from D'Souza is weakened by the fact that I have made no actual edits to the article—I have only reverted back to the status quo when confronted with what can only be called an extraordinary assault on all normal BLP standards by Oneshotofwhiskey.
 * To give just one small example of what I find so distasteful about SPECIFICO's approach: His "good faith" ally Oneshotofwhiskey leaves comments such as "Your excuses and spins about D'Souza's scam-artisty, journalistic fraud, and unfounded conspiracy theories betray your political agenda. It has no place here. Nor did your failed attempt at a SPI witch hunt that went no where, and was clearly in service of your agenda" and "You claimed oh so arrogantly that you 'know a sock when you see it' and then tried to use that in service of an agenda to silence another editor. Apparently you/ew shouldn't trust your eyes and your credibility has suffered as a result of your penchance for false accusations"; SPECIFICO does nothing. I write "Oneshotofwhiskey's blatant vandalism continues. Compare the old, accepted "Personal life" section with the Oneshotofwhiskey version, complete with a brand-new "Marriage scandal" subsection. Is there any other BLP written in this manner? Of course not; Oneshotofwhiskey is simply making a mockery of Wikipedia policy. Arbitration is now necessary, and probably a topic ban to end the disruption"—and SPECIFICO partially redacts it as a "personal attack." There can be no pretense that SPECIFICO has no dog in this fight. In fact, if he thinks using D'Souza's mugshot is appropriate, we should probably consider adding D'Souza to the list of topics he is banned from.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:01, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * There you go again. D'Souza proudly identifies himself as a political prisoner who he believes was imprisoned by Obama for making a movie critical of him. Even so: the photo, in fact, was cropped so only the most knowledgeable would ever identify it as such. However, D'Souza is proud of his status as a felon and even devoted a major part of his most recent movie to a dramatization of his time in a halfway house. You are assuming that our inclusion of it there was to "embarrass" him. Had you employed "good faith", and simply asked a question, you would've found out otherwise. And since you disagreed with our decision to include it, I compromised and promptly took it down. You act as if we are insisting on using that photo. We gave in. Learn to take "yes" for an answer. As for the rest, you seem to ignore my many edits where I include praise from the press of D'Souza's many box office successes. He's like a conservative Michael Moore and deserves props for making big money for his movies like Moore. I am very fair to the man and even limited the marriage scandal sections to the bare minimum facts, using neutral language. There is far more damaging news about the man's personal life according to his ex-wife. There are many stories about D'Souza's mental instability, his pathological lying, his coded racism against Obama, and his misogynistic remarks against Hillary and Trump's sexually assaulted victims. I have included NONE of that since I do believe that kind of drama, though true, is largely unencyclopedic and heresay from a wikipedia standpoint. Say what you will, but I am more invested in a good article from a journalistic standpoint. I only include in these talk pages my personal opinions and feeling about D'Souza since I do not pretend NOT to have my own biases, politically speaking. However, by being honest about them, it helps me to make more neutral constructive edits. Also, when called out on it, I have compromised in many cases. That's my personal stance on this and you should stop putting words in my mouth and speaking on my behalf. I'm not perfect but I strive for objectivity and neutrality when possible. Nuff said.Oneshotofwhiskey (talk) 05:15, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * -- don't let it upset you. It's not worth taking all these complaints seriously. I am mildly curious to know why Changing thinks I endorse the use of a mug shot, not to mention what drew him to this thread, but I'm afraid I wouldn't understand anyway, so I'm not going to ask.  SPECIFICO  talk  19:36, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

HRC
Can you please look at the comment statistics I've posted at the bottom of that thread and then talk to Slaw about slowing down and allowing other editors to discuss an issue without the constant replying to every single person?--v/r - TP 23:52, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi glad to see you back in action, TP. I will have a look this eve.  The regulars on that page already know where one another stand and I find the bludgeoning (some of it marvelously light-handed and delightful such as served up by my crush  has the effect of discouraging new editors from engaging to share solutions.   SPECIFICO  talk  00:03, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Ohh, don't count me back in action yet. I hate politics and I avoid political articles like the plague.  I don't know what possessed me to ever get involved here.  I guess I felt a quick AE warning was softer than an AE action and then that drew me in and got me involved.  Been working, lately, on military history articles.--v/r - TP 00:12, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Ha. Well you're one of the top collaborators and builders here. Best to you.  SPECIFICO  talk  00:24, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

That assault paragraph thing
Hey, the conversation on the assault paragraph has become so messy that I figured I'd respond here. I'm highly offended that you thought my edit was poorly written and garbled ;-) Actually, most of that phrasing was already in the paragraph that I condensed from 3 to 2 sentences, and by the time you reverted those sentences had been heavily edited by others. Anyway, I don't plan on doing any reverting at this point, and before you do any more yourself I'd encourage you to go to Talk:Donald Trump and count how many of the 23 people who have responded so far supported having an entire lead paragraph about the assaults. (I count 4 supporting a full paragraph, 10 saying it shouldn't be in the lead at all, and a bunch of people saying stuff along the lines of "1-3 short sentences".) Sorry for not getting back to you sooner, it's been a very long day with little free time. ~Awilley (talk) 06:27, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi. Well several editors have now edited or otherwise indicated they agreed with me.  I see you haven't been very active recently, so this is no doubt a difficult topic area to keep in full view.  Ms. Anythingyouwant is a POV-pusher who it's safe to call an anti-abortion rights extremist.  She's been TBANned from that topic after posting some truly sickening stuff that Arbcom decisively rebuked.  She is now tendentiously and disingenuously entwined in the US election articles due to the Supreme Court vacancy and others likely to follow that could determine the future of Roe v. Wade.   She has a variety of tactics.  She can play dumb, such as when she says that "if A then B" entails "if B then A" (rape/assault). She can do the rope-a-dope.  She can pop up in many articles almost at once like an internet Houdini.  She's very good at this and she is charming and rarely overtly uncivil.  She's the consummate wikilawyer.  Anyway, IMO you should have seen that, after she pretended to accept your advice 6-7 weeks ago to simmer down, she went right back at it with a vengeance. Now she's up at AE yet again with the preposterous claim that reverting your edit was a BLP violation. Sooner or later the Admins need to enforce the sanctions and/or recognize that this election does fall under her TBAN vis a vis abortion-related topics.  I doubt she's going to pull the election out of the bag for her candidate, and she recently seems more or less resigned to a politics TBAN, so calmer seas lie ahead.   SPECIFICO  talk  13:41, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

P.S. Now that other editors have made it clear that your good-faith edit did not represent emerging consensus, you might consider restoring the previous version. SPECIFICO talk  13:43, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 30 October
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:22, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * On the Dinesh D'Souza page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=746957986 your edit] caused a URL error (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F746957986%7CDinesh D'Souza%5D%5D Ask for help])

== Can we at least let the consensus go on for about another week before we do anything? Plus, only six people have looked at the discussion! ==

Can we at least let the consensus go on for about another week before we do anything? Plus, only six people have looked at the discussion! Yuri Alexeyevich Gagarin (talk) 13:03, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You will soon be blocked. If you wish to avoid that, you need to undo your edits and pay attention to the warnings on the article talk page and your talk page.  Nothing more to discuss here.  SPECIFICO  talk  14:34, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Your ANI comment
Hi SPECIFICO! I just wanted to let you know that I moved your comment to be in-line with your proposal, as this is where it probably should be. Otherwise, editors may be confused and will have to look for where your proposal is. Please let me know if you have any questions. Cheers! --  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   22:59, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I wasn't sure how to do this and knew I should not disturb previous editors' comments there. SPECIFICO  talk  23:40, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Checkmate
One | down, one | WP:NOWHERE to go. 2A01:4F8:191:84C3:0:0:0:2 (talk) 14:17, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

FUNnnnn!

"Enough with the damned Bank of England already."
If you are not going to constructively contribute to the discussion on a talk page then please stay away...

...and while we're on the subject of your disruptive behaviour - I notice that you are breaking your topic ban yet again by editing the Stefan Molyneux page (Nov 1st). Reissgo (talk) 15:54, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Comment
Actually, both the 69-year-old woman—Shirley Teter—and her alleged assailant—the 73-year-old, legally blind Richard L. Campbell—have been named in many reports. Is there any reason Wikipedia shouldn't name them? Then again, is there any reason why we should cover this incident at all? This seems like a sensationalized headline that never should have been publicized in the way it was (with early reports letting readers assume it was a young guy attacking an elderly woman).TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:21, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Please copy your thoughts onto the talk page and we can engage in normal process. This is not about what you or I think. I thought there was undue detail, given the immense scope of the article topic. Seek consensus on talk. Thanks. SPECIFICO  talk  00:36, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Allan Lichtman Webpage
The current wording on Allan Lichtman's web page: "Based on his model, Lichtman correctly predicted Donald Trump's shock victory in the 2016 Presidential Election" is highly misleading. Lichtman has always maintained that he does not predict winners of presidential elections. Rather, his model only predicts the outcome of the popular vote. The previous version of this page (13:25, 10 November 2016) is actually accurate. I'm wondering why you changed the wording. The public already has a poor understanding of statistical models and predication and this exacerbates the problem. You can't change the metric by which you measure success of a model after you see the result.Sting52 (talk) 22:20, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Could you copy here the link to the source that says his model is designed to predict the popular vote? I will have a look.  At any rate, there should be a secondary RS, not his own web page.  Thanks.  SPECIFICO  talk  22:46, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I've now reviewed the Washington Post article about his model and it says nothing about "only the popular vote" so I am not seeing confirmation of your concern. I am, however, flattered that you chose to celebrate your Wikipedia editing debut with a visit to my humble talk page.   SPECIFICO  talk  23:02, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Happy to contribute! Just by way of background, I've been teaching Lichtman's model in my statistics class at the University of Texas for about 20 years. I have also personally seen Lichtman talk about his model at academic conferences. It is not surprising that the Washington Post doesn't mention what the model is supposed to predict. NPR also writes incorrectly about the model, as do many other sources. The problem is that, in most cases, scientists are not writing the articles. In statistics, this is known as the "sharpshooter's fallacy" (you shoot the barn first, then draw the bull's eye). Lichtman claims he correctly predicted the Bush v. Gore election, because he predicted Gore would "win" (i.e., get a plurality of the votes). But now, he (or at least the media) say he correctly predicted this election, using a different criterion! If I get to shift the target after the fact, I can predict lots of things correctly.

In any case, there are multiple sources to see that his model only intended to predict the popular vote. The main one is his original paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences: http://www.pnas.org/content/78/11/7230.full.pdf. See the bottom left-hand column of page 7230 in that article. Furthermore, Lichtman wrote multiple books about the subject (basically, he writes another one every four years). The latest one is "Predicting the Next President" (2016) Rowan & Littlefield, publishers. Page x of the introduction mentions that only the popular vote is being predicted and it is stated even more explicitly on page xi: "Thus they predict only the national popular vote and not the vote within individual states." This point is repeated throughout the book, and every book he has written on the subject. I hope this is convincing.Sting52 (talk) 03:46, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Just curious?
You did a fair amount of editing at the article on Value Walk and expressed doubts about the notability but haven't participated in the AfD. I was just wondering if there was any sort of reasoning, like that you avoid AfD's or something? Not that you need to explain, just idle curiosity on my part. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:23, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi. Just scheduling. SPECIFICO  talk  14:32, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok. I once ran across an editor that avoided AfD's for some reason. Just curious. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:29, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, I didn't think I'd be adding anything by jumping on the AfD alongside the article's author after I had made my views clear on the article talk page. Anyway, thanks for the reminder. I left a note on the AfD page this morning.  SPECIFICO  talk  17:06, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Wrong diff?
Hello. You mentioned me at WP:AE, but the accompanying diff doesn't appear to have anything to do with me. Perhaps you had another edit in mind? ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:43, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi. Fixed. Thank you! SPECIFICO  talk  14:05, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

America: Imagine the World Without Her
Please do not add or change content, as you did at America: Imagine the World Without Her, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 04:47, 3 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the lovely template. I will treasure it.  Since the article has very few page views, I am not inclined to work on it any more right now. If you are, you should note, first, that you are the lone editor dissenting from the opinion of several others who have asked you to stop the repeated deletions and POV tilts of content there.  In the case of this particular edit, I believe that you have made an error of logic. What I attempted to do was to address the specific comment you made, to wit, that we had no basis to assert that "most opinions are X" without defining the universe and taking count of the number that are X.  In the formulation you just reverted, my language avoids that problem by saying that "few opinions are Y".  We can state that because we do not see many Y opinions, and we can be confident of no misrepresentation because if any editor disagrees with my version, the remedy is simply to find more than a few Y opinions, in which case no reasonable person would continue to feel my words are correct.  Please confine any further discussion of this matter or the movie to the article talk page.   SPECIFICO  talk  21:58, 3 December 2016 (UTC)


 * What's more "jaw dropping" is the part where he admitted to "baiting you" (his words) in tthe subject heading of his rv when removing your good faith warning on his talk. Also, he is using the AE by the other banned editor to passive aggressively canvass the community for his own AE.There is no need for him to bring up his AE in another AE. Clearly he is trying to influence uninvolved admins with his statements there so that when they come to his AE they will be left with a better impression, like when he changed his intro page into a milder version so no one would notice. This is a straight forward violation of sanctions and rather than apologize he is accusing the system of being rigged and admins of being part of a liberal conspiracy to censor alt-right editors like him, hence his "the fix is in" attack against admins. He refuses to back down on that accusation against Wikipedia authority because he's convinced the system is a loss cause for him. So he shouldn't be upset then at an indefinite topic ban on political pages, which is the only practical solution for an out-of-their-mind WP:NOWHERE editor. Maybe a few weeks off to cool off would do him some good too. His big thing is other banned editors calling a political figure "corrupt"? Well, then... calling the President  the founder of ISIS certainly is as big a BLP violation as any, and no, he doesn't get to pass it off advance a joke if other banned users putting mug shots up of convicted felons is beyond the pail for him. By his own logic he should be banned. Also, dont respond to me here since we don't want to be guilty of gossip. Rather, bring these concerns to the AE if anything here that U brought to your attention warrants discussion there. After awhile crocodile ;)

Notice
Pretty sure those have to be given out by a previously uninvolved admin. Sagecandor (talk) 17:31, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * No. Please read it. It's not an accusation, just housekeeping that we all have the notice. All editors on these articles should routinely be given them.  Here's the template you can use to notify others:    SPECIFICO  talk  17:34, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Source please ? This means involved parties can notify each other even at same time as potentially in conflict and edit warring with each other ? Sagecandor (talk) 17:38, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you intend to take me to WP:AE for something in particular, or was this just a neutral notification due to general editing on the topic ? Sagecandor (talk) 18:07, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Can you please answer this question ? Sagecandor (talk) 19:00, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Question
Had you ever specifically been given notice in the past about specific case Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2 ? Sagecandor (talk) 18:59, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * SPECIFICO, we may be getting off on the wrong foot here. I checked your logs and saw you had not been notified before about this particular case, unless I am mistaken ? Sagecandor (talk) 19:12, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

My apologies
Sorry, I checked your talk page archives, now I see the log shows by.

I see it is not in your talk page archives but is in the logs.

Please accept my apologies. Sagecandor (talk) 19:15, 14 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't know anything about you or your edits. As I said, you were a new face to me on these articles, so I didn't want you to violate these restrictions inadvertently. The only other thing I'll say is that from time to time, experienced editors will snare relatively new editors into defending disingenuous and rule-bending edits that promote a non-mainstream point of view.  Disruptive editors can be quite persistent at trying to conceal this behavior.  It's not an easy area in which to edit.  Good luck.  SPECIFICO  talk  19:22, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Understood. Duly noted. Thank you. Again, I'm quite sorry about all this and I hope you can accept my apology. Sagecandor (talk) 19:23, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks no need to apologize, but I will accept it and file it alongside my other WP memorabilia. WP is a worthwhile and important project, so we all need to work together. Sad to say that these politics-related articles attract disproportionate participation by ideologues and ill-informed editors.   SPECIFICO  talk  19:31, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed, thank you. My main goal at that particular article is for it to be able to be read easily, cut down on quotations and make the writing style more concise. And especially not have people adding new info directly into the intro, and instead first add it into the article body. Sagecandor (talk) 19:34, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Clinton Foundation-State Department controversy for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Clinton Foundation-State Department controversy is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Clinton Foundation-State Department controversy until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

DS sanction warning
Hey SPECIFICO, I replied to your warning on both my talk and on the article talk - probably best if you reply on article talk so all involved can participate. I'm happy to revert, but my edit seems exactly like yours previously: on a contested topic, but not a reinstatement of contested material removed by reversion. -Darouet (talk) 12:23, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi. Yours reinstated something that I had challenged by reverting -- exactly what the talk page Notice says not to do. I had also opened a separate talk page thread. I do not think you intended to do this, but the effect of it is counterproductive and I am on record elsewhere as believing that DS must be strictly observed if there's any hope of improving these politics-related articles.  Thanks for coming here with your note. I'm away for most of the next 24 hours.  Regards.  SPECIFICO  talk  12:30, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Right back at you. Congrats sweetheart
;) 71.218.145.175 (talk) 06:09, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Street Contxt


A tag has been placed on Street Contxt requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. -- Non-Dropframe   talk   19:46, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Violations of arbitration remedies at "2016 United States election interference by Russia‎"
You made two unrelated reverts at 2016 United States election interference by Russia‎ within a short time period:. This is a violation of arbitration remedies which apply to that page. Please self-revert. -Thucydides411 (talk) 05:12, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It appears that you don't understand the policy and DS rules that apply to reverts and editing in this article. Please review WP definitions and policy regarding reverts and the rules that apply to Discretionary Sanctions in this article and in the ARBAP2 decision and don't post on this talk page further about this.  Thx.  SPECIFICO  talk  15:06, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I understand the rules, and your two reverts (diffs above) are a violation of the rules. In your further editing, please keep these rules in mind. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:09, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I was trying to be as gracious and polite as possible. Your complaint is two degrees weaker than the one that got a previous AE complaint against me tossed out on its face. You are now banned from this talk page.  SPECIFICO  talk  18:04, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Why did you undo this edit?
On the money creation page I modified an existing sentence to become "in most countries today, most of the money supply is in the form of bank deposits, which is created by private banks in a fractional reserve banking system".

The reason I am bringing this up on your talk page rather than the talk page of money creation is that I am pretty sure that you already know that the sentence is perfectly correct an uncontentious. So why did you undo that edit? Reissgo (talk) 23:54, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Do you have a personal grudge, or what?
Dear SPECIFICO, I take objection to on the Russian intervention article. You apparently carefully selected all my individual edits of the last day and undid all my work in one fell swoop, saying "rv edit w/o consensus . Use talk". So, if I understand you correctly, anything I do has by your definition no consensus? This behaviour is dishonest and disruptive. Please self-revert, and then I'll be happy to discuss each of my edits on the talk page. — JFG talk 02:33, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, you did a pile of stuff that was inapprpriate. Looking back, I think I inadvertently undid more than I'd intended -- some innocuous formatting but also some POV tweaks as well. At any rate, you have my assurance that I give no thought to you personally, or any other editor here personally, but only to your edits. You swung and missed, so I called you out on those particular attempts. Nothing more. Thanks for keeping your concern off the article talk page.  SPECIFICO  talk  02:55, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, I appreciate your reply and take it as an apology for "inadvertently und[oing] more than [you]'d intended". To clear the disagreement, I would kindly request you to revert your mass-revert and then address each edit of mine for which you have a legitimate concern. Thanks in advance. — JFG talk 03:16, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Glass houses
Unlike me, you actually have (by your own admission) violated 1RR at 2016 United States election interference by Russia with these reverts. (Keep stalking and reverting only my edits, and "TTAAC needs to blocked or banned" is going to come back to haunt you.) Unlike you, I'm going to give you a chance to self-revert before crying to a drama board. I hope you take it.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:49, 14 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm assuming this is connected as well, but it's a bit disingenuous to claim on one hand that a DS notice is not an accusation, just housekeeping that we all have the notice. All editors on these articles should routinely be given them., and in the same breath when you yourself are given the same, reply that I am going to file a complaint if you don't remove that sanctions notice from my talk page. It's clearly a violation of WP:POINT and I have no idea what constructive purpose you could claim it accomplished.. Just a friendly reminder. Timothy Joseph Wood  20:56, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't know whether the page is up, because it's somewhat sexist and not all that witty, but "Don't be a dick" applies to your message, TJ Wood. I had previously received that notice, as is evident from the "My Apologies" thread above. If you're trying to stir up trouble, that's a violation of ARBAP2 and you might be surprised one day to be called on the carpet. Do be careful.  SPECIFICO  talk  21:46, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * That was pretty much my message as well. If you'll look at my talk, I was given the same by the same user, which completely makes sense, if it is indeed housekeeping we should be routinely reminded of. Unlike yourself, I attempted to explain why it was not the best use of the template rather than threatening to take them to ANI.
 * The fact that you in turn threatened to take me to AE over the issue, probably means that you need to take a good hard look at your assumptions of bad faith, and fix yourself. Timothy Joseph Wood  22:43, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Not only have I not threatened you, but you've disregarded my observation that you are speaking without first checking the context that would address whatever concerns you may have. Don't post any more on this thread.  Please read all the context on all the related pages.  Thanks.  SPECIFICO  talk  22:51, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You did indeed, and I was following the conversation at the time, because I was having the same conversation, at the same time, with the same user on my talk. That you did not simply remove the notice yourself, as I sure you will this comment, is silly, and that you insult my intelligence by insinuating that I am unable to look through a half dozen diffs is more so. Fix yourself. Timothy Joseph Wood  23:12, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

AE report
This is to let you know that I am filing an Arbitration Enforcement request against you at Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement, for violation of the Discretionary Sanctions.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:03, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Using SYNTH far too liberally
How can a direct quote violate BLP?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:06, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You are on thin ice, as half a dozen editors and Admins have recently told you. It does nobody any good to see you blocked or banned, but I can tell you that you are headed down a dangerous path. I hope you will reflect on all the feedback you've gotten recently, take some time off from the American Politics articles, and study the policies and guidelines and Arbcom restrictions that have been cited to you.  Synth has to do with the juxtaposition of content to insinuate a conclusion not intended by the sources.  I'd again urge you to go back and heed my message to you from yesterday. Your response is nothing more than a denial of the Discretionary Sanctions restrictions about which you've repeatedly been warned.  Now, please reflect and don't come to this page again for at least 30 days.  Thanks.   SPECIFICO  talk  01:34, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Hey there
Sorry you are getting harassed by TTAAC. You are a good editor who is clearly trying to be fair and do what is right by Wikipedia. Everyone has their biases and no one is perfect, especially us. haha. But I don't see any reason for this constant berating you receive by trolls like TTAAC. Also, it is a strange sign of the times that admins are possessed by the urge to enable creeps like TTAAC when banning them should be a no-brainer. I mean, the creep actually accused Obama of being the founder of a terrorist organization. If that isn't a WP:BLP violation, then I don't know what is. But some dark cloud is spreading over the earth and sending us into an anti-intellectual dark age. It is like something is toxic in the air and turning everyone into pod people, like something out of "Invasion of the Body Snatchers." How else to explain how Americans would elect a clearly racist uneducated man like Trump. He bragged about raping his co-workers on audio tape no less!?!??? These truly are dark times.

I don't know you and I can't say we are friends. But I respect your strength and conviction as an editor so in the meanwhile keep your chin up and don't let these trolls drag you down. Wikipedia needs you. Good luck lass and God speed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.218.141.67 (talk) 06:22, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Need help filing complaint about disruptive user
Saw that you were part of AE where an user a named "TheTimesAreAChanging" was TBANNED with this very condition:

So wouldn't this EDIT be a clear violation of his TBAN then? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Foreign_policy_of_the_United_States&diff=prev&oldid=760179804

In the header of the article, it even says BOLDLY, "This article is part of a series on the Politics of the United States of America." So that irony could not have been lost on him.

The edit (listed above) in particular that he chose to make was about the US and Russia's interference with elections which is the hottest thing being debated in America politics right now! Before his TBAN he was busy making disruptive edits about this subject as well, but on directly related pages on the subject. Unbelievable. Clearly he's just trying to find a creative way around his ban so he can sneak in edits about it and resume edit warring on the subject, etc.

Update#2: TTAAC has also just been found guilty for socking puppetry for, you guessed it, so he could edit U.S. political pages and get around his TBAN. Maybe he should be indeffed at this point if he's going to go that route??? This all the more offensive since the thing he likes to rant about the most is OTHER people's alleged sockpuppetry. What a hypocrite!

Then TTAAC decided to protest his socking violation with MORE socking, using these IPs to protest his ban by engaging in a lame con against the admin who blocked him:    

Now, here's the thing: one has filed a proper SPI about this so could you do so? This will bolster the case for his indeff since that's the only remedy that makes sense at this point, etc.. and we need this documented if the investigation finds (and it will) that this is TTAAC. Clearly the sock master account needs banning.

Also, we NEED to bring this to the attention of arbcom admins but they don't like us anons to file these reports and this place isn't worth it enough for me to create a formal account and deal with that drama. I'm content will my on-and-off editing and lurking.

So could you file this new development with the admins?

TTAAC's clearly a WP:NOTHERE with no desire to rehabilitate himself during his six month cooling off period they assigned to him for that very purpose. Now is the time to bring justice on this subject, etc.

Update#3: Here is TTAAC now engaging in block evasion. Again, something else that should be properly reported to both arbcom admins AND processed in a proper SPI so TTAAC will be held accountable and won't get away with this. When similar situations have arisen, TTAAC has demanded that an user be indeffed for block evasion. So honor his wishes and help him out with that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.218.138.120 (talk) 19:19, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Update#4: Hmmmm...TTAAC seems adamant about proving that this guy is not related to him. Of course, that lame protesting over it with anon IPs screams guilt and a behavioral investigation will find this to be WP:DUCK related to him. But what is MORE interesting about this is that it sounds like he thought this sock strategy was fool proof in some way and it failed him for his gaming purposes. So I'm guessing this is at least meatpuppetry and his insecure meltdown over it betrays the following: he probably has some friend in a far away state willing to let him use their computer to make edits so he can insulate his IP. Still a socking offense, which is why we have behavioral investigations to counter this type of con.

SO...don't let him get away with this. File a proper SPI so we can expose Kingshowman as his obvious meatpuppet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.218.138.120 (talk) 19:32, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Update#5: Another of TTAAC's IP socks. Here he is block evading pretending to be User:Kingshowman upset at the idea of being associated with "a racist troll" like TTAAC but the problem with this con is that the edit history of this IP shows TTAAC's presence on the Donald Trump pages where he was soapboxing previous under his logged-in account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.218.138.120 (talk) 19:38, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Update#6: TTAAC uses yet another IP sock to evade his block. This is made even MORE offensive about the fact he's pretending to be someone else when it's clearly him, so it's a block evasion AND a sock violation.71.218.141.119 (talk) 19:56, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Update#7: TTAAC using yet EVEN another IP sock to evade his block Again, made even MORE offensive about the fact he's pretending to be someone else when it's clearly him, so it's a (multiple) block evasion AND a (multiple) sock violation. Someone PLEASE indeff the sockmaster please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.218.143.35 (talk) 20:14, 15 January 2017 (UTC)



Protected
Hi, SPECIFICO! I'm sure you can tell this rapidly-shifting IP is TheTimesAreAChanging, who was recently blocked for a month for violating his TBAN. Or maybe it's Kingshowman, who is furious at having his name linked to TTAAC's. In any case I have semiprotected your page. I will let you do the cleanup operation. --MelanieN (talk) 21:06, 15 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello thanks MelanieN. It's all Greek to me -- socks impersonating one another's socks.  If either of them has a complaint, my humble talk page would be the last place to get it resolved.   SPECIFICO  talk  21:37, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Sources for Full-reserve banking
I've added a comment to the article's talk page, on the sources relating to Nakamoto's use of the Bitcoin Gensis block to make a point about full-reserve banking (or, if you like, a protest aginst fractional-reserve banking). It's arguable whether the earliest source is the Github repo or the Bitcoin blockchain itself - the two links could be swapped around without loss of meaning.

RE your comment on the BLP Noticeboard on Sippenhaft
It's not quite clear which way your comment is to be taken there, or perhaps you prefer not to come down on either side. If you have a view as to whether this is a BLP violation or not I'd appreciate a note one way or another. Regards, Nishidani (talk) 18:45, 22 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi. Well I believe that editors are claiming that no RS connects Trump to Sippenhaft and that the disputed content is therefore SYNTH and a BLP violation. However I believe that the two sources I cited do explicitly link Trump to Sippenhaft, so that they can be used to rebut the SYNTH claim. At any rate, as a public figure who's spoken at length on this topic, I don't think Trump could credibly claim that these sources are libeling him, so I see no BLP violation. Feel free to copy this to the board if you think it helps clarify my remarks. SPECIFICO  talk  22:56, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi SPECIFICO, thanks for responding. I copy-pasted to the BLP noticeboard. Ijon Tichy (talk) 00:14, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks Specifico.Nishidani (talk) 15:33, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

AE process notification
Dear SPECIFICO, you are hereby notified of, for violating DS/1RR twice on 2016 United States election interference by Russia. — JFG talk 23:45, 12 February 2017 (UTC) '''If I be wicked, woe unto me; and if I be righteous, yet will I not lift up my head. I am full of confusion; therefore see thou mine affliction.             SPECIFICO'  talk''  04:27, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello SPECIFICO, I have just now read your statement in reply to my AE report, and I would like to make some comments which would be off-topic and bludgeon the process there, so I hope you don't mind that I come to your talk page for a more detailed explanation of my motives.
 * First, I'm sorry that I had to drag you there, this is not my habit. Second, I can assure you that my report is in no way retaliatory, as you alleged in your reply: when I started composing my report, I wasn't even aware that there was an open process against, and when I posted it I had not yet seen your comments there (posted, as you say, 15 minutes earlier, whereas it took me a good hour to compose my own report). Had I seen them, it would have made no difference to my case, and I have no comment on his case.
 * What triggered me was your second removal of disputed text while the discussion was ongoing on the talk page (diff 7 of my report) and you had denied violating sanctions the first time around (diff 3 of my report) while repeatedly accusing me and other editors of an "egregious BLP violation". I have explained several times, in my edit comments, on the article talk page, and now at the AE board, why I think your claim of BLPVIO is invalid in this particular case, and believe me I hate genuine BLPVIOs probably as much as you do.
 * I was also disturbed by your inflammatory comments in the discussion, which I took as condescending towards editors who happen to disagree with you and make an effort to lay out their arguments in a clear and civil manner. I know you can do better, and I will simply suppose that you were a bit tired, as I must admit I was.
 * Finally, I wish to entertain you with a satirical illustration of what could happen to Wikipedia if we followed your interpretation of BLPVIO and revert restrictions to the tee: The alternative BLP-friendly encyclopedia according to SPECIFICO and OID. I hope you will agree with me that such an outcome would be on par with the perfectly well-adjusted society of Brave New World or the totally justified Index Librorum Prohibitorum. — JFG talk 02:50, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Sleep with your eyes open. SPECIFICO  talk  04:38, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for hatting that nasty bullshit from
I know its hard not to feed editors but...--Malerooster (talk) 02:55, 2 March 2017 (UTC)


 * my pleasure. SPECIFICO  talk  03:18, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Re
I would not like to be involved in this, but I think that guy made 1RR violation on purpose to get you blocked when someone reports this violation because your own editing on this page shows a pattern of edit warring and gaming the rules. My very best wishes (talk) 15:17, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * P.S. Of course there is a significant difference between someone who does follow the rules (like you) and someone who does not (like JFG). However, I am not sure that admins will really appreciate that difference. I think they should, but they really did not in a number of cases I know about. My very best wishes (talk) 15:48, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, like I always say, "rules are made to be followed." -- Cheers. SPECIFICO  talk  16:04, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * First edit by JFG was revert of this edit, and this edit. However, JFG denies it . It means JFG will continue doing the same. If you care about it, you might wish to ask a clarification if it was a revert from one of admins who was recently active on WP:AE, but better not the one who recently commented on the same issue because you want to have a second opinion here. You might use their talk page if you wish. My very best wishes (talk) 16:45, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I think that guy made 1RR violation on purpose to get you blocked when someone reports this violation This bizarre conspiracy theory definitely helps your case. Guccisamsclub (talk) 22:16, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

All in, a very constructive outcome. The dozens of unheeded warnings and denials will finally come to an end. Thanks for moving things forward. MVBW. SPECIFICO talk  01:28, 15 March 2017 (UTC)