User talk:SPECIFICO

A visitor from Vale of Glamorgan writes...

Surely Donald j trump, 'was' a politician not is a politician..?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.2.144.16 (talk • contribs)

Double standards in editing

Your double standards in Tagging my edit and warning me Here should be plain to see as other (hopefully disinterested) editors will note far more clear-cut examples of “NOTFORUM” in preceding contributions like: “criminal turncoat”: “obsess with tawdry American politics” or: “Assange's self-declared 14-year war against America's national security and its domestic politics”. You should either revert, or give the same treatment to these other edits. Prunesqualor billets_doux 10:03, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

That is deflection to avoid taking responsibility for your conduct. I already explained to you that, if Assange's slanders about Rich were true, this innocent victim would have committed a crime against his employer, the Clinton campaign. As to the Otherstuff you keep throwing at me -- take up your complaints with whoever might have said it. You are on a downward spiral to a block or ban, not just from this. I hope you can take a break and start to collaborate constructively instead. SPECIFICO talk 13:10, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Your revert breached WP:OWN

You should be aware that when you reverted my recent edit in Julian Assange you effectively reinstated an edit by Valjean which was placed there the midst of our RFC debate and WAS in breach of WP:OWN. In other words my edit rectified a breach of WP:OWN and by reverting me you reinstated the breach (effectively putting you in breach) – Please be good enough to undo your revert Prunesqualor billets_doux 13:53, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

PS, If, whist performing your undo, you wish to reinstate the misleading and unpopular sentence which Valjean’s controversial and unauthorised edit replaced - I cannot prevent you: as that dogs dinner was considered the last “stable edit” – that’s up to you. Prunesqualor billets_doux 14:01, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Prunesqualer, what do you mean by "breach of WP:OWN"? I have never seen that expression before. Are you accusing SPECIFICO or myself of engaginng in OWN behavior, IOW edit warring to preserve our own content (content we have installed)? -- Valjean (talk) 19:20, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

I should probably ping you about...

... m:Talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_Chief_Executive_Officer/Maryana’s_Listening_Tour Epistemology follows Ontology (talk) 03:02, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Curious what on earth prompted you to ask that? Not that I can comment. SPECIFICO talk 03:09, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Manifestly unjust persecution contrary to the Vision (why is your opinion on Austrian economics unsuitable for inclusion in the sum of all knowledge?), due unintentionally to Wales' co-founding. Are you allowed to comment on the issue on Meta? Epistemology follows Ontology (talk) 03:16, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps misplaced in RSN

I liked your comment that went along with your !vote in RSN re DW, and I commented underneath it. However, I think you may have mis-placed it by putting it under the section "Malformed survey" (a discussion) instead of the section "Survey, The Daily Wire" (where the !votes are being posted). If you plan on moving it to the preceding section, then please drag my response along with it. I didn't want to move your comment, in case it was placed exactly where you wanted it. Platonk (talk) 05:17, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Please feel free to move both. SPECIFICO talk 08:17, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I moved them, as well as the reply-comments that had been added below them. [1] Platonk (talk) 16:19, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

NPOV

Your comment at the NPOV noticeboard is not much of a help, as it is not exactly neutrally worded itself.Slatersteven (talk) 09:44, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Could you be specific? It was just asking for eyes on the page, I think. Anything you would add to attract more editors there? SPECIFICO talk 11:58, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

This (in every forum you placed it) "- a troubled page frequented by various self-described fans of Assange, opponents of the US, and disparagers of mainstream media. ".Slatersteven (talk) 12:53, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Really, another RSN thread about this?Slatersteven (talk) 12:59, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Also, to paraphrase WP:SOUP:

Like someone who spits in your soup in a restaurant, then when you complain says: "Thank you for your comment. [Could you be specific? It was just asking for eyes on the page, I think. Anything you would add to attract more editors there?] I welcome constructive discussion to reach an amicable solution."
— User:Tearlach 16:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Kleinpecan (talk) 13:18, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Sorry folks, but the biases of various editors there have been self-declared at the article talk page repeatedly and consistently -- referring to Assange as "our hero", declaring that we should not follow mainstream sources, etc. The notices were asking for eyes on the article talk page, not to start a discussion on NPOVN or BLPN. The statement of the RfC on article talk said only that it existed -- nothing at all on any viewpoint about it. Spitting in soup is an ugly image to bring here -- you can do better expressing yourself I'm sure. SPECIFICO talk 13:43, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

See WP:Canvassing#Campaigning. NadVolum (talk) 14:22, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

And notices must always be neutral, as in "there is a talk page discussion here", and never "help me fight then POV pushers". All you are doing (see above) is undermining your credibility.Slatersteven (talk) 14:29, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, but no. You misunderstand what neutral notice means. And there was no suggestion in my notice as to the substance of the issue or whether any of the self-identified biases would come down on one side or the other of the RfC or my view. Who said I have any credibility to begin with? It's just a notice, folks can take it or leave it. Have a look or not, as they wish. Your mischaracterization of the notice is disappointing. SPECIFICO talk 14:38, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Slatersteven (talk) 15:39, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

To add to this, I've made a comment in the WP:ANI thread, regarding your behaviour, to which you should probably respond. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:01, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Removal of DNC leak material

I recently inserted the following into the article: “The leaked e-mails revealed an acrimonious split within the Democratic party, with senior D.N.C. staff sharing stinging denunciations of Clinton’s rival leadership contender Bernie Sanders”. The edit was almost immediately reverted by you with the excuse “UNDUE opinion” – This really has to be some sort of (not very funny) joke. I don’t believe you even had time to read the Guardian article from which the information was sourced. I would like to request you reinstate my edit and apologise for his (yet again) disruptive behaviour. Prunesqualor billets_doux 16:57, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

I think it is UNDUE opinion to cherrypick a partisan statement, Please pursue consensus on the article talk page. We need to get the article right. There is no rush. SPECIFICO talk 17:03, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

I have to agree with Prunesqualer. Many people don't realize why the leaks were significant for the Clinton campaign. This explains it. Such context is important for readers. Right-wingers often mistakenly, because they are lied to in their media bubble, think it was much more serious (maybe illegal acts or collusion with Russia) matters that were revealed when that was not the case. The leaks were merely embarrassing, and that's all.

Of course, the fact that only the Democratic material hacked by the Russians (who also hacked the Republicans) was released is also significant and evidence of the nature of the Russian support for Trump. Top GOP politicians are essentially living in a state of sustained blackmail, as they know that embarrasing material is being withheld only as long as they continue to back Trump and support the Trump/Russia agenda. This may explain why so many GOP politicians have acted so weirdly, as if they are compromised. Like Trump, they are wittingly or unwittingly acting as Russian assets. -- Valjean (talk) 17:43, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

I presume you do not agree with them about the personal attack and demand for apology, so I think any content discussion belongs on the article talk page. In general, I think that section needs a thorough re-write and that whatever omissions currently exist are not likely to be improved by adding bits and pieces. SPECIFICO talk 17:47, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

I was only referring to the content issues. Omissions are often fixed by "adding bits and pieces." -- Valjean (talk) 18:29, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

In this case, though, I think there are larger issues: wikileaks content vs. Assange bio content -- making points by SYNTH juxtaposition rather than secondary and tertiary source contextualization -- UNDUE content from opinion or incidental media, etc. SPECIFICO talk 18:36, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Rutine reversion of my edits

The regular reverting of my edits often under often unorthodox situations as in: here when you reverted me after three minutes flat on an edit where the RS alone would have taken five minutes to digest) has become tiresome – and now: here you have reverted, claiming there is “no consensus” for my edit, but have made no effort whatsoever to sound out other editors on the subject ie you cannot know if there is consensus - in other words by your reasoning every single edit that adds material to the page can be automatically reverted because it “has no consensus” – I’m assuming in the name of consistency you will revert every unsounded additive edit made on the page from now on? Prunesqualor billets_doux 20:39, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

You cited "per talk" to reinstate this defective article content after it had been challenged. All your complaints above appear to be projections of your own misstep. My prayer is that some day you will reach the point at which you can look back and understand how flawed your participation has been. Thanks for your visit. Come back any time. SPECIFICO talk 20:52, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Deletion of Green New Deal section of Paul Krugman's bio ...

Per your rollback reason for deletion of Green New Deal section of Paul Krugman's bio ... 1) How can the BLP constraints be construed to bear on a direct quote of Dr. Krugman? 2. If " Cherrypicked" and "article text over-generalizes from the source" is going to be claimed as a justification for deleting content then the reasoning for claiming same needs to be explained. How can a direct quote of Dr. Krugman be construed to be "over-generalize[d]"?

See https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Paul_Krugman&curid=313701&diff=1055265029&oldid=1055217306&diffmode=source Deicas (talk) 21:45, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

It's UNDUE. Please see WP:ONUS, WP:WEIGHT and WP:BLP. Please also undo your reinsertion of the fresh edit I reverted. There is no consensus for this and more importantly it's a BLP violation to select one of tens of thousands of statements by an individual -- several years in the past and quite vague -- and insert that in the article. You can use the article talk page to pursue consensus. SPECIFICO talk 21:52, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

DONE. Please see Talk:Paul Krugman#Attempt to delete information on Dr. Krugman's support for the Green New Deal Deicas (talk) 22:36, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

You did not self-revert your reinsertion of the disputed text. SPECIFICO talk 22:55, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Please note, I have removed it as a violation of Deicas's topic ban. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:32, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Wow. I had no idea about that. I am always grateful for Admins who take an active role in monitoring articles and stepping in to obviate reports to the drama boards. Thank you. SPECIFICO talk 00:39, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Standards for appending a "Controversies" section to entries for academic institutions

Hi.

Many entries for academic institutions here on Wikipedia include a section that detail, in a neutral and objective manner, controversies related to those institutions. For example, the Wikipedia entries for Milton Academy in Milton, MA and St. Paul's in New Hampshire have a "Controversies" section that provide information and references to highly publicized cases of sexual harassment, abuse, etc.

So I am unsure as to why the recent controversies unearthed by the Philadelphia Inquirer regarding the Curtis Institute continue to be edited out of the Wikipedia entry for Curtis. There have been more than 30 articles in major publications on this topic, the Institute commissioned an independent review of the allegations, and the independent review confirmed the allegations, and the Institute published a statement admitting their culpability in the whole affair.

If other editors at Wikipedia feel strongly that controversies related to sexual harassment do not belong on the pages of academic institutions, then they should go ahead and edit them out of ALL of the pages of academic institutions, instead of just on this one page for Curtis.

Its fine to have standards and rules and regulations, as long as they are evenly applied across the whole site.

Many thanks Sandline121 (talk) 16:48, 15 November 2021 (UTC).