User talk:SPECIFICO/Archive 12

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

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 Wikipedia. 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)

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. ^{Atsme📞📧} 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 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 [1]. 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. [2] 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 [3] — 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 [4]. -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 Wikipedia 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)

Visite de la chausette Adèle

Please review the page Wikipedia: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).

Single-purpose account

Sockem and blockem

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 Wikipedia? 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.[5] 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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. ^{Atsme📞📧} 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)

❤️ ^{Atsme📞📧} 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^Talk) 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 Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Universities. – S. Rich (talk) 17:14, 20 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)

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)

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)

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 ^{talk to me} 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)

So no response from Bbb23 here, but NoMuppetsEver is continuing to edit war the Angela Cappetta article, even after the 48 hour ban. Advice? 172.58.232.219 (talk) 13:57, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Shooting of Stephon Clark

@Darouet: Stop it with the personal remarks and aspersions about the undersigned on article talk pages.
SPECIFICO talk 15:42, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Trump health

"Baby Jesus version" - I clap my hands vigorously. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:38, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

😁 SPECIFICO talk 13:56, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Stalking

Please stop stalking me, as you did here: [6]. I've asked you before not to stalk my edits. As WP:STALKING makes clear, it is fine to look at another editor's contribution history, but it is not okay to follow them around with the purpose of reverting them and confronting them. You've reverted my edits at several articles you had never previously edited before, including an obscure article that has absolutely nothing to do with American politics: Near-Earth Object Camera. There's no way you randomly stumbled upon that article, just after I had happened to edit it. You've been stalking me around Wikipedia, and I'm asking you again to stop.

NeilN, I'd appreciate you taking a look at this issue. Thanks, -Thucydides411 (talk) 03:00, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

WP:AOHA WP:HA#NOT POV in Russia related content. SPECIFICO talk 03:10, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Are you saying you didn't follow me to Near-Earth Object Camera? Or that you didn't follow me to Casualties of the Iraq War? There's an obvious pattern here, where you "randomly" show up at articles I'm editing - that you've never edited - and your very first action at the new article is to revert me, typically with a hostile or belittling edit summary. I've asked you to stop several times, but you keep doing it. I think I've asked politely enough times now. -Thucydides411 (talk) 03:17, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Donald Trump

This was really not a good call on your part. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:41, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

NeilN, I think you got this one backwards. Please review the history and MelanieN's reversal on the talk page and her statement that she would go with the status quo meanwhile. I see that an Admin has left you a note to this effect on your talk page. At any rate, I think it will be resolved soon enough. Unless you have compelling and informative additional reasoning you'd like to present I don't consider this worth any further discussion either way. Thanks for your note. SPECIFICO talk 15:44, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

On the surface it looks like you're the one who's got it backwards, SPECIFICO. As a side note, Andrevan doesn't count as an "admin" in this area. ~Awilley (talk) 15:58, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to me that either of you uninvolved Admins fully reviewed the article and talk page. There was consensus on the talk page that the "stable version" was the mention of the Wharton bit. Then it was Boldly removed and the move was "challenged by reversion". That's where it stood throughout the conversation about whether to remove or sustain it. Then, as I said, MelanieN prematurely removed it again and when several editors objected she said that we'd let it stand and continue to discuss. It was at that point that the recent series of removal and restoration began. So if either of you review the whole record and still believe that the other Admin and I are mistaken, that's fine and you might do everyone the favor of explaining it on the article talk page. Meanwhile, my point about the other A-guy being an Admin is not that he is uninvolved or acting from authority but that we do presume he does not make simple errors such as the one that you and NeilN think I made, and we can also presume that the other A-Admin doesn't act disruptively or willfully violate any site norms. @Andrevan:. SPECIFICO talk 16:54, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, SPECIFICO, as I said I was acting procedurally per MelanieN and not edit warring. Andrevan@ 16:57, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

That seems obvious to me, Andrevan, since I read the situation exactly the same way. Not only that, but I said at the outset I have no stake in this single edit or any inclination to prolong the discussion. And yet now we have two Admins coming here to continue chewing the fat. Meanwhile, Adrevan it's a different situation, but I'll remind you that user:Coffee was savaged by editors and other Admins for trying to actually apply Arbcom's edict and Admins' mandate concerning DS. Beware that some folks get itchy when they others such as you trying however imperfectly to stick more closely to site Policies and Guidelines in the difficult and under-patrolled topic areas. SPECIFICO talk 17:04, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, now I am topic banned, and it's my own fault. However, I hope you continue to pursue the case that I have been making. Andrevan@ 17:54, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

About your page Howard Edelstein

Hello, SPECIFICO. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the page Howard Edelstein, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your COI when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. -- Netoholic @ 02:15, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Off the wall. Nope. SPECIFICO talk 15:14, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

I hope you can understand my concerns about it. The sourcing and tone of this article is highly unusual compared to your typical high standards for bios. For example, can you explain how you are aware he was interviewed on CNBC (20+ years ago) and how you were able to capture an exact quote spoken by him? I'll ignore for a moment the fact that just because he said something doesn't mean its seen as significant. Additionally, the biography section exemplifies some incredible personal detail and flowery language, which is pretty far from what you typically enforce on other pages. You also reverted the redirect claiming he meets GNG, but the actual policy for persons is WP:ANYBIO and I don't see verifiable evidence he meets any of those. -- Netoholic @ 20:20, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, I think you're continuing to hound and harass me, but that's just my opinion. There's no question as to this person's notability. I misspoke re:GNG. It appears the correct link is WP:BASIC. Your statement it's ANYBIO is wrong. SPECIFICO talk 20:33, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

AE

Notifying that I've filed a request about you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#SPECIFICO. --Netoholic @ 22:45, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

A thread to check. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 00:28, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

AE notification

You are involved in a dispute which is being discussed at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. GoldenRing (talk) 08:23, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Pointless attacks

You seem to have a habit of butting in to discussions just to attack me or make some kind of off-topic insult while repeatedly hinting at something you refuse to explain. This thing about me referring to "Mueller's leaked wish list of interview questions" is a perfect example.

Your first 'Um, gee whiz. It was not "Mueller's list'. Better to read the sources before you start flashing the italics." response simply implied I hadn't read the source (or some other unspecified source) but said nothing about why my comment was (supposedly) incorrect.

Your second comment added nothing new:

"Just to connect all your dots for readers who might be misled by this insistent denial: The questions in the leaked document are not written by Mueller and it is false to say they're Mueller's questions. And anyone who has actually read RS reporting on this revelation would know that."

You're still saying I'm wrong without explanation, you're still claiming I haven't read the cited source (or some additional source you still don't hint at), you don't say why describing a list of questions Mueller wants to ask as his wish list of questions is somehow false, you're not hinting at a different way of describing the list that wouldn't be "false", hell this isn't even article content, I was just supporting soibangla's inclusion of the interview questions.

Would it kill you to just explain what you mean and not take constant digs at me? Factchecker_atyourservice 16:01, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) "You seem to have a habit of butting in to discussions just to attack me or make some kind of off-topic insult" The behavior you're pointing out is not limited to you, FCAYS. Just sayin'. ;-) -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:06, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for butting my talk page Wink, come back any time! SPECIFICO talk 17:40, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

I use simple English prose and folks rarely have any problem getting the gist of my messages. That bit about "Mueller's list" is a fundamental and critical misrepresentation of the document and its source. Come back any time with more complaints. Always welcome here! SPECIFICO talk 17:13, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for including the second extract above. That's the explanation you say I didn't provide. I didn't read your whole message first time around, sorry. SPECIFICO talk 17:25, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Since you are using simple English prose and folks rarely have any problem getting the gist of my messages, are you going to at some point explain what the "fundamental and critical misrepresentation of the document and its source" was?

I am glad I am welcome here and I am especially glad that you are enthusiastic about using language straightforwardly and getting right to the point and I cannot wait for you to do that at some point soon because this is something like the dozenth iteration of messages on the subject!

For example you could tell me who "wrote" the questions, what that has to do with presenting them as questions Mueller wants to ask, and why it is false to refer to them as being "Mueller's" when it is described in the reporting as a list of questions that Mueller's team gave Trump's legal team?

Oh boy, the anticipation is too much, I cannot wait for the astoundingly complex Wiki-insights, too complex to even hint at on the talk page, that you're about to drop on me! Jesus such times we live in! Factchecker_atyourservice 17:40, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Jesus, Joe, and Mika! Did you read my second reply above?? It's here SPECIFICO talk 17:45, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

if that is the one referring to the following quote then yes """"""Just to connect all your dots for readers who might be misled by this insistent denial: The questions in the leaked document are not written by Mueller and it is false to say they're Mueller's questions. And anyone who has actually read RS reporting on this revelation would know that.""""""""" Factchecker_atyourservice 17:47, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

2 points. So what was the purpose of your visit today? SPECIFICO talk 18:05, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

To re-re-re-re-re-state the painfully obvious, the purpose of my "visit today" is to ask you to explain what you are talking about, e.g. whose questions you think these are, who "wrote" them, what you're basing these beliefs on, etc. etc., as some vague half-assed half-way explanation for your claim that, in your precise words, "[t]hat bit about 'Mueller's list' is a fundamental and critical misrepresentation of the document and its source"

Or in other words, attempt to explain your nonsensical rambling... Factchecker_atyourservice 18:19, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: Reminder ping! You were just getting to the point where you were going to explain what you were talking about! I'm sure of it. Please don't delay further in explaining how I made such a "fundamental and critical misrepresentation of the document and its source" because I want to understand your totally straightforward and sincere criticism that wasnt a pretext for pointless sniping! Factchecker_atyourservice 22:10, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Statement at ARCA

Hi SPECIFICO, accusations about other editors (Anythingyouwant, who is reasonably civil and emotionally stable, is nonetheless one of the most dogged and resourceful POV pushers and disruptive presences on articles relating to American Politics. His record in this regard is well-documented in his AE history as well as in the Arbcom case in which he was banned from Abortion-related topics. ... diehard anti-abortion activists such as Anythingyouwant ... his many and persistent misdeeds on American Politics ... Anythingyouwant is a poster child for NOTHERE editing. He is a relentless POV-pushing wikilawyer, skirting penumbra of policy and the limit of the law on WP. His lack of contributions outside his narrow area of interest and his years-long disruption argue for a simple ban from WP.) require evidence in accordance with point 5 of WP:WIAPA. Please ensure that your statement conforms to all relevant standards of behavior on arbitration pages when you are next online (clerks may, in their discretion, take action over your statement before hearing from you, though I personally won't). Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 13:34, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Kevin, your comments intrigue me. As the survivor of an ArbCom case, and later vindicated, there was no such consideration at the time. Outright false and libelous statements, conspiracy theories about my supposedly highly illegal misdeeds (RICO) in real life (accusations made out of whole cloth), which included outing me, were allowed without any objection from others, or opportunity for me to counteract them. It all happened so fast that I was paralyzed. Real life enemies had created accounts and convinced a mentally ill editor to start an ArbCom case against me. (I'm not even sure if that person is still alive, or if they finally actually took their own life, as they often discussed.) It was a hellish experience. Is this some new policy where behavioral guidelines suddenly apply to such proceedings? I later also learned that BLP does not apply to editors. An editor literally gaslighted me and I was not defended. "BLP did not apply." I have been under the impression that "anything goes" in such proceedings. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:10, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

BTW, Specifico's description is pretty factual, and not a PA. It's just unpleasant testimony from a witness. I do agree that diffs should be provided. In my case they were not always required, rendering the proceedings a kangaroo court. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:12, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Specifico,

As there's been no reply here or editing of the text in question, upon review I have removed the section. There is no restriction on you taking part, and I do not intend to create one over this, however if you do resubmit the evidence, please consider the points raised above. Regards, Mdann52 (talk) 15:08, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

@Mdann52: I do not question your good faith, but you have made a rather surprising and unfortunate error here. You cite a section of NPA, but you fail to recognize that Arbcom is a place where we do discuss editor behavior. My comments were not "your mother is a rabid monkey" or "you are a lying insect" or anything like that. Indeed, I acknowledged Anythingyouwant's cordial and mature mien. My comments therefore were not personal at all, but instead presented a considered evaluation of this editors behavior. Because it was a general characterization of ten years' misconduct I did not cite individual diffs but instead listed the various Arbcom and AE venues where the detailed evidence could be found. I also acknowledged that I did not have the time at the moment to present long detailed arguments that would have rehashed evidence already on record at those locations. Subsequently, other editors did present ample documentation that followed up on my statement. As noted in the comment you deleted, I have presented similar evaluations of Anythingyouwant's behavior at AE where dozens of Admins have read them without erroneously calling them Personal Attacks. Rather than ask an Admin or Arbcom to review your deletion, I'd simply request that you undo your action and let it lie. I have no current intention of returning to that proceeding, since many other editors have subsequently picked up on my comment and affirmed its view with detailed discussion and diffs that I have neither time nor interest in this week. I hope you are able to recognize the error that you and MONGO made in this instance and that you will restore my comment and we can all move forward. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 15:24, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

^{( Buttinsky)} BR...you said, "I later also learned that BLP does not apply to editors." Where did you learn that? The reason I ask is because at WP:PA, it states the following under the section title External links For policies related to attacks against living persons in general, whether or not they edit Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, and the first sentence in WP:BLP states: Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. Last time I checked, WP editors are "living persons", unless they're not living, and that includes couch potatoes. ^[FBDB] SPECIFICO, see Wikipedia:Casting_aspersions - you decide if it supports your defense or if you need to add "evidence". ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:56, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree. I think BLP applies to editors, but I got no help. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 18:16, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I understand - and can even relate in some ways. ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:25, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Atsme. I believe I pointed to the AE and ARBCOM cases where there is evidence for everything I said. And this is not a fresh case where the evidence has never been adduced. It's an appeal that itself has now created even more evidence of what I referred to. WP is not a bureaucracy. Except sometimes? Thanks for your visite. SPECIFICO talk 19:36, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

SPECIFICO and Mdann52, here's another cute one by Anythingyouwant. After Mdann52 removed SPECIFICO's comment, Anything took it upon himself to restore just a part of it - the part of the opening sentence where SPECIFICO says Anything is "reasonably civil and emotionally stable". He then leaves it trailing off with "is nonetheless...."[7] Mdann, is it allowed for him to edit under another user's heading like that? --MelanieN (talk) 17:02, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Ironic. Also, I note that others have pointedly called Anythingyouwant a "liar" and although diffs are provided, Anything does not concede that they prove the validity of the tag "liar" and so they arguably could under some erroneous theory be called Personal Attacks as well. I'd also be remiss if I didn't ask Mdann52 whether he was canvassed by MONGO, after MONGO falsely accused me of a personal attack and dismissed my reply on his talk page? Moreover in light of other editors' references to my remarks (now invisible) in the ARBCA thread, the damage done by erroneously deleting my comment far outweighs any possible benefit from deleting my statement, now affirmed by many other editors. SPECIFICO talk 17:09, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Did not "canvass" anyone at any time. Was alerted by email to this thread since you felt free to assume bad faith of me and not ping me. That myself and at least one other editor as well as 2 arbcom clerks have opined that your remarks were personal attacks, we all must be suffering from some mass delusion or well, I dunno.--MONGO 17:43, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

MONGO hjas not been in communication with me on this matter. I've removed the partial revert, and I'm discussing with other clerks what they want to do moving forward - I think providing diffs may well be the easiest way forward however. Mdann52 (talk) 17:46, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I think it's quite clear from my pointers to prior AE and ARBCOM locations that these were not personal attacks w/o evidence. I acknowledged that. Frankly assembling the great number of diffs that would be required to conclusively "prove" my evaluation is beyond anyone's resources. That's not an operational standard. It's very clear that NPA is not breached here and I reserve whatever right I have to pursue all available remedies at my discretion. You'd be deleting 1/2 of all Arbcom posts if you applied the same standard to all of them, and that would not serve any community interest. Thanks for your note. SPECIFICO talk 17:52, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

fyi [8] SPECIFICO talk 19:59, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Notifying

You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Anythingyouwant and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks, Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:16, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

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

Greetings, Thomas

Disambiguation link notification for June 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Donald Trump, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page America First (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 10 June 2018 (UTC)