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.
Am I doing the right thing with this edit at Mexico–United States barrier? Two separate editors (at least, I think they are two separate editors) have reverted me and I just want to make sure I'm not on the wrong track. I think the questionable source (right wing anti-immigrant hate group) of Trump's data is relevant to the article. -- Scjessey (talk) 10:34, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Looked fine to me. Made a copy edit. The solar panel thing is still repeated, maybe could be improved. CIS bit is well enough sourced, and there are plenty of other sources on it. SPECIFICOtalk13:04, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
You appear to have violated the 5-revert rule, so I expect you'll be wrapping things up soon. Thanks for your visit. I love these long names. It's like British nobility of the Edwardian era. SPECIFICOtalk19:41, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Positive Money
What the heck are you doing adding a notability tag to the Positive Money Page when it has just passed through an AfD process comfortably? Please stop your disruptive editing. Reissgo (talk) 16:08, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Of course the sockpuppet was at that AfD as well. If you continue to disrupt this article pushing primary and POV content and references, it's only going to call more attention to the appearance of COI for you and the others who are pushing these "initiatives." SPECIFICOtalk18:07, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
You are the one being disruptive. Imposing your own made up standards for reliable sources. What the heck are you doing telling an editor "What is the array of independent, reliable sources written directly about this organization that you believe establishes notability beyond all doubt?"... and this is after your failed AfD attempt.
The standard of sources required is supposed to be commensurate with the claim being made. I.e. a minor uncontentious detail does not need a peer reviewed journal paper to support it. You are the one that needs to read the Wiki pages about reliable sources. Please stop undoing edits you disagree with based on your misinterpretation of Wiki policies. Reissgo (talk) 09:38, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
I think you're not really cut out for this kind of work. Have you considered other hobbies? Volunteer work in social services or civic improvement can be very rewarding. Have a peekie-boo at WP:COI - the one that your sockpuppet comrade enjoyed flashing at passers-by. Ciao. SPECIFICOtalk13:04, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Profiling Project update
Have you heard about this? Very important, hiring the right people. According to the Washington Post [1], Burkman fired Doherty in July after he talked to reporters without permission. This raises the question, what did Doherty say to reporters that Burkman didn't like? Might it be this kind of thing in that Newsweek piece from June 20th? “If this were a professional hit person, they failed,” says Doherty, the team member. “Nothing we’ve seen supports [the theory of] an assassin.”[2]. The Profiling Project web page says that they are 'once again' recruiting volunteers. Geogene (talk) 21:24, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Good catch. Profiling project flashes the brand of George Washington University, then it turns out this may mean it offered free food to grad students, etc. How does this kind of stuff get in our articles? "Wikipedia, the encyclopedia any fool can edit" ? Thanks for the note. SPECIFICOtalk22:17, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Deflationist?
OK, OK, so we hate each other with a passion - but putting all that aside for one moment, I am puzzled at your accusation that I am a proponent of "deflationaist" theories. Just for the record I have no desire whatever for there to be any deflation in our economy. Deflation is a bad thing. I personally would like the money supply to continually rise at such a rate that we have inflation. My favoured rate of inflation would in fact be at a higher level than the common 2% target so favoured internationally - I'd like to see something more in the 3, 4 or 5% region. So you can go on with your hobby of slinging abuse at me but please, don't call me deflationist. Reissgo (talk) 20:41, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
The purpose of this project is to build an encyclopedia. You are manifestly here for the purpose of promoting your crank political agenda. Your opinions are irrelevant to this project, but when you place your promotion of any view -- even saving the lives of innocent children -- above the purpose of Wikipedia, then you don't belong here. You should in a nutshell, cease and desist your activity here and if you wish to resume do so in a way that respects this project and the dedication of all the volunteers who share, and aspire to advance, its mission. PS nobody here cares about you one way or the other, let alone hates you. We all just wish you'd stop messing up our work here. SPECIFICOtalk20:55, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
I think I abide more closely to Wikipedia principles than you do. You are clearly allergic to the idea of Bold-Revert-Discuss. You misrepresent Wikipedia policies to others when you revert their edits, you do not assume good faith and you make frequent personal attacks and threats. It's no wonder you are topic-banned. Reissgo (talk) 22:27, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Help needed
Hi, I saw you post on Phmoreno's talkpage about a related concern and similar behavior on the part of the editor. Right now he is edit-warring to add commentary from a Hannity segment into the article on Alfa-Bank. Could you put the article on your watch list, if it's not too inconveniencing, and help out? I'm going to "ping" Jzg here as well, as I saw him commenting on the user's talkpage.. GreyGoose (talk) 02:11, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
I'll look at the page. If somebody claims that Hannity videos are RS for anything, I suggest you go to RS/N, where you'll find third party support and help dealing with the problem. SPECIFICOtalk02:17, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice. He now added Circa.com as a citation, which I thought might be better, but I now see it is owned by Sinclair Broadcasting, which is a mouthpiece for the Trump agenda, so I'm not even sure that should stay. For the time being I have at least re-worded the statement to make it more neutral and accurate. GreyGoose (talk) 02:47, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
My experience with that editor was that he is a do-it-yourselfer who is not very well attuned to the concept of mainstream reliable sourcing. I found a tendency to original research and use of sources only marginally connected to the subject matter they were supposed to verify. He's quite energetic, which is an unfortunate trait in such cases. The only way to deal with it is more eyes on the pages, through noticeboards, RfC's and third opinions. Otherwise you'll just get frustrated and he is not likely to care what you think. Just my opinion and experience. SPECIFICOtalk03:33, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Phmoreno has had the DS alert, and has been notified recently of DS issues. I will leave a reminder, if this continues then it's topic ban time. Guy (Help!) 07:58, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Hello again SPECIFICO and JzG. I got this message [3] on my talk page that accused me of "canvassing" in posting this thread. Was this thread "canvassing" and prohibited? If so, what would have been a better alternative? GreyGoose (talk) 07:06, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
A cup of tea for you!
I nearly never agree with you on Wikipedia, but I think in real life we could have great conversations. Here is a virtual cup of tea intended to reflect that. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:25, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Ernie. Likewise I am sure. As you know, I have an open hospitality policy on this talk page, so you can always come here to chew me out or worse when the occasion arises. SPECIFICOtalk20:10, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Hats
The Art of the Hat
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I don't think it was right to hat that section. Perhaps mine was a little off topic, but just meant to be humorous. Frank Bruni's career as a restaurant critic is a prominent aspect of him, heck it's early in the lead for his article. While not something he does currently, it is not incorrect. PackMecEng (talk) 16:21, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
It was totally out of line in the way Atsme used it. It's like saying saxophonist Bill Clinton..., in something unrelated to music. O3000 (talk) 16:28, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
I have to admit it made me giggle a little with that. Just to be clear what I wrote was not meant to be a suggestion for the article, just an attempt at humor. I still feel it can be valid criticism of his past and credentials, perhaps not an issue if he wasn't an op-ed writer but here we are. Again from his own article the important things we list about him in the lead is his od-ed writing, restaurant days, and the books about Bush he wrote in that order. I still think it was inappropriate to hat the section. PackMecEng (talk) 16:34, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
You were furthering Atsme's initial deflection that an uninformed reader would take as a dismissal of Bruni's opinion and his larger journalistic contributions. I know we've come to expect as much from her sometimes, but we should not promote it. Hatting was the mildest way I could think of to resolve the problem. SPECIFICOtalk16:57, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
I unhatted it and added the NYTimes link that stated he was the chief restaurant critic. I also explained what I did at the TP. I am here now to share my thoughts about the hatting - quite frankly it was wrong - we don't hat active discussions based on IDONTLIKEIT. There was no intent on my part to smear anyone - the only intent to smear can be readily found throughout the Donald Trump article if you need a refresher as to what harsh criticism looks like, or re-read the opinion piece you recently proposed for inclusion. It looks just like a smear Trump/smear Jackson opinion piece and a prediction of failure. Why do you think that information is "encyclopedic"? It's also noncompliant with NOTNEWS. If his prediction turns out to be correct, then it would be worthy of mention but right now, it's an opinion piece by a opinion columnist who is the chief restaurant critic for the NYTimes...and that is factually accurate, even though it may not cover every aspect of his work. Hey, being the "chief" must mean something. Atsme📞📧17:29, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Actually, that's a load of lingonberries. And you're not *** enough to call Bruni a restaurant critic any more than you'd call Reagan an ignorant goofball. If you never look at the NY Times and don't know who Frank Bruni is, that's your problem. If you mislead our readers, WP is sooner or later going to consider your behavior a problem. You've been working up to it for quite a while. But maybe you've begun your sprint to the finish? Thanks for the visit. SPECIFICOtalk21:10, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Atsme, you should ask for a voluntary 6 month TBAN from AP2 and clear your mind. Then give it another try. I don't see any other way for you to continue in this area. SPECIFICOtalk21:24, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
SPECIFICO, I would never consider asking you to take a voluntary 6 mo TBan from AP2 so you could clear your mind. You see, the major difference between you and I is that, unlike you, I don't want you to be TB because I actually do appreciate and regard your input as helpful in the highly disruptive editing environment of AP2. It is because of our different views that we inevitably reach consensus. Why is that so difficult for you to accept? If you don't want to be inconvenienced by opposing views, perhaps you should step back for a moment of personal introspective. You cannot keep dismissing your opposition in an effort to acquire an undisputed reign/rein (WP:OWN) over a topic. It simply isn't conducive to a collegial editing environment, or WP's own policy of WP:CENSORED. Atsme📞📧22:02, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Dear Lady, I don't have any views, the different kind or the other kind. That's the secret to good editing. I don't mean to say anything personal or hurtful, but you're getting a lot of similar feedback not just from me but from all your friends here who wish you well but don't see your recent contributions going in a constructive direction. Anyway let's not get all negative. Best wishes. SPECIFICOtalk22:27, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
There is definitely a problem with bad editors who don't know how to read sources or apply WP policy, but thankfully there are users like me who can call such editors to heel. Factchecker_atyourservice18:00, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Bolding selected word in subsection heading
SPECIFICO—can you tell me why in this edit, this edit, and this edit you add bolding to the word "religion" in the section subheadings? On my User Talk page you've initiated a thread called DS 1RR. At MOS:BOLD we find that "Boldface...is considered appropriate only for certain usages." I don't think this is an appropriate use of bolding. You are even saying in an edit summary that it is "clearer to leave them bold". Bus stop (talk) 22:21, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
I've already addressed this. These sections were refactored by another editor. The bolding no longer mattered because as section headings they are now bolded anyway. Thanks for your visit. SPECIFICOtalk22:39, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
I have noticed one or two editors referring to you as "she" - while most refer to you as "he". Would you care to spare me having to write "he/she" everywhere? Reissgo (talk) 18:13, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Hack attack
Message received from WP
"there has been a failed attempt to log into your account from a new device."
No publicly available evidence has identified the perpetrator.
SPECIFICOtalk20:24, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Crap. Same message here, shortly before leaving for work. I had to change my password. What's going on? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe20:47, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Wait ! I thought you and I are the same gal. I can't take this! My ears are smoking. I will never edit any more American Politics articles. I am going to edit animals and fishes. SPECIFICOtalk20:56, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
One morning I shot an elephant in my pajamas. How he got into my pajamas I'll never know. He said he was never there and that I made the whole thing up for political reasons. Then he paid me $130,000 to keep quiet about it. ―Mandruss☎22:26, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Watch it. My cat dropped her quantum physics studies when Schrodinger came up. Or, as the Brits might say: Schrodinger’s cat is dead. Long live Schrodinger’s cat. O3000 (talk) 00:18, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
It's a BLP violation and you have failed to respond to my concern that's been on the talk page for a month. And you are edit warring with various others. I almost never revert more than once but in this case, I have reverted twice. You might bone up on the definition of revert whilst you're attit. SPECIFICOtalk16:35, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
I don't know what your particular "concern" is - and this request belongs on the PM talk page not here. Reissgo (talk) 17:05, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
While the three-revert rule is hard and fast, please be aware that you can be blocked for edit warring without making 3 reverts to an article in 24 hours. You are not entitled to 3 reverts and edit wars may be slow-moving, spanning weeks or months. Edit wars are not limited to 24 hours.
If you are unclear how to resolve a content dispute, please see dispute resolution. You are expected to cooperatively engage other editors on talk pages rather than reverting their edits. Note that posting your thoughts on the talk page alone is not a license to continue reverting. You must reach consensus.
If you feel your edits might qualify as one of the small list of exceptions, please apply them with caution and ensure that anyone looking at your edits will come to the same conclusion. If you are uncertain, seek clarification before continuing. Quite a few editors have found themselves blocked for misunderstanding and/or misapplying these exceptions. Often times, requesting page protection or a sockppuppet investigation is a much better course of action.
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Positive Money. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.By the way Positive Money is not a BLP i.e. the article is not a biography of a living person.Tanbircdq (talk) 18:47, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
And now one of the edit-warriors has made a lame attempt to justify his source and content on the article talk page and it's quite clear there's not the slightest justification for this edit and not the slightest attempt to find anything better. SPECIFICOtalk
Can you please tell me why my suggestion on the talk page of Adam Schiff concerning an article I found provoked sharply negative replies from you? When I have an interest in articles, I am pleased if somebody brings in a new possible resource. Please help me learn to become a better editor. HouseOfChange (talk) 02:04, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
I think you did the right thing bringing it to the talk page. Thanks for that. I didn't intend to be harsh, just to point out that in the context of Schiff's career and responsibilities, this kind of trivia is not worthy of mention in an encyclopedia article. SPECIFICOtalk03:08, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your kind reply here. I worried that there was something wrong about mentioning it on the talk page, but I think I see the error was in the lightness of the material I was suggesting. This is helpful, and I will learn from your suggestion. HouseOfChange (talk) 03:16, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Canvassing and being canvassed
It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote—in order to influence Murder of Seth Rich. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you.
Additionally, you should also take care not to allow others to canvass you to articles or discussions for the same reason. While you cannot control what people post to your user talk page, you can control what actions you take (or don't take) as a result and should recuse yourself when people may be trying to leverage your well-known viewpoints to sway such consensus processes. This is particular egregious when the topic area is post-1932 American Politics which is subject to broadly-defined discretionary sanctions and specific sanctions imposed on certain articles and users. -- Netoholic@02:04, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
"trusted Admin" sounds a lot like "selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you". -- Netoholic@02:46, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
2nd warning
This comes far too soon after this prior warning, but this post was not neutrally worded nor brief per WP:CANVASS. It stated a conclusion and rationale rather than simply informing others of the discussion. I've hidden it and replaced it with a properly neutral message. Consider this a 2nd warning per above. -- Netoholic@03:13, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
You should not mess with other editors posts. NPOVN is the opposite of canvassing. Nothing wrong with expressing a concern and link to the article. Undo whatever you did and put your own 2 cents in if you wish. SPECIFICOtalk03:20, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Political views of American academics shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Keep it at stable version until clear consensus is reached. Tag it. Hold an rfc. Whatever you like. --Netoholic@16:23, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
I used to agree with that, but I've learned differently lately. Its also an edit war to revert tag-team style. -- Netoholic@17:27, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
This was no where near a 3RR and spurious warnings to experienced editors can be considered a CIV vio. Further, consensus for this misleading text was not going in favor of inclusion. O3000 (talk) 17:35, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
@Netoholic: One revert by each of two editors is edit warring, but two reverts by one editor is not?[8][9] Sorry, I don't follow your reasoning. If it's some variation of "Yeah but I was in the right", please read the first paragraph at WP:EW. ―Mandruss☎17:36, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
Restoring to a pre-conflict, or "stable" version of the article is generally not considered edit warring when WP:BRD has been requested. MrX's edit was the "Bold", so not edit warring. Mine was the "Revert". SPECIFICO's revert was done in spite of the active Discussion taking place, just out of spite to poke at his opponent, so it is edit warring. He should have tagged the section or brought new points to the discussion rather than snap-revert tag-team style. Its a tactic he uses to game the system. I know this pattern. -- Netoholic@17:47, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
Netoholic, just out of spite to poke at his opponent... - Please comment on the content. You are not anyone's "opponent" on WP. Also, the "tag-team" bit is really not a propos. SPECIFICOtalk17:51, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
BRD is good practice; but it is not a guideline, and it was not a tag team. In any case, the editor is certainly aware of 3RR. O3000 (talk) 17:53, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
Do you wonder if your edit history shows a lot of these tag-team style instant reverts with no intervening discussions taking place on your part? I've wondered. -- Netoholic@17:54, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
Hounding/BLUDGEONing
I'm going to say this exactly once so I have a record of it. I find your WP:BLUDGEONING of every comment I make to be disruptive and counter-productive, and each brings no new viewpoint or even slight overture towards working together congenially. I realize that for a time after my recent AE request that you might hold some anger or other feelings and want to express them, but following me around and focusing so much on replying just to me is considered WP:HOUNDING.
There was one that was a reply on your talk page, and a couple that are thinly-veiled references to me, but I'll give the benefit of doubt on those. But this still represents about 43% of your total edits devoted to me. -- Netoholic@20:50, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
We happen to be editing that article. It's active. We both made many edits. I believe you've made more than I over the past 2 days. I first edited the article May 9. You arrived 5 days later and undidopposed my move away from the POV title that had previously been in place. My move was subsequently endorsed by a talk page thread closed to move back to my new NPOV title. I have no interest in you, let alone "feelings" and your statements are without basis. Please move on. You're welcome to share any concerns here but jumping to conclusions or accusations is not constructive. The AE thread was of no consequence and closed quickly without incident. SPECIFICOtalk20:59, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
This is now I think the 4th time you've made this claim that I reverted your page move. It was Lionelt as seen in this diff. So if you're mentioning that here, not only are you targetting the wrong editor, but you're tacitly admitting to hounding me for a specific perceived wrong. Consider your next reply to me here carefully. -- Netoholic@21:07, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Netoholic, hardly surprising as the two of you are currently involved in a discussion. This looks to me like the second inappropriate posting on this page in two days. Perhaps you may consider the possibility that you are hounding. O3000 (talk) 21:00, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
I think this is done unless you have fresh information or concerns here. I use your name in multi-party threads where I know you don't need a ping but where it's not clear to whom I'm addressing a remark. I've changed "undid" to the clearer "opposed". Insofar as I can tell that was your first edit to the article, but I could be mistaken. SPECIFICOtalk21:13, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
RPA?
Regarding this and this, I assure you that my comments were not at all intended to be an attack on you him, personal or otherwise, rather - as I pointed out - a comment on the snark behind his comments. As a matter of fact, wasn't there a recent discussion in a noticeboard or on a talkpage somewhere regarding your penchant for making such remarks (don't recall where, I just know I saw something on it not too long ago). I was very clear when I stated that I wasn't saying your his comments at any American-focused article aren't welcome because you aren't he isn't an American. If I had said otherwise, that would have been a personal attack. But, if you did take it that way and were offended, I do apologize. That was certainly not my intent. -- ψλ ● ✉✓17:48, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Oops... this was supposed to be originally written to Scjessy's talk page and posted here as an FYI (and I thought I did that), but was interrupted in the midst of writing the message(s). Obviously, I didn't complete the task. Sorry if there was any confusion. -- ψλ ● ✉✓19:29, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
When I know I've made an error, I have no problem admitting that error and apologizing for it. -- ψλ ● ✉✓19:44, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
That's great. What would be good is to see a less combative tone on article talk pages and less of what looks like sophistic quibbling over inessential details while a key issue remains unresolved. Cheers. SPECIFICOtalk19:52, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
I agree that all of the regular contributors at the political articles need to do exactly that. -- ψλ ● ✉✓£
Actually, the sophism is almost exclusively confined to the Trumpets. Not that they are morally inferior, it's just that they have neither the RS references, nor logic, nor WP policy on their side. NPOV editors have it easy, just citing what the mainstream sources have to say. SPECIFICOtalk22:46, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Don't make the mistake of labeling me politically. I've said this before and quite recently: No one here could guess my political leanings when it comes to candidates or issues. And, frankly, no one should try. If I had my way, attempting to do so would be on par at a low degree to outing an editor. Politics are a personal thing, at least they are in my world. I don't care what others believe politically and I don't care for those who judge others based on politics. Frankly, it's not my business what you think politically and it's not your (or anyone else's) business what I think politically - unless you/I choose to reveal it. My concern at political articles is NPOV and balance, not pushing an agenda. -- ψλ ● ✉✓23:17, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
I wasn't talking about you, just making an over-general statement in response to your over-general statement. Sorry if that wasn't understood. SPECIFICOtalk23:36, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
It can be difficult at times to verify sources when they aren't available on the public internet, but there are options. The first would be to check your local library's website to see what electronic collections they have, like Gale Research, HighBeam, or Proquest, that can help you access newspaper archives, ebooks, and even academic journals. Your regional/state government might also have these services available. If you don't find what you need there, Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library has a lot more advice and you can even request access to databases that relate to your interests. Even if you don't need long-term access, you can ask someone there for help getting the sources you need. If you ever need the full source to anything I add to the encyclopedia, you can contact me directly as well. -- Netoholic@19:54, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
The problem is that your edits do not reflect the meaning of the sources you cite. Your comment is gratuitous. My edit summaries speak for themselves, and they're so that you and others can try to improve the articles. But even material that's contained in cited sources can be conjoined and associated in ways that end up misrepresenting their meaning and supporting Original Research that is not contained within any of the sources. That is the problem with everything in the Metropolitan bias article that is now AfD. SPECIFICOtalk20:06, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
We can't even really discuss the meaning of the sources when you don't have access to them. I've offered to assist and there are many resources available, but you cannot reasonably make edits just based on the title of a source. Who is misrepresenting the source more — someone who wrote a section while staring at the source, or someone who makes an edit based only on the headline? -- Netoholic@20:16, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
I have access to the sources. That's how I know that you have misused them. And WP is not a dictionary, so you've entirely misappropriated one of the references you used to edit-war your text back before justifying it and achieving consensus. It's kind of moot, since the article does not appear likely to survive AfD and will soon be merged to a somewhat more clearly defined topic. SPECIFICOtalk20:21, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
In this article - Spence, Alex (June 17, 2014). "BBC accused of an urban bias in its news coverage". The Times. London, England. p. 10. - what is the very last line of the story? -- Netoholic@20:28, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
If you think you have anything of interest on this subject, it belongs on the article talk page. I suggest you copy your remarks over there. I don't find any of this convincing, as it does not address the fundamental and irremediable conceptual flaw of these bias articles you're working on. Thanks. SPECIFICOtalk20:30, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
My question related to your access to the source, which you said you have, and I've asked just to confirm that. My concern is that you often don't have access to a lot of these sources, and that leads you to look more at what you think my motivations are rather than read the source and propose improved wording if you disagree with my summarization of it. If you prefer to be combative, I can't stop you, but I would much rather see collaboration happening... and that really can only start if you have the sources. Like I said, if you need any I've referenced, let me know and I'll post them to you in full so that we can discuss from an equal level. -- Netoholic@20:38, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
I have no idea what you think you're reporting, but I will tell you that when you jump into a long-stable article and rewrite big chunks of it to replace NPOV sourced content with whitewashed spin and obfuscation, you can generally expect to get reverted and you can expect to be asked, as I did, to present your concerns on the article talk page. If you're really going to claim that D'Souza has not presented conspiracy theories and counterfactual narratives, you are going to have a very hard time overcoming the mountain of RS citations that say the opposite. SPECIFICOtalk02:53, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
@NeilN: I ask you to reopen that thread and hold your warning in suspense, so that I can respond to your warning there, which I do not think reflects the facts of this complaint, rather than escalate it to some other venue, possibly wasting a lot of time and resources. SPECIFICOtalk14:46, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
Oh, I wasn't thinking you might un-warn me. I was going to suggest you review the sequence of @DCreish: and @Winkelvi:'s edits, comparing them to mine and @Snooganssnoogans: -- including the facts that 1. Snoog and I engaged in talk before these reverts and we provided references to support a concern that was identified as unsourced BLP disparagement, and 2. That DCreish had 3 reverts including a tag-team with Wink and that, even though the following might be less germane in an actual extended 3RR edit-war -- "my version", with the bit about D'Souza actually promoting falsehoods (not just being criticized for it, which DCreish artfully labels his "NPOV version" against all the references) remains in the present version all these days later. Anyway all I was going to comment at AN3 was to ask you to review the sequence, diffs and context of the Wink and DCreish. I believe such scrutiny is not unusual if you choose to do so. Maybe they would benefit from warnings of their own. Cheers. SPECIFICOtalk 20:45, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm just adding this ping in case you are inclined to follow up. You should be aware than in D.Creish you are dealing with an editor who is basically an SPA pursuing far-right politics topics [25] with a history of edit-warring and CRYBLP.[26]. And that Winkelvi has continued his contentious behavior unabated on other politically-charged pages since the AN3 thread. At [[Liberty University he is engaged in exactly the same reinsertion of a challenged edit that occurred at D'Souza [27]. At any rate this is in lieu of any further comment from me at the AN3 board. SPECIFICOtalk20:23, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Ok, describe in detail the type of process that you think would work better than these "polls" that you so love to malign. Let's see if I can shoot your process down with equal ease. If I can't, I'll support your proposal for change.
But I'll do it in a separate thread, not as repeated disruption of content discussions. I have this weird, radical idea that change is properly achieved by lobbying the legislative process, not by repeatedly throwing hand grenades from the gallery of the Senate chamber. ―Mandruss☎16:37, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Mandruss, I was asking for a clear statement of the proposition that's under consideration there. If you could answer that on the talk page it would be quite constructive, because it's obvious that some editors think we're replacing two sentences, some editors think we're going to proceed to another discussion of a second sentence, and some editors had lost sight of what's currently in the article. That would be very helpful if you'll help clear that up on the talk page.
You're welcome to continue the discussion here about process, which would also be constructive, but let's rescue this talk page thread first. Thanks. SPECIFICOtalk17:01, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
I've stated multiple times that I'm sitting out that content discussion. I couldn't begin to guess what's in the minds of those who have participated. You could have asked for clarification of the question without criticizing the underlying process—off topic—despite my earlier request that you discuss process separately—as a minority of 1—yet again. It honestly baffles me why you refuse to recognize basic principles of organization and order, instead continuously raging against the machine. ―Mandruss☎17:15, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Well, I am pleased to know we agree on this. My view is that pointing out instances of a dysfunction is more helpful than after the fact trying to describe something that's long forgotten and of itself not critically significant. But I would cerntainly welcome your help in fixing this. These informal polls are not part of normal wiki process. They're kind of a weird subculture on a relatively small number of articles. BTW maybe you could direct a bit of your concern to JFG who gratuitously scolded EllenCT for her ill-advised RfC at the Trump page. He is entitled to that view, but clearly he should have paid her a visit on her talk page for some constructive engagement rather than railing against her in public like that when it served no constructive purpose. SPECIFICOtalk17:41, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Being different is not, by itself, a Bad Thing. If it were, how would things ever evolve for the better? Things don't work so great in those other places either, you may have noticed. So I don't put a lot of stock in the weird subculture argument. You need to offer a workable alternative solution. I also don't think whataboutism regarding JFG gets us any closer to a solution here; more likely farther from one. But let's go ahead and explore that as an illustrative example. I see nothing from JFG on Ellen's UTP, so I assume the "gratuituous scolding" refers to JFG's comment in the RfC: OP should have recognized from said discussion that her proposal was not supported, and refrained from opening a doomed RfC. Suggest a WP:SNOW close by an admin. You may disagree with JFG's viewpoint, but there is nothing improper about voicing an objection to an RfC. It was no more "scolding" than any claim that an editor exercised poor judgment, which is not only acceptable but regularly necessary (I'm fairly certain you do so from time to time). Scolding might have been, "Ellen, that was a really stupid move. You are completely out of line here. Don't do it again." You read it as scolding because you don't like JFG. The main thing is that JFG consistently recognizes that his opinion is only one opinion, and he has not kept harping on that because the group failed to submit to his opinion. He stated the opinion and moved on; if the objection fails to gain traction, I expect that will be the last we hear from JFG about it. That is correct editor behavior in article talk. ―Mandruss☎18:18, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
OP should have recognized from said discussion that her proposal was not supported, and refrained from opening a doomed RfC. That part was a pointless, unconstructive personal/process remark of the sort he could constructively worked through on her talk page but which added nothing to his substantive observation about the business of the snow close and which only communicated an attitude of piqued entitlement to lecture an experienced, good-faith editor who is new to the Trump article. We don't know @EllenCT: personally, but many editors would have been offended and possibly intimidated by such a gratuitous slap. SPECIFICOtalk18:35, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Not one editor has voiced an opinion similar to yours to my knowledge. So you have, again, self-appointed as the ultimate and sole arbiter of editor behavior, rather than being a member of a group putting consensus first. Sorry but you don't get to do that. One is cooperative collaboration, and the other is battleground mentality. Before you claim that I'm hypocritically committing the same transgression, I'll offer shortcuts like WP:CONSENSUS, WP:BATTLEGROUND, and WP:5P4, which are squarely behind my arguments here. Noting that you have successfully diverted this discussion from its initial topic, which remains unresolved. ―Mandruss☎18:48, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
I'm asking you to revert your edit to Dinesh D'Souza per BLP. It was removed as unsourced and you restored it before getting consensus. Revert and discuss please. D.Creish (talk) 23:18, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
@NeilN: FYI, RE: DCreish at current AE and why some folks don't seem to think he has clean hands in these controversial articles. In my opinion he gamed you and took advantage of your AGF at the D'Souza article and talk page and the AN3 related to this notice. I observe a rather sparse editing history and a high incidence of battleground and wikilawyering tactics. Just my opinion. SPECIFICOtalk22:33, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Hello, I'm 2A02:4780:BAD:25:FCED:1FF:FE25:109. I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. . "Bugger off" is a PA. Keep it civil. 2A02:4780:BAD:25:FCED:1FF:FE25:109 (talk) 19:38, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
PackMecEng (talk) 00:43, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
-- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 19:11, 8 May 2018 (UTC) BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 19:11, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote—in order to influence Murder of Seth Rich. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you. 
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:SPECIFICO reported by User:Winkelvi (Result: ). Thank you. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 02:18, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
