User talk:SPECIFICO/Archive 16

This is an archive of past discussions with User:SPECIFICO. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

→

Change to Trump economy section

Was there a consensus for this major change? Maybe I missed it. soibangla (talk) 18:14, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&diff=916055130&oldid=916028870

Hello. I believe there was discussion on the talk page about the need to trim the size of the article and that I removed detail from that and at least one other section. This was because I felt that the detail was more appropriate either for the Presidency article or in this case for one of the Economy articles. I tried to give the gist of the material while greatly shortening the detail and explanation that would be found in those other articles -- percentages and other descriptions. SPECIFICO talk 19:35, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

I understand the need to trim the article, but that paragraph was exhaustively discussed with no consensus reached to change/remove the long-standing content. soibangla (talk) 23:29, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Well, there's nothing to stop anyone from reverting, but frankly I think the reasons I gave above are sound and I wasn't involved in the discussion you reference so I can't comment on it. Do you happen to know the link? It's full of stuff that may be of interest to economic policy buffs and may or may not be true or valid statistics signifying much of anything. I'd be glad to look at the discussion or to hear your concerns if you'd like. SPECIFICO talk 23:35, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

There's at least two archived Talk threads about it, but I'm too busy to dig them up. It went on and on and on and I had hoped the matter had finally been settled. Alas, perhaps not. Disclosure: I wrote the paragraph, so there's that. soibangla (talk) 23:39, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

I've seen your work on economic topics elsewhere, so I know you are knowledgeable. I'm not sure that much detail is really needed for the biography. Especially about macro statistics and policy details the results and ultimate importance of which are as yet unkown. SPECIFICO talk 00:19, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Not doing anything

My response started before Mr. X turned out the lights. Not sure why I didn't get an edit conflict, but didn't. Fair game, I find, but also fair of you to bury my two cents with the others rather than simply destroying it. Some editors would. Thanks for compromising. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:43, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

You are an experienced editor. You should know that soapboxing on an article talk page is not cool. Cut it out. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 12:56, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

I wasn't soapboxing, just pointing out how this president has objectively killed, maimed and imprisoned fewer people through all of his alleged abuses of power combined than Bush or Obama did in their sophomore years alone. This one lonely positive aspect of his presidency was in no means brought up to persuade anyone into re-electing him, if that's what's bugging you. Millions of Americans could and should do far better.

If I'm pushing any agenda, it's simply one where no marginalized people are systematically made miserable on Earth, either through the "new normal" on Twitter and Google News or the "old normal" in Iraq and Afghanistan. Is that little squirt of Canadian propaganda really so dangerous, when sprinkled as conservatively as I have? Every dark cloud I've interjected into backstage discussion of world leaders and events since 2012 has had a silver lining, I assure you. Many have poured forth vile acid, but most have helped corrode layers of pointless falsehood in article space, albeit sometimes only on the shallowest levels.

If this is what you'd like me to cut out, I respectfully decline. But if you want me to stop reminding people that Trump has done some good for world peace, I could shut my mouth forever on that minor socioeconomic difference of opinion. I bet we agree on more than we don't, and I'm down for being work friends later if you're amenable to forgetting how we already met. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:09, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

You are pretty far out in "left field", as the Americans say, but do feel free to continue on this page. I have accumulated a fair number of talk page watchers, and I'm sure they are interested to hear your thoughts. SPECIFICO talk 15:38, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Hunter Biden

Just to let you know I took off your BLP template from the discussion on what salary to show for Hunter Biden, suggest we discuss closing the discussion rather than hiding it.RonaldDuncan (talk) 22:17, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I have proposed closing the discussion on Hunter Biden's salary. I think in favour of your point of view. I think you need to calm down since the article is under discretionary sanctions, and I suspect that since you have an interest in Donald Trump any article that has any relation to him is likely to be a war zone. hence the need for everyone to try to be on best behaviour :) RonaldDuncan (talk) 14:53, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

My "point of view" is WP:BLP and WP:NOR and WP:V. If I recall that thread correctly, I believe several editors tried to tell you that and the whole thing should have ended quite a while ago. Thanks for your visit. Come back any time with fresh insights and ideas. SPECIFICO talk 15:43, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Cite error at Trump

Cite error: The named reference nyt05312016 was invoked but never defined (see the help page). was introduced by this edit. Removal of that ref tag would fix it, but how to fix it should be your call since you know what you intended. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:19, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I think I fixed it, I hope. So many different shapes and symbols. Software is a guy thing. Who can tell? SPECIFICO talk 13:03, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Just an FYI

Your last few edits at Trump introduced some errors. You might want to review them. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 22:48, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Thx. SPECIFICO talk 23:05, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Silly tech question

What does &nbsp: mean. I've seen you use it in edits were money is mentioned. I can usually figure out coding syntax but not this. Thanks.Oldperson (talk) 02:46, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

@Oldperson: Non-breaking space. ~Awilley (talk) 03:56, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Donald Trump, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Palm Beach (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 07:21, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Closure of discussion question

Would it be in line with Wikipedia's etiquette and rules for me to close my own submitted discussion? I was going to close it and submit in the lead: "A special counsel investigation did not find sufficient evidence to establish specific criminal charges of conspiracy or coordination with Russia, but found that Trump and his campaign welcomed and encouraged Russian foreign interference under the belief that it was politically advantageous.". But I wanted to make sure first if it was alright. Thanks! ZiplineWhy (talk) 22:54, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello. It's fine with me. Clearly there is consensus and has been for a long time. That would be my personal take on it. If the revert warring starts up again, there are other ways to deal with it. However I think it's just about run its course. SPECIFICO talk 23:12, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Alright. I'm adding it. Thanks. ZiplineWhy (talk) 23:42, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Per Mandruss' concern on the article talk page, I suggest you conform the article exactly to what was written in the poll option 1. Then you can separately poll again regarding your revisions. That will leave the article and @Mandruss: both in stable condition 😐 SPECIFICO talk 00:40, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

I am a stable genius! I.e. I'm really good with horses. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:41, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

That you're good with horses is certainly the leading indicator that shows you are truly a stable genius.--Steve Quinn (talk) 00:45, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Apologies

I was trying to be funny (i.e., humorous) with this edit on the Trump-Ukraine talk page . I'm realizing it may not have come across like that. It may have come across as "snippy" or something like that. So, apologies. Pertaining to other related news, I'm thinking of opening up a section on "Conspiracy theories in the lead" so some perspective can be gained on using this in the lead. Not sure if I will - just thinking about it. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 16:25, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi I knew that, but thanks for the visit. I think we should drop it for the time being. I made a brief comment on the talk page to that effect. I went ahead and reverted "obtain", which is clearly against the grain of the extended talk discussion. Everything will be clearer and easier to write in a week or two. SPECIFICO talk 16:41, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

My mistake. Now looks like you were not actually "funny" at all. I've left a note on your talk page. This kind of behavior is very surprising and disappointing coming from you. You'll always do better to be responsive to your colleagues around here, especially when you disagree, because by responding to identified points and reasoned disagreements most often results in a constructive solution. SPECIFICO talk 16:13, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

I believe

... this nbsp needs to go away – again. Thanks. --Brogo13 (talk) 05:41, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Responding here

to this comment to avoid unnecessarily cluttering Snoogans's talkpage.

"...your negotiation with Snoogs above looks too much like you bullied an editor under threat of sanction so that you could walk back your own misstep and avoid scrutiny at AE or ARBCA" Anybody with one eye can see that I pressured Snoogans into making those commitments, but that I did it to "avoid scrutiny" is 100% false. And I think you know that. It was only 2 weeks ago that I wrote the following in a comment that pinged you and that you responded to: "I'll sometimes give editors a choice: "Here's the problem I see with your behavior. I am prepared to sanction you with Sanction A or Sanction B, but I'm also open to your input. You can choose sanction A or B, or you can propose an acceptable Solution C. If you can convince me that you can solve the problem voluntarily with Solution C then we'll go with that and forego sanctions." There is power in allowing people the freedom to choose, and people who have a choice are more likely to change their behavior than those who are simply acted on by an external force. You know better than most that that's my M.O.

Re: "I don't think anybody believes your claim that it would be easy for Admins to spot POV pushers and address them with Discretionary Sanctions" I never made that claim. I said that it is easy for admins to identify WP:Hounding. (Of course that requires the hounding to be reported to the admins...we can't be expected to track and analyze all the interactions.) ~Awilley (talk) 20:01, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Awilley, I was not looking for a response from you, and I will not be replying here. As I said on your talk page recently, I think you would be well advised to take a break of 3 months (or more) from American Politics AE matters and to reflect on the concern many thoughtful editors and Admins have expressed about your actions. You appear to be too focused on your role, your views, and defending your actions as opposed to considering and understanding what's good for the community. SPECIFICO talk 21:40, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

I see you're "not looking for" constructive criticism from Awilley, but you have no qualms about issuing same to him. I disagree with your assessment, and I've yet to see anybody agree with it who was in a position to be objective about that. Just a "friendly" reminder that you are speaking for no one but yourself. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:43, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

I think that if you review all the comments in various locations you will see a significant number of editors and Admins who express some of the same concerns I have articulated. And I didn't say I wasn't looking for "constructive criticism" from Awilley. I wasn't soliciting any engagement with him at all. He came here on his own, just like you. At any rate, you know better than to raise straw man issues or to miscast other editors words. If you mean to suggest that my views are not "objective about" these matters, I disagree, and it doesn't really advance any discussion between you and me to add that garnish. If this goes to ARCA, it will all be sorted out by others, but at least the immediate prospect of that dreary outcome has been defused by the plea deal with Snoogs. Thanks for your visit. You are always welcome here. SPECIFICO talk 17:50, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:15, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

RE: Devin Nunes

A discussion which involves your editing is taking place here. As mentioned there, I view waiting less than an hour past the 24 hours from the last revert to be gaming the system. Please don't make a habit of it. Some admins will view it as a violation, some may not, some, like me, would warn you that, next time, it would be viewed as a violation (i.e. edit warring that is subject to sanctions, whether the bright line has been technically breached or not). Thanks in advance. El_C 00:02, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi thanks. It would have been nice if the editor who came to you shared his concern here first. I've responded on your talk page. I do think, as I say there, that it would be helpful if you'd explain what you think would be a violation about this (next time) and what would not. We know reverts can be 47:59 apart. When they're unrelated, explained and well-founded, that is not clear to me at this time. SPECIFICO talk 00:47, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Fake New about President Donald Trump.

I am wondering with all,the negative left wing new, how many of you had checked first hand what actually happened?

Wikipedia editors only work from published sources, not first hand investigation, so more or less none of us.

Such as when I recorded and watch the Presidental debates, what the news reported after was way different than what actually happened and different from what was actually said. I have noticed this many times with the new. It seems they would embellish, put an negative interpretation vs. What was actually said. And, just make up news and over reach statements and interpretations of what was said.

Reporters generally summarize, not embellish

Who else has noticed the same thing?

I don't know

When fact checking, who has noticed the fact checkers, and other news media are not reporting what was actually stated but what others report had stated?

Hard to say.

One example, the news reports that Trump is against all foreigners. Yes his first wife and wife now are foreigners.

They used to be foreigners, currently they are Americans.

The news trys to paint Trump as against everyone who is Spanish when talking about those south of the border who had come here illegally. I am Spanish from my mother's side of the family, and all paperwork that ask about my heritage, I identify as Spanish. Yet, I do not feel or believe, or heard Trump ever remotely state he was against all Spanish people

I believe you.

They have tried to argue he is sexist and against women. But, I came across a report that compaired how Hillary compaired to Trump treated women that worked under them. Hillaey hardly hired women to work for her, and paid the a large margin than their male counter parts.

Not touching this one.

Where as Trump has a giant percentage greater women in his workforce. And,paied them as well as their Male counter parts from the bottom to the top of his work force.

Not sure about this. It could be that in the hospitality and building maintenance businesses most employees get minimum wage, men and women alike?

The list just keeps going on and on. Anyone care to added to this? QuarterbackX (talk) 22:27, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Quarterback, I put my replies between your points in red. This is really not the website for this kind of discussion, especially with a fool like me. I think you might do better on a discussion board at reddit or similar. Good luck. SPECIFICO talk 22:46, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Undo your deletion of my talk page comment

Hello, I'm Xenagoras. I noticed that you recently removed content from Talk:Julian_Assange without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. @SPECIFICO: I request you to undo your deletion of my talk page comment. Xenagoras (talk) 00:41, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello. Sorry, I meant to undo your article edit of that material, but I see somebody else has already removed it. Please feel free to undo my error and place your comment in whatever position on the talk page you feel is suitable. SPECIFICO talk 00:47, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

MONGO did that already .Xenagoras (talk) 01:02, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I thanked him. Will consider your views there. SPECIFICO talk 02:22, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Curious

I am curious as to how you deleted my edits (and the Miami Herald source) regarding Rep. O'Rourke's Spanish-language abilities, when in fact another Wikipedian going by the name of "Volunteer Marek," had already deleted those same edits, and I did not revert his changes. You will see on Volunteer Marek's talk page that I asked him about his deletion. How exactly does text get deleted twice when it wasn't reinstated? I find this quite odd. NicholasNotabene (talk) 00:25, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi. I have no idea. It appeared in the version I was reading after the article appeared on my watchlist. I suggest you look through the diffs one by one. Sorry I can't be more helpful. SPECIFICO talk 01:03, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Looked at it. I don't see that VM reverted that bit. I see he removed some other text, but not the Spanish bit. SPECIFICO talk 01:10, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Citation errors

Hi SPECIFICO. At the History of the Knights of COlumbus article, I pointed out that your cuts left behind a large number of citation errors at the bottom of the article. They are still there. The same thing happened on the main Knights of Columbus article, but I cleaned them up for you. I now see that RedHotPear has done the same cleanup at the Harvard Extension School article when your edits leave behind errors. Would you please try to me more careful going forward? Thanks. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 01:53, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

It's kind of the other way around. There's a big mess at certain articles that rely on a small number of sources. The mess was made by whoever cited the text that way. It's inevitable that cleanup will break some over-used source citations. I'm always careful but I am sure more such errors will occur in similar situations. Incidentally, I hope you'll read up on the meaning of a TBAN restriction. You'd have been safer not to mention that article anywhere on Wikipedia. Incidentally, your participation at Harvard Extension seems to be full of the same errors as at the other topic. Now that you know that stuff got you a ban, you might consider honing your understanding of basic editing and sourcing policies and guidelines. Thanks for your visit. SPECIFICO talk 02:26, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Mail call

Hello, SPECIFICO. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Bishonen | talk 16:56, 3 January 2020 (UTC).

It’s that time of year!

Christmas tree worm, (Spirobranchus gigantic) ^{^Atsme _Talk 📧 18:10, 13 December 2019 (UTC)}
	Time To Spread A Little HappyHolidayCheer!!
	I decorated a special kind of Christmas tree in the spirit of the season. What's especially nice about this digitized version: it doesn't need water won't catch fire *and batteries aren't required.
	Have a very Merry Christmas - Happy Hanukkah‼️ and a prosperous New Year!! 🍸🎁 🎉

Atsme! -- I love worms!. Thanks so much and all the best to you for the holidays and beyond. SPECIFICO talk 18:39, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Working on a story about fact-checking / misinformation... would love to chat ...

Heya—I'm an editor at Fast Company looking at Wikipedia's role in the info ecosystem especially around the 2020 presidential election, and noticed your vigilant editing on some related pages. If you have a few minutes, I'd love to send you a few questions by email. If you're interested or even skeptical, if you have a moment, please reach me at apasternack at gmail , and I'll explain further! Thanks so much Johnshade2 (talk) 17:14, 21 February 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnshade2 (talk • contribs)

Opinion needed

Hi there, could you please give an opinion on the Gordon Sondland article talk page. Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 00:32, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

references on User talk pages

there is a way to keep references within sections if that is important to you

T3g5JZ50GLq (talk) 01:58, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Zephyr Teachout

please review 01:20, 9 February 2020‎ revision 939838446 of Zephyr Teachout I consider it an improvement and since you have added to the article before, you may have a relevant opinion.

T3g5JZ50GLq (talk) 01:55, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Seems fine. Did you address the formatting issue that the reverting editor cited? SPECIFICO talk 02:22, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Donald Trump

On December 13, 2019, the House Judiciary Committee voted along party lines to pass two articles of impeachment: abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. After being forwarded to the full House of Representatives for debate, Trump was impeached with both articles on December 18, 2019. I'm quite baffled by why you would consider any of this to be "mangled English", but how would you rephrase this? Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:01, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

How did they forward Trump to the full house? Fedex? You could have reviewed your words either before or after I reverted them. Did you consider my edit summary? And the other one was much worse. Actually, however, the previous phrasing all seems fine and there was no consensus to change it on talk. I would let it stand at this point. SPECIFICO talk 02:35, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Agree as to mangled English. The subject of the sentence is "Trump" and the preceding text applies to the subject. (Other than "subject", I don't know the grammatical terms involved, sorry, but I'm quite certain about the concept.) ―Mandruss ☎ 02:45, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

We've all been there - besides, humor is not aloud, at least for all intensive purposes - it's a working progress. 😊 ^Atsme _Talk 📧 04:11, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

The subject is the articles, not Trump. This can easily be altered to remove any possible doubt though. On December 13, 2019, the House Judiciary Committee voted along party lines to pass two articles of impeachment: abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. After the articles were forwarded to the full House of Representatives for debate, Trump was impeached with both articles on December 18, 2019. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:57, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

How about, On December 13, 2019, a partisan vote by the House Judiciary Committee approved two articles to impeach Trump: abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. The articles were forwarded to the House of Representatives for debate, and in another partisan vote, the House approved both articles for impeachment. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 05:07, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

I support this proposal also. My intention originally was to alter the content as little as possible, but this certainly works as well. Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:48, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

The subject is the articles, not Trump. Sorry, can't let that go, even if we moot the question, this time, with alternative language. The grammatical subject of the sentence, speaking in terms of sentence construction, is the word "Trump". If you still don't believe me, I suggest Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:40, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

And? You can't let that go for what reason, pray tell? I'm certainly open to suggested improvements. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 06:26, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

I couldn't let it go because I believe correct grammar is important in this encyclopedia (so does SPECIFICO, apparently), and understanding that aspect of sentence construction is sometimes essential to correct grammar, as we've seen in this case. I would've thought that would be obvious. Beyond that, I have no opinion on suggested improvements. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:30, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

In case it wasn't clear, I was referring only to the sentence in the OP, which I understood to be what 123 was referring to with The subject is the articles, not Trump. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:39, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

I want to make it clear that I find grammar to be extremely important also. I'm grateful that we can make improvements collaboratively. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:40, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

On December 13, 2019, the House Judiciary Committee passed two articles of impeachment: abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. They were taken up by the full House of Representatives, which voted to impeach Trump with both articles on December 18, 2019. No Republicans voted in favor of the impeachment.^[1]^[2]^[3]

More information Sources ...

Sources

[1]
Fandos, Nicholas; Shear, Michael D. (December 18, 2019). "Trump Impeached for Abuse of Power and Obstruction of Congress – Voting nearly along party lines, the House approved two articles of impeachment against President Trump, making him the third president in history to face removal by the Senate". The New York Times. Retrieved December 18, 2019.
[2]
Siegel, Benjamin; Faulders, Katherine (December 13, 2019). "House Judiciary Committee passes articles of impeachment against President Trump". ABC News. Retrieved December 13, 2019.
[3]
Gregorian, Dareh (December 18, 2019). "Trump impeached by the House for abuse of power, obstruction of Congress". NBC News. Retrieved December 18, 2019.

Close

Re: Talk:Trump–Ukraine_scandal

In reply to your message. "Please do not share your personal opinions on article talk pages as you have done at Talk:Trump–Ukraine_scandal Content in Wikipedia must be Verified by the narrative of mainstream Reliable Source references. " Could you please specify which part contributes to your ruling of "sharing an opinion" that is deemed improper? Isn't the point of having a poll, conveying ones opinion to oppose/support a notion?. I have contributed an expression of support for the matter of including a reference in a WP:LEDE in accordance with WP:RFC which clearly states the purpose of an RFC as such: "to get opinions from outside editors". Milanbishop (talk) 15:10, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello. The point of a poll is to hear editors' views as to the better choice according to the weight of available WP:reliable source references, according to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. It's not necessary or helpful to expound at length or repeatedly upon ones personal analysis, opinions, inferences, or intuition. The line between the two may sometimes be blurred, but I felt that you, as a new editor, were too far on the personal opinion side of things. You should not take my message as a "ruling" but I hope you'll investigate the relevant WP documentation, perhaps starting with the links at this page, which I hope will be helpful. Thanks for your note. SPECIFICO talk 15:11, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for clarifying. I politely disagree with your misunderstanding of my intent. I was merely proposing that WP:LEDE inclusion should be based on WP guides, such as WP:PRIMARY and WP:TRUTH. I have since amended my comments to further reflect my sentiments. My opinion is that there seems to be a lot of opinion in play in regards to attributing motive to Zelensky's statements. Which is not the WP way ( WP:TRUTH! ). I am really baffled how Konkorde's messages have rampant "personal analysis, opinions, inferences, or intuition" in it regarding the RFC's subject, but, alas it seems you have not issued such a warning to this user. Yet in my support message, I have not fallen into this trap, but you are claiming I did. I have re-read it, and have a hard time finding any inferences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Milanbishop (talk • contribs) 09:34, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Milanbishop It appears, at least to me, that you are WP:NOTHERE I would say that you are here to pursue an agenda apparently in regards to Trump and Russia/Ukraine. You joined Mar 2018 and made one post about some Petrozavodsk phenomenonThen silence until this month and your only interest has been Trump Russia and currently Ukraine. You don't yet have the minimum edits for autoconfirmed, but maybe posting on talk pages will provide such, however for a newby you know an awful lot about WP and it's PaG. Oldperson (talk) 19:52, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Specifico. As you know the Russians have a very active troll farm, and internet presence especially to change subject from Russiagate to a fictional Ukraine gate.Oldperson (talk) 19:52, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Your suspicions are unwarranted. I have made plenty of small Wiki edits in my life, albeit unregistered. Secondly, I am also not frivolously editing articles such as highly-sensitive ones like these, but instead, participating in RFC's, to get a discussion going. I have forgone any mention on how I feel on the matter, but the obvious bias as evidenced by your (and other ) comments who can't seem to take an objective stance on matters like these, has certainly been glaring enough that I feel these articles need some work. The purpose of Wikipedia is to build an encyclopedia together. I am a programmer, so I understand the value of open-source, participation, contribution, discussion, and acknowledging different viewpoints, without feelings of grievance or resentment. The only emotional investment I have is in having all cards out on the table, and let people decide for themselves.

Your inference of malicious intent to my purposefully ubiased argument is preposterous, and should only reflect upon your own intents. Milanbishop (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:24, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Link spam

re Talk:Hunter Biden

Hatting discussions just because you personally are not interested in listening to the arguments or whatever is not recommended. Herostratus (talk) 02:20, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Passage of time reveals your concern was unfounded. Thanks for your accusation. Come back any time. SPECIFICO talk 18:40, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps Herostratus was right to be concerned. A Senate investigation into Hunter Biden is objectively WP:N, WP:V and WP:RS, yet you abruptly cut off all discussion. The Senate investigation is a new development. It's not OK for editors to characterize the objectively verifiable and notable fact that there is a Senate investigation as a "conspiracy theory", pretending that this was already discussed in the past and rejected. It is a fact (not a theory) that there is an active Senate investigation, with relevant records being requested from the Secret Service, State Department, Justice Department, FBI, US Treasury, and the National Archives.^[1] Attempts to characterize the motivation or intentions of the US Senate in order to prevent these relevant facts from appearing in the article are WP:OR. Being under investigation by the US Senate is exceptionally notable. Please restore the discussion. If you have objections to including this information in the article, please state them specifically in the discussion. "No thanks" is not WP:GF.Tvaughan1 (talk) 17:40, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

You are either unable or unwilling to understand the basics of editing Wikipedia articles. But that's not why I hatted it. I hatted it because several editors have explained these principles to you and there's nothing more to be gained from prolonging the discussion and promotion of these conspiracy theories. Your references above to invalid sources for the content you are pushing confirms my evaluation of your conduct. RS describe these Biden narratives as debunked conspiracy theories and Russian disinformation. If they fascinate you, perhaps there's a valid place for them in the Russian Interference articles, the Trump Presidency article, or in the BLPs of Lindsey Graham and his Republican collaborators on these hearings. Thanks for coming here where I can speak more candidly than on the article talk page. I suggest you move on to topics where editors do not reject your efforts. SPECIFICO talk 17:48, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your personal attack. I've attempted to discuss in WP:Good Faith the possible inclusion of specific, relevant, verified facts in Hunter Biden. You, and a cadre of editors, seem determined to keep facts which may embarrass Hunter Biden out of the article, violating WP:NPOV. The standard tactic is to characterize these facts as conspiracy theories. Notable, relevant, verified facts about Hunter Biden can't be dismissed as "theories", and changing the subject to other topics (Joe Biden, Trump, Russia) isn't acceptable either. Rather than engaging in good faith discussion about the relevancy, notability and veracity of the facts I propose for inclusion, I have received little else but insults and redirection.Tvaughan1 (talk) 19:43, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

[1]
https://video.foxnews.com/v/6130472193001#sp=show-clips

Arbitration DS alert

re Frédéric Chopin

Edit was neither vandalism nor a test edit. Edit instead was the result of discussion among contributors on the Talk page for the article. The text quoted is the correct Japanese title for the video game Eternal Sonata (as can be confirmed from that article itself), which was deliberately brought into the Chopin article to illustrate the fact that Chopin's name is explicitly mentioned in the Japanese version of the video game's title. One-Off Contributor (talk) 19:35, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

It's WP:UNDUE and I've commented on the article talk page. 200 year old works of art are appropriated tens of thousands of times, and unless you can show significant mainstream RS discussion of this instance, it is not encyclopedic content. After your edit was reverted, the WP:ONUS was/is on you to demonstrate consensus for inclusion. SPECIFICO talk 21:39, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

I actually had raised the issue on the Talk page for the article two days prior to reinstating the edit. It had appeared at the time that consensus existed supporting the edit based on the Talk page discussion, after which the edit was only then reinstated. Son WP:ONUS had been met. If later comments indicate that there wasn't consensus, then so be it, but it appeared that consensus existed at the time of the edit reversion. Also, it is worth noting that this is not a reference to a particular work of art appearing in the video game--a fictional version of Chopin himself was a character in the game (with his name appearing in the Japanese version of the game title). Such appearances are common fodder for a "references in popular culture"-type comment such as this one. Also, I dispute the WP:UNDUE allegation: nobody is disputing that the quoted Japanese text is the correct translation of the Japanese title of the video game published in English as Eternal Sonata. So while there may be other points of disagreement, there doesn't appear to be the dispute-of-fact type issue that would fall normally under the WP:UNDUE standard.One-Off Contributor (talk) 19:24, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Nobody is accusing you of malfeasance. But I see that another editor has removed the content, and it seems unlikely there will ever be consensus to include it in the article. SPECIFICO talk 04:09, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Nice try, FBI — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:7C00:2400:744D:A91D:7B21:B186 (talk) 22:52, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk page should not be used for notices about editors

re: Michael Bloomberg

Modern Definition of Economics

Further discussion

Reverts

Civility

Wikipedia must be based on reliable sources

Hi dear SPECIFICO. Please, note that Wikipedia is based on reliable sources. Please do not delete the reliable references or change the information based on reliable sources that I added on the page of Beethoven without consensus to delete them on the talk page. Best, James343e (talk) 01:45, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

You need to develop consensus for your proposed text and sources after the objections raised on talk clearly indicate no such consensus currently exists. WP is based on WP:CONSENSUS. The WP:ONUS is on you. Please study the links I've provided and don't edit-war. SPECIFICO talk 01:52, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

You need to develop consensus to delete reliable sources. Wikipedia is based on relaible sources, not subjective opinions. It is not justified to hide information without consensus. James343e (talk) 02:03, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

~Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. James343e (talk) 02:03, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

For talk page watchers, the circus is in town. See Ludwig van Beethoven.

Your recent editing history at Ludwig van Beethoven shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Please refrain from entering information in the article unless you can demonstrate a consensus for doing so.James343e (talk) 16:55, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Are you sure you meant that for me? Please provide diffs. Thx. SPECIFICO talk 16:59, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes I am sure. Please note that the phrase "his music is amongst the most performed of the classical repertoire and he is one of the most admired composers in the history of Western music.", which was included in the article by Smerus in the last 8 hours, and has not been accepted by consensus when I disagree with its inclusion in the talk page. I think everyone's additions should be accepted by consensus, not only mines. We are still debating what phrase about his legacy to include in the lede, feel free to enjoy the talk page. But unless there is some consensus, we still cannot put any phrase about his legacy in the lede. Let us work in team in the talk page. James343e (talk) 17:28, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Considering that I did no such edits, it is not surprising you changed the subject when I requested diffs. Now that you've been blocked, I hope you'll come back in better conditon. If you resume your behavior or your false accusations against me and others, your next block will be a lot longer. Stay well. SPECIFICO talk 18:47, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

re: Andrew Gillum

Talk Bdiden undo

I guess I am confused by your change on the Talk page. Did you get my change confused with some of the other edits made close in time (like the 1RR violation you noted by Mr Ernie)? I had made no complaint as you edit note implies. I was attempting to move it per Talk Page Guidelines to remove confusion about its meaning. In any case, I feel my change was valid and improved the Talk page and by extension can help with article improvement -- since with the response by DemonDays64 where it is fairly obvious they intended to put it makes more sense in regard to their Twitter comment. Can you please self-revert if you agree? If you were objecting to me moving it at all then I will not object further (and let DemoDays64 move it themselves if they wish).

By the way, is there established precedent that Talk pages are subject to the 24 hour 1RR/BRD cycle? The page itself notes that the article is subject to discretionary sanctions, but does not mention the talk page. If 1RR/BRD does apply, then editors would need to talk about the talk page on the talk page to be able to put the change back in the talk page after the 24 hour time. That doesn't make a lot of sense and could have a chilling effect on discussion.

If there is precedent that 1RR/BRD applies to Talk pages, you should maybe take MrX to task as you did with Mr Ernie for these edits 1 2. Just to be clear, that is really sarcasm, but I do feel you were a bit harsh with Mr Ernie.

by the way, that IP editor (and others in the RfC discussion too maybe) was clearly a SPA and disruptive and the tag was appropriate. The IP editor reverted it by noting WP:ASPERSIONS - which is clearly false as the SPA was obviously True. Unless that IP is really a sock puppet and then maybe it was an aspersion. This issue has clearly raised hackles on behalf of a lot of editors. I came in somewhat neutrally and have been enjoying popcorn while the back and forth arguments go on. Regards --Davemoth (talk) 02:27, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I was trying to undo the IP. Will Undo. SPECIFICO talk 02:49, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Davemoth, Removing BLP violating material is exempt from 1RR. Mr Ernie (talk) 05:14, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Related Articles