User talk:SPECIFICO

ANI notice

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

WP:ANI Notice

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

GA reassessment for Murray Rothbard article

Murray Rothbard, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.

WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#WP:TPNO violation by User:SPECIFICO

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

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

Hello, SPECIFICO. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Thank you

		The Modest Barnstar
		Kudos for your intelligent monitoring of Hannibal Directive & Hadar Goldin.ShulMaven (talk) 20:35, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Molyneux and Self Published Sources and References Vanity Page

I am quite concerned that the bulk of the comprises a marketing-vanity page for and by Molyneuex with many of the references from self published sources designed for personal aggrandizement. There is something quite seriously wrong with this entry and it needs to be revised in detail and reduced to the objective and factual. Please review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.232.195.162 (talk) 21:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

August 2014

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Stefan Molyneux. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. 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. – S. Rich (talk) 03:21, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Srich shouldn't be templating you, and I've dropped a note on his talk page about it. However, he's right in that you probably shouldn't be reverting as you did on Stefan Molyneux. It's a trivial point, better to just 'let it go'. LK (talk) 04:59, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Block Notice

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Stefan Molyneux. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.   Mike V • Talk 04:54, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

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

VictorD7 editing your comment

Hello. I noticed that VictorD7 edited out your interpretation of WP policy which he considered to be a personal attack or insult. I do not think it was. Do you have grounds to complain to WP admins regarding VictorD7's editing of your comment? Steelbeard1 (talk) 10:41, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I agree with you that my statement concerning tendentious editing was not a personal attack and that he had no business redacting it. Unlike in Civil Court, one does not need standing to file a complaint. If his behavior troubles you, decide whether it's worth your time and effort to gather diffs and file a well-reasoned complaint. One talk page violation more or less may be the tip of the iceberg, but consider whether it's a good use of your time to become further involved with him. That's my opinion. Thanks for the visit. SPECIFICO talk 14:19, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Do not edit my comments in any way.

If you feel I am in violation of personal attack policy, take it to an admin board. Your judgement and hypocrisy with regards to standards of personal commentary is suspect. -- Netoholic @ 20:24, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

You have previously been told not to post on my talk page and blocked for your personal attacks here. Don't post here again. SPECIFICO talk 20:25, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

The edit

...is this one. —Neotarf (talk) 17:37, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. -- There is no reference to any individual as a girl or a boy, either of which can be used either tongue in cheek or as a slur depending on the context. It's clear from the context in which I used both words that there was no slur intended and at most a mild rebuke of the mooted viewpoint that we evoke gender stereotypes in deciding the merits of a new user interface. I regret that you misunderstood. Thanks for your response. SPECIFICO talk 17:43, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Nonetheless, there are those who may interpret the comment as condescending and disrespectful. Would it be appropriate to refer to the Barack Obama, Al Gore, and Martin Luther King articles as "articles about boys who've won Nobel prizes, academic honors, and national elections"? I suspect many would find that patronizing. —Neotarf (talk) 19:15, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not understanding you. Where did I or anyone else refer to any identified individual as a boy or girl? Furthermore the boy and girl reference was to prospective WP editors, not to the individuals about whom there are WP articles. You appear to have repeated a concern which I had hoped I addressed in my initial reply to you. SPECIFICO talk 20:09, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Is there something wrong with the link in my initial post? The text is here:

• "A more productive effort would be to beef up articles about girls who've won Nobel prizes, academic honors, and national elections." —Neotarf (talk) 22:22, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

GG talk page

Hi Specifico, I'd like to ask that you cut Carol some slack on the gender gap task force page. She's doing good work – for example, she has just finished compiling a list of articles about the gender gap, which she obviously put a lot of time into.

People there don't have to agree about everything. The best thing is to focus on the issues we do agree on, and try to overlook the rest. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:04, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I agree we needn't agree, but I do think it's important to be clear and accurate in our discourse. I am generally impressed with the high quality of the Project. SPECIFICO talk 22:25, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't think high precision matters much on that page, because nothing hangs on it. It matters more that people feel comfortable posting. I set the page up hoping it could become a place where women especially – and perhaps in particular new women editors – could feel relaxed, and might want to exchange ideas about working together or helping each other, or how to encourage other women. So anything that keeps the atmosphere friendly and warm would be very helpful. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:38, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I hear you. SPECIFICO talk 22:47, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:52, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Why not just leave her alone? If she wants to archive something, let her do it. Several of those threads descended into baiting (or began that way), and all they're doing is discouraging others from joining in. Continually responding to her or reverting is probably just making her nervous, which in turn opens her to more baiting. It needs to stop, so please be part of making that happen. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:21, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I had felt that I was being responsive to your concern by not commenting on her ongoing personal attacks and autobiographical reflections on the talk page. I think your initial advice above was valid, and I wish that the suspected male editors whom she seems to target would just back away for a while. The thread which I de-archived did not appear to contain any personal attacks or other inappropriate comments, hence my restoration of it. Nonetheless, I'm fine with staying off the page altogether if you think that will help the Project. I must say, however that CMDC's behavior on GG and on Jimbo Talk is hurting the cause of gender-neutrality. From the perspective of the community, but particularly those concerned with the role of women here, she needs to control her behavior (regardless of whether its caused by hostility, nerves, or as she sometimes says, old age.) She needs to give it a rest. Anyway you are clearly working to make things better on WP and I did not intend to go against your advice. Consider perhaps some gentle mentoring or therapy for CMDC on these points, if you feel it would help. Thanks for your note. SPECIFICO talk 21:40, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I think staying away for a bit (or at least staying away from Carol's posts) would help a lot, so thank you. The best way forward is to respond positively to suggestions that might work and don't respond to the rest. We all make suggestions that aren't quite right, and we all have different styles of interaction. The trick is to focus on the good things that people have to offer, and overlook everything else, which I know is hard, and I'm not good at doing it myself. But that's the atmosphere that would be most helpful on that page. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:13, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

That's fine, but remember I had already begun doing that and the archiving she did was not a suggestion of hers, I'm afraid, but rather a knee-jerk swat in the face of a few clearly-reasoned opinions which differed from her own. Ignoring disruptive behavior gets close to the affirmative-action model and as I think is clear, her behavioral issues have nothing to do with her gender. Anyway, consider me on hiatus and thanks again for your clarity. SPECIFICO talk 00:26, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Wanna help with a woman ?

Hello Fico. I have noticed you have showed great interest lately in improving articles or women of real notability and I know from before that you have a good grasp on economics. So I wondered if you would be willing to help with an article of a female economist I just started, Hélène Rey. She's a co-winner with Thomas Picketty of the Yrjö Jahnsson Award, the first woman to win the prize. I have written most of the biographic stuff (will add some more and polish), but what I need help to is to flesh out her economic ideas. Just a paragraph will be all right. Then we could take the article through DYK to the front page. There is light intro to her ideas in a FT interview. Best, Iselilja (talk) 20:39, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

"ce"

Please do not mark major, substantive edits as "ce". I assume "ce" means "copy edit". If that's the case, then copy editing: "work that an editor does to improve the formatting, style, and accuracy of text. Unlike general editing, copy editing might not involve changing the content of the text". If you are going to change substantive content, then please be clear about that in your edit summary. -- Netoholic @ 19:24, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

You've been told many times not to post on this page. SPECIFICO talk 19:42, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

ARBCOM clarification request regarding use of "TERF"

I have initiated a request for clarification from the ARBCOM regarding the use of "TERF" per discussions on Talk:Radical feminism. I am messaging you because you have been involved in past discussions regarding this issue and may wish to participate in the new discussion at the ARBCOM. The discussion can be found here. Thank you and best wishes. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:39, 1 September 2014 (UTC)