User talk:SPECIFICO/Archive 62

BLPN

I’ve started a new BLPN thread at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Peter Strzok. Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:14, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions review: proposed decision and community review

You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to updates on the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions review process. The Proposed Decision phase of the discretionary sanctions review process has now opened. A five-day public review period for the proposed decision, before arbitrators cast votes on the proposed decision, is open through November 18. Any interested editors are invited to comment on the proposed decision talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:56, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:09, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That discussion over there

Just to explain my 'attitude' about such stuff... I'm not "accusing" him of anything...I'm not attacking "him", just talking about his behavior and what he said since I opened the discussion. I don't actually know him, or you, and it doesn't really matter for a content dispute.

I was a Commons admin, until I threw away my hat and that account something around five years ago, and we'd always just deal with "which version on top" fights with a pagesplit.... I pretty much ran that backlog for years, and I've seen it all, including people essentially being taught that the way to "win" a content dispute is to provoke people. It lets you can basically canvass a known venue where the denizens will yell at the other person, and make or intimidate them into going away so you can ignore the consensus about content and "win".

I got burned out on that kind of thing a long time ago. The edit history of the page does not demonstrate a consensus about it's content. It just shows who "had the last say". Jarnsax (talk) 22:47, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you really care enough to bother trying to "deal with it", use the whole process to get an impartial third opinion, so it's not just 2 on 1, and then make an edit request to get an admin to close and enforce it if you have to. I don't even really "edit" over here anymore, I'm doing biblio stuff 'over there', and just making the cites better (complete, fixing typos, etc.) over here.

I'm more interested in stuff like User:Jarnsax/citations and User:Jarnsax/citations/publishers than fighting about what's basically, to me, some random article that I noticed had an inconsistent citation style and broken layout and decided to spend some (apparently wasted) time to line edit. Meh. Jarnsax (talk) 23:02, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's just not particularly important. SPECIFICO talk 01:12, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. It's just a 'dumb' thing to waste time arguing about. Like I said there, it'll get fixed eventually. Jarnsax (talk) 02:26, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You can probably tell, looking back on how I approached the whole 'citebomb' thing, that I somewhat expected someone to pop up to defend it... hence not just nuking it and starting an edit war with whoever it was. I'm jaded as hell. Jarnsax (talk) 02:34, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was very much writing to whoever reads that in the future, lol. Jarnsax (talk) 02:47, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There. Now I've done my "fair share" by sticking in the page log, lol. Jarnsax (talk) 03:09, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hillsdale College edit

Hello Specifico...I noted that you undid an edit that I made to the Hillsdale College article. There was a single sentence that noted that Hillsdale has purchased land and planned for a new campus in Placer County, CA. There were two references that supported this statement/fact. In addition to those references was an opinion piece about the move. Opinion pieces are not statements of fact but rather a reaction to something. Purchasing land and planning a new campus are statements of fact.

I have no problem with mentioning the reaction to the move but the opinion piece reference doesn't support the previous sentence and is also extraneous. The two references I left supported the wording of the text in my opinion. If we want to expand the text and add a separate sentence about reaction and include that reference I believe that would be better. If we did that, we might want to represent more than the one view represented in the Sacramento Bee and how other views & leaders/members of the community were welcoming of the move to provide balance to the article instead of just one opinion. Thoughts? Dbroer (talk) 15:40, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I don't think the letter to the editor is worth considering, but the second link you provided may offer some good background or context. If you'd like to propose text along the lines you mention with any additional facts from the Bee piece, that would be good, either on the article talk page or the article page. Thanks for your visit. Local groups in rural areas and small towns invariably welcome development however, so most of the favorable reaction may have to do with local real estate values and employment rather than Hillsdale's institutional strategy and programs. SPECIFICO talk 15:52, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd really like to see what you would suggest to split it. Positive and negative reaction to any move would be expected. Some will agree with it and some will not. Including an opinion as a reference for the sentence that states a fact doesn't seem to meet a high standard and seems like injecting an opinion literally in the middle of two factual references. If you had some specific text that you'd want to see I'll support adding that as a reference but including it just because it's a negative reaction shouldn't be the only reason, IMHO. Anything else is OR knowing that there are other reactions to the decision.

I am curious though why you would discard a published letter to the editor vs. an editors words. Both are basically just published opinions and I'm not why one should count and the other would not. Is there a particular reason you would discount the published letter even though it was chosen by an editor to be published? Dbroer (talk) 21:28, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The analytic column is by a staff journalist who's been hired and whose work is published by/in a Reliable Source. A letter to the editor is from an anonymous individual with no expertise and possibly with undisclosed and inapparent biases or misstatements. There's nothing wrong with adding the Bee as a source. It contains information for our readers in addition to the analysis. SPECIFICO talk 22:00, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Reliable Sources standard states that editorials or letters to the editor are "reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author" and "are rarely reliable for statements of fact" which is exactly what that reference is trying to support. As I said, if you want to have a sentence after that fact about opinions of the move we could certainly include that reference along with the other references I cited.

"The analytic column" is an opinion piece by an author who also may have unapparent biases or misstatements. The fact that it's an editorial means that it contains on opinion and not necessarily facts. Opinions are not facts. The letter to the editor is also published in a reliable source and is not an anonymous individual. The authors name is as clearly listed as the editorial. In this case the Sacramento Bee is not the source but rather the opinion of the editor just as the Appeal-Democrat is not the source of the editorial letter.

Based on the RS standard that editorials should not be used as source for statements of fact, I really think that reference needs to be removed. It can be a source for the opinions about the move but not the statement of fact. Do you not agree? Dbroer (talk) 01:23, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, analysis pieces published in major RS news media can be RS for facts, although we do not use them by themselves to verify the major facts of an article. The Bee is the RS publisher. It does not publish misstatements of fact in its staff analysis articles. A letter to the editor is not an "editorial letter." It's just a comment from an anonymous source, similar to a reddit post, and for all we know written by Hillsdale College PR officers or donors. SPECIFICO talk 02:19, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to open this discussion on the article talk page for more input. The piece you are citing as an "analysis piece" is clearly labelled as an opinion and an editorial. The RS standard clearly states that editorials are not to be used as sources for statements of fact which the sentence is. It can be used as someone's opinion on the decision, but not as a source of the fact according to Wikipedia policy. Dbroer (talk) 14:27, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the discussion belongs at the article talk page. My recent experience is predominantly on American Politics and Economics article and we frequently cite analysis for article text. Once again, not as the sole source to verify complex or disputed fact, but to give background fact and perspective. You can verify this for yourself looking at any of the many Donald Trump articles, beginning with his bio page and then going to all the other articles linked in the infobox. Those are among the most widely edited and watched articles on Wikipedia, with thousands of page viewers. I believe your understanding of policy is incorrect. SPECIFICO talk 14:48, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The policy states:

Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (invited op-eds and letters to the editor from notable figures) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact.

What am I not understanding? It's very clear - "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces...are rarely reliable for statements of fact." I've stated several times I'm OK with using it as RS for reaction which you have agreed is OK to have but in a separate sentence. It is NOT a RS for a statement of fact as it stands. Do those words not mean what they say? They do not say that an opinion can be used as a primary RS for a statement of fact. Indeed it says that it should be rare but you're stating that opinions are widely used on some of the most read articles? To me that means either the policy needs to be updated or the articles need revising. Dbroer (talk) 15:34, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you're interested, you could review the articles I mentioned and consider how you would propose to codify our practices on the policies and guidelines pages. SPECIFICO talk 16:55, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Contentious topics procedure adopted

You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to updates on the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions review process.

The Arbitration Committee has concluded the 2021-22 review of the contentious topics system (formerly known as discretionary sanctions), and its final decision is viewable at the revision process page. As part of the review process, the Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

The above proposals that are supported by an absolute majority of unrecused active arbitrators are hereby enacted. The drafting arbitrators (CaptainEek, L235, and Wugapodes) are directed to take the actions necessary to bring the proposals enacted by this motion into effect, including by amending the procedures at WP:AC/P and WP:AC/DS. The authority granted to the drafting arbitrators by this motion expires one month after enactment.

The Arbitration Committee thanks all those who have participated in the 2021-22 discretionary sanctions review process and all who have helped bring it to a successful conclusion. This motion concludes the 2021-22 discretionary sanctions review process.

This motion initiates a one-month implementation period for the updates to the contentious topics system. The Arbitration Committee will announce when the initial implementation of the Committee's decision has concluded and the amendments made by the drafting arbitrators in accordance with the Committee's decision take effect. Any editors interested in the implementation process are invited to assist at the implementation talk page, and editors interested in updates may subscribe to the update list.

For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:47, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Contentious topics procedure adopted

Inflation template: help needed

I may be remembering incorrectly, but during some politics argument, I seem to recall you mentioned being an economist. Currently, I'm trying to put euros into {{Inflation}}, which whatever reason does not account forthem. I've created Template:Inflation/EU (using Template:Inflation/EU/dataset), from https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CP0000EZ19M086NEST. Am I doing it right? jp×g 00:31, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm all thumbs on templates and software matters, afraid I'm of no help, though it sounds like an important contribution. Thanks for thinking of me. SPECIFICO talk 02:59, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, the template implementation works fine. I am just curious about whether my methods are correct: what I did with the .csv was take the twelve monthly values from each year (i.e. 2011-01, 2011-02, 2011-03 [...] 2011-12) and average them into a single number, which I then used for that year. Is this the way it ought to be done, or should I just use January? Or December? Or what? jp×g 04:52, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh to you too, 👧🏻. Why did you use a mean value rather than the end of year value or some other smoothed value?

By the way, I'm surprised to see that FRED graph plotted on an arithmentic scale for the inflation figures. These should always be on a logarithmic scale. This gets especially misleading on longer-term graphs such as one I saw on a page that shows a century of US price index numbers that appears to show that there was no inflation until Nixon came along. SPECIFICO talk 12:57, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Leon Black

You have now reverted edits by me and at least 3 other people to the Leon Black page. Each time you have re-added the incorrect claim that "Black has never been accused of any illegal conduct or wrongdoing related to his association with Epstein" and you have removed information about a lawsuit filed against Black. The most recent time, you defended adding the "never been accused of any illegal conduct or wrongdoing" claim by arguing that "he has never been accused of any illegal conduct by duly authorized authorities." Speaking as an American attorney, this is not how it works; I have no idea what you mean by "duly authorized authorities," unless you're referring to prosecutors and police, who have a role in initiating criminal charges. But this is a lawsuit we're talking about here, which accuses Black of illegal conduct, as lawsuits do. Anyone can file a lawsuit; there's no such thing as "duly authorized authorities" in this context. This particular lawsuit has been reported in the New York Times and other unimpeachable sources. Of course, it's possible that the claims in the lawsuit are untrue, which is why Black's Wikipedia page shouldn't treat those claims as true. But the lawsuit itself and the allegations in it are noteworthy, and regardless of whether those accusations are true, they are accusations. There's not any sense in which the bit you keep adding--"Black has never been accused of any illegal conduct or wrongdoing related to his association with Epstein"--is true. Please stop adding it, and please explain why you think the lawsuit reported in the New York Times lacks a sufficiently reliable source to appear on Wikipedia. Sfeldman (talk) 21:50, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I left a note on your talk page. SPECIFICO talk 22:03, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw that. It's not responsive to anything I've written here. Sfeldman (talk) 22:55, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you post at BLPN or NPOVN if you feel strongly about it. I don't think that reverting drive-by SPAs is of any relevance. SPECIFICO talk 23:07, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've edited the Leon Black page to once again remove the incorrect claim that he's "never been accused of any illegal conduct or wrongdoing" and to re-add the well-sourced information on the lawsuit filed against Black. If you believe this edit violates some policy, I'd suggest you post at BLPN or NPOVN or, at least, explain exactly what rule or principle you believe has been violated here. Removing this edit without any further explanation would be an improper use of the revert function. Sfeldman (talk) 03:01, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but it's a BLP issue, and the WP:ONUS is on you. I suggest you go to BLPN. SPECIFICO talk 03:43, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Photographers

i-D Vice is a reputable publication. It is neither self promotional nor trivial. The reporters who work there are professional writers who are paid. They work with editors. 2600:4041:5EEA:2700:2992:24D5:7D07:A097 (talk) 16:14, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's self-placed self-promoting trivia. You would do better to register an account, declare your COI and request review of whatever edits you feel are appropriate for an encyclopedia article. You've repeatedly tried to make edits without taking the time to read and understand the applicable site policies and guidelines. I understand that you find that frustrating, but the resolution would be to learn how content is created here so that you can offer contributions that do not get reverted. SPECIFICO talk 16:20, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

well-sourced information about court case removed

Hi, feel free to comment rather than just editing the title of my post. Not sure why you did that.

Also, I started a discussion thread here: WP:BLP/Noticeboard#Leon Black, which is probably the best place to continue the conversation. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 20:59, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I edited the title to conform to this guideline. Talk pages are to discuss content, sourcing, and policy and not other editors. Yes, that BLPN is the constructive move and you will get some feedback and I hope a clear path forward. Thanks for the notification. SPECIFICO talk 21:37, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah okay, I will review the talk page guidelines, thanks! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 22:38, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Great. I'll look forward to what you find. SPECIFICO talk 23:02, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aha! Comment on content, not on the contributor or It's the edits that matter, not the editor: Keep the discussions focused on the topic of the talk page, rather than on the editors participating and Don't address other users in a heading: Headings invite all users to comment. Headings may be about specific edits but not specifically about the user.

Well, good to know! I've seen these rules violated a lot in the past, on numerous other talk pages. Guess I learned some bad habits, apologies. :) Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 06:20, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at WP:Administrators' Noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Locke Cole accusing me of being disruptive. Thank you. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 01:24, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More specifically, you've warned this editor about civility in the past and I've included diffs of you doing so in the discussion. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 01:24, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DS Violation

As you are well aware, there are DS in effect at the Hunter Biden laptop page. Specifically 1RR - "You must not make more than one revert per 24 hours to this article." You've so far reverted twice in a 24 hour period - 1, 2. You may want to take your own advice to prevent a trip to AE. Please self revert. Mr Ernie (talk) 02:26, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's 24 hour BRD on that article. Please see the top of the talk page, as I discussed with that editor on their talk page in the thread I believe you commented on. SPECIFICO talk 02:40, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They are both in effect. Read the notice at the top in the edit window. I pulled the quote directly from there. Mr Ernie (talk) 02:45, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken the issue to AE for review. Please see here. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:22, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What does UNDUR mean?

In particular, in relation to this edit . Fephisto (talk) 00:04, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

colloquial form of UNDUE. SPECIFICO talk 00:41, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stacey Abrams

OP now TBANNED from American Politics

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Hey, just a friendly reminder you that you’re at three reverts on Stacey Abrams in the last 24 hours. Toa Nidhiki05 22:48, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted and revised noncompliant BLP material, as have several other editors. SPECIFICO talk 23:08, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You can certainly argue that but I would avoid breaching the three-revert rule here. I would not report you for this myself, but someone else might, and given there's an ongoing edit war it's unclear as to which version would actually be restored. We are actively discussing this on the talk page, of course. Toa Nidhiki05 23:20, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really want to be here doing this in public view while you are under complaint? SPECIFICO talk 23:33, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm simply advising you to stop. You can accept that advice or not, it's not up to me. Toa Nidhiki05 23:38, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Any BLP claim, even if it were valid, would have needed to be stated at the time of the edits and discussion." You did not do this here, here, OR here. What's up with that? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 17:21, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You narrowly avoided getting reported for enforcement when you promised to do better. There is no problem with those edits. Don't bother replying. SPECIFICO talk 18:10, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just trying to learn the ropes around here, by watching how more experienced editors act. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 20:09, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You could start by disclosing any previous userids under which you've edited. Not here. Do it on your user or user talk page. SPECIFICO talk 20:14, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why you're asking... but my only previous IDs here were IP addresses; my talk page covered that from day 1. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 20:27, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete my talk page comments

Please do not do this. I was talking in general. You have a clear bias, that you can not argue, you have admitted as much. Hopefully you can edit in a NPOV but that is to be seen. Malerooster (talk) 00:42, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That was at least the second time you have posted a personal attack. Next time, you'll be sanctioned. Denial only makes it inevitable. SPECIFICO talk 00:59, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Contentious topics procedure now in effect

You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to updates on the Arbitration Committee's contentious topics procedure revision process.

In December, the Arbitration Committee adopted the contentious topics procedure, which replaces the former discretionary sanctions system. The contentious topics procedure is now in effect following an initial implementation period.

For a detailed summary of the changes from the discretionary sanctions system, see WP:DSVSCT.
A brief guide for administrators may be found at Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Administrator instructions.
Updated templates may be found at Template:Contentious topics.
Suggestions and concerns may be directed to the arbitration clerk team at WT:AC/C.

The drafting arbitrators warmly thank all those who have worked to implement the new procedure during this implementation period and beyond. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:44, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Contentious topics procedure now in effect

Personal attack request

Hi! I think you might have confused me for someone else with this edit [1]. My guess, based on the context, is that you responding to the many pings that another editor added—you'll notice I was among the users being pinged; I was not the user who added the pings. If that's right (and if it's not, happy to discuss otherwise!), I'd ask that you update your comment.--Jerome Frank Disciple 17:29, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I struck it. I'd suggest you take a day off and come back and see how things are going. You may have seen, in the spirit of including more of the jury's decision, I offered the possibility of including the quote NPR used from the decision. SPECIFICO talk 17:55, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of my RFC

Your removal of my RFC is unjustified. Please self-revert, as I have already initiated several discussions in this regard, which fulfills WP:RFCBEFORE: "Editors are expected to make a reasonable attempt at resolving their issues before starting an RfC." [2] Makeandtoss (talk) 11:44, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]