User talk:SPECIFICO

Just curious

I have seen you referring to Mr.X, as comrade X. What's the story behind that? PackMecEng (talk) 14:47, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

We are all comrades in this great project. I would be tickled if you call me Comrade SPECIFICO. May I call you Comrade Eng? No story. Thanks for the visit. Keep up your good editing! SPECIFICO talk 14:50, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Ha, figured it was something along those lines. I would be honored, Comrade SPECIFICO. Take care! PackMecEng (talk) 14:51, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

@Thucydides411: Your personal attack at Russians

Read WP:TPO:

Your dozens of personal attacks, political soapboxes and NOTHERE meta-comments that reject WP's mainstream sourcing approach all violate WP:TPO. With respect to your the most recent of your personal attacks on @Volunteer Marek:, the removal of such disruption is specifically authorized on that page.

Removing harmful posts, including personal attacks, trolling, and vandalism. This generally does not extend to messages that are merely uncivil; deletions of simple invective are controversial. Posts that may be considered disruptive in various ways are another borderline case and are usually best left as-is or archived.

I suggest you remove your personal attack by means of whatever editing tool you choose from the varied quiver at our disposal here. Needless to say, your reinsertion demonstrates that the first violation was neither unintentional nor a momentary lapse prompted by the intensity of your whatever. SPECIFICO talk 17:26, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Deflation

Hi Specifico,

I understand and appreciate that you undid my edit on Deflation in Japan - I went off-topic and was too polemic.

However, I see the results in Japan: LONG-TERM persuance of anti-deflationary measures (i.e. propping up prices) in a SYSTEMICALLY, i.e. demographically driven, shrinking market (as opposed to temporary upset) preferently supports today's asset-rich and hurts the asset-poor, whilst being funded by an ever rising national debt that is shouldered by all. This only postpones repayment of todays debts into a further deflated future. Surely, this is not in the interest of competitiveness, a properly functioning market and can only increase wealth inequality and asset concentration?

I wonder whether these important broad consequences could be more explicitly stated in Wikipedia for someone like myself who does not have an economics degree. What edit would you propose?

Greetings, Thomas

Please note

Note that Thucydides411 and Darouet act as a tag team and have since 2011. They might know each other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.99.105.57 (talk) 14:24, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Erichaim was part of the tag team, but dropped out in 2012. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.99.105.57 (talk) 14:27, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Deep Throat? Is that you? Mystery meat for lunch. 🍖 SPECIFICO talk 14:29, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, I have the honor of introducing you to Azul411. -Darouet (talk) 15:12, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Snow

Caaaaaaaaaaaan you feeeeeeeeeel the looooooooooove tonight...

I don't think us tangling endlessly at article talk helps other editors. But we can tangle endlessly here! Per WP:Snow, "Especially, closers should beware of interpreting 'early pile on' as necessarily showing how a discussion will end up. This can sometimes happen when a topic attracts high levels of attention from those engaged (or having a specific view) but slower attention from other less involved editors, perhaps with other points of view. It can sometimes be better to allow a few extra days even if current discussion seems very clearly to hold one opinion, to be sure that it really will be a snowball and as a courtesy to be sure that no significant input will be excluded if closed very soon." Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:37, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

You already know that in my opinion you are the least obnoxious of the crazed pov pushers. First off, you appear to be a mature adult who is acting out of conscience and conviction rather than an inflated self-regard and battleground video gamer mentality. I'll stop repeating myself on the talk page, because there are plenty of other editors on that page with their own assessments of the situatrion. There's no point in my trying to change anyone's mind -- theirs or yours. Stop by any time. Your pal, SPECIFICO talk 20:04, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

"You are the least obnoxious of the crazed pov pushers" is not a compliment, but a backhanded way of personally attacking Anything (and unnamed others) as "crazed" and "obnoxious." (SPECIFICO's reference to a phenomenon she dubs "battleground video gamer mentality" is also intended to smear me for editing articles other than American Politics—not accurately, of course, since SPECIFICO doesn't know me personally, but an ad hominem just the same.) SPECIFICO's constant personal attacks and aspersions against other users (e.g., [1], [2], [3], [4], [5])—to say nothing of her systematic POV-pushing and misrepresentation of sources—would surely have resulted in an indefinite site ban years ago if she shared the politics of Hidden Tempo.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:07, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

I accept all compliments: backhanded, underhanded, disingenuous, grudging, mistaken, et cetera.😎 Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:14, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Whatta crock.[6] Anything and I are old friends. We get along just fine. SPECIFICO talk 22:19, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

I love you bro. Except when you drive me nuts. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:24, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

I hate everybody equally. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:26, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

I want whatever you guys are drinking. Objective3000 (talk) 22:39, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

We're not drinking. We're smoking. ;) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:53, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, as the Lucretius theorem states, one man’s X is another man’s Y. The old Roman clearly stole it from van Morrison: [7]. Objective3000 (talk) 23:30, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

AKA Kushner's Lemma. [8] SPECIFICO talk 23:59, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, whether it is love vs. hate, or right vs. left, the Horseshoe_theory often applies. BTW, is there a cure for (talk page stalker) syndrome? Objective3000 (talk) 00:16, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

There is. It's called "a hobby other than editing Wikipedia". And on that note, I'm off to bring down a Bolivian drug cartel. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:36, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

• I'm having a delicious Grolsch, after tequila cocktails and tacos. I also think that *you* (insert your own persona) are the least obnoxious of all the a-holes in this joint, and your friend is even less obnoxious. Yay! Drmies (talk) 01:11, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Grolsch is fine. Good thing it's not a "Bud". SPECIFICO talk 01:15, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

• Wait--Anythingyouwant, SPECIFICO, I thought y'all were roughly on the same side in these political disputes. I need to get this straight, because allegedly I'm on Marek's side, and I thought that Specifico was also a Marek sock, so I should support Specifico blindly, which should mean that I oppose Anythingyouwant blindly? (But I've seen Anything make sensible comments, so they can't be on the wrong side???) Y'all please write up a list so I can stop looking at people's arguments and stuff. *lesigh* Drmies (talk) 01:17, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Looking at people's arguments is so yesterday. I am always wrong and SPECIFICO is always right, so anyone who supports wrongness should reflexively support me. You don't want to be a goody two-shoes who always supports rightness. Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:21, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up. Please ping me next time you do something blockable. Drmies (talk) 01:38, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Mais oui. Certainement. Being underhanded is sometimes a winning strategy. Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:45, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

When arguments become heated, I only read every other word. Much quicker, and frankly more interesting. One thing I’ve learned. The more sides an editor is accused of, the fewer sides the editor is actually on. Objective3000 (talk) 02:34, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Good point. Personally, I have not had an "opinion" since 1999. It takes too much time and effort. That's why it's so relaxing to edit WP. All's you have to do is look up what the sources say and put it in the articles. SPECIFICO talk 02:38, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

As long as they're Vox, Think Progress, The Bill Maher Show, the WaPo editorial page, etc!😂 Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:51, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Words to ponder

"By not admitting your guilt, you're proving your lack of remorse."

Isn't it obvious one cannot regret what one denies having done? Yes, I know, you'd have thought so. But OUTRAGE!!

SPECIFICO talk 03:12, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Puzzled

I'm puzzled. For some reason, in the course of this edit at the Trump Tower wiretapping allegations article you changed some of the dates in references from "month day, year" format to a couple of other formats: sometimes "day month year" and sometimes "2017-09-18", which is not even listed as an acceptable date format at MOSDATE. I'm puzzled because 1) The article says at the top of the page to use mdy format. 2) That is the standard format for U.S.-related articles. 3) WP:MOSDATE says "Where this manual provides options, consistency should be maintained within an article unless there is a good reason to do otherwise. The Arbitration Committee has ruled that editors should not change an article from one guideline-defined style to another without a substantial reason unrelated to mere choice of style, and that revert-warring over optional styles is unacceptable.[1] If discussion cannot determine which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor." I know that you know these things, so I am completely baffled by these changes - maybe some kind of error? - but they obviously need to be reverted back to the original format of "month day, year". Will you do that, or shall I? I counted seven such changes but I may have missed a few. --MelanieN (talk) 18:36, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Ah, now I think I see what happened. Those wrong date formats had been in the article, but Emir of Wikipedia changed them to MDY a few edits before yours. You were probably working from an older copy of the article which you then copy-pasted in as your edit, so that the uncorrected dates were accidentally included. --MelanieN (talk) 18:49, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for catching this. I never would have figured it out. SPECIFICO talk 18:53, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

@Darouet:

Please stop your revert warring at the Admin's talk page. There's a really important point there -- one that I hope both you and Thuc will consider -- and it has nothing to do with a "personal attack". SPECIFICO talk 17:06, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

I hope you will carefully consider the outcome and advice on that thread and refrain from any further disparagement of other editors or their behavior. If you feel anything warrants ANI or AE attention, those avenues are always available to you. However, as is clear from the recent round of complaints, they need to be well-formed and carefully considered with respect to site guidelines and policies. SPECIFICO talk 13:41, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring

You've reverted three times today at Alliance for Securing Democracy. Please self-revert and bring your concerns to the talk page. -Thucydides411 (talk) 00:12, 28 September 2017 (UTC) Thucydides411 (talk) 00:12, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Forget it. I've clearly stated why you should not keep reinserting this nonsense into the article. We can't shoehorn whats-his-name into articles about everything on which he's self-published his opinions. Find some strong solid well-sourced content and if you wish to work on this article, you can add that and everyone will thank you for it. SPECIFICO talk 01:26, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Here [9] as luck would have it, there's some real news about the Alliance for Securing Democracy this evening. They've been tracking the Russian interference you insist never happened. Maybe you can find some support for new article content in the latest reports. That would be great. SPECIFICO talk 01:33, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

You didn't respond to the bit about edit warring. The Intercept is a solid source, and you can't just dismiss it with ridiculous edit summaries about "chatter." -Thucydides411 (talk) 04:30, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

You have exceeded 3RR at Alliance for Securing Democracy in little over 24 hours, and this would very likely be interpreted as gaming the WP:3RR rule. I have left the required warning on your talk page. SPECIFICO talk 18:54, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

@Thucydides411:Another revert. You're racking up more and more revert violations at that article. I am at a loss to understand what good outcome can follow this behavior. Please roll back your violations and let the other editors have a hand for a while. SPECIFICO talk 00:34, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Alliance for Securing Democracy GG section on the TP

ICYMI s/he responded to you. Wingwraith (talk) 23:24, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello. Thanks for the note. I think it's at the point where nobody pays much attention to that editor one way or the other, per WP:DENY - always personal attacks and never article improvement or thoughtful contributions, so far as I can tell. Keep up the good work with your article improvements. SPECIFICO talk 23:42, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Can you please explain why you made this revert? The function of the tag was to qualify his criticism which I would've thought was something that you wouldn't have had any objections to as I was under the impression that we were taking a similar approach with regards to the GG source and content. Unless someone has hacked into your account... Wingwraith (talk) 07:24, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi. The Greenwald bit does not belong in this article. Certainly no opinion belongs in a section that is giving a basic description of the organization -- a section that short be succinct and objective before we build any further article content concerning its actions, possible biases, successes and failures. GG is more or less self-published at "the intercept" -- it's his organ, for which he garnered some vc funding. You may note that on its home page it features him in the menu where one would ordinarily expect a table of contents or the like. I have not seen his opinions seriously presented in secondary RS discussion, so I regard this as tantamount to self-published POV and UNDUE for this article. He is not a significant voice in the public discussion of this topic. Labeling him doesn't solve the core problem, so I reverted it. Unfortunately in articles with few followers, the fanatic POV editors will often prevail until either the article garners more active editors or their POV becomes manifestly untenable and they set sails for other thinly-fished waters. Thanks for your visit. SPECIFICO talk 18:50, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to be persistent about including this tag back into the article. I agree with you about virtually all the points that you've raised about the GG source and that ideally this issue would not even arise in the first place, but the problem is that we live in a reality where the discussion is monopolized by a couple of "fanatic POV editors" which makes it impossible to get rid of (as you put it) the core problem; hence my minimalist position that the least that can be done about it is to qualify the criticism. Surely you understand this point? Wingwraith (talk) 21:13, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi. I understand your approach. But I think the best solution, in any event, is one I tried that got a knee-jerk revert from Thu-know-who. The best solution for the time being would be to separate the GG opinion/insinuation from the description of personnel and place it in a new section called public reaction or something like that. What do you think of that? You could restore your edit and move the whole thing to a fresh location that makes clear it is opinion and not description. SPECIFICO talk 22:35, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't disagree with the wisdom of your separation proposal but the problem is that it is most likely just going to get tag-team reverted...again. So I stand by the minimalist position that I proposed which was to put the label in (which makes it clear that GG's description of the ASD personnel are his) and just leave it at that. Surely you would concur to this? Wingwraith (talk) 03:37, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Can you respond to the immediately preceding post above? If you don't I'll take your silence as consensus. Wingwraith (talk) 20:37, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi. I think it would be constructive to put it in a separate section along with some of the other commentary or reaction to this group. I don't think it's a good idea to anticipate that some editor is going to make a bad edit and to compromise policy and sound judgment in order to accommodate any such action. The GG piece is a diatribe that I would say is bordering on crazed. He may have some longstanding political POVs that triggered this, I don't know. He's not a significant expert. If he were, we'd see mainstream independent publication of his statements. So in response, thanks for your note here but I don't agree and I think that eventually GG will either be removed or that mainstream reasoned comments will be placed alongside his in a separate section. His comments are ad hominem disparagement and have nothing to do with the activities of this organization. At best they represent some kind of expectation he may have that only bad stuff's coming out of this. Hard to make any sense of his writing. SPECIFICO talk 22:15, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

With regards to the tag issue I'm going to respectfully disagree with your position and ask that you do not revert my re-addition of the material back into the article. I really cannot see why you would have a problem with that proposed edit as its a criticism of GG's views and in any case doesn't interfere with your proposal to create a reaction section for the article (in which, if successfully adopted, you/we can put his views); just think of the tag edit as a stop-gap measure. In the meantime, perhaps you can raise the issue on the talkpage? I'm confident that what would result from that discussion would be better than the response that you've gotten already a la the tag-team reversions. Wingwraith (talk) 22:51, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi. I already split the opinion from the description here [10] leaving GG's opinion in place, but this was quickly reverted. Until there are more editors on this article, motivated POV editors will always have the upper hand. It's best not to get into edit wars in such situations, it's pointless and a waste of time and attention. SPECIFICO talk 23:37, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

I am aware of that which is why I kept bringing up the point about the tag-team reversion. But like I said I would still encourage you to start the separation proposal discussion on the talkpage not least because my instinct tells me that there'd be something that could be had for your/our side from that. Wingwraith (talk) 02:04, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

I've already made that point. I didn't see any constructive response to my suggestion. If you feel like pursuing this, that would be very constructive. If it turns out that there's engagement rather than more edit-warring, perhaps I will have some useful further comments. Thanks for the suggestion. Remember, however, that there's no way you can force others to be collaborative, and sometimes it's just not worth the trouble after several attempts have been crushed. SPECIFICO talk 02:10, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

But my point is that you didn't raise your perfectly reasonable proposal on the talkpage and since you were the one who first attempted to do so directly with your edits on the article content it'd make more sense for you to raise the issue. That said I respect your decision if you didn't want to do that given the history of the tag-team reverts that you've had to deal with. Wingwraith (talk) 05:55, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Demeaning other editors on Russian election intervention page

First of all, if I want to debate what you call "trolls" on their suggestions to articles, that's my business - you insult me by denigrating that conversation as "dancing with trolls" or "diversionary bullshit". Second, I think you need a lesson on what "assume good faith" means. I assume that editor is earnestly attempting to improve the article, for lack of any evidence to the contrary. Even when I agree with you on content, which is most of the time, your manners sicken me, as you consistently mock and belittle other editors. I cannot believe that you could have been an editor for as long as you are and not realize when you've crossed the line. I'd suggest you revert your comments. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 19:14, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

That editor has appeared previously with the same complaint[11], and various editors gave him a patient explanation of the issues. But look at what he said. He said we should "include the proof" -- well, that would be easy enough for him to do. But he didn't. He has done nothing to contribute to improvement of the article. Instead he raised a red flag to rehash the tedious discussion as to the nature of the evidence and the mainstream press and other coverage of the events. There are many fine and intelligent, hard-working, and well-informed editors on this article who work very well to sort out difficult and complex issues. A reminder not to feed unproductive, repetitive tail-chasing is not a denigration of anyone, simply a reminder not to fall into the trap of repeating the discussions as to why the discussions are unproductive. It is a diversion and it is BS. Sorry. Fringe POV pushing is a very corrosive element on many articles -- and of course the long history of that in American Politics and related topics is what led to the two Arbcom cases and the current discretionary sanctions. Your statement that I "consistently mock and belittle other editors" is false. There are at most a handful out of the hundreds of editors I've recently interacted with who would ever elicit any sort of negative response from me. "Consistently"? SPECIFICO talk 19:24, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

@Red Rock Canyon: I'm speaking generally here and not necessarily about one specific case. You should be aware that there are conspiracy theorists out there on the larger Internet that advocate for Wikipedia talk pages as a venue to spread their bullshit. They know that getting into high profile articles is difficult, but they also know we have core policies like Assume Good Faith that give them a lot of leeway to "just ask questions" about the mainstream narrative, and "expose the censorship that goes into Wikipedia articles". Talk pages aren't supposed to be free speech zones, but this is a participation trophy that we too often just give them for free. You must be civil, but please don't go out of your way to accommodate their agenda. The "needs a proof section" thing was a fairly transparent political statement designed to draw attention to the fact that the "proof" is all classified and (by implication) that it's fabricated or doesn't exist. Geogene (talk) 00:17, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

If only I were as articulate as Geogene, I'm sure I wouldn't have been hatted and rehatted and so forth. What's also germane is that on this particular article, of all places, editors should be aware of how fake news and fringe POVs are propagated on the internet. Sadly, we have a certain small number of editors who have bought the bacon so to speak and come on to these American Politics articles all fired up to "right great wrongs" and promote non-mainstream POVs. They may be acting sincerely but incompetently -- an unfortunate term, but at least it preserves AGF. Or they may be coming to WP as activists, which is certainly not within our mandate. Psy Ops is an important part of the Russian interference. This isn't to say that we have "Russian Trolls" in our midst here, but we do have folks who have been influenced by non-mainstream "reporting" and discussion on Reddit or other internet discussion boards or fringe websites. We also have folks who are not broadly familiar with mainstream journalism, its practices and standards and limitations.

The policies and guidelines of the Wikipedia community are remarkably and admirably robust in helping to sort all this out. Very often the tipoff to a dysfunctional discussion will be a minority of editors rejecting WP policy, explicitly or not, or claiming that the WP community is "biased", or falsely claiming that rejecting bad content or sources is some kind of "personal attack." Anyway, where there are many editors, the articles end up continuously improving. Where there are few editors, e.g. at Murder of Seth Rich before Fox News went a step too far with it, the goofy stuff tends to persist. In the case of the Russian Interference article, the wind is at our backs, and the fringe POVs have become less numerous and less viable as time has passed. Eventually we will have a clearer narrative as to what occurred and how. Even in the past month or so, the Alien Mind Control thing [12] has been fleshed out with a lot of mainstream reporting as to cyber warfare on mainstream internet sites like facebook. It's generally been best not to get too concerned with the fringe POV editing that pops up from time to time, because the facts continue to marginalize those POVs. But every once in a while, the spectacle of a talk page rehash of basic denials of well-sourced material is just too painful to watch. And I say that as one who posted 2-3 times in that thread, so I didn't exactly resist the bait myself. SPECIFICO talk 01:17, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

• I forgot to give you a real warning, but I see there is already enough commentary here. Drmies (talk) 02:21, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks we are all trying to sort this out. SPECIFICO talk 02:30, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring at Casualties of the Iraq War

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.

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

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
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. I advise you to stop edit warring immediately. -Darouet (talk) 01:48, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello. Welcome to my garden. I've made only a single edit to that article. Perhaps you confuse me with someone else? SPECIFICO talk 01:58, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

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

Nassim Taleb

Why can't people know who his parents and ancestors were? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meg_Whitman If you don't like family history on wiki pages than you have some work to do on Meg Whitman's page.