User talk:SPECIFICO

I believe

... this nbsp needs to go away – again. Thanks. --Brogo13 (talk) 05:41, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Responding here

to this comment to avoid unnecessarily cluttering Snoogans's talkpage.

"...your negotiation with Snoogs above looks too much like you bullied an editor under threat of sanction so that you could walk back your own misstep and avoid scrutiny at AE or ARBCA" Anybody with one eye can see that I pressured Snoogans into making those commitments, but that I did it to "avoid scrutiny" is 100% false. And I think you know that. It was only 2 weeks ago that I wrote the following in a comment that pinged you and that you responded to: "I'll sometimes give editors a choice: "Here's the problem I see with your behavior. I am prepared to sanction you with Sanction A or Sanction B, but I'm also open to your input. You can choose sanction A or B, or you can propose an acceptable Solution C. If you can convince me that you can solve the problem voluntarily with Solution C then we'll go with that and forego sanctions." There is power in allowing people the freedom to choose, and people who have a choice are more likely to change their behavior than those who are simply acted on by an external force. You know better than most that that's my M.O.

Re: "I don't think anybody believes your claim that it would be easy for Admins to spot POV pushers and address them with Discretionary Sanctions" I never made that claim. I said that it is easy for admins to identify WP:Hounding. (Of course that requires the hounding to be reported to the admins...we can't be expected to track and analyze all the interactions.) ~Awilley (talk) 20:01, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Awilley, I was not looking for a response from you, and I will not be replying here. As I said on your talk page recently, I think you would be well advised to take a break of 3 months (or more) from American Politics AE matters and to reflect on the concern many thoughtful editors and Admins have expressed about your actions. You appear to be too focused on your role, your views, and defending your actions as opposed to considering and understanding what's good for the community. SPECIFICO talk 21:40, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

I see you're "not looking for" constructive criticism from Awilley, but you have no qualms about issuing same to him. I disagree with your assessment, and I've yet to see anybody agree with it who was in a position to be objective about that. Just a "friendly" reminder that you are speaking for no one but yourself. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:43, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

I think that if you review all the comments in various locations you will see a significant number of editors and Admins who express some of the same concerns I have articulated. And I didn't say I wasn't looking for "constructive criticism" from Awilley. I wasn't soliciting any engagement with him at all. He came here on his own, just like you. At any rate, you know better than to raise straw man issues or to miscast other editors words. If you mean to suggest that my views are not "objective about" these matters, I disagree, and it doesn't really advance any discussion between you and me to add that garnish. If this goes to ARCA, it will all be sorted out by others, but at least the immediate prospect of that dreary outcome has been defused by the plea deal with Snoogs. Thanks for your visit. You are always welcome here. SPECIFICO talk 17:50, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:15, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

RE: Devin Nunes

A discussion which involves your editing is taking place here. As mentioned there, I view waiting less than an hour past the 24 hours from the last revert to be gaming the system. Please don't make a habit of it. Some admins will view it as a violation, some may not, some, like me, would warn you that, next time, it would be viewed as a violation (i.e. edit warring that is subject to sanctions, whether the bright line has been technically breached or not). Thanks in advance. El_C 00:02, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi thanks. It would have been nice if the editor who came to you shared his concern here first. I've responded on your talk page. I do think, as I say there, that it would be helpful if you'd explain what you think would be a violation about this (next time) and what would not. We know reverts can be 47:59 apart. When they're unrelated, explained and well-founded, that is not clear to me at this time. SPECIFICO talk 00:47, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Curious

I am curious as to how you deleted my edits (and the Miami Herald source) regarding Rep. O'Rourke's Spanish-language abilities, when in fact another Wikipedian going by the name of "Volunteer Marek," had already deleted those same edits, and I did not revert his changes. You will see on Volunteer Marek's talk page that I asked him about his deletion. How exactly does text get deleted twice when it wasn't reinstated? I find this quite odd. NicholasNotabene (talk) 00:25, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi. I have no idea. It appeared in the version I was reading after the article appeared on my watchlist. I suggest you look through the diffs one by one. Sorry I can't be more helpful. SPECIFICO talk 01:03, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Looked at it. I don't see that VM reverted that bit. I see he removed some other text, but not the Spanish bit. SPECIFICO talk 01:10, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

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)

It’s that time of year!

Christmas tree worm, (Spirobranchus gigantic) Atsme Talk 📧 18:10, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
	Time To Spread A Little Happy Holiday Cheer!!
	I decorated a special kind of Christmas tree in the spirit of the season. What's especially nice about this digitized version: *it doesn't need water *won't catch fire *and batteries aren't required.
	Have a very Merry Christmas - Happy Hanukkah‼️ and a prosperous New Year!! 🍸🎁 🎉

Atsme! -- I love worms!. Thanks so much and all the best to you for the holidays and beyond. SPECIFICO talk 18:39, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Re: Talk:Trump–Ukraine_scandal

In reply to your message. "Please do not share your personal opinions on article talk pages as you have done at Talk:Trump–Ukraine_scandal Content in Wikipedia must be Verified by the narrative of mainstream Reliable Source references. " Could you please specify which part contributes to your ruling of "sharing an opinion" that is deemed improper? Isn't the point of having a poll, conveying ones opinion to oppose/support a notion?. I have contributed an expression of support for the matter of including a reference in a WP:LEDE in accordance with WP:RFC which clearly states the purpose of an RFC as such: "to get opinions from outside editors". Milanbishop (talk) 15:10, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello. The point of a poll is to hear editors' views as to the better choice according to the weight of available WP:reliable source references, according to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. It's not necessary or helpful to expound at length or repeatedly upon ones personal analysis, opinions, inferences, or intuition. The line between the two may sometimes be blurred, but I felt that you, as a new editor, were too far on the personal opinion side of things. You should not take my message as a "ruling" but I hope you'll investigate the relevant WP documentation, perhaps starting with the links at this page, which I hope will be helpful. Thanks for your note. SPECIFICO talk 15:11, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for clarifying. I politely disagree with your misunderstanding of my intent. I was merely proposing that WP:LEDE inclusion should be based on WP guides, such as WP:PRIMARY and WP:TRUTH. I have since amended my comments to further reflect my sentiments. My opinion is that there seems to be a lot of opinion in play in regards to attributing motive to Zelensky's statements. Which is not the WP way ( WP:TRUTH! ). I am really baffled how Konkorde's messages have rampant "personal analysis, opinions, inferences, or intuition" in it regarding the RFC's subject, but, alas it seems you have not issued such a warning to this user. Yet in my support message, I have not fallen into this trap, but you are claiming I did. I have re-read it, and have a hard time finding any inferences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Milanbishop (talk • contribs) 09:34, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Milanbishop It appears, at least to me, that you are WP:NOTHERE I would say that you are here to pursue an agenda apparently in regards to Trump and Russia/Ukraine. You joined Mar 2018 and made one post about some Petrozavodsk phenomenonThen silence until this month and your only interest has been Trump Russia and currently Ukraine. You don't yet have the minimum edits for autoconfirmed, but maybe posting on talk pages will provide such, however for a newby you know an awful lot about WP and it's PaG. Oldperson (talk) 19:52, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Specifico. As you know the Russians have a very active troll farm, and internet presence especially to change subject from Russiagate to a fictional Ukraine gate.Oldperson (talk) 19:52, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Your suspicions are unwarranted. I have made plenty of small Wiki edits in my life, albeit unregistered. Secondly, I am also not frivolously editing articles such as highly-sensitive ones like these, but instead, participating in RFC's, to get a discussion going. I have forgone any mention on how I feel on the matter, but the obvious bias as evidenced by your (and other ) comments who can't seem to take an objective stance on matters like these, has certainly been glaring enough that I feel these articles need some work. The purpose of Wikipedia is to build an encyclopedia together. I am a programmer, so I understand the value of open-source, participation, contribution, discussion, and acknowledging different viewpoints, without feelings of grievance or resentment. The only emotional investment I have is in having all cards out on the table, and let people decide for themselves.

Your inference of malicious intent to my purposefully ubiased argument is preposterous, and should only reflect upon your own intents. Milanbishop (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:24, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Citation errors

Hi SPECIFICO. At the History of the Knights of COlumbus article, I pointed out that your cuts left behind a large number of citation errors at the bottom of the article. They are still there. The same thing happened on the main Knights of Columbus article, but I cleaned them up for you. I now see that RedHotPear has done the same cleanup at the Harvard Extension School article when your edits leave behind errors. Would you please try to me more careful going forward? Thanks. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 01:53, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

It's kind of the other way around. There's a big mess at certain articles that rely on a small number of sources. The mess was made by whoever cited the text that way. It's inevitable that cleanup will break some over-used source citations. I'm always careful but I am sure more such errors will occur in similar situations. Incidentally, I hope you'll read up on the meaning of a TBAN restriction. You'd have been safer not to mention that article anywhere on Wikipedia. Incidentally, your participation at Harvard Extension seems to be full of the same errors as at the other topic. Now that you know that stuff got you a ban, you might consider honing your understanding of basic editing and sourcing policies and guidelines. Thanks for your visit. SPECIFICO talk 02:26, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Donald Trump

On December 13, 2019, the House Judiciary Committee voted along party lines to pass two articles of impeachment: abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. After being forwarded to the full House of Representatives for debate, Trump was impeached with both articles on December 18, 2019. I'm quite baffled by why you would consider any of this to be "mangled English", but how would you rephrase this? Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:01, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

How did they forward Trump to the full house? Fedex? You could have reviewed your words either before or after I reverted them. Did you consider my edit summary? And the other one was much worse. Actually, however, the previous phrasing all seems fine and there was no consensus to change it on talk. I would let it stand at this point. SPECIFICO talk 02:35, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Agree as to mangled English. The subject of the sentence is "Trump" and the preceding text applies to the subject. (Other than "subject", I don't know the grammatical terms involved, sorry, but I'm quite certain about the concept.) ―Mandruss ☎ 02:45, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

We've all been there - besides, humor is not aloud, at least for all intensive purposes - it's a working progress. 😊 ^Atsme _Talk 📧 04:11, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

The subject is the articles, not Trump. This can easily be altered to remove any possible doubt though. On December 13, 2019, the House Judiciary Committee voted along party lines to pass two articles of impeachment: abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. After the articles were forwarded to the full House of Representatives for debate, Trump was impeached with both articles on December 18, 2019. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:57, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

How about, On December 13, 2019, a partisan vote by the House Judiciary Committee approved two articles to impeach Trump: abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. The articles were forwarded to the House of Representatives for debate, and in another partisan vote, the House approved both articles for impeachment. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 05:07, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

I support this proposal also. My intention originally was to alter the content as little as possible, but this certainly works as well. Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:48, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

The subject is the articles, not Trump. Sorry, can't let that go, even if we moot the question, this time, with alternative language. The grammatical subject of the sentence, speaking in terms of sentence construction, is the word "Trump". If you still don't believe me, I suggest Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:40, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

And? You can't let that go for what reason, pray tell? I'm certainly open to suggested improvements. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 06:26, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

I couldn't let it go because I believe correct grammar is important in this encyclopedia (so does SPECIFICO, apparently), and understanding that aspect of sentence construction is sometimes essential to correct grammar, as we've seen in this case. I would've thought that would be obvious. Beyond that, I have no opinion on suggested improvements. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:30, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

In case it wasn't clear, I was referring only to the sentence in the OP, which I understood to be what 123 was referring to with The subject is the articles, not Trump. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:39, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

I want to make it clear that I find grammar to be extremely important also. I'm grateful that we can make improvements collaboratively. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:40, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

On December 13, 2019, the House Judiciary Committee passed two articles of impeachment: abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. They were taken up by the full House of Representatives, which voted to impeach Trump with both articles on December 18, 2019. No Republicans voted in favor of the impeachment.

Undo your deletion of my talk page comment

Hello, I'm Xenagoras. I noticed that you recently removed content from Talk:Julian_Assange without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. @SPECIFICO: I request you to undo your deletion[1] of my talk page comment[2]. Xenagoras (talk) 00:41, 3 January 2020 (UTC)