User talk:SPECIFICO

re Talk:Hunter Biden

Hatting discussions just because you personally are not interested in listening to the arguments or whatever is not recommended. Herostratus (talk) 02:20, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Passage of time reveals your concern was unfounded. Thanks for your accusation. Come back any time. SPECIFICO talk 18:40, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps Herostratus was right to be concerned. A Senate investigation into Hunter Biden is objectively WP:N, WP:V and WP:RS, yet you abruptly cut off all discussion. The Senate investigation is a new development. It's not OK for editors to characterize the objectively verifiable and notable fact that there is a Senate investigation as a "conspiracy theory", pretending that this was already discussed in the past and rejected. It is a fact (not a theory) that there is an active Senate investigation, with relevant records being requested from the Secret Service, State Department, Justice Department, FBI, US Treasury, and the National Archives. Attempts to characterize the motivation or intentions of the US Senate in order to prevent these relevant facts from appearing in the article are WP:OR. Being under investigation by the US Senate is exceptionally notable. Please restore the discussion. If you have objections to including this information in the article, please state them specifically in the discussion. "No thanks" is not WP:GF.Tvaughan1 (talk) 17:40, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

You are either unable or unwilling to understand the basics of editing Wikipedia articles. But that's not why I hatted it. I hatted it because several editors have explained these principles to you and there's nothing more to be gained from prolonging the discussion and promotion of these conspiracy theories. Your references above to invalid sources for the content you are pushing confirms my evaluation of your conduct. RS describe these Biden narratives as debunked conspiracy theories and Russian disinformation. If they fascinate you, perhaps there's a valid place for them in the Russian Interference articles, the Trump Presidency article, or in the BLPs of Lindsey Graham and his Republican collaborators on these hearings. Thanks for coming here where I can speak more candidly than on the article talk page. I suggest you move on to topics where editors do not reject your efforts. SPECIFICO talk 17:48, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your personal attack. I've attempted to discuss in WP:Good Faith the possible inclusion of specific, relevant, verified facts in Hunter Biden. You, and a cadre of editors, seem determined to keep facts which may embarrass Hunter Biden out of the article, violating WP:NPOV. The standard tactic is to characterize these facts as conspiracy theories. Notable, relevant, verified facts about Hunter Biden can't be dismissed as "theories", and changing the subject to other topics (Joe Biden, Trump, Russia) isn't acceptable either. Rather than engaging in good faith discussion about the relevancy, notability and veracity of the facts I propose for inclusion, I have received little else but insults and redirection.Tvaughan1 (talk) 19:43, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Arbitration DS alert

I know you're aware, but as I saw your previous alerts expired:

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Best, Mdaniels5757 (talk) 21:32, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 21:47, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

re Frédéric Chopin

Edit was neither vandalism nor a test edit. Edit instead was the result of discussion among contributors on the Talk page for the article. The text quoted is the correct Japanese title for the video game Eternal Sonata (as can be confirmed from that article itself), which was deliberately brought into the Chopin article to illustrate the fact that Chopin's name is explicitly mentioned in the Japanese version of the video game's title. One-Off Contributor (talk) 19:35, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

It's WP:UNDUE and I've commented on the article talk page. 200 year old works of art are appropriated tens of thousands of times, and unless you can show significant mainstream RS discussion of this instance, it is not encyclopedic content. After your edit was reverted, the WP:ONUS was/is on you to demonstrate consensus for inclusion. SPECIFICO talk 21:39, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

I actually had raised the issue on the Talk page for the article two days prior to reinstating the edit. It had appeared at the time that consensus existed supporting the edit based on the Talk page discussion, after which the edit was only then reinstated. Son WP:ONUS had been met. If later comments indicate that there wasn't consensus, then so be it, but it appeared that consensus existed at the time of the edit reversion. Also, it is worth noting that this is not a reference to a particular work of art appearing in the video game--a fictional version of Chopin himself was a character in the game (with his name appearing in the Japanese version of the game title). Such appearances are common fodder for a "references in popular culture"-type comment such as this one. Also, I dispute the WP:UNDUE allegation: nobody is disputing that the quoted Japanese text is the correct translation of the Japanese title of the video game published in English as Eternal Sonata. So while there may be other points of disagreement, there doesn't appear to be the dispute-of-fact type issue that would fall normally under the WP:UNDUE standard.One-Off Contributor (talk) 19:24, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Nobody is accusing you of malfeasance. But I see that another editor has removed the content, and it seems unlikely there will ever be consensus to include it in the article. SPECIFICO talk 04:09, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Nice try, FBI — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:7C00:2400:744D:A91D:7B21:B186 (talk) 22:52, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk page should not be used for notices about editors

Please remove the notice.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 00:10, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

The notice is is appropriate. Please see WP:APPNOTE and leave the notice in place. Thanks for your visit. SPECIFICO talk 00:16, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

This is not canvassing by any definition I have seen. It is of value to bring in more voices from any sides to a discussion. O3000 (talk) 01:22, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

re: Michael Bloomberg

Why did you remove the sub-section about Michael Bloomberg's height? It has been extensively documented since his mayoralty as a topic of public conversation (which was covered in my citations by a NYTimes article from the 2000s) and talked about by major political leaders of both parties, e.g., Sen. Elizabeth Warren and Pres. Donald Trump? While it seems ridiculous, if people have been talking about it for years, isn't it worthy of Wiki-inclusion? HorseDonkey (talk) 02:33, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

re: Andrew Gillum

Hi SPECIFICO,

Do you think a note about the gay prostitute is warranted if it is included in say 2 high-quality news sources that are greenlighted in this page? HorseDonkey (talk) 09:46, 16 March 2020 (UTC) I read reading the BLP page, and it seems to say as much:

"In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out."

Thanks - HorseDonkey (talk) 09:46, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Modern Definition of Economics

The definition of Economics as the social science that studies how idividuals and societies manage their scarce resources is well stablished in Colleges of Economics arround the USA and in current economic texts. The study of social relations between economic classes has been relegated to sociology because of the specialitation of the economic science and because sociology has better tools to handle the subject. Please browse the following articles that address the matter in consideration.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/40268907?seq=1

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Essay_on_the_Nature_and_Significance_of_Economic_Science

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3068214

https://www.brainkart.com/article/Samuelson-s-Definition-(Modern-Definition-of-Economics)_1511/

The definition of Economics in dictionaries is still many years behind of what it is now (since the late sixties) widely accepted in the economic field.Firulaith (talk) 04:17, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

As on the Economics article talk page, you're not responding to the issues I raised with respect to of your proposed revision of the longstanding text. The Robbins definition, going on 90 years old was significant for its neoclassical replacement of the classical definitions of "political economy" from the 19th century. The text that's in the article was rather carefully written to avoid exactly the issues I raised on talk. It's objective and clear. Your "economic classes" thing above doesn't seem to relate to anything I've said or recent talk page discussion. I don't think we have Marxists hiding under the bed. At any rate, I see your Wikipedia editing has been solely focused on changing the definition of Economics for 5 years or so. After that much time, with no support from other editors, you might consider turning to other efforts. Thanks for your visit. Anything further should go on the article talk page. SPECIFICO talk 14:27, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Further discussion

I hate to belabor this point, but your comment As a practical matter, it's clear that this page is burdened by editors who believe that less developed areas of the world should follow FDA food processing standards or maybe American fast-food manufacturing protocols. That's none of our business and I hope never to see that kind of garbage on an article talk page again. is painfully ignorant. It's like saying that America's investigation of WMD's in Iraq is none of our business, or that Al Qaeda pilot training programs are none of our business. What has happened is world changing, and will likely affect every person on earth for years to come. I wish you would strike that. As a bit of morbid trivia, many more Italians have now died because of China's "food processing standards" than Americans on 9/11, and many more are likely to follow. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:52, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Link spam

Odd you closed down the discussion, but one of the links remains in the article.Slatersteven (talk) 16:03, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi I am very clueless about software things. Any idea how to fix? SPECIFICO talk 16:14, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Reopen the discussion?Slatersteven (talk) 16:16, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Well, I don't think we should be engaging with that sort of appearance on this article, but you are more familiar with it than I, so if you think there's any chance of article improvement or good faith discussion, please feel free. I see none. SPECIFICO talk 16:36, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

The you should have removed the reaming link as well. I shall reopen it.Slatersteven (talk) 16:40, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Well, in that case you could remove the link and leave it closed. Are you enjoying the conversation? I thought the links were within the thread. Why reopen the spam discussion? Up to you. SPECIFICO talk 16:45, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

I did once remove it, but as the pager is under special sanctions I am not sure I could do so again.Slatersteven (talk) 16:48, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

The link is in the article. Neither Slater nor I can revert without a 1R problem. SPECIFICO, you can remove it. Just search for <ref>pdfslide.net/documents/new-media-days-09program.html</ref> in the article text in edit. O3000 (talk) 16:57, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Who knows what a revert is, anyway? You'd think it would actually be defined, but the WP:3RR language is clear as mud. SPECIFICO talk 18:41, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

True. O3000 (talk) 18:59, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Reverts

I have a good idea. The community should decide to set up a market for reverts. Those with spare reverts can sell, those in need can purchase. It might be a repo market, since we have no other currency to trade against the reverts. SPECIFICO talk 19:23, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

I want to get on the ground floor of revert futures. The new cryptocurrency. O3000 (talk) 19:44, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

I think there are some other currency we could use to build liquidity, at least on articles relating to Russian interference, etc. We could also trade aspersions, maybe in 2-3 grades -- those would be valuable. Penny change would be bare URL references and faulty talk page indents. The reverts thing is broken, however. SPECIFICO talk 19:46, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

How about short selling them? -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:50, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

That would be useful, like if somebody was on a roll going to all different noticeboards smearing people, that editor could short sell aspersions, continue to make new ones, and recover them later in exchange for some unused reverts. SPECIFICO talk 19:54, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Civility

Hello Specifico, I have observed in your interactions at Talk:Donald Trump disturbing conduct marked by a distinct lack of civility. I need not produce for you a list of diffs taken from that talk page alone to explicate this, as surely you are aware. I will direct you to the essays on civil POV pushing and POV railroading, both of which are considered forms of disruptive editing. Moreover, disruptive editing includes avoid[ing] breaches of civility by refraining from personal attacks but still interfering with civil and collaborative editing and discussion. What concerns me further is that viewing your contributions suggests the possibility of a single-purpose account. I highlight especially that ArbCom has determined single purpose accounts and editors who hold a strong personal viewpoint on a particular topic covered within Wikipedia are expected to contribute neutrally instead of following their own agenda and, in particular, should take care to avoid creating the impression that their focus on one topic is non-neutral. I write to remind you that pervasive disruptive editing is a block-able offense, subject to hightened scrutiny under ArbCom enforcement. Please keep your talk page contributions civil and refrain from POV pushing. Ergo Sum 05:00, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm sure you will be feeling better in a few days. Take care of yourself, and thanks for your visit. SPECIFICO talk 01:42, 26 March 2020 (UTC)