Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:40, 29 March 2018

This is SPECIFICO's talk page, where you can send her messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22Auto-archiving period: 2 months

Deflation

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 Misplaced Pages for someone like myself who does not have an economics degree. What edit would you propose?

Greetings, Thomas

My understanding of DS

This is actually moot because Coffee has stated that he didn't sanction TTAC for any page violation. However, I will answer your question here, since you pinged, if you are still curious and it appears you are still claiming he violated a DS rather than what he was actually sanctioned for. The point is that regardless of any talk page notice, discretionary page sanctions (1RR/Consensus required) are not in effect until they are logged in the DS Sanctions log. Coffee knows this and logged it when he added his template. However, that is the only log entry for that page and was made this morning. Whoever added the previous template didn't log it as required. That is why, I suspect Coffee didn't make it a Discretionary Sanction nor say he violated a discretionary sanction. Coffee said TTAC was sanctioned for behavior in the topic area, not any particular revert or addition. You are repeating an allegation he isn't making which is pointlessly argumentative. --DHeyward (talk) 00:55, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Well that particular editor has so many foibles that it's kind of like Ronald Reagan's famous bowl of jellybeans. Pick whichever one catches your eye. Anyway, I think this bit about the log is excessively wikilawyering, it's entirely unconvincing, it shows he has no clue how to engage collegially, etc. And of course, because TTAAC falsely claimed that the template did not appear on the page at the time he made the edit, he committed more violations on the talk page and AE threads as I mentioned. I don't understand why he continues this meaningless appeal, for a reason he apparently is unable to articulate to anyone's satisfaction. Unfortunately it can take a long time and lots of wasted attention before editors either improve their behavior or depart. And as editors on these articles, you and I both suffer that drag. Thanks for your visit. Come back any time. SPECIFICO talk 01:15, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

To reply to your AE question... No, I do not argue in favor of this user. If admins think he needs to be sanctioned, so be it. But sanctions should be simple, understandable and serve the purpose. This is my point. Let me give you another example. That was bad block because the user was blocked for a single revert on page, and he made a revert of an IP. It also was not an obvious violation of anything. No everyone can be good as an admin in such hot subject area. And I am not blaming anyone of bad faith. This is simply very difficult. My very best wishes (talk) 00:14, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

But look -- judging from his record in American Politics, personalizing edit discussions, snarky and dishonest edit summaries, (look how many he marks minor or vandalism) sockpuppeting, lying to Sandstein to get his ban lifted -- this guy is a huge waste of time for the community. You may not like "probation" but it's a documented option within policy. My point is that TTAAC himself finally gave up trying to deny his misconduct. So the solution would be to find a different remedy if you think for example it should be a TBAN or a block, or whatever. But why enable more disruption from an editor who's proved he can't handle interpersonal interactions on this site? After all, DS really means we are all "on probation" on these articles. But misconduct must be stopped. Because a small number of incompetent editors end up damaging the site for editors and users. SPECIFICO talk 00:47, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

I would leave this to admins. Most of them are very good. Here is the problem. A lot of complaints in such subject areas can be viewed as actions to get an upper hand in content disputes. I am not telling this is the case here, but one must be very careful. My very best wishes (talk) 01:03, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree AE really should be for Admins. I was just surprised to see you suggest setting him loose again. Cheers! SPECIFICO talk 01:24, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

"snarky and dishonest edit summaries, (look how many he marks minor or vandalism)". SPECIFICO is truly un-understandable, until you realize that everything she says is pure projection.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:51, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Discretionary sanction lifted

Based on your email to me saying that you understand and agree that article talk pages are not to be used to call for discretionary sanctions to be imposed upon on an editor I am lifting the restriction as no longer necessary. I trust I won't be seeing such calls in other unusual places. --NeilN 20:51, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Recorded. --NeilN 20:53, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

"other unusual places" 😵. Agreed. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 21:43, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Fixed

Fixed just as you posted :) I seem to have acquired a habit of forgetting to put "result=" in the closing template. Thanks for the reminder! Cheers, Fish+Karate 13:52, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi I saw that and undid myself on your talk. Thanks! SPECIFICO talk 14:35, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

New article?!

This reminded me of the article which will have to be written: Trump-Russia collusion cover-up... -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:04, 8 February 2018 (UTC) BullRangifer (talk) 00:04, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

It really is a problem how to slice this big current event into bite-size articles. That's why I hope there is no collusion, no cover-up. Less work, more quality time for editors. Anyway, I learned a new template SPECIFICO talk 00:29, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Dude!

Ha no worries, you can call me anything you want. Just having some fun. PackMecEng (talk) 18:41, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Whew. Anyone calls me Babe at my age keeps me glowing for a week. SPECIFICO talk 18:57, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah been a while for me, or any time I get carded. PackMecEng (talk) 19:43, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, this is the only time I might get "carded" nowadays. SPECIFICO talk 20:14, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Ah good times. If I may ask, what part of the country were you looking at? We had been looking at going back to Korea for retirement, closer to family. PackMecEng (talk) 20:23, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Northern Italian lakes/food/wine/ and elegant widowers galore. The government requires you to show some financial resources, because they barely provide social services to the natives. But the surroundings can't be beat, and for fancy medical care and other serious needs, the nearby Swiss can perform minor surgery in the open air using only their Army Knives and a bottle of Williamine. SPECIFICO talk 22:35, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Can confirm, re: Swiss militaryholic skills. — JFG 00:56, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

BTW, I hope you are happy. Because of you I had to sit down the other night and watch that Carlson section. Not super fun times. PackMecEng (talk) 19:16, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Tucker is like a the train wreck you can't keep your eyes off. Abstinence is the only cure. SPECIFICO talk

Limited liability / externalities / llcs / corporations

Hi there SPECIFICO,

You recently deleted a source from articles related to limited liability, corporations and negative externalities. I believe the source was on point (please read the full source, not just the abstract, before coming to a conclusion). In your comments explaining your edits, you described the source as an "unpublished working paper." I therefore suspect that you may be worried that the source is not a reliable source per[REDACTED] policy.

Please review Misplaced Pages's policy on reliable sources. https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Self-published_sources_(online_and_paper).

Please note that there's an exception for self-published sources which applies in this context: "Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications."

I believe that this exception applies.

Please see also WP:RS/Scholarship The working paper source includes an extensive review of academic sources that qualify as reliable sources.

If you agree, may I suggest that we restore the source? --LLK934U (talk) 18:06, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for coming here to discuss.

I don't agree that this working paper should be inserted in a bunch of articles to which it's more or less related. We don't even use everything written by notable figures or even Nobel Laureates. I'm sure you can understand there are tens of thousands of academics writing all kinds of things every day. WP has a high bar for sourcing. If the author is particularly notable and the work has been cited by other scholars or practitioners for the proposed content, that gets more convincing. This author appears to have a certain theory about corporate taxation. I'm not aware that his work has been widely recognized or that he has an operationally robust theory or rubric for implementation of such a policy. As a first step, if this paper is published and cited by others for the proposed WP content, that would strengthen the case for inclusion. At that point you could post your query on WP:RSN, showing the source and the articles and text you believe it supports for inclusion on various Misplaced Pages pages.

How did you happen to become interested in this paper? SPECIFICO talk 19:39, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Trump supports on articles POV pushing

I have noted some newer editors that have publicly stated the "MSM's blatant sensationalistic and partisan POV" is skewing the article(s) on Trump: "Unfortunately, sensationalism, speculation and bias comprise a substantial portion of the Trump articles published by MSM, most of which is circular reporting originating from a singular primary source that was questionable at best." This and others User:Birtig seem to have only one focus and a disbelief in RS media reporting. I don't know what or why this is happening, but it's becoming an issue on several Trump related articles and disruptive on some. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 22:58, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

You may appreciate this comment. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 23:37, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Here's another new editor. Look at their Link library. There are some very dubious sources there.

BTW, I'd appreciate any support here. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 23:43, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I suspect the "what or why this is happening" is largely because of Fox News, and also Trump's attacks on the MSM. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 23:45, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

There seem to be lots of "new editors" who don't behave the way newcomers to this site usually do. It's important to insist they stick to policy and guidelines and not to rush ahead after they stumble. But there are also various experienced editors who step outside the topic areas of their expertise and make glaring errors of policy and interpretation in the politics area. Our policies and guidelines are very robust in the way they address the problems that can arise from POV or incompetent editing. We just need to stay on track, no matter how frustrating it can be to waste time quelling WP:TE and POV pushing. SPECIFICO talk 00:31, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Questions from new editor

Hi Specifico,

I understand and appreciate that you undid my edit on Angela Cappetta. However, I see value in listing her other public collections, and I don't understand why you keep removing them.

I wonder whether these important museums could be included in this Misplaced Pages listing. What edit would you propose? Did I simply get the code wrong? Kindly let me know.

Greetings, NoMuppets — Preceding unsigned comment added by NoMuppetsEver (talk • contribs) 15:40, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Code Problem?

Hi SPECIFICO, I understand that you undid an edit I created on Angela Capetta. However, I feel it is relevant to mention other public collections that hold their work. Was this a matter of me getting the code wrong? What edit would you suggest?

Best, NoMuppets — Preceding unsigned comment added by NoMuppetsEver (talk • contribs) 15:45, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Please cite a diff of my edit that concerns you. It's not clear this Capetta is WP:NOTABLE -- so the way to improve that article is to find WP:RS independent secondary references that can be used to support article content. At any rate, if you'll indicate the deletion that concerns you, I will reply. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 15:52, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Dear SPECIFICO, Thank you for your reply: I had cited references to other collections but you removed them. I am simply wondering why. Since you took them down, you clearly know which ones I'm referencing. If the code was wrong, it would be good form to let me know my mistake, rather than eliminating my citation.

There is also an ethical issue with the reference to women going public re: bad touch . I specifically refer to the NY Times article by Colin Moynihan. Your additoon of this seems devisive. The spirit of participation in such an exposé is not to have it follow an individual trollishly, but to flush out a predator. It is not good form that the controversy follow a victim. NoMuppets — Preceding unsigned comment added by NoMuppetsEver (talk • contribs) 19:00, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

The public collections work would need to be cited to an independent secondary reliable source reference. The institutions' websites are primary sources. That's why I remove such content. Without secondary sources that consider the work noteworthy enough to cite and/or discuss, the text would be considered WP:UNDUE. The content about the Roma incident is mentioned in an independent reliable source and so it is valid article content. It's possible that Cappetta herself might request that it be removed, but that's something she herself would need to raise with an Admin here. SPECIFICO talk 02:54, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

By the way, you can sign your posts by typing four tildes after your text like this ~~~~ That will compile as a signature with your username. SPECIFICO talk 03:00, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Angela Cappetta NYFA Fellowship

Hi. I consider New York Foundation for the Arts's Directory of Artists’ Fellows: 1985-2013 to be a reliable source for a claim of Angela Cappetta having received such a fellowship. Can you please explain to me why you believe it not to be? Thanks -Lopifalko (talk) 09:39, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, it's a primary source, and there are hundreds of thousands of individuals who have won some funding or have had their work displayed here and there. In the context of this article, which is sourced exclusively to primary sources, with no indication of notability for the subject, I think we should not burden it with even more undue content. The only secondary RS mention of this photographer is in connection with her having stated that she reported an incident wherein she feels she was victimized. But per WP:BLPCRIME there's actually a reasonable argument to be made that that material should be excluded from the article or that, since that incident is the only time the photographer was noted in secondary discussions of her and her work, the article should be deleted. An editor with the same name as the subject appears in the history of the article. If she returns and requests to have the article deleted, that would resolve all the issues. Thanks for your visit. What do you think? SPECIFICO talk 14:28, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, I'm most interested in the fact that NYFA as a primary source isn't considered a credible source for that fellowship. That would undermine a great deal of my understanding of sourcing for other articles. Thus I am eager to learn where I might be mistaken. However perhaps you are not saying this, and instead are not allowing it because of this wider consideration of the subject's notability. I'm not sure I agree, but this is more complex than I have time for currently. I am eager to help though and wo will think on this later when I have more time. Thanks. -Lopifalko (talk) 15:37, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

It's more a matter of WP:UNDUE content and OR as to significance. I could look in the US Census and see everyone who lives in Trump Tower, but they don't all get a WP article. Or I could look at court dockets and see who's been sued for this or that. Later. SPECIFICO talk 15:48, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I understand how notability works, which I consider a different matter to reliable sourcing - so on to that matter... I agree that the briefest of web searches that I have completed does not immediately demonstrate notability for Cappetta. As it stands the article does not demonstrate enough to establish WP:NOTABILITY. Looking at the claims of the article before we turned up, it would go some way to establishing notability if reliable sources could be found for inclusion in the collections of The Victoria and Albert Museum, Center for Photography at Woodstock, and Corcoran Gallery of Art; for fellowships from the Rauschenberg Foundation, Virginia Center for the Creative Arts and Atlantic Center for the Arts; and holding of Nosotras: Portraits of Latinas at The Grace Museum and Museo Alameda. -Lopifalko (talk) 16:14, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

But it's not just notability -- which as you say, would apply to the entire subject/article. It's WP:UNDUE weight that is the result of primary sourced content that nobody on earth thought was important enough to write about. No art critic reviews, no photography magazine profiles, no nothing. There are tens of thousands of documentary photographers working in the USA and a small fraction of them are widely noted. When the others are, then we should include the noteworthy aspects of their work in WP. This article reads like some kind of attempt at self-promotion -- which is not uncommon -- and it ends up misleading our readers. SPECIFICO talk 16:25, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

(This, that you wrote elsewhere, is more an explanation that makes sense to me as to why you consider the primary source insufficient on its own: "there are hundreds of thousands of individuals who receive funding in the form of grants or other stipends, and this is not in itself an indication that WP:WEIGHT should be given this kind of thing in an encyclopedia." Thanks. -Lopifalko (talk) 16:20, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks back atcha and thanks for the good work you do on arts-related articles on Misplaced Pages. SPECIFICO talk 16:25, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Dear SPECIFICO I'll get to the sexual misconduct victimization reference later, but for now my question is why do you keep undoing an edit that includes this person's NYFA fellowship? It is sourced directly from the New York Foundation for the Art's directory of Fellows. It is no less valid than being listed in NYPL's directory.

I undid your undoing of this edit by Lopifalko this morning and trust you will leave it intact this time.

Dear Lopifalko, I agree with you, it is considered a reliable source and it is a large accomplishment that very few artists can claim. For some reason SPECIFICO is editing this piece with an eye on the controversy, and it feels trolly. Perhaps this editor has an iron in the fire of the controversy first hand and is trying to incur minor level vandalism. for whatever reason.

NoMuppets — Preceding unsigned comment added by NoMuppetsEver (talk • contribs) 14:55, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Dear Muppets,

Didja see my note above about how to sign your talk page posts? Please have a look. Please also read this link WP:BRD which strongly suggests you should engage in talk on the article talk page rather than simply undo an edit with which you disagree. FYI that is what Lopifalko did and I expect that L and I will be having further discussion of the matter rather than just undoing each other's edits, which does not help resolve disagreements. Also please be careful not to make personal statements disparagements or accusations about other editors. That too is unconstructive. I've left a further note on your user talk page. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 15:01, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Conflict of interest policy

Please review the page Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest and disclose whether you have any past or present links of interest of other relationship with (1) any of the people or organizations mentioned in the articles where you have recently deleted my contributions such as Positive Money or (2) any consulting, banking, political or other organisation active in the field of finance?
Adèle Fisher (talk) 16:39, 23 February 2018 (UTC).

Adèle Fisher, we could ask you to do the same. You have no right to ask for such information without some kind of evidence that a COI might really exist. Editors here have a right to some privacy. A shared POV and an interest in certain subjects is not a COI.

Rather than asking such questions, why don't you just review the page WP:Assume good faith. Try a different approach. AGF in Specifico, because there are myriad other possible reasons why your contributions were deleted. The WP:PAG here are a jungle! Think about that and then approach Specifico in a nicer manner. Ask why. They've been here a lot longer than you, and they should be able to explain why.

It's pretty normal for many of new editors' contributions to be rejected, simply because they don't know the ropes here very well yet. Take each rejection as a learning experience. Don't fight it, and don't take it personally. More experienced editors are usually right, and you can learn from them. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:01, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. More information here Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Economics#Single_purpose_account_-_needs_review. A big mess on many articles and no sign this user is prepared to slow down. SPECIFICO talk 17:05, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Actually, Specifico did ask me 'to do the same'. Which is why I was expecting some equality of treatment. He promote some views here by deleting content and sources from me and others. What is his motivation?
Adèle Fisher (talk) 18:48, 1 March 2018 (UTC).

It was only 'only'...

If you really believe that my edit was so controversial that it requires to be discussed on talk page, revert it yourself and explain why. I will then take part in any discussion. Birtig (talk) 17:00, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Actually, as others have told you, it's better if you would be the one to revert it. I'm curious as to why you think it's important enough to make an issue out of it. It's really just better to be sensitive to this kind of issue, particularly on topics that are under Discretionary Sanctions. And by the way, your use of the word "really" in your message seems to suggest the opposite - that I would say I believe something that I don't "really" believe. Words and meanings matter. That's why I asked you to change your edit on that page and to consider whether your initial edit summary is accurate. Please consider. SPECIFICO talk 17:09, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Bill Clinton - "depends on the definition of 'is' is"; comes to mind when reading all this. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 17:15, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Not at all. Perhaps it's unclear what we're discussing. See here about this insertion of a word that changes the meaning of the text. A very curious edit. SPECIFICO talk 17:19, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

-That is exactly it, one small word can make such a very large difference. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 17:30, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

👌 Yeah. I couldn't believe that the editor was denying he changed the meaning. I reverted it along with another bad edit. New editors need to go slow and accept guidance. Thanks for your visit. SPECIFICO talk 17:34, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I tried speaking with both of them and asked them to step away from all things Trump, edit something else, learn the wiki system; but I think my advice was not taken, and this will not end well. I tried. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 17:38, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Got it. Lots of mysterious characters and behavior around these politics articles.

I can go nae near any current Scottish political story, my passions exceed my logic so must stay clear. Not everyone can keep a distance from their passions. Passions are the enemy of logic and no friend to wisdom. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 19:52, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Admirable self-awareness. At my age I have no opinions. That's how I keep to the straight and narrow. Editing here is like doing the crossword puzzle except sometimes I learn something new. SPECIFICO talk 19:59, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Sudoku keeps me sane, but I don't think I will ever lose my passion; it's that terrible combination of Yaqui and Scottish, when the blood is up, it takes a while to cool down. Stepping away before I see red, is something I'm working on. But enough of this, you have a mass of single issue contributors with POV they are pushing to go back to, enough of me. Best of luck, Cheers! P.S. I find at my age, I have nothing but opinions, and great arguments with myself, taking two or three sides at once. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 20:08, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Your allegations of aspersions....

Please provide diffs with your accusations. Making generalized accusations against another editor without providing diffs to support them actually are aspersions, so please stop. 19:08, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

How many editors have asked you to stop with the aspersions? Now it's on your talk page, this page, Masem's talk page, the article talk page.... In my experience when there's good policy and good sources, editors don't get into all this off-topic accusatory nonsense. I'm glad you took my advice and went to NPOV/N. Your appeals to Masem's talk page are not going to help with article improvement unless he decides to join the other editors at work on the article -- maybe he will. Good luck. SPECIFICO talk 20:00, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I was just arriving to request the same as Atsme. I have never, ever in my many years on Misplaced Pages seen any other editor, including those with whom I've disagreed with repeatedly, level the same number of threats or insults. -Darouet (talk) 20:44, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Darouet, always good to see you here at the proper venue to raise questions or concerns. In Atsme's case, the article talk page is chock full of various editors asking her to stop making aspersions. In your case, I don't recall seeing anyone making aspersions about you. Not sure what the purpose of your visit is, but next time maybe bring flowers or cookies. Come back any time. SPECIFICO talk 20:48, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I have never seen Atsme be rude to anyone in my years here at Misplaced Pages. Having experienced the way you use the term "aspersions" I'm highly skeptical, without diffs, that Atsme is actually guilty of any such thing. -Darouet (talk) 20:53, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Who said Atsme's rude. Sounds like innuendo. But instead of butting in the middle of the soup without context, you can go to the article talk page -- which I believe was Racial views of Donald Trump and you can see all the aspersions that are flying about there. None from me, of course. I do think it's kind of lazy and maybe intellectually dishonest to spout off without taking the time and trouble to get your facts straight. That's my personal opinion of your repeated complaints that turn out to be based on thin air. SPECIFICO talk 21:14, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I read Atsme's contributions there: all are polite and productive. But seeing Atsme's talk page, I can see that you have a habit of going to many editors' talk pages to allege "aspersions." -Darouet (talk) 21:22, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Atsme has been casting aspersions for over a year, with an increase over the last month, and I have already pointed out a large number to the editor. There is nothing polite and productive to repeatedly tell other editors to leave discussions. This is really getting out of hand. O3000 (talk) 21:31, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

That is a misrepresentation of Atsme's comments at Talk:Racial views of Donald Trump, and fails to locate your own role in driving that discussion away from content dispute resolution and into more personal and counterproductive conflicts. Atsme initially wrote,

...I did NOT "ridicule" the reporting of NYT and WaPo, I provided the sources that support my statements, and I find your comments to be very combative. I will not partake. Good day.

"I find your comments to be very combative" is not an aspersion. In fact, it's sort of understandable where Atsme is coming from, since your comment to them includes phrases like "you ridicule the reporting of the NYT and WaPo... you pull out of thin air something about this having a connection with the AP and/or WSJ and/or Chicago Trib..." which, while not totally out of line, is, sure, combative. To Atsme's comment you replied

You stated that they reported disinformation. Your sources supported nothing of the sort. And, you are yet again casting aspersions.

As far as I can tell, your allegation comes out of thin air, and is itself an aspersion, as Atsme pointed out on their talk page. Is there some other comment you're referencing from Atsme that I'm missing?

Later down the page, having listed 5 concrete problems with the article and receiving support from Birtig, SPECIFICO responds to these specific issues by writing that the "arguments are all invalid and have been refuted, some of them repeatedly. So you can rest easy and move on to finding good, well-sourced article content." None of that is a reply to any of Atsme's concerns: it's a slightly more polite way of writing "shut up," and it would be charitable to place the reply in the red "Contradiction" block of Graham's disagreement hierarchy . To that, Atsme replies,

Your claim... is overly generalized, if not false in its entirety. If your purpose here is not to discuss solutions to the issues other editors wish to discuss, please allow the discussions to continue without further interruption.

That's a wholly legitimate response, since SPECIFICO was not responding to any of Atsme's criticisms, but instead asking them to disengage from the issue (which Atsme obviously did not want to do without having the issues resolved in some way). The statement is also inviting the possibility of engagement with Atsme's concerns: "if... then..." But instead of asking SPECIFICO or other editors to address Atsme's concerns, or to move up the Graham hierarchy into content, you chose to accuse Atsme of casting aspersions for a second time, when in fact they had fairly accurately described SPECIFICO's dismissive and counterproductive comment. -Darouet (talk) 22:21, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Darouet, just in case some folks stumble on this thread, it's very unfortunate to see you resume this digging for immaterial ad hominems from the distant past and then pulling them out in irrelevant contexts E.G. when you can't respond to the substance of other editors contributions here. And you know there are many similar diffs. It's just nasty garbage. SPECIFICO talk 22:23, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Unlike your block log, which is easily accessible in a moment, my diff is from over a year ago (in a context where Jimbo in fact replied favorably to my point). How did you manage to pull that 14+ month-old diff up so quickly?

And my comment was irrelevant how, exactly?

Note that I added plenty of evidence showing that editorially, the BBC continued to treat the allegations as just that — allegations — consistent with the language and tone still employed by other language wikis. This was and remains my attitude. You on the other hand have stated, and repeatedly demonstrated, that you view the BBC's editorial position with abject indifference . -Darouet (talk) 22:35, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Christ. Go write a book if you're still stuck denying the crimes of the Russians. Thanks to advances in inkjet technology, self-publishing is very cheap these days. There are so many diffs of your ad hominems. That was just a particularly ridiculous one. SPECIFICO talk 23:00, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll just keep on reading the BBC. In the meantime, since you've got so many diffs up your sleeve, maybe you should actually play them when you go around everywhere accusing editors who disagree with you of "aspersions." -Darouet (talk) 23:03, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this is the opposite of what's happening. Look near the end of my talk. Atsme came to my TP to falsely accuse me of aspersions when I pointed out the long string of accusations and insults made on that day. This continued after I ordered off my TP. Atsme repeatedly attacks editors and ask them to leave discussions simply because they disagree. This is disruptive. You do no favors by defending and enabling this editor's behavior as it increases the likelihood of another block. Better to suggest some introspection. O3000 (talk) 23:28, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

@Objective3000: I have not edited at Talk:Trump–Russia dossier. Looking at the end of that Talk, I can see that the whole discussion has indeed descended into mudslinging. I don't think it's your fault or Atsme's, particularly: the short dismissive comments Atsme received from a few prompted their "IDONTLIKEIT and DIDNTHEARTHAT" comments, which don't look like they referred to you. In these big arguments it can be hard to keep straight who's referring to whom. However, there as well, you appear to be the first one bringing up the issue of aspersions — Atsme merely responds in kind. -Darouet (talk) 01:02, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

All of the attacks were from Atsme to multiple editors and this is a long-term problem. I’m only responding because you are doing harm to Atsme. And, responding in kind is called WP:POINTY. O3000 (talk) 01:09, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

The only way to read that from the talk page section you referenced is to ignore the attacks upon or disruptive responses to Atsme, and to then present Atsme's replies out of context as evidence of disruption. -Darouet (talk) 01:55, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Please look at the context. If someone disagrees with Atsme, the attacks begin. And they are many and constant. They are so predictable that Atsme is, frankly, ignored. Atsme believes that the fact they cannot gain consensus is because other editors are a cabal of POV editors. No, the editor fails to gain consensus because the arguments fail and the style of argumentation (constant repetition and claims of bad faith) does not work in a collaborative environment. Again, you do the editor no favors by defending these actions as the editor will never learn. O3000 (talk) 02:05, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Don't mind Darouet -- shehe has a long history of defending various editors to the death right before they get sanctioned. You're right -- that kind of thing eggs 'em on. But in Atsme's case I don't expect that to be the outcome, because I think Atsme is way too smart to pay much attention to Darouet's personalizing disputes, and Atsme has instead chosen the right step in going to NPOV/N to work things out. SPECIFICO talk 23:36, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I am glad to see, at least, that you have the good sense to acknowledge Atsme's virtues as an editor. -Darouet (talk) 01:02, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I didn't say any such thing, but I'm not surprised you fail to understand the context, which you could easily review, per O3000's comment, on that article talk page. SPECIFICO talk 01:09, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Yet again you disregard Misplaced Pages policies...

In the Afd instructions it states: "After nominating: Notify interested projects and editors". Reissgo (talk) 08:48, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

New guest

The letter was easy enough to find with relevant search keywords. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NoMuppetsEver (talk • contribs) 21:45, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

It is a primary source. You need a secondary RS. Also when you say it is online you should provide a URL and when you upload media you need to have rights to it. SPECIFICO talk 23:32, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Single-purpose account

Hello. May I ask you what you mean by single-purpose account? How many different topics do you expect a person to edit in the first few days after her registration? And do you expect the deletion of contributions (rather than a constructive improvement of the latter) to be a motivation to continue as a user on Misplaced Pages? Adèle Fisher (talk) 20:14, 1 March 2018 (UTC).

Alliance for Securing Democracy Edit

Hello. I made the edit adding democrat before Laura Rosenberger's name because I think it is important to note that since it is proclaimed earlier in the text that the group is bipartisan that it is led by a democrat just for transparency. People make decisions based off their politically ideology so it is important to note. "Do you think women only get hired to stuff partisan agendas?" I don't understand why you immediately jump to the conclusion that I am sexist but that is a pretty bold claim. It doesn't matter if If it was a republican man leading the group I think it should also be noted of their political affiliation. I don't think I need to find a citation describing the importance because it is important in it's own right, not because someone else says it is. It's not a "smear" as you say but a fact and I think it should be included, or take off "bipartisan" from the beginning. The leader of a so- called bipartisan group's political affiliation is important and not for sexist reasons as you claim, don't you think?

If the Washington Post can be cited, then why not the Intercept? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dgarza42 (talk • contribs) 04:49, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
@Thucydides411:Just to relieve your evident anguish at receiving a required 3rr warning: Well, it's a required warning and what you Americans call a heads-upper. If you experience it as "harassment" you will just give yourself an ulcer or other needless distress. Meanwhile, the constructive solution would be for you not to go barreling back into the area in which you were having difficulties and, if you do edit there, to do so in with moderation in mind. Happy trails to you. SPECIFICO talk 01:05, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

@Thucydides411:

If you're unwilling to demonstrate that your satellite text is well-referenced I will file an edit-warring complaint. Please read WP:3rr This notice is in lieu of a template on your talk page. SPECIFICO talk 19:33, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Side point about "money"

Greetings. I do not want to sidetrack the dialogue we started on the "money creation talk page. I'm here only for a side point, in order not to take up space there. The point is this: You referred to "money" as a "sooo 20th century notion". I would speculate that you might want to see included under the term "money" some 21st century innovations in financial transactions such as the cryptocurrency phenomenon. Is it so? In any case, this viewpoint, whether correct or not, again, belongs in the article about "money" itself. The issue of "money" is tremendously complicated; Economics after centuries of debate does not have a single viewpoint about Money. Which goes to show two things: (A) Economics is not a science the way Math or Physics are, and (B) politics and ideology shape most viewpoints in Macroeconomics. :-) Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 09:01, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I have no interest at all in cryptocurrency. If you don't understand my comment you may not know how commerce is conducted and how transactions are financed. 50 years ago, M2 or M3 were "money". Today those explain a small fraction of economic activity. I reject both A and B, but those are not relevant to the task of writing this little article. Thanks for telling me the world is complicated. Who'da thunk it? SPECIFICO talk 09:44, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Apologies if any disrespect was implied in my comments. None was intended. As it happens, I'm an economist and have also been working in the private sector, in both domestic and int'l commerce, for more than three decades. The more I learn about the field of Economics, the more I understand how complicated it is, and, what's more, the myriad of agendas behind it! :-) But, of course, you may disagree with that viewpoint. Anyway, since your remark ("sooo 20 century", etc) was not about cryptocurrencies but actually about money aggregates, then your objections to the currently dominant definitions of the terms M1, M2, etc, and to the use of aggregates in economic and financial policy should be addressed in the respective Misplaced Pages text about monetary aggregates (which can be found in a section of the article on the money supply). Don't you agree? -The Gnome (talk) 10:58, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

And a bit on "money": Innovations in commerce financing do not necessarily translate into new forms of money. Money is something quite specific, as whatever we denote as "money" has to be a means of exchange, a store of value, and a unit of account - and these conditions must be all satisfied. A highly innovative private-sector issue might act as a means of exchange, for instance, and a store of value, but it cannot be used as a unit of account. No one has ever counted the value of a building as worth "x amount of T-bills"! The definition of "money", in operating terms (what money does), is pretty much agreed upon, in the strict sense. What we are forever sorting out is its nature and especially its effects. -The Gnome (talk) 11:06, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

You might want to take a shot at the article on Money, SPECIFICO (or anyone else for that matter). Perhaps, if we successfully attack the source of all evil :-) we can hope for the rest of the diabolical articles to fall in line easier. And I'm not asking for consensus about Money; merely, to arrive at a well presented, well sourced, widely encompassing text. Take care, all. -The Gnome (talk) 12:23, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Griffin and the use of the term "false"

Dear SPECIFICO:

I agree that Griffin's theories are conspiracy theories -- but that's not the issue. The issue is whether the source -- and the introduction to the article -- supports the use of the term "false." The intro uses the term false, but the body of the article does not.

Just based on the article, I strongly suspect that Griffin does promote FALSE theories about the Federal Reserve System. That's not the issue here. Famspear (talk) 22:18, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Famspear. This is something that was discussed over a period, literally, of years on talk. If you are very concerned about this, you could easily find a citation for "false" but I would hate to lose all the editor hours getting this article in shape. As you know, these banking-related articles are magnets for single purpose accounts, fringe POVs and other infestations. BTW there's been some good progress recently at Money creation. You might want to have a look when you have time. Regards. SPECIFICO talk 22:48, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I know we both have put a lot of work into the bank-related articles over the years -- you probably more than I. I haven't been as active here in Misplaced Pages lately, but I do check on my "list" every day. Famspear (talk) 01:00, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Alliance for Securing Democracy GG section on the TP

Why did you revert my edit? I messaged you before about this exact issue and you didn't have a problem with it. Can you/allow me to restore it and please let us do this without delay as I can see that our hands are already full with other debates. Wingwraith (talk) 04:17, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Bam!

You nailed it. (My tweet) -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 19:31, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

💥💥💥💥 SPECIFICO talk 19:38, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Your latest edit

Re: Nicholas Taleb's page. We all want to make Wiki a better encyclopedia. So if I did not agree with the earlier edits, I agree with the last one. But blogs can be used as source in the middle of a debate to bring neutrality, only if the source is discussing itself, the source has published outside blogs, and the identity is verified. Best. Limit-theorem (talk) 18:43, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Those two silly newspaper articles are an insult to Prof. Taleb. We need expert RS acknowledgement of his work to document the extent to which he "predicted" elements of the financial collapse. Goofy newspaper columns by people who surely have a very superficial understanding of Taleb's work are not RS for the sort of thing the article text should be documenting. And in most folks' view, it's meaningless to attribute anything much at beyond flowers and bonbons to those two writers who can safely be considered intellectual welter-weights at best. In general, I find this article poorly sourced, too ready to accept NNT's rather epic self-promotion, and not at all incisive on the interesting points he's raise in his writings. Thanks for your visit. SPECIFICO talk 18:49, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Just a quick FYI...

I have close family members who are Mexican, and there are Muslims in my extended family so please keep that in mind. Your last remark on my TP didn't feel like your customary ribbing, it felt more like you were wearing sharpies while spurring me in the ribs. 21:19, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello Atsme my friend. Thanks for sharing that. My mistake. Actually my intention was to mock Trump's fake "maybe some are OK" throw-away line after he raises suspicions of immigrants and refugees. Like this. Anyway, please accept my apology. Your adult self-awareness and engagement are what separates you from all the other crazed POV pushers who undermine the project with whiny nonsense. You, IMO, just add, er, "the spice of life" to the proceedings here. SPECIFICO talk 21:32, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

❤️ 22:01, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections

Hi SPECIFICO. Since you are heavily involved in the article Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, I was hoping to get your opinion on whether or not recent edits to the lede of this article violate NPOV. My comments can be found here. Best wishes. selfworm 18:26, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I've commented on the talk thread. Thanks for the reminder. SPECIFICO talk 19:50, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

FYI

I have posted a notice re HC at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Universities. – S. Rich (talk) 17:14, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Alliance for Securing Democracy

In good fun here... I'm going to intervene and cut you off for blowing by your quota at Talk:Alliance for Securing Democracy#RfC about Glenn Greenwald's criticism. No more comments for you, you've made quite enough. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:54, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

You're what? Huh? Is this the joke or am I still waiting for the joke? Whatever. @DrFleischman: Not pinging for a reply, just to close the loop. If you care to look at the history of this and other articles you'll see that the bludgeon is one or two folks who appear to have, er, Russia issues. You know, Mother Russia and like that. This has been going on since the early days of this article. Thanks for your visit. In all seriousness I am amazed that the GG fans decline to respond to the specific problems with that content. You are +/- the 10th editor to point them out. Cheers. SPECIFICO talk 21:56, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

• When you thanked me for this edit I thought you were going to weigh in at Talk:Paul Erickson? We could really use some help. Basic differences on core policies are interfering with development of the article. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:59, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Talk page

Specifico, I'm sorry but examining your posts to my talk page since 2016 I find the vast majority unconstructive. I have a reasonably high bar for talk page banishment but you've met it. Please do not post there again unless required to by policy, or in order to avoid what would be a certain request for sanctions against me. James J. Lambden (talk) 23:34, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry to see you fearful of constructive feedback, but please know you are always welcome to share your thoughts here. At least you recognize the legitimacy of required warnings -- not that I expect one ever to be required, in your case. Come back any time. Thanks for your visit. SPECIFICO talk 23:55, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Angela Cappetta...again

Multiple IPs have been edit warring on Angela Cappetta including 98.116.2.234 and 98.116.139.161, as well as NoMuppetsEver. You and User:Lopifalko have both been patient and have tried to explain some of the 5 pillars but the vandalism continues. Perhaps semi-protect the page...or maybe just nom for delete as it only barely meets WP:NOTABILITY, much is non-verifiable except for WP:PRIMARY, and its not worth the WP:VANDALISM. Thoughts? Thanks.72.43.150.10 (talk) 21:30, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Actually the next steps would be Sockpuppet investigations on the 2 IDs and 2 IPs at that article and Thomas Roma or its possible an Admin such as Bbb23 would have a look and sort it out. I don't have the time to do anything further for the moment. SPECIFICO talk 21:43, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Latest IP received a time-out. --NeilN 22:08, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Thx. SPECIFICO talk 22:38, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks 72.43.150.10 (talk) 00:52, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for nice and reasonable comments. Unlike some other contributors, I do not spend a lot of time in the project. I can quickly come and try to fix something without giving too much thought to the previous history or whatever. That is what had happen on this page. This is also the reason I should generally avoid editing any pages that became a matter of prolonged disputes. On the other hand, based on my experience, everything can be quickly resolved if everyone is genuinely interested only in improvement of content and knows the subject. Having a prolonged dispute about something is a red flag that something else is going on on the page... My very best wishes (talk) 13:40, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree entirely. In my real life volunteer and community activities, I regularly interact with other dedicated volunteers who collaborate to sort out complex problems in a constructive work environment. WP is a great and important project. Unfortunately, when editors bring a personal agenda or when they lack the cognitive or emotional wherewithal to deal objectively with complex issues, their singular and undue zeal will overwhelm our community processes in the short run. But my experience has been that in the long run, good consensus articles emerge and prevail. SPECIFICO talk 14:02, 26 March 2018 (UTC)