User talk:SPECIFICO

This is SPECIFICO's talk page, where you can send her messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22: 31 days

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.

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

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. Thank you. Ogreggy (talk) 02:37, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Have you been editing the Carly Fiorina article as an IP? If you're IP2601, it would probably be appropriate to say so. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:06, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No. SPECIFICO talk 21:26, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fiorina

That photo is hardly out of focus and the lighting is certainly sufficient. It might not be 100% focused, but it is far superior to have a good headshot than a distant poorly composed stopped-motion photo. Spartan7W § 04:23, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Eclipsoid:

Please use the article talk page to share your views on article edits. SPECIFICO talk 13:07, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to discuss every edit you make before doing it. Spartan7W § 18:55, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your initial message above does not belong on this page. It should have been placed on the article talk page where the entire community can see and comment on it. I did not mean to suggest that you are/were obligated to comment, only that, in the event you feel motivated to do so, this is not the place. I hope that is more clear. No problem. SPECIFICO talk 22:06, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

re: FG MSH rephotography

Hey, I'm new to wikipedia, so I hope this is an ok way to handle this disagreement. It's a point well taken that "rephotography" needs to be defined in some way, but I'd advocate for keeping the link to the wiki page rather than including a definition within the text as you have. The wiki page defines rephotography as "the act of repeat photography of the same site, with a time lag between the two images; a 'then and now' view of a particular area." While I can think of one before/after pair in the body of work that spans minutes ("Visitors on the rim of Mount St. Helens"/"Ten minutes later"), the pictures I'm referring to are Gohlke's panoramic views, made at the same site, with as near to the same framing as he could achieve, over his successive trips to the region. There are examples published in "Accommodating Nature" and the MoMA catalog, which I think it would be useful to cite (there are also examples reproduced here: http://galleryluisotti.com/images/mt-st-helens-1981-90/). Akensett (talk) 15:23, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I didn't mean to remove the link to the rephotography article. I've restored it now. See whether you are comfortable with this revision. An alternative, I suppose, would be to mention FG's short-interval rephotographs of Mt. St. Helens and other subjects on the Rephotography article. Generally article-related discussion is placed on the article talk page rather than a user talk page, the purpose being to attract comment by others who may be watching the article. Thanks for your note. SPECIFICO talk 15:39, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response--I think the in-text definition w/ link works great. I'll add a citation to that sentence. And thanks for the heads up about talk pages. Will do going forward. Akensett (talk) 16:06, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be worth mentioning FG's short interval rephotography in that article. He may have written or spoken about this in some published source. SPECIFICO talk 16:18, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Federal Reserve Ownership

Wikipedia states, "Private property is a legal designation for the ownership of property by non-governmental legal entities.[1]"

The Federal Reserve's ownership is clearly defined,FRB: Who owns the Federal Reserve? "The 12 regional Federal Reserve Banks, which were established by the Congress as the operating arms of the nation's central banking system, are organized similarly to private corporations--possibly leading to some confusion about "ownership." For example, the Reserve Banks issue shares of stock to member banks. However, owning Reserve Bank stock is quite different from owning stock in a private company. The Reserve Banks are not operated for profit, and ownership of a certain amount of stock is, by law, a condition of membership in the System. The stock may not be sold, traded, or pledged as security for a loan; dividends are, by law, 6 percent per year."

It is clear that the Federal Reserve is NOT owned by the U.S. Government. This is NOT fringe, it's actually verifiable.

The sentence has ownership as a theme, thus it is an appropriate location to put a reference.

What is you issue with the clarification?

You may post content discussion on the article talk page. You appear to be a Single Purpose Account that promotes fringe theories about central banking. WP articles must present the mainstream view as documented by RS, not cherrypicked facts used out of context to support an unwarranted narrative. Use the article talk page. SPECIFICO talk 15:30, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As suggested, I went to the Fractional Reserve talk page, where it appears that you are warring against clarifications/demystifications about the Fractional Reserve banking, made in a Bank of England article. The Bank of England IS the root of fractional reserve banking. The references are verifiable and correlate with historical texts on the subject. Your reluctance to accept these clarifications remains unwarranted. WouNur (talk) 15:50, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]