User talk:SPECIFICO

Please stop posting to my talk page.

Please stop posting to my talk page. If you have a complaint about me, feel free to take it to WP:ANI. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:01, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

So hard to understand why a friendly, collegial, non-template reminder of policy would trigger such an angry invitation to escalation that would only waste time and attention. So hard to understand this behavior from editors after they've unintentionally and inadvertently made a mistake, unless the thrill of the battle gets the best of them? Who knows? Who cares? SPECIFICO talk 16:19, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Stupid Polak?

Are you one of the EEML editors? Your style seems familiar... 107.77.223.185 (talk) 00:34, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Clinton Foundation-State Department controversy for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Clinton Foundation-State Department controversy is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clinton Foundation-State Department controversy until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Anythinguwant is at it again

I noticed your comments on Anythjinguwant's talk page and though you might be interested in the current controversy which is spelled out on his talk page. This concerns the Trump article and basically he removed the reference to the selective service guy stating that Trump's high lottery number was of little significance due to his medical exemption (1Y). I reverted this deletion and he proceeded to revert my revert, in apparent violation of 1RR, "do not restore content which has been reverted without consensus on talk page." You may be interested in weighing in on this discussion. FYI, I am particularly interested in this section of the article and feel that 1) it is buried in a section titled "Childhood and education" and 2) significant information has been deleted by Anythingyouwant and others. In July 2015, I noticed that there was absolutely no discussion of this matter (his Vietnam service or lack thereof) and wrote a paragraph describing it which remained relatively stable until 31 May 2016 when Anythingyouwant rewrote it. There was a discussion on the talk page which lead to no resolution since there appeared to be no other interest. My point in bringing this up is that Anythingyouwant seems to think that a 1 month interval makes an edit stable whereas he blithely rewrote a section which had been stable for close to a year. Your comments woudl be appreciated.Gaas99 (talk) 06:43, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

This is what happens when Admins fail to enforce Arbcom's decisions. If you feel anyone is violating the 1RR or is otherwise behaving disruptively in this topic, I suggest you file an Arbcom Enoforcement thread. Thanks for the note. You also might ping Admin Awilley, who has recently counseled Anythingyouwant on her editing. SPECIFICO talk 02:37, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

No need, I've already seen Gaas99 complaining about Anythingyouwant on 3 different user talk pages. ~Awilley (talk) 03:05, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Ha. Well, who's going to put a stop to this kind of nonsense? Nothing personal against her. She is quite charming but there are half a dozen similar ones repeatedly at odds with ARBAP2. SPECIFICO talk 03:24, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for the delayed response -- I've been travelling for the past couple of weeks (currently in Japan). I appreciate the input and have decided that although I think Anything has violated the 1RR rules I probably will let it slide and try to get some consensus on the talk page. I tried this before when she edited the article in May but there didn't seem to be much interest from other editors. Maybe I will try an RFC. Anyhow, thanks again.Gaas99 (talk) 02:15, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Frankly, I think that's useless. Wikipedia attracts ideologues who are WP:NOTHERE and who use these articles to promote their political agendas. Arbcom went through the motions of cleaning out the next a year or so ago, but the Admins don't appear willing to do their job right now. The behavior is egregious and willful and highly motivated. I doubt any neutral editor has the energy or concentration to assemble a case against them, so this will continue through the election. Even Awilley is sitting on his hands after his counsel to Anythingyouwant was roundly disregarded. SPECIFICO talk 02:32, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Sexual Harassment edit reversal

I accept that "illegal" does not necessarily mean criminal. That was only one objection. However, what does "In most modern legal contexts" mean? What is a legal context? How many such contexts are there and in what proportion is this behavior illegal? Sexual harassment is not illegal when it occurs on the street. It may be boorish, rude, jerk behavior but is not "illegal." In the US it is illegal only in the workplace and in education. Please tell me what "In most modern legal contexts" means? If you can do so succinctly, then that should go in place of current sentence. You should also provide a supporting citation for that proposition/conclusion. Ileanadu (talk) 01:12, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

This belongs on the article talk page. Please raise your concern there so that editors can engage. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 01:52, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

I did. Ileanadu (talk) 02:07, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Favor

Would you be willing to remove "numerous" from last sentence of lead? It's a vague term, and doesn't add much. If you would do that, then I plan to add "during past decades" at the end, for a total of 15 words. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:05, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Never mind, I missed the Cassandra Searles accusation.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:24, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Complaint of edit warring by others at Dinesh D'Souza

There is a currently open complaint at AN3 about this article. Each participant has already been notified under WP:ARBAP2. There isn't an obvious 3RR violation, but both sides continue to revert vigorously in the service of what I assume are their personal opinions. One option for the admin who closes the AN3 is No Violation, due to the lack of a 3RR. Another option is to ban both parties from the topic of Dinesh D'Souza for a period of time. Since I notice you have been editing the article and I know you to be a long-term editor who works on a variety of topics, I wonder if you think that the dispute is at a stage where topic bans ought to be considered. Thanks for any opinion, EdJohnston (talk) 22:54, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello Ed. I very much appreciate your reaching out. I have encountered TimesAreChanging on several of the American Politics articles, and I feel that editor has been consistently obstructive and unwilling to collaborate with editors of any stripe who disagree with him. He short circuits almost immediately into revert warring and personal attacks on good faith editors. I have seen Oneshotofwhiskey less frequently. I find that ID to be constructive and usually policy-based in its edits and comments. Oneshot will sometimes take the bait when taunted by an aggressive editor such as TimesAreChanging and would probably do better to walk away rather than engage, but I see no reason for any disciplinary action. So I think that a TBAN is warranted for Times and constructive advice to Oneshot to WP:DENY when he's being baited. Hope this helps. SPECIFICO talk 23:13, 17 October 2016 (UTC)