User talk:SPECIFICO

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Donald Trump[edit]

Hello SPECIFICO,

If you would be so kind, please advise on the following matter:

Page: Donald Trump

Sectioned I added: Arts & Culture

Content was immediately removed by a user, they described it as "trivial". In fact, everything listed was biographical and relevant to the section. Everything was factual and backed up by well respected news outlets (BBC, Business Insider, Rolling Stone, and Donald Trump's personal book published).

It appears their assessment is only an opinion and they provided no description for why the content should have been removed.

I "undid" their edit and explained that their opinion does not warrant the removal of content that is biographical and factual.

Another user at that point said the edit should have been placed on a talk page first for discussion.

That would be agreeable, it's just that I was unable to locate the talk page for Donald Trump to post the material for discussion.

Please advise as to the next steps. For your reference, I have included the original edit here below for your review:

SECTION: Family & Personal Life

SUB-SECTION ADDED: Arts & Culture

When it comes to music, Trump has expressed an interest in singers such as Frank Sinatra and Tony Bennett. Trump is quoted as saying, “There's so much great music. For me, I'd have to say it's a toss up between Frank Sinatra, Tony Bennett, and Elton John. I never get tired of listening to them and probably never will… Any album by any of them is bound to be fantastic.”[1][2] For concert performances, Trump was quoted as appreciating the reggae music of Toots and the Maytals when he said, “I heard the guest band, Toots & The Maytals, practising out on the set [of Saturday Night Live; Trump co-hosted an episode in April 2004]. They sounded terrific, and I went out to listen to them for a while. My daughter Ivanka had told me how great they were, and she was right. The music relaxed me, and surprisingly, I was not nervous." [3][4] Trump also attended a Neil Young concert and told Rolling Stone, "He's got something very special. I've listened to his music for years... His voice is perfect and haunting."[5]

In regard to film, Citizen Kane by Orson Welles is reportedly one of Trump’s favorites. He is quoted to say, ”I think you learn in 'Kane' that maybe wealth isn't everything. Because he had the wealth, but he didn't have the happiness."[6]

Regarding his interest in books, Trump has said that “All Quiet on the Western Front” (1929) by Erich Maria Remarque is his favorite fiction novel.[7]

Best regards, Celaur (talk)

References

  1. ^ Trump, Donald, and Meredith McIver. Trump: Think Like a Billionaire : Everything You Need to Know About Success, Real Estate, and Life. First edition. Random House, 2004. Retrieved 25 July 2017
  2. ^ Marshall, Alex. Donald Trump's unexpected thoughts on music - revealed. BBC. bbc.co.uk. 9 November 2016. Web. <https://www.bbc.co.uk/music/articles/e5e4572a-0676-4120-9eb3-d34bbea34836> Retrieved 25 July 2017
  3. ^ Trump, Donald, and Meredith McIver. Trump: Think Like a Billionaire : Everything You Need to Know About Success, Real Estate, and Life. First edition. Random House, 2004. Retrieved 25 July 2017
  4. ^ Marshall, Alex. Donald Trump's unexpected thoughts on music - revealed. BBC. bbc.co.uk. 9 November 2016. Web. <https://www.bbc.co.uk/music/articles/e5e4572a-0676-4120-9eb3-d34bbea34836> Retrieved 25 July 2017
  5. ^ Browne, David. Complete Guide to the 2016 Candidates' Favorite Music. Rolling Stone (magazine). 1 February 2016. Web. <http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/complete-guide-to-the-2016-candidates-favorite-music-20160201> Retrieved 25 July 2017.
  6. ^ Lynch, John. Donald Trump's surprising list of favorite movies, TV shows, and music. Business Insider. 17 August 2016. Web. <http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trumps-favorite-pop-culture-movies-tv-books-music-2016-8/#film-citizen-kane-1> Retrieved 25 July 2017.
  7. ^ Lynch, John. Donald Trump's surprising list of favorite movies, TV shows, and music. Business Insider. 17 August 2016. Web. <http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trumps-favorite-pop-culture-movies-tv-books-music-2016-8/#film-citizen-kane-1> Retrieved 25 July 2017.

Notice[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:18, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Blinked. Missed it. SPECIFICO talk 01:42, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
BTW, SPECIFICO, do you still contend that (paraphrasing) "the CIA never claimed Iraq had WMDs"? (See, e.g., here.) It would be easier for me to assume good faith if you admitted error on that point. I've been proven wrong many times on Wikipedia, and there's no shame in admitting it, but it would be easier to collaborate constructively with you if I saw similar concessions to reality on your side. (Feel free to delete or ignore this if you'd rather not respond.) Kind regards,TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:40, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

That's funny[edit]

[1] - This POV, while honest, is why you and I are often at odds. I acknowledge your savvy and experience, but I don't think bringing up these opinions on an article TP is helping. Editors need guidance and leadership by example. It's fine to blow off steam from time to time, but that requires humility, and the ability to concede one's own weaknesses. What do you say to that? DN (talk) 03:23, 3 August 2017 (UTC) I sometimes find myself rambling on positions when I'm really just projecting...I don't mean to sound course, I'm just anxious as to whether or not I'm communicating my concerns in the right way. DN (talk) 05:00, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi I don't think you and I are at odds, but at any rate my statement was not a POV in the Wikipedia sense. Remember, tagging a source "left" "right" "extreme" doesn't really relate to the operational tests we apply in evaluating sources, their reliability, or their suitability for specific content. Editing is a nuts and bolts thing. SPECIFICO talk 12:07, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
I would note that anyone who insists they are "at odds" with a wikipedian for stating that one side of a common issue is better than another in a very specific way is not only announcing their own partisan nature, but strongly evincing an inability to work with people of other political views via the mere fact that they are projecting such an inability on others. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:35, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Continuing the discussion from article space[edit]

I'll transcribe it here later on in a collapsed section for any stalkers of yours.

I don't know if I'm better read than anyone else here. I wasn't suggesting that reality actually has a bias, but rather that the liberal view (which is doubtless to tweak our friend's nose in the section above) is more closely aligned with reality than the conservative view. Hence, to a conservative person; the reading of pure facts and neutral analysis with no spin about a given subject would be perceived as reading a liberally biased piece.

At least in America. In Europe and California (definitely not part of America, that), there is a level of liberalism with popular support that remains just as ignorant of facts as the far-right here in the (rest of the) US. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:35, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Well the former pre-Clinton posterchild for what Americans called liberalism was Gov. Jerry Brown, who was dubbed Gov. Moonbeam to denigrate him as being schizoid delusional, more or less. Well now today Gov. Brown is making tough practical decisions cleaning up after the Schwarzenegger thing. But I don't think there are any of those old "liberal" types left in the USA. Bill Clinton recognized that to be a failed political position after Dukakis, Jimmy Carter, Mondale... So Clinton tried to appropriate the center and bring the Democrats on board with that. Clinton managed to withstand the threat of the born again pseudo-conservative Republican southern strategy and to sustain his ability to govern throughout the 1990s. This would further have put Al Gore, also no "liberal", in office were it not for the intervention of Justice Scalia. So the Democrats who win national elections, and win the popular vote even when they don't win the Electoral College, are no longer American Liberals. Anyway, the Republican right had an advantage of sorts, starting in the 1940's with the John Birch Society and the Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce group. These were business people who knew how to build a long-term enterprise, while the Democrats, on the other hand, had a number of intellectuals that included folks like Adlai Stevenson, Norman Mailer, Jerry Brown 1.0, McGovern, and others, who were easy for the right to ridicule. Meanwhile the right built a wide-scale network of think tanks, endowed university chairs, and print publications to insinuate their ideology into the mainstream. Folks like economist Milton Friedman, actor Ronald Reagan, and other colorful but dull figures were cultivated to build the brand. Federal Justices were seeded in appointments that spread the ideology through the everyday workings of the government and built the resumes of folks like Yalie Clarence Thomas and Harvard Man Gorsuch. The result is that what was formerly the turf of the American (non-extremist) Right -- think Nixon, Romney, Bush 1, -- is now to the left of Obama, Hillary and their colleagues. Contemporary media consumers, including some WP editors, get their news from a variety of near-bloggy websites such as Ars Technica and accept consultant-pundits and op-Ed writers as expert authorities. We know that calculated use of social media -- twitter, facebook, reddit -- can be used to point readers to fake news and half-cocked analysis. BTW, how can California and the Northeast not be "part of the US" when they are the leaders in business, culture, technology, and many other areas of contemporary life there? SPECIFICO talk 21:25, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
I agree with your outline of political history, so I'll not comment on that. In regards to your question; I was being a bit facetious. What I meant was that California (and the rest of the West coast) has actual left-wing liberals in large numbers; democratic socialists, who represent the "extreme" left in the rest of the US, are centrist on the West coast, who fill the gap with communists. Groups with far-left ideologies like PETA are a joke on the east coast and in the heartland, but taken seriously in California. Hell, even the Republicans in Cali are known as being a particularly liberal breed, hence the phrase California Republican. Hell, look at the socio-political norms on display in film and television. When was the last time there was a left-wing villian and a right-wing hero? Meanwhile, if you flip those positions, you have scores of titles. But yes, California in particular and the West coast in general tend to be ahead of the curve, with both political parties taking positions that won't be in vogue with the rest of the nation for a few years. Usually positions to the left of the rest of the country. So I simultaneously applaud the West coast for having its finger on the pulse of the American people in a way no other region does, and laugh at the idiots in ELF sulking because the FBI doesn't even consider them a threat anymore. Although (and again: I'm laughing as I type this) the far right still does. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:33, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Oh. I've never been to California. Is it like a very big Amsterdam without the degenerates? SPECIFICO talk 22:43, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Not quite. It's like a big Amsterdamn, but with far less culture and far more degenerates. I used to live in San Diego for a few years. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:56, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
San Diego, USA: Plastic surgery, chalupas, naval base... Sounds like culture to me. SPECIFICO talk 02:01, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Well, yeah for the chalupas. Chalupas are awesome. But that naval base has... <shudder> marines on it. And there's many more of them nearby. And marines are to culture what explosive diarrhea is to an orgy. But at least they can fight well*. *As long as there's a soldier around to explain which end of the gun to point towards the enemy. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:22, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────You've left me either speechless or aghast, depending on ones POV. Thanks for the visit. Keep up the good work on articles, etc. SPECIFICO talk 17:55, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Dinesh DSouza[edit]

Pov vandals at Dinesh DSouza page. Last valid editor that I can see that made changes. If you are not an administrator, ignore report. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.125.141 (talk) 20:06, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

@Thucydides411:[edit]

I'm going to wait a few hours because I hate taking editors to enforcement boards. You violated 3RR so I asked you to undo your last edit. If you think I counted wrong, the simplest resolution would be for you to say so. Otherwise, false and irrelevant aspersions and recriminations are just silly, and the EW notice template is required before a noticeboard complaint. SPECIFICO talk 00:15, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Let's be honest: you love taking editors to enforcement boards. Just take a look at how many editors' talk pages you've plastered with warnings, and how many threats you've made (often in vague terms, refusing to provide diffs when asked). And consider how you always pipe up whenever there's any enforcement issue involving people you politically disagree with. You've been hyperactive in enforcement proceedings on both sides, calling for blocks against people you dislike and defending even the most obvious violations by people you like (e.g., defending MPants after they called me an "idiot" and a "moron," while continuing to make regular complaints about WP:PA elsewhere).
A second point: you've been edit warring on Alliance for Securing Democracy. I count three reverts within 24 hours. It looks to me like you're gaming the system, and if you go to a drama board, I'll make sure to point that out and ask for a boomerang.
The POV you're trying to force into the Alliance for Securing Democracy is exactly the same as the one you've been pushing across a whole host of pages on Wikipedia. If you were to at least pretend to be interested in WP:NPOV, it would be much easier to edit alongside you, but when you come to each and every article and try to push through your maximalist position, trying to compromise becomes very difficult.
Nevertheless, I will self-revert this one time. That does not mean that I accept your outrageous POV editing at Alliance for Securing Democracy, nor your stalking of me there. -Thucydides411 (talk) 01:13, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
3rr is a bright line violation. Nothing to discuss, no justification excuses it, and nothing will deflect the community from enforcing it. So, I give you due credit for realizing that and thanks for saving us the needless trip to the noticeboard. SPECIFICO talk 01:22, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
You've been edit warring at that article, and stalking is also frowned-upon in Wikipedia. -Thucydides411 (talk) 01:23, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
By the way, are you also trying to take James J. Lambden to a drama board? Whenever I see you plastering that same warning on people's pages, I immediately suspect you're getting ready to launch yet another attempt to block someone you dislike. -Thucydides411 (talk) 01:26, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
FYI, SPECIFICO threatens a lot but prides herself in never actually taking people to AE. She does comment there often, yes, as is her right. — JFG talk 02:15, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
@JFG: Distinction without a difference. SPECIFICO goes out of her way to railroad her political opponents by piling on AE reports initiated by others, as you yourself experienced when her false claims regarding your nonexistent 1RR "violations" resulted in your being restricted to 0RR, which you successfully appealed after admin El C noted: "I was the admin who has gotten many of SPECIFICO's requests to sanction JFG for 1RR violations, but all of these, save one, were not reverts." Combined with her constant personal attacks and insinuations that other editors are "Russian trolls," "misogynist(s)" (also here) and part of "the video-gamer whitewash hordes," I know of no other editor that has done more to create a chilling effect in the area of American Politics.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 11:07, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Chilling effect, indeed. From the standpoint of improving the encyclopedia, my main issue with SPECIFICO's contributions is a tendency to criticism of other editors, off-topic comments and systematic opposition on talk pages with very few constructive contributions in terms of actual editing of contents. Well, here we are on Spec's talk page discussing Spec's behaviour. @SPECIFICO: do you have any comments? — JFG talk 11:52, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Fractional reserve banking[edit]

I don't understand how you can justify undoing my edit without commenting on the talk page. It appears you do not subscribe to the idea of Bold-Revert-Discuss. Reissgo (talk) 12:43, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

You are a WP:NOTHERE account and have done nothing but POV-pushing, failing to accept repeated consensus against your ill-sourced and original research crusading for a welter of half-boiled, garbled granola. You are unwilling or unable to understand fundamental WP policies as to sourcing, verification, due weight, and other key principles that kind and patient editors have pointed out to you over these many years. I can believe that you don't understand much of anything relating to WP, but I'm not going to repeat it all for you here. Last editor who AGF'd and tried to reason with you threw in the towel a year or two back, iirc. SPECIFICO talk 12:49, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
If what you said was true I would have been banned long ago, yet it is you that has been topic banned. Whatever my characteristics are does not give you the right to bypass WP:BRD. Reissgo (talk) 13:19, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
You have not been blocked or banned, in my opinion, because normal folks don't tend to prioritize their rich, productive, and active personal lives to allocate the time and attention it would take to assemble all the evidence of your disruptive behaviour. But don't fall into the foolish and illogical trap of falsely inferring that, just because you've not seen it yet in the past X days, that it will not occur on day X+ε. Far better to focus on site purpose and policy and don't speculate as to why you haven't been sanctioned. SPECIFICO talk 13:53, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

WP:V[edit]

I have no idea what "V refers to text not sources" is supposed to mean, but if you're seriously suggesting that article text does not need to be verified by reliable sources, you're mistaken. Furthermore, your assertion that the disputed material is "Sourced below" is an outright lie. It's true that the WP:LEAD shouldn't require sources if it is merely summarizing the body, but that actually undermines your position: That's kind of the whole reason why the "conspiracy theories" language you and your sockpuppet friend repeatedly edit warred into the lead without any corresponding additions to the body was so problematic. For the record, WP:V states:

All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. ... Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed. Please immediately remove contentious material about living people that is unsourced or poorly sourced.

If you can show me where this source states "[D'Souza's] films have been the subject of some controversy, including criticism for espousing conspiracy theories," great; however, if you cannot, the source fails WP:V. This isn't complicated or obtuse, and there's no sense in muddling the issue. Frankly, if you're literally not going to read the sources, the article, or the policies you cite before editing, that suggests a lack of competence.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 15:56, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

"Translation:(TTAAC) I am resorting to personal attacks again because I didn't get my way." Everyone else tuning in, ignore the WP:NOTHERE. Nothing to see here. 63.227.77.251 (talk) 20:35, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
@SPECIFICO: Could you answer the editor's comment about sourcing and verifiability instead of questioning their HERE? — JFG talk 23:25, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Instead of what??? Who?? SPECIFICO talk 23:39, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
SPECIFICO, I know this has been a recurring problem with your edits for years, and you are unlikely to heed this warning, but please do not misrepresent reliable sources, intentionally or otherwise, as you did with this edit: Your source does not say anything even remotely resembling your summary that "[VIPS] has issued several false warnings and repeated conspiracy theories."TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:28, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
The Washington Monthly source was added by @Volunteer Marek:, not me. I added the sentence because it reflects RS coverage cited in the article text, but I saw no reason to remove Marek's additional reference later on. More bones for the broth, and all that. SPECIFICO talk 20:57, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Alright, I see now that that is technically true, inasmuch as you originally added this claim to the lead absent any sourcing, but it remains the case that neither you nor Volunteer Marek have been able to produce WP:RS that support your specific formulation "[VIPS] has issued several false warnings and repeated conspiracy theories." "This lede text is supported by sourced article text" smacks of synthesis.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:24, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Now that you've apologized for the smear and since this is not the article talk page, I suggest you take any concerns over there. Good luck. SPECIFICO talk 21:46, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject Investment[edit]

Hey there! I just re-launched the WikiProject Investment.

The site has been fully revamped and updated and I would like to invite you the project.

Feel free to check out the project and ping me if you have any questions.


A1 Houston Office Oil Traders on Monday.jpg

I'd like to invite you to join the Investment WikiProject. There are a lot of Investment related articles on Wikipedia that could use a little attention, and I hope this project can help organize an effort to improve them. So please, take a look and if you like what you see, help get this project off the ground and a few Investment pages into the front ranks of Wikipedia articles. Thanks!


Cheers! WikiEditCrunch (talk) 20:19, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Just curious[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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., [2], [3], [4], [5], [6])—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.[7] 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: [8]. Objective3000 (talk) 23:30, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
AKA Kushner's Lemma. [9] 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[edit]

"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)