This is SPECIFICO's talk page, where you can send her messages and comments. |
|
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: 960 days |
Daily pageviews of User:SPECIFICO
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
@ HJ Mitchell: I have sent you an email via the link on your talk page tools. SPECIFICO talk 14:04, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I understand you feel justified, that doesn't make you right. I'd merely ask that you stop allowing your preference for a narrative to override the proper editing of a reference work. OckRaz ta:lk 21:01, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
Surely Donald j trump, 'was' a politician not is a politician..?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.2.144.16 ( talk • contribs)
Area 51 Gallery...Templates of the aggrieved and indeffed |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Points to note:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oppa gangnam psy ( talk • contribs) Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Oppa gangnam psy ( talk • contribs) |
Yes, that's exactly right. It's all quite astonishing. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 18:25, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
You should stop what you're doing on the article Hunter Biden laptop controversy. You frequently revert others' bold edits without materially addressing their content. You also "invite" discussions on talk pages, but never offer discussion yourself before reverting. This behavior has already been noted and overruled TWICE after lengthy discussions involving a multitude of editors: first with the RFC over the use of the word "allegedly", in which you would revert any change that removed that word; second, after the lengthy discussion over Social media companies' and their CEO's response. In both cases, your personal opinions on content have been overruled by consensus. I invite you to participate more in discussion on that page before continuing to revert other editor's thoughtful contributions. PhotogenicScientist ( talk) 13:54, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
In another example, your reversion of my most recent edit also was not appropriate. Per WP:MINOR, the 'minor edit' tag is acceptable for "Content additions of extremely minimal size". What you've been doing is not only in breach of Wikipedia policy and guidelines, it's also just plain rude. PhotogenicScientist ( talk) 17:42, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
Minor edits are those that do not materially affect the content of the article.This is patently wrong, per the info page I quoted.
Checking the minor edit box signifies that the current and previous versions differ only superficially (typographical corrections, etc.), in a way that no editor would be expected to regard as disputable.Or
Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if the edit concerns a single word, and it is improper to mark such an edit as minor.did you not understand? It is the first rubric on the page! -- 𝕁𝕄𝔽 ( talk) 20:09, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
@ SPECIFICO: I would like to add that you falsely claimed my addition of content from The Intercept had been discussed before on the talk page and that The Intercept is a FRINGE source. No such discussion has taken place and The Intercept is a reliable source according to WP:RSP. I also agree with Mr Ernie that you impulsively revert content you disagree with far too much. Lastly, saying "Aspersions" as an excuse to dismiss criticism of your edits because they aren't being directly provided to you in this moment when you know what you're doing is gaslighting. X-Editor ( talk) 03:58, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
I'd like you to take another look at this thread, and realize that you're still doing what I and other editors have asked you not to do in this thread. You are still WP:STONEWALLING that article. Seriously, please cut it out and edit more collaboratively. PhotogenicScientist ( talk) 14:27, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
As you're no doubt already aware, the article Hunter Biden laptop controversy is under a 1RR restriction, which you violated by reverting content twice ( here and here) back-to-back. I would urge you to self-revert at least one of these edits to comply with site policy. If you do not, this offense is liable to be reported at WP:AE. Thanks. PhotogenicScientist ( talk) 21:31, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. PhotogenicScientist ( talk) 18:40, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. PhotogenicScientist ( talk) 23:15, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
Hello SPECIFICO. You made a change to Vivek Ramaswamy at 22:55, 30 August 2023 and it was reverted on good-faith grounds by PhotogenicScientist at 18:59, 31 August 2023 . You reinserted the same content at 9:10, 31 August 2023 . While there isn't a 24hr BRD arbitration restriction it's still poor practice as you know to do this on contentious topics. It's perceived by many as edit warring. Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 19:54, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
Did you check the edit summaries and read the cited source?" - yes, I did, and I believe the objector had a reasonable reason to revert in this case. BRD is blind to who is actually right or who will "win" when it's all said and done. It's essentially whether the objector had a rational basis for the revert, and they did. Not saying I agree with them (I would like to hear different arguments on both sides before I make my mind up definitely). "
Do you really think I don't know not to edit war?" - I know you are familiar with the policy, but that doesn't change the fact that you did on this occasion. Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 23:09, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
"If your bold edit was reverted, then do not re-revert to your version... Instead, take it to the talk page"and
"Carefully consider whether "policy", "consensus", or "procedure" are valid reasons for the revert."PhotogenicScientist ( talk) 21:49, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
-30-
Happy Holidays and Happy New Year, SPECIFICO!
The other day, I was having a conversation with someone about holiday cards and social media. It occurred to me that, in the years since I left Facebook, the site I use most to communicate with people I like isn't actually a social media site at all. If you're receiving this, it's pretty likely I've talked with you more recently than I have my distant relatives and college friends on FB, at very least, and we may have even collaborated on something useful. So here's a holiday "card", Wikipedia friend. :) Hope the next couple weeks bring some fun and/or rest. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:47, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
For reference, "per talk" within my edit summaries, does not imply any talk page consensus. This broadly means that further context for the edit can be found in the talk page. I have seen you infer this in some edit summaries and I wish to clarify this. Cheers. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 03:09, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
One revert doesn't constitute an edit war. Now, stop harassing me, with OTT warnings. GoodDay ( talk) 16:42, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
@ GoodDay: I'm puzzled by your continued participation at Contentious Topics talk pages after your pledge at Arbitration Enforcement to take a breather. Your comments are rarely substantive. In the case of your most recent comment, you are suggesting that a relatively inexperienced editor disregard the status quo after their new text was reverted for discussion. Yes, they were not the one who breached BRD by quickly reinstating the proposed change, but your comment may have the effect of undermining that process. I find this quite disappointing. Please consider. SPECIFICO talk 22:51, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
@ GoodDay: You are edit-warring again. The [edit in question did not change any consensus text. It was an addition to the article, and additions do not require consensus, as you claimed in your edit summary. Please self-revert before this edit war ends up at Enforcement. SPECIFICO talk 16:41, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
@ GoodDay: Comments such as this are inane and have tended to be passive-aggreessive inflammatory as well. Here's another recent unsupported and unconstructive comment. If you are able to reduce the volume of your talk page comments and to comment only on the substance of a discussion, providing reasoned positions, it would be in everyone's interest for you to begin doing so. You seemed to be prepared to throttle your talk page particpation a month ago, but if anything it has even increased in the Politics area. I note that you did not address that point at your recent AE appeal, but it's all on the record from the last go-round, so you can assume that editors recall it and have not seen any update from you on this issue. SPECIFICO talk 16:37, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
You may be aware that Wikipedia is intended to be a collaborative venture. You chose to revert my good faith edits to the above article, because *one* of the citations I included was to a site that is not considered to be an RS. You simultaneously in effect deleted a sentence which was not supported by that source, but by another, and that in itself is very bad form. Further, in view of the *fact* that the edits I was making were of information which is supported by innumerable sources, something which you could find out in less than 10 seconds, it would have been decent of you to merely point out on my talk page that one of the sources I included was not an RS and invite me to replace it with another. That would have been the decent thing to do. Instead, you chose to just revert, an action which gave me a sense of outrage. You topped this off by suggesting that I find better sources "if I believe this significant". Sorry, 2022 ratings are not significant? Are you serious? Don’t do what you did again. I repeat, Wikipedia is intended to be a collaborative venture. Boscaswell talk 21:41, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." 128.187.116.2 ( talk) 20:09, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
block 'n' ban ensued |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
You are repeatedly removing longstanding, well-sourced, consensus text. - I don't think you know what these words mean. OckRaz talk 17:27, 1 February 2023 (UTC) |
Hi SPECIFICO, just wanted to check where the consensus to have the New York Post logo in the article was established? You referred to in this revert. Thanks. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 10:11, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
an edit that is challenged by reversion may not be reinstated without affirmative consensus on the talk page." It requires that before an edit is reinstated that there is a affirmative consensus on the talk page (that is, WP:EDITCON doesn't count). VQuakr's edit to re-remove the image was within the limits of the process to enforce the consensus required provision which you breached. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 06:14, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
Edits that breach an editor or page restriction may be reverted.") Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 06:31, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
@ Callanecc:, VQuakr made an edit (a deletion) that was challenged by reversion. SPECIFICO did nothing wrong. VQuaker should not have violated BRD (edit warring). -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 06:47, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
@
VQuakr: RE:15:41, 11 February 2023 (UTC) @SPECIFICO, I didn't "reinsert" any file
- not sure what this is about. I did not say you reinserted anything.
Regarding the page restriction: VQuakr, now that it has been discussed here, I'd appreciate it if you'd self-revert your second removal so we can consider the matter closed. Also, please try not to personalize talk page discussions. As you can see on that talk page thread, it has a cascading and unconstructive effect.
SPECIFICO
talk 14:00, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
Just wondered: What topic were you banned from editing on? You're an anti-war conservative. What do you think about the conflict in Ukraine? Lastly, I didn't know there was a "Hanoi" phở so that's an education for me. However I came across a plant-based phở broth ("Delight Phở" teabag by Milley's.) that I really like. They also make other flavored broths, including Thai lemongrass, which I find O.K. and spicy tortilla which seems bland to me. I add other ingredients to the broth including shredded carrots, chopped bell pepper, onion, and roasted seaweed, etc. I'm a vegetarian, but you could add chicken, beef, fish sauce, etc. It's something you could take to work with you. Activist ( talk) 23:24, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
From the New York Post (Reliable Source) https://nypost.com/2023/02/14/nyt-slammed-for-bringing-larry-nassar-into-msu-shooting-coverage/
From Fox News (News Source) https://www.foxnews.com/media/nyt-trashed-making-michigan-state-shooting-story-about-schools-sex-abuse-scandal-biggest-scumbags-ever
From Detroit Sports Nation (News Source) https://detroitsportsnation.com/new-york-times-under-fire-for-publishing-story-relating-michigan-state-shooting-to-larry-nassar-scandal/wgbrady/college-sports/msu-news/02/14/2023/395080/
From Pro Sports Extra (News Source) https://www.prosportsextra.com/tiffany-may-new-york-times-blasted-for-writing-and-publishing-story-tying-recent-shooting-to-the-larry-nassar-scandal-at-michigan-state/
News. 2601:40D:4300:5736:84AF:A824:6A9D:BDD1 ( talk) 18:40, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
Please initiate the conversation. They are valid sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:40D:4300:5736:84AF:A824:6A9D:BDD1 ( talk) 19:10, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
Hey. So as I'm sure you've noticed {{ alert/first}} has a mandatory "Introduction to contentious topics" header that's inserted as part of the substitution. And when you're issuing multiple simultaneous first alerts, results in multiple level 2 headers being created like in this edit. What I've taken to do, and what I've seen a few other folk do, when issuing multiple alerts to someone new to CTOP is to use {{ alert/first}} for the first alert, and then use {{ alert}} for subsequent alert in the same message. In practice this looks like:
{{subst:alert/first|topic=1}}
{{subst:alert|topic=2}}
{{subst:alert|topic=3}} ~~~~
This way you only get the single mandatory "Introduction to contentious topics" header, and all three alerts are still considered valid. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 00:16, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
The ADMINACCT issues have taken over that thread, but to go back to the actual image, do you have the URL you got it from? If so, I'm happy to undelete it and let it defer to a discussion process ( WP:FFD) if someone thinks it needs to be discussedd for deletion. Courcelles ( talk) 17:33, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:NY Post Cover 10 14 2020.PNG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 02:30, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:NY Post Cover 10 14 2020.PNG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 15:36, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
The issue I took there was how another user recently reworded that exact sentence about the Democratic rivalry to use words that fall under MOS:REALTIME. The sentence I used, copied and modified from the Democratic Party article, uses no words to watch. Please double-check both user's contributions. Jalen Folf (talk) 23:31, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Per WP:Preserve, “Wikipedia is a work in progress and perfection is not required. As long as any of the facts or ideas added to an article would belong in the ‘finished’ article, they should be retained if they meet the three core content policies: Neutral point of view(which does not mean no point of view), Verifiability, and No original research.” If you object to something about an edit, please make sure not to revert the parts you don’t object to. And please explain at article talk why you object to the stuff you revert, including all parts of it. You have not followed these Wikipedia requirements with regard to this recent edit, for example. You see something in a series of edits that you don’t approve, so you do a blanket revert of the whole series of edits without any reason or explanation for most of your revert. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 20:53, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
When I posted about what Arthur Schlesinger wrote in his 2017 introduction to his 1947 book, you replied, "Schlesinger 1947 is not the most recent available source." Can you explain why you would claim that the text was from 1947, when clearly I said he wrote it in 2017? TFD ( talk) 02:56, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
My two competing theories for the "Thank" message I received were that it was a misclick or a sarcastic slow clap. You certainly aren't obliged to clarify things for me, but you could if you choose. Newimpartial ( talk) 02:53, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
No apologies needed. As you might have guessed from my edit note, I cleaned up the presentation but was a bit dubious about the content. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 ( talk) 14:44, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
Hi @ SPECIFICO - Since you've recently been doing some work on the Reid Hoffman page I just wanted to give you a head's up that I'm going to really dive into the page, clean it up, remove anything too promotional, etc. Obviously let me know if you have any thoughts/concerns! BMFife ( talk) 16:18, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi! So, as you've conceded, you've falsely attacked me once on the Trump talk page, and I'd actually say you've falsely attacked me at least three times. I realize you most recently raised a BLUDGEON concern—I do think you and I have both been too active there, and I intend to reply far less frequently going forward, although the last responses I made were to questions posed directly to me. Either way, regardless of how noble you think your intentions are, I'd also appreciate if you stopped responding to me or posting on my talk page for at least a week, and I'll extend you the same courtesy. Thanks!-- Jerome Frank Disciple 15:59, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
Jerome, you seem incapable of understanding straightforward feedback, and it appears to me that you think that your "requests" obligate other editors to accept your misunderstanding of content, policy, and behavioral guidelines. As I've already said, it would have been a good move to stick with your decision to step away from that article and apply your efforts elsewhere for the time being. SPECIFICO talk 13:25, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Mistakenly is not the same as "falsely"was one of the funniest things I've ever read. In a sense, you're correct? But I guess not how you think you are. You can be mistakenly false or deliberately false, because, yes, deliberateness has nothing to do with truth value.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 13:36, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Bringing this here because taking it to the DT talk page is an exercise in futility at the moment.
This: the source says "official", not "officer". speaking in the third person
: Trump does that all the time, but that's when he's not pretending to be someone else. In this sentence, it doesn't make any sense because he was pretending to be someone named John Barron. That's kind of hard to do using first person singular, no?
Space4Time3Continuum2x
(talk) 13:39, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
How about this?
Journalist Jonathan Greenberg reported that Trump called him in 1984, pretending to be a fictional Trump Organization official named " John Barron". Trump, speaking as "Barron", falsely asserted that he owned more than 90 percent of his father's business to get a higher ranking for himself on the Forbes 400 list of wealthy Americans
SPECIFICO talk 13:51, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Jerome Frank Disciple 16:45, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
@ SPECIFICO: Please participate in the discussion. QuicoleJR ( talk) 18:51, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
Per this ANI thread you are banned from American politics for thirty days. The ban will expire at this time on 2023-06-23. If you have any questions feel free to ask. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 14:59, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
Or the editors who favored sanctions on content-related grounds. I directly addressed that in my closing statement, so to repeat, I gave less weight to arguments that seemed based on editor bias or content disagreements.
the accusersare under no obligation to respond to your rebuttals, and others not returning to reaffirm or change their positions does not invalidate their responses. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 22:44, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
The second complainant stated that he had (unintentionally) misrepresented my actions without vacating the accusations that were based on what they came to know was not true. That's quite problematic.
the second complainant" then I dispute this, I do not agree that I misrepresented SPECIFICO's words, quotes, or actions. I don't want to further debate this or continue to inflame this dispute, so I will not comment further. Thanks. — Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 15:42, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
Look, it never has to get this complicated. Steer clear of the behavior line, and you don't end up at ANI/AE in the first place. You can't reasonably claim to have done that. You're reminding me in some ways of Winkelvi. ― Mandruss ☎ 13:06, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
None of them stuckI sit corrected. Steer clear of the behavior line, and you don't end up with a sanction at ANI/AE in the first place. No doubt, there are rare exceptions to that rule. And a community-imposed wikibreak can be viewed by the recipient as a gift, aside from the black mark on their record.
This user is aware that, in the end, it's only Wikipedia. |
I still had to weather the process- I reckon that's part of the price of performing controversial edits in controversial topic areas, until Wikipedia comes up with a way to prevent it. A wise man (I) once said, "Ya can't fix people." ― Mandruss ☎ 22:41, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
If we had no faults of our own, we should not take so much pleasure in noticing those in others.O3000, Ret. ( talk) 00:30, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
I have created a new essay and would welcome some critique on the talk page there:
If this would violate your ban, then don't respond there. You can answer here, but ping me. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 22:59, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
Maybe I haven't had enough coffee this morning, but this looks like a mundane fix of an unclosed quote that you reverted? Am I missing something? VQuakr ( talk) 15:47, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
Hello User:SPECIFICO:
I wanted to check in with you about the updates to the Guzel Ganieva lawsuit brought against Leon Black. The latest developments in the case are ‘just the facts’ and provide relevant and up-to-date information and are well sourced. Are you able to post the updates to the article about the case being dismissed? Thank you, Marksherr16 ( talk) 20:44, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
Glad you're back. Re your edit: status quo was "six bankruptcies", until this edit added "business" and the Wikilink on May 21 ( business bankruptcies). With all the other edits around that time, I didn’t notice until today. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:49, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
That topic on that one talk page needed to be close. In the future, can I close a topic if it turns into theories that are unsupported for Wikipedia? Cwater1 ( talk) 22:56, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
Please revert your closing of Talk:Hunter Biden#RfC about including the name of Hunter Biden's daughter. With 9 editors in support, and 23 opposing, this was hardly a "snow". More important, the instructions at WP:RFC specifically call for an "uninvolved editor", which you are not, because you commented in the RfC. Please fix your error. Thank you. Magnolia677 ( talk) 14:08, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
"involved in the discussion itself or related disputes related disputes"is considered involved editor.Your comment in the discussion was not made
"purely in an administrative role". That comment looks like nonsense. Please explain what you meant. Moreover, you repeatedly participated in related disputes before the close: [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10].Before the RFC, you closed a discussion with a misleading summary
"[t]his has been fully addressed."[11] Your later comments (see diffs above) indicate that you should have not closed the discussion, and should have rather entered the discussion as a participant, if at all. Your close failed to appropriately summarise the discussion, and created more heat than light.RFCs typically run for at least 30 days and this RFC was not due to being closed until 11 August. Unless the result is unanimous or nearly unanimous, RFCs are not the best candidates for SNOW close. Politrukki ( talk) 14:53, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
"Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrative actions ... Administrators should justify their actions when requested."Do you agree a response time of few weeks (even if we ignore the one week Specifico was blocked) is not "prompt"?There was a major development to the story in 28 July (I think): Joe Biden admitted having six, not seven, grandchildren and mentioned the name. This was massively covered in reliable sources for one news cycle. No, there's no evidence that mentioning the name was either irresponsible or "child abuse". Politrukki ( talk) 15:00, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the
guide to appealing blocks (specifically
this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{
unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}
. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, I suggest you use the
arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (
by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page.
Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."
make sure there is a clearly visible edit summary or separate section of the talk page that explains the exemption.Enforced BRD and the edit warring exemption both require communication. You've been around Wikipedia and contentious topics long enough to know these rules. You plainly reverted a partial revert without discussion on the talk page in direct violation of the enforced BRD sanctions on the article. I know you're familiar with these sanctions as you've brought them up as your preferred anti-edit warring sanction at AE, and you've recently reported at least one editor for violating it.
"As I said above, I'm not asking for an edit-war BLP exemption."Yet you wrote above, and I quote, that you did not repost
"the clear statement in my initial revert on the article talk page before again removing BLP and NPOV violations."Your first response to the block was to claim your edit was in service of BLP policy. Now you've said the opposite, that you were not invoking BLP policy.
but it offers no reasoning or principle for reinstating validly disputed BLP content. But the important fact is that they reinserted UNDUE BLP content)then 3RRNO is the policy you're invoking to bypass the sanction placed on the article. Your failure to post on the talk page is material because enforced BRD requires at least 24 hours after a talk page discussion is opened before restoring reverted content. As stated on the talk page and the edit notice,
You must follow the bold-revert-discuss cycle if your change is reverted. You may not reinstate your edit until you post a talk page message discussing your edit and have waited 24 hours from the time of this talk page message(emphasis added). If you had
gone back and cut and pasted [your] edit summary to the talk page, and then proceeded for the third time to remove the article textit would have also been a violation and resulted in a block without the requisite 24 hour hold for discussion.
SFR. 24-BRD is not a revert-warring restriction. The policy you cited is about 1RR and 3RR. Full stop. I have not disputed that I did not go to the talk page per 24-BRD. Please review my comments above so that we can try for convergence rather than broadening to irrelevant topics. You wrote that I did not wait 24 hours after starting a discussion before reinstating your edit. SFR: That is not what 24-BRD states. And I have been around that restriction and followed the discussion of it when Awilley created it and when Arbcom endorsed it. Your misstatement is disqualifying. I really think that -- in light of that apparent misunderstanding of the restriction you invoked, and your citing of the irrelevant 3RRNO policy -- you should vacate the block you imposed step back from this. Please do not take this as a personal criticism or feel defensive about it, but under the circumstances, that would be best. Moreover -- your reinsertion of the defective BLP content, including most importantly the bit about criticism of the Bidens w/o conveying the sources' statements that it is from their opponents, is a significant BLP violation. I'm sure you would agree that your role as Admin does not entitle you to skip reading the sources of content you publish in the encyclopedia after a BLP concern has been recorded. SPECIFICO talk 12:14, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
You must follow the bold-revert-discuss cycle if your change is reverted. You may not reinstate your edit until you post a talk page message discussing your edit and have waited 24 hours from the time of this talk page message, which matches the language on the notice displayed when you edit Hunter Biden. WP:CTOP#cite_note-4 also explains this, saying
On pages where "enforced BRD" is in effect, an edit that is challenged by reversion may not be reinstated by the editor who originally made it until the editor (a) posts a talk page message discussing the edit and (b) waits 24 hours from the time of the talk page message.
explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administratoror
prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 15:46, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
(If an edit you make is challenged by reversion you must discuss the issue on the article talk page and wait 24 hours (from the time of the original edit) before reinstating your edit.)which they clearly aware of, their history of warnings and sanctions, being less than a month off a community imposed American politics topic ban, and the clear misunderstanding of sanctions that they have invoked leads me to believe that this block is necessary. SPECIFICO is, of course, welcome to make an appeal at WP:AE, WP:ARCA, or WP:AN. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 16:44, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
It's the sort of immaterial and inadvertent violation that experienced editors routinely self-revert upon a friendly user-talkis complicated in this instance. While it is true on the surface that experienced editors will generally self-revert upon a friendly talk page message, about a month ago you reported Jerome Frank Disciple to SFR for violating the same sanction on another article. In that instance, you did not give JFD the same courtesy note prior to reporting him for the same
immaterial and inadvertent violation that experienced editors routinely self-revert upon a friendly user-talk.
You’ve been asked this before on your talk page, as I can see, but please stop removing well-sourced paragraphs about the rape allegations against Leon Black under the guise of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:UNDUE. The coverage of the accusations are widely covered by reliable sources, and those coverages being about a high-profile rape lawsuit, his third for that matter, is hard to claim that they "aren't news".
Respectfully, please withhold from making any more of these edits.
Cornmazes ( talk) 21:58, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 09:03, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
Done
Hello fellow Wikipedia editor. I would like to inquire about the deletion you made of my comment on the talk page referenced in the header. As you know, editing or removing another's comments in talk is generally not best practice. After reviewing the removal, I can't tell if perhaps, however, I inadvertently posted my minor edit suggestion under another topic as a sub-heading? If that was your reasoning, though your comment associated with the action was somewhat rude, I will redo my not-nonsense comment under its own heading.
If you decided to remove my comment just because you didn't think it had merit, then I will let your edit stand and follow my own advice about expectations on Wikipedia. As an aside, you have a serial comma badge on your talk page; surely you understand the importance of, the proper use of, this particular punctuation.
If you would be kind enough to provide clarity so I know which path to take forward, I would much appreciate it.
I wish you all the best and tip my hat to your anti-fake news work, it must be exhausting. FranMichael ( talk) 01:28, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments. Such edits are disruptive, and may appear to other editors to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Note the guidance at WP:COLLAPSENO – Your idea of what is off topic may differ from what others think is off topic, so be sure to err on the side of caution. I would think it would be readily apparent that “erring on the side of caution” means not edit warring your hatting of other’s comments. As in your case it was evidently not apparent to you, I hope you can take this as a learning experience. Cambial — foliar❧ 21:03, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=User:Valjean/Why_Crossfire_Hurricane%3F
Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 03:07, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
The article is currently in an RFC, removing the tag an the sourced material is not conducive to building a consensus based encyclopedia. Id as you to undo and let it sit until the discussion is over. DarrellWinkler ( talk) 21:44, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
SPECIFICO, you are one of the most active editors on several pages, including The New York Times, where 95% of your edits are reverts, many of which are almost instantly after the edit. In fact, in last 4 years of editing the New York Times, you have made the most reversions. I would like to voice my objection that I highly doubt whether you have read everything you revert, especially given that many appear to be good-faith edits.
You engage in what I perceive as failing to engage in quality, substantive discussion on talk pages. [14]. Not all of your discussions are bad, but the speed and quantity of your discussions mean that when the quality falls, it has a big impact on the page.
You have made excessive claims of "edit warring" on many, many users, almost instantly after their edits are made. You fail even to specify with what edits or why you believe "edit wars" occur. DenverCoder9 ( talk) 19:53, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
Did you change your WP name? Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 14:05, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
{{
Unsigned}}
or {{
Unsigned IP}}
instead. The user can come along later and replace that with their signature, if they feel embarrassed about minor brain farts. That said, I don't know of a guideline to that effect. ―
Mandruss
☎ 15:17, 28 August 2023 (UTC)EDIFICO, PROLIFICO, MAGNIFICO, ORRIFICO, MUNIFICO... PONITIFICO. SPECIFICO talk 13:53, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
Do you have a policy reason to change the RfC I've laid out? I've seen others laid out like this and never seen an object to it. Seems like a clean way of organizing the comments and also encourages comments like yours to go into the section called "discussion." Nemov ( talk) 15:56, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
I see you reinstated an edit challenged by revison
here. That is a violation of the Arbitration remedies on the page Changes challenged by reversion may not be reinstated without affirmative consensus on the talk page
. Please self revert.
PackMecEng (
talk) 19:12, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Makeandtoss ( talk) 14:09, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the
guide to appealing blocks (specifically
this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{
unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}
. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, I suggest you use the
arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (
by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page.
Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."
using it as a spear here and on my talk page for your annoyance at my meagre efforts toward NPOV content and talk page discussion... And of course your personal animus toward me, on and off-wiki is a matter of record. Very disappointing.Your "anyone who doesn't agree with me must be attacked" style editing there is also textbook WP:BATTLEGROUND, which you were continuing after I brought up you had been warned for it in the past. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 20:40, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
repeat[ed] a false accusation. I said that I was of a similar mind to another admin. Being of a similar mind is not being of the same mind. Your response is another example of your battleground behavior.
accusing me of a general attitude that "anyone who doesn't agree with me must be attacked"... your broadcasting of that lie at ANI... Your statement that I routinely attack editors in the course of talk page disagreements
The Original Barnstar | |
I`ve been trying to e-mail you but I don`t see a link..can we talk Anonymous8206 ( talk) 16:11, 15 October 2023 (UTC) |
Hi; we've gotten along fine, and I believe we've agreed more than disagreed. But your partial revert of my removal is a blatant violation of WP:BLPRESTORE.
At Glenn Greenwald, you've reinstated an insinuation of antisemitism sourced to a blog, arguing that the author is a "notable expert". WP:EXPERTSPS requires expertise "in the relevant field" (law, not antisemite detection), and says: "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert" (boldface not mine). WP:BLPSPS requires expertise (again, wrong field), and being "subject to the newspaper's full editorial control", which isn't true here (hosted by WaPo, but "We will retain full editorial control over what we write", source). That overrides WP:NEWSBLOG, but it too urges "caution". None of thees policies plausibly allow this.
You also reinstated a
WP:COATRACK paragraph about an accusation of antisemitism directed at Rashida Tlaib, who Greenwald defended. The first source doesn't even mention Greenwald. The second source is an interview of Greenwald by Democracy Now! (which is
WP:MREL). That's tenuously sourced and not plausibly due. Your revert rationale
was based on Greenwald's documented interaction with Omar
; yet the material making this claim ("In an exchange with Greenwald in February 2019"), is in fact not supported by the citation.
Please self-revert, and please reexamine the two core content policies I linked. Thanks - DFlhb ( talk) 15:17, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
There is already “clear evidence” that war crimes may have been committed in the latest explosion of violenceis about " past Israeli action" prior to the war (you said this repeatedly). Separately, just 2 weeks ago you asserted BLPRESTORE on tame, non-BLP material inside a BLP; yet now you're saying it’s unclear whether I had BLP concerns with antisemitism accusations?? These "geometrically-variable" policy interpretations that depend on the content's POV are clear-as-day battleground behavior, and you're continuing to do it, 2 weeks after being blocked for it.
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Louis Stettner, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) ( talk) 18:08, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 00:41, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
I was surprised to see you remove this source. 99% of edits to this page are not preceded by talk page proposals to gain some consensus. I've been reading Klein's work for over a decade. Unlike the mass of newspaper sources and their journalists, he knows intimately the ins and outs of the politics of Hamas and Israel and and is peer-published on that. What he states about the Hamas accommodation in 2021 is well documented, if invisible on wiki pages for that period.
The point follows the standard paragraph which says many Western states consider Hamas ,a terrorist organization, while 'rogue' or non Western states don't consider it thus. The general impression given is that Hamas is nothing but an unbending terrorist organization. It is, properly, a political organization which has quite frequently resorted to terrorism, something not untypical of some Western states, and Israel. The difference is, Hamas is a non.or para-state actor.
The page per NPOV required in the background some bare notation that it also has engaged in political compromises both with the PA and, indirectly Israel, and this particular reaching out for a political arrangement via the PA is known to have been vetoed by the US and Israel. That is a fact and crucial, particularly since planning for the incursions and massacres seems to have begun in the immediate aftermath of the 2021 crisis. That is serious information, as opposed to generic statements that just state Hamas is a terrorist group and nothing else.
Finally, I cannot see any evidence that my edit was contested or reverted before you. No one challenged it on the talk page. You didn't open up a discussion on deleting the information either. In my experience, that is unusual coming from you. Nishidani ( talk) 14:35, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
You misunderstand. I was asking for attribution for the quote, as it is an opinion, per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. It is not a question of referencing. Tim O'Doherty ( talk) 22:13, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
Hi SPECIFICO,
I think your long Wikipedia experience and familiarities with policy would be a welcome voice on the current rfc on the Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign talk page. There's been a lot of back and forth and I think we need some more experienced editors in the conversation. BootsED ( talk) 01:59, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
Re this, Soibangla is being overly stubborn against solid arguments by multiple editors, exhibiting IDHT. Why not start this workshop thread yourself? I'd do it, but it would be too much involvement for my semi-retirement. You could start it off with your own proposed content option, with citations. ― Mandruss ☎ 23:58, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
bullshitwas predictable and the reason for no ping. Your angry, combative, non-AGF tone is offensive, un-Wikipedian, and unwelcome.You may not have noticed that I'm trying to expedite the main article content that you want! For the umpteenth time (IDHT), you don't need an RfC consensus to propose specific content. So get on with it or get out of the way of others who are prepared to do so. ― Mandruss ☎ 00:40, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
I am always happy to host a lttle spat among friends, but I believe that this content was being stonewalled by editors who showed no familiarity or concern with the subject matter. Polling says that half the US electorate are committed Republicans, so it's not surprising that some lesser but still significant minority of WP editors are unaware of what's published in most RS reporting and analysis. The Trump page suffered an earlier crop of same who either got TBANs or got bored blocking and went away. It's disappointing to think that the same thing can happen repeatedly with a new round of visitors. Fortunately, some very thougthful and well-informed new editors have arrived as well. Each time Soibangla has proposed some straightforward article content, various editors have risen up and beaten it down with straw man, red herring, and plum pudding arguments. And that's before the inevitable cheese course. SPECIFICO talk 01:10, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
Fortunately, some very thougthful and well-informed new editors have arrived as well.― Mandruss ☎ 01:42, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
Update the number of displaced people for me please. https://twitter.com/AliciaJ1985/status/1737961681794498946 173.44.89.180 ( talk) 16:58, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar | |
For your spirited defense of me, I award you this smiley barnstar. Andre 🚐 08:26, 26 December 2023 (UTC) |
The following sanction now applies to you:
You are topic banned from the Palestine/Israel conflict, broadly construed, for 60 days.
You have been sanctioned for WP:BATTLEGROUND editing. [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22]
This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles#Final decision and, if applicable, the contentious topics procedure. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.
You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 16:16, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
Hey. This edit, and the corresponding addition to the article talk page are a pretty clear violation of the TBAN that you were sanctioned under on 26 December 2023. Will you please self-revert the removal from the article? Sideswipe9th ( talk) 22:01, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the
guide to appealing blocks (specifically
this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{
unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}
. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, I suggest you use the
arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (
by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page.
Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."
Unless clearly and unambiguously specified otherwise, a topic ban covers all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic, as well as the parts of other pages that are related to the topic, as encapsulated in the phrase "broadly construed".Editing sections of articles or talk pages is explicitly covered by the topic ban. Discussing sources related to the conflict is covered. Removing a section of criticism explicitly about the topic is covered. Discussing removal of criticism about the topic is covered. Editing the phrasing of the sentence
In 2001, the Israeli–Palestinian peace process begun with the Oslo Accords in 1993 and 1995 collapsed with the start of the Second Intifada and the departure of committed peace broker Bill Clinton from office as U.S. president.is covered. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 23:47, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
These edits do not relate to discussion of the topic of the ban, nor are they contentious. I suggest you reverse this.Does that do anything to convince someone that the violations won't recur? ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 22:28, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
This is SPECIFICO's talk page, where you can send her messages and comments. |
|
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: 960 days |
Daily pageviews of User:SPECIFICO
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
@ HJ Mitchell: I have sent you an email via the link on your talk page tools. SPECIFICO talk 14:04, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I understand you feel justified, that doesn't make you right. I'd merely ask that you stop allowing your preference for a narrative to override the proper editing of a reference work. OckRaz ta:lk 21:01, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
Surely Donald j trump, 'was' a politician not is a politician..?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.2.144.16 ( talk • contribs)
Area 51 Gallery...Templates of the aggrieved and indeffed |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Points to note:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oppa gangnam psy ( talk • contribs) Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Oppa gangnam psy ( talk • contribs) |
Yes, that's exactly right. It's all quite astonishing. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 18:25, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
You should stop what you're doing on the article Hunter Biden laptop controversy. You frequently revert others' bold edits without materially addressing their content. You also "invite" discussions on talk pages, but never offer discussion yourself before reverting. This behavior has already been noted and overruled TWICE after lengthy discussions involving a multitude of editors: first with the RFC over the use of the word "allegedly", in which you would revert any change that removed that word; second, after the lengthy discussion over Social media companies' and their CEO's response. In both cases, your personal opinions on content have been overruled by consensus. I invite you to participate more in discussion on that page before continuing to revert other editor's thoughtful contributions. PhotogenicScientist ( talk) 13:54, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
In another example, your reversion of my most recent edit also was not appropriate. Per WP:MINOR, the 'minor edit' tag is acceptable for "Content additions of extremely minimal size". What you've been doing is not only in breach of Wikipedia policy and guidelines, it's also just plain rude. PhotogenicScientist ( talk) 17:42, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
Minor edits are those that do not materially affect the content of the article.This is patently wrong, per the info page I quoted.
Checking the minor edit box signifies that the current and previous versions differ only superficially (typographical corrections, etc.), in a way that no editor would be expected to regard as disputable.Or
Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if the edit concerns a single word, and it is improper to mark such an edit as minor.did you not understand? It is the first rubric on the page! -- 𝕁𝕄𝔽 ( talk) 20:09, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
@ SPECIFICO: I would like to add that you falsely claimed my addition of content from The Intercept had been discussed before on the talk page and that The Intercept is a FRINGE source. No such discussion has taken place and The Intercept is a reliable source according to WP:RSP. I also agree with Mr Ernie that you impulsively revert content you disagree with far too much. Lastly, saying "Aspersions" as an excuse to dismiss criticism of your edits because they aren't being directly provided to you in this moment when you know what you're doing is gaslighting. X-Editor ( talk) 03:58, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
I'd like you to take another look at this thread, and realize that you're still doing what I and other editors have asked you not to do in this thread. You are still WP:STONEWALLING that article. Seriously, please cut it out and edit more collaboratively. PhotogenicScientist ( talk) 14:27, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
As you're no doubt already aware, the article Hunter Biden laptop controversy is under a 1RR restriction, which you violated by reverting content twice ( here and here) back-to-back. I would urge you to self-revert at least one of these edits to comply with site policy. If you do not, this offense is liable to be reported at WP:AE. Thanks. PhotogenicScientist ( talk) 21:31, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. PhotogenicScientist ( talk) 18:40, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. PhotogenicScientist ( talk) 23:15, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
Hello SPECIFICO. You made a change to Vivek Ramaswamy at 22:55, 30 August 2023 and it was reverted on good-faith grounds by PhotogenicScientist at 18:59, 31 August 2023 . You reinserted the same content at 9:10, 31 August 2023 . While there isn't a 24hr BRD arbitration restriction it's still poor practice as you know to do this on contentious topics. It's perceived by many as edit warring. Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 19:54, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
Did you check the edit summaries and read the cited source?" - yes, I did, and I believe the objector had a reasonable reason to revert in this case. BRD is blind to who is actually right or who will "win" when it's all said and done. It's essentially whether the objector had a rational basis for the revert, and they did. Not saying I agree with them (I would like to hear different arguments on both sides before I make my mind up definitely). "
Do you really think I don't know not to edit war?" - I know you are familiar with the policy, but that doesn't change the fact that you did on this occasion. Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 23:09, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
"If your bold edit was reverted, then do not re-revert to your version... Instead, take it to the talk page"and
"Carefully consider whether "policy", "consensus", or "procedure" are valid reasons for the revert."PhotogenicScientist ( talk) 21:49, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
-30-
Happy Holidays and Happy New Year, SPECIFICO!
The other day, I was having a conversation with someone about holiday cards and social media. It occurred to me that, in the years since I left Facebook, the site I use most to communicate with people I like isn't actually a social media site at all. If you're receiving this, it's pretty likely I've talked with you more recently than I have my distant relatives and college friends on FB, at very least, and we may have even collaborated on something useful. So here's a holiday "card", Wikipedia friend. :) Hope the next couple weeks bring some fun and/or rest. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:47, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
For reference, "per talk" within my edit summaries, does not imply any talk page consensus. This broadly means that further context for the edit can be found in the talk page. I have seen you infer this in some edit summaries and I wish to clarify this. Cheers. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 03:09, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
One revert doesn't constitute an edit war. Now, stop harassing me, with OTT warnings. GoodDay ( talk) 16:42, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
@ GoodDay: I'm puzzled by your continued participation at Contentious Topics talk pages after your pledge at Arbitration Enforcement to take a breather. Your comments are rarely substantive. In the case of your most recent comment, you are suggesting that a relatively inexperienced editor disregard the status quo after their new text was reverted for discussion. Yes, they were not the one who breached BRD by quickly reinstating the proposed change, but your comment may have the effect of undermining that process. I find this quite disappointing. Please consider. SPECIFICO talk 22:51, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
@ GoodDay: You are edit-warring again. The [edit in question did not change any consensus text. It was an addition to the article, and additions do not require consensus, as you claimed in your edit summary. Please self-revert before this edit war ends up at Enforcement. SPECIFICO talk 16:41, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
@ GoodDay: Comments such as this are inane and have tended to be passive-aggreessive inflammatory as well. Here's another recent unsupported and unconstructive comment. If you are able to reduce the volume of your talk page comments and to comment only on the substance of a discussion, providing reasoned positions, it would be in everyone's interest for you to begin doing so. You seemed to be prepared to throttle your talk page particpation a month ago, but if anything it has even increased in the Politics area. I note that you did not address that point at your recent AE appeal, but it's all on the record from the last go-round, so you can assume that editors recall it and have not seen any update from you on this issue. SPECIFICO talk 16:37, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
You may be aware that Wikipedia is intended to be a collaborative venture. You chose to revert my good faith edits to the above article, because *one* of the citations I included was to a site that is not considered to be an RS. You simultaneously in effect deleted a sentence which was not supported by that source, but by another, and that in itself is very bad form. Further, in view of the *fact* that the edits I was making were of information which is supported by innumerable sources, something which you could find out in less than 10 seconds, it would have been decent of you to merely point out on my talk page that one of the sources I included was not an RS and invite me to replace it with another. That would have been the decent thing to do. Instead, you chose to just revert, an action which gave me a sense of outrage. You topped this off by suggesting that I find better sources "if I believe this significant". Sorry, 2022 ratings are not significant? Are you serious? Don’t do what you did again. I repeat, Wikipedia is intended to be a collaborative venture. Boscaswell talk 21:41, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." 128.187.116.2 ( talk) 20:09, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
block 'n' ban ensued |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
You are repeatedly removing longstanding, well-sourced, consensus text. - I don't think you know what these words mean. OckRaz talk 17:27, 1 February 2023 (UTC) |
Hi SPECIFICO, just wanted to check where the consensus to have the New York Post logo in the article was established? You referred to in this revert. Thanks. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 10:11, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
an edit that is challenged by reversion may not be reinstated without affirmative consensus on the talk page." It requires that before an edit is reinstated that there is a affirmative consensus on the talk page (that is, WP:EDITCON doesn't count). VQuakr's edit to re-remove the image was within the limits of the process to enforce the consensus required provision which you breached. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 06:14, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
Edits that breach an editor or page restriction may be reverted.") Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 06:31, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
@ Callanecc:, VQuakr made an edit (a deletion) that was challenged by reversion. SPECIFICO did nothing wrong. VQuaker should not have violated BRD (edit warring). -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 06:47, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
@
VQuakr: RE:15:41, 11 February 2023 (UTC) @SPECIFICO, I didn't "reinsert" any file
- not sure what this is about. I did not say you reinserted anything.
Regarding the page restriction: VQuakr, now that it has been discussed here, I'd appreciate it if you'd self-revert your second removal so we can consider the matter closed. Also, please try not to personalize talk page discussions. As you can see on that talk page thread, it has a cascading and unconstructive effect.
SPECIFICO
talk 14:00, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
Just wondered: What topic were you banned from editing on? You're an anti-war conservative. What do you think about the conflict in Ukraine? Lastly, I didn't know there was a "Hanoi" phở so that's an education for me. However I came across a plant-based phở broth ("Delight Phở" teabag by Milley's.) that I really like. They also make other flavored broths, including Thai lemongrass, which I find O.K. and spicy tortilla which seems bland to me. I add other ingredients to the broth including shredded carrots, chopped bell pepper, onion, and roasted seaweed, etc. I'm a vegetarian, but you could add chicken, beef, fish sauce, etc. It's something you could take to work with you. Activist ( talk) 23:24, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
From the New York Post (Reliable Source) https://nypost.com/2023/02/14/nyt-slammed-for-bringing-larry-nassar-into-msu-shooting-coverage/
From Fox News (News Source) https://www.foxnews.com/media/nyt-trashed-making-michigan-state-shooting-story-about-schools-sex-abuse-scandal-biggest-scumbags-ever
From Detroit Sports Nation (News Source) https://detroitsportsnation.com/new-york-times-under-fire-for-publishing-story-relating-michigan-state-shooting-to-larry-nassar-scandal/wgbrady/college-sports/msu-news/02/14/2023/395080/
From Pro Sports Extra (News Source) https://www.prosportsextra.com/tiffany-may-new-york-times-blasted-for-writing-and-publishing-story-tying-recent-shooting-to-the-larry-nassar-scandal-at-michigan-state/
News. 2601:40D:4300:5736:84AF:A824:6A9D:BDD1 ( talk) 18:40, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
Please initiate the conversation. They are valid sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:40D:4300:5736:84AF:A824:6A9D:BDD1 ( talk) 19:10, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
Hey. So as I'm sure you've noticed {{ alert/first}} has a mandatory "Introduction to contentious topics" header that's inserted as part of the substitution. And when you're issuing multiple simultaneous first alerts, results in multiple level 2 headers being created like in this edit. What I've taken to do, and what I've seen a few other folk do, when issuing multiple alerts to someone new to CTOP is to use {{ alert/first}} for the first alert, and then use {{ alert}} for subsequent alert in the same message. In practice this looks like:
{{subst:alert/first|topic=1}}
{{subst:alert|topic=2}}
{{subst:alert|topic=3}} ~~~~
This way you only get the single mandatory "Introduction to contentious topics" header, and all three alerts are still considered valid. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 00:16, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
The ADMINACCT issues have taken over that thread, but to go back to the actual image, do you have the URL you got it from? If so, I'm happy to undelete it and let it defer to a discussion process ( WP:FFD) if someone thinks it needs to be discussedd for deletion. Courcelles ( talk) 17:33, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:NY Post Cover 10 14 2020.PNG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 02:30, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:NY Post Cover 10 14 2020.PNG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 15:36, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
The issue I took there was how another user recently reworded that exact sentence about the Democratic rivalry to use words that fall under MOS:REALTIME. The sentence I used, copied and modified from the Democratic Party article, uses no words to watch. Please double-check both user's contributions. Jalen Folf (talk) 23:31, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Per WP:Preserve, “Wikipedia is a work in progress and perfection is not required. As long as any of the facts or ideas added to an article would belong in the ‘finished’ article, they should be retained if they meet the three core content policies: Neutral point of view(which does not mean no point of view), Verifiability, and No original research.” If you object to something about an edit, please make sure not to revert the parts you don’t object to. And please explain at article talk why you object to the stuff you revert, including all parts of it. You have not followed these Wikipedia requirements with regard to this recent edit, for example. You see something in a series of edits that you don’t approve, so you do a blanket revert of the whole series of edits without any reason or explanation for most of your revert. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 20:53, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
When I posted about what Arthur Schlesinger wrote in his 2017 introduction to his 1947 book, you replied, "Schlesinger 1947 is not the most recent available source." Can you explain why you would claim that the text was from 1947, when clearly I said he wrote it in 2017? TFD ( talk) 02:56, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
My two competing theories for the "Thank" message I received were that it was a misclick or a sarcastic slow clap. You certainly aren't obliged to clarify things for me, but you could if you choose. Newimpartial ( talk) 02:53, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
No apologies needed. As you might have guessed from my edit note, I cleaned up the presentation but was a bit dubious about the content. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 ( talk) 14:44, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
Hi @ SPECIFICO - Since you've recently been doing some work on the Reid Hoffman page I just wanted to give you a head's up that I'm going to really dive into the page, clean it up, remove anything too promotional, etc. Obviously let me know if you have any thoughts/concerns! BMFife ( talk) 16:18, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi! So, as you've conceded, you've falsely attacked me once on the Trump talk page, and I'd actually say you've falsely attacked me at least three times. I realize you most recently raised a BLUDGEON concern—I do think you and I have both been too active there, and I intend to reply far less frequently going forward, although the last responses I made were to questions posed directly to me. Either way, regardless of how noble you think your intentions are, I'd also appreciate if you stopped responding to me or posting on my talk page for at least a week, and I'll extend you the same courtesy. Thanks!-- Jerome Frank Disciple 15:59, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
Jerome, you seem incapable of understanding straightforward feedback, and it appears to me that you think that your "requests" obligate other editors to accept your misunderstanding of content, policy, and behavioral guidelines. As I've already said, it would have been a good move to stick with your decision to step away from that article and apply your efforts elsewhere for the time being. SPECIFICO talk 13:25, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Mistakenly is not the same as "falsely"was one of the funniest things I've ever read. In a sense, you're correct? But I guess not how you think you are. You can be mistakenly false or deliberately false, because, yes, deliberateness has nothing to do with truth value.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 13:36, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Bringing this here because taking it to the DT talk page is an exercise in futility at the moment.
This: the source says "official", not "officer". speaking in the third person
: Trump does that all the time, but that's when he's not pretending to be someone else. In this sentence, it doesn't make any sense because he was pretending to be someone named John Barron. That's kind of hard to do using first person singular, no?
Space4Time3Continuum2x
(talk) 13:39, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
How about this?
Journalist Jonathan Greenberg reported that Trump called him in 1984, pretending to be a fictional Trump Organization official named " John Barron". Trump, speaking as "Barron", falsely asserted that he owned more than 90 percent of his father's business to get a higher ranking for himself on the Forbes 400 list of wealthy Americans
SPECIFICO talk 13:51, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Jerome Frank Disciple 16:45, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
@ SPECIFICO: Please participate in the discussion. QuicoleJR ( talk) 18:51, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
Per this ANI thread you are banned from American politics for thirty days. The ban will expire at this time on 2023-06-23. If you have any questions feel free to ask. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 14:59, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
Or the editors who favored sanctions on content-related grounds. I directly addressed that in my closing statement, so to repeat, I gave less weight to arguments that seemed based on editor bias or content disagreements.
the accusersare under no obligation to respond to your rebuttals, and others not returning to reaffirm or change their positions does not invalidate their responses. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 22:44, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
The second complainant stated that he had (unintentionally) misrepresented my actions without vacating the accusations that were based on what they came to know was not true. That's quite problematic.
the second complainant" then I dispute this, I do not agree that I misrepresented SPECIFICO's words, quotes, or actions. I don't want to further debate this or continue to inflame this dispute, so I will not comment further. Thanks. — Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 15:42, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
Look, it never has to get this complicated. Steer clear of the behavior line, and you don't end up at ANI/AE in the first place. You can't reasonably claim to have done that. You're reminding me in some ways of Winkelvi. ― Mandruss ☎ 13:06, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
None of them stuckI sit corrected. Steer clear of the behavior line, and you don't end up with a sanction at ANI/AE in the first place. No doubt, there are rare exceptions to that rule. And a community-imposed wikibreak can be viewed by the recipient as a gift, aside from the black mark on their record.
This user is aware that, in the end, it's only Wikipedia. |
I still had to weather the process- I reckon that's part of the price of performing controversial edits in controversial topic areas, until Wikipedia comes up with a way to prevent it. A wise man (I) once said, "Ya can't fix people." ― Mandruss ☎ 22:41, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
If we had no faults of our own, we should not take so much pleasure in noticing those in others.O3000, Ret. ( talk) 00:30, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
I have created a new essay and would welcome some critique on the talk page there:
If this would violate your ban, then don't respond there. You can answer here, but ping me. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 22:59, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
Maybe I haven't had enough coffee this morning, but this looks like a mundane fix of an unclosed quote that you reverted? Am I missing something? VQuakr ( talk) 15:47, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
Hello User:SPECIFICO:
I wanted to check in with you about the updates to the Guzel Ganieva lawsuit brought against Leon Black. The latest developments in the case are ‘just the facts’ and provide relevant and up-to-date information and are well sourced. Are you able to post the updates to the article about the case being dismissed? Thank you, Marksherr16 ( talk) 20:44, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
Glad you're back. Re your edit: status quo was "six bankruptcies", until this edit added "business" and the Wikilink on May 21 ( business bankruptcies). With all the other edits around that time, I didn’t notice until today. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:49, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
That topic on that one talk page needed to be close. In the future, can I close a topic if it turns into theories that are unsupported for Wikipedia? Cwater1 ( talk) 22:56, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
Please revert your closing of Talk:Hunter Biden#RfC about including the name of Hunter Biden's daughter. With 9 editors in support, and 23 opposing, this was hardly a "snow". More important, the instructions at WP:RFC specifically call for an "uninvolved editor", which you are not, because you commented in the RfC. Please fix your error. Thank you. Magnolia677 ( talk) 14:08, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
"involved in the discussion itself or related disputes related disputes"is considered involved editor.Your comment in the discussion was not made
"purely in an administrative role". That comment looks like nonsense. Please explain what you meant. Moreover, you repeatedly participated in related disputes before the close: [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10].Before the RFC, you closed a discussion with a misleading summary
"[t]his has been fully addressed."[11] Your later comments (see diffs above) indicate that you should have not closed the discussion, and should have rather entered the discussion as a participant, if at all. Your close failed to appropriately summarise the discussion, and created more heat than light.RFCs typically run for at least 30 days and this RFC was not due to being closed until 11 August. Unless the result is unanimous or nearly unanimous, RFCs are not the best candidates for SNOW close. Politrukki ( talk) 14:53, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
"Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrative actions ... Administrators should justify their actions when requested."Do you agree a response time of few weeks (even if we ignore the one week Specifico was blocked) is not "prompt"?There was a major development to the story in 28 July (I think): Joe Biden admitted having six, not seven, grandchildren and mentioned the name. This was massively covered in reliable sources for one news cycle. No, there's no evidence that mentioning the name was either irresponsible or "child abuse". Politrukki ( talk) 15:00, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the
guide to appealing blocks (specifically
this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{
unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}
. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, I suggest you use the
arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (
by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page.
Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."
make sure there is a clearly visible edit summary or separate section of the talk page that explains the exemption.Enforced BRD and the edit warring exemption both require communication. You've been around Wikipedia and contentious topics long enough to know these rules. You plainly reverted a partial revert without discussion on the talk page in direct violation of the enforced BRD sanctions on the article. I know you're familiar with these sanctions as you've brought them up as your preferred anti-edit warring sanction at AE, and you've recently reported at least one editor for violating it.
"As I said above, I'm not asking for an edit-war BLP exemption."Yet you wrote above, and I quote, that you did not repost
"the clear statement in my initial revert on the article talk page before again removing BLP and NPOV violations."Your first response to the block was to claim your edit was in service of BLP policy. Now you've said the opposite, that you were not invoking BLP policy.
but it offers no reasoning or principle for reinstating validly disputed BLP content. But the important fact is that they reinserted UNDUE BLP content)then 3RRNO is the policy you're invoking to bypass the sanction placed on the article. Your failure to post on the talk page is material because enforced BRD requires at least 24 hours after a talk page discussion is opened before restoring reverted content. As stated on the talk page and the edit notice,
You must follow the bold-revert-discuss cycle if your change is reverted. You may not reinstate your edit until you post a talk page message discussing your edit and have waited 24 hours from the time of this talk page message(emphasis added). If you had
gone back and cut and pasted [your] edit summary to the talk page, and then proceeded for the third time to remove the article textit would have also been a violation and resulted in a block without the requisite 24 hour hold for discussion.
SFR. 24-BRD is not a revert-warring restriction. The policy you cited is about 1RR and 3RR. Full stop. I have not disputed that I did not go to the talk page per 24-BRD. Please review my comments above so that we can try for convergence rather than broadening to irrelevant topics. You wrote that I did not wait 24 hours after starting a discussion before reinstating your edit. SFR: That is not what 24-BRD states. And I have been around that restriction and followed the discussion of it when Awilley created it and when Arbcom endorsed it. Your misstatement is disqualifying. I really think that -- in light of that apparent misunderstanding of the restriction you invoked, and your citing of the irrelevant 3RRNO policy -- you should vacate the block you imposed step back from this. Please do not take this as a personal criticism or feel defensive about it, but under the circumstances, that would be best. Moreover -- your reinsertion of the defective BLP content, including most importantly the bit about criticism of the Bidens w/o conveying the sources' statements that it is from their opponents, is a significant BLP violation. I'm sure you would agree that your role as Admin does not entitle you to skip reading the sources of content you publish in the encyclopedia after a BLP concern has been recorded. SPECIFICO talk 12:14, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
You must follow the bold-revert-discuss cycle if your change is reverted. You may not reinstate your edit until you post a talk page message discussing your edit and have waited 24 hours from the time of this talk page message, which matches the language on the notice displayed when you edit Hunter Biden. WP:CTOP#cite_note-4 also explains this, saying
On pages where "enforced BRD" is in effect, an edit that is challenged by reversion may not be reinstated by the editor who originally made it until the editor (a) posts a talk page message discussing the edit and (b) waits 24 hours from the time of the talk page message.
explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administratoror
prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 15:46, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
(If an edit you make is challenged by reversion you must discuss the issue on the article talk page and wait 24 hours (from the time of the original edit) before reinstating your edit.)which they clearly aware of, their history of warnings and sanctions, being less than a month off a community imposed American politics topic ban, and the clear misunderstanding of sanctions that they have invoked leads me to believe that this block is necessary. SPECIFICO is, of course, welcome to make an appeal at WP:AE, WP:ARCA, or WP:AN. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 16:44, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
It's the sort of immaterial and inadvertent violation that experienced editors routinely self-revert upon a friendly user-talkis complicated in this instance. While it is true on the surface that experienced editors will generally self-revert upon a friendly talk page message, about a month ago you reported Jerome Frank Disciple to SFR for violating the same sanction on another article. In that instance, you did not give JFD the same courtesy note prior to reporting him for the same
immaterial and inadvertent violation that experienced editors routinely self-revert upon a friendly user-talk.
You’ve been asked this before on your talk page, as I can see, but please stop removing well-sourced paragraphs about the rape allegations against Leon Black under the guise of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:UNDUE. The coverage of the accusations are widely covered by reliable sources, and those coverages being about a high-profile rape lawsuit, his third for that matter, is hard to claim that they "aren't news".
Respectfully, please withhold from making any more of these edits.
Cornmazes ( talk) 21:58, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 09:03, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
Done
Hello fellow Wikipedia editor. I would like to inquire about the deletion you made of my comment on the talk page referenced in the header. As you know, editing or removing another's comments in talk is generally not best practice. After reviewing the removal, I can't tell if perhaps, however, I inadvertently posted my minor edit suggestion under another topic as a sub-heading? If that was your reasoning, though your comment associated with the action was somewhat rude, I will redo my not-nonsense comment under its own heading.
If you decided to remove my comment just because you didn't think it had merit, then I will let your edit stand and follow my own advice about expectations on Wikipedia. As an aside, you have a serial comma badge on your talk page; surely you understand the importance of, the proper use of, this particular punctuation.
If you would be kind enough to provide clarity so I know which path to take forward, I would much appreciate it.
I wish you all the best and tip my hat to your anti-fake news work, it must be exhausting. FranMichael ( talk) 01:28, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments. Such edits are disruptive, and may appear to other editors to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Note the guidance at WP:COLLAPSENO – Your idea of what is off topic may differ from what others think is off topic, so be sure to err on the side of caution. I would think it would be readily apparent that “erring on the side of caution” means not edit warring your hatting of other’s comments. As in your case it was evidently not apparent to you, I hope you can take this as a learning experience. Cambial — foliar❧ 21:03, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=User:Valjean/Why_Crossfire_Hurricane%3F
Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 03:07, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
The article is currently in an RFC, removing the tag an the sourced material is not conducive to building a consensus based encyclopedia. Id as you to undo and let it sit until the discussion is over. DarrellWinkler ( talk) 21:44, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
SPECIFICO, you are one of the most active editors on several pages, including The New York Times, where 95% of your edits are reverts, many of which are almost instantly after the edit. In fact, in last 4 years of editing the New York Times, you have made the most reversions. I would like to voice my objection that I highly doubt whether you have read everything you revert, especially given that many appear to be good-faith edits.
You engage in what I perceive as failing to engage in quality, substantive discussion on talk pages. [14]. Not all of your discussions are bad, but the speed and quantity of your discussions mean that when the quality falls, it has a big impact on the page.
You have made excessive claims of "edit warring" on many, many users, almost instantly after their edits are made. You fail even to specify with what edits or why you believe "edit wars" occur. DenverCoder9 ( talk) 19:53, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
Did you change your WP name? Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 14:05, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
{{
Unsigned}}
or {{
Unsigned IP}}
instead. The user can come along later and replace that with their signature, if they feel embarrassed about minor brain farts. That said, I don't know of a guideline to that effect. ―
Mandruss
☎ 15:17, 28 August 2023 (UTC)EDIFICO, PROLIFICO, MAGNIFICO, ORRIFICO, MUNIFICO... PONITIFICO. SPECIFICO talk 13:53, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
Do you have a policy reason to change the RfC I've laid out? I've seen others laid out like this and never seen an object to it. Seems like a clean way of organizing the comments and also encourages comments like yours to go into the section called "discussion." Nemov ( talk) 15:56, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
I see you reinstated an edit challenged by revison
here. That is a violation of the Arbitration remedies on the page Changes challenged by reversion may not be reinstated without affirmative consensus on the talk page
. Please self revert.
PackMecEng (
talk) 19:12, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Makeandtoss ( talk) 14:09, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the
guide to appealing blocks (specifically
this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{
unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}
. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, I suggest you use the
arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (
by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page.
Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."
using it as a spear here and on my talk page for your annoyance at my meagre efforts toward NPOV content and talk page discussion... And of course your personal animus toward me, on and off-wiki is a matter of record. Very disappointing.Your "anyone who doesn't agree with me must be attacked" style editing there is also textbook WP:BATTLEGROUND, which you were continuing after I brought up you had been warned for it in the past. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 20:40, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
repeat[ed] a false accusation. I said that I was of a similar mind to another admin. Being of a similar mind is not being of the same mind. Your response is another example of your battleground behavior.
accusing me of a general attitude that "anyone who doesn't agree with me must be attacked"... your broadcasting of that lie at ANI... Your statement that I routinely attack editors in the course of talk page disagreements
The Original Barnstar | |
I`ve been trying to e-mail you but I don`t see a link..can we talk Anonymous8206 ( talk) 16:11, 15 October 2023 (UTC) |
Hi; we've gotten along fine, and I believe we've agreed more than disagreed. But your partial revert of my removal is a blatant violation of WP:BLPRESTORE.
At Glenn Greenwald, you've reinstated an insinuation of antisemitism sourced to a blog, arguing that the author is a "notable expert". WP:EXPERTSPS requires expertise "in the relevant field" (law, not antisemite detection), and says: "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert" (boldface not mine). WP:BLPSPS requires expertise (again, wrong field), and being "subject to the newspaper's full editorial control", which isn't true here (hosted by WaPo, but "We will retain full editorial control over what we write", source). That overrides WP:NEWSBLOG, but it too urges "caution". None of thees policies plausibly allow this.
You also reinstated a
WP:COATRACK paragraph about an accusation of antisemitism directed at Rashida Tlaib, who Greenwald defended. The first source doesn't even mention Greenwald. The second source is an interview of Greenwald by Democracy Now! (which is
WP:MREL). That's tenuously sourced and not plausibly due. Your revert rationale
was based on Greenwald's documented interaction with Omar
; yet the material making this claim ("In an exchange with Greenwald in February 2019"), is in fact not supported by the citation.
Please self-revert, and please reexamine the two core content policies I linked. Thanks - DFlhb ( talk) 15:17, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
There is already “clear evidence” that war crimes may have been committed in the latest explosion of violenceis about " past Israeli action" prior to the war (you said this repeatedly). Separately, just 2 weeks ago you asserted BLPRESTORE on tame, non-BLP material inside a BLP; yet now you're saying it’s unclear whether I had BLP concerns with antisemitism accusations?? These "geometrically-variable" policy interpretations that depend on the content's POV are clear-as-day battleground behavior, and you're continuing to do it, 2 weeks after being blocked for it.
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Louis Stettner, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) ( talk) 18:08, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 00:41, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
I was surprised to see you remove this source. 99% of edits to this page are not preceded by talk page proposals to gain some consensus. I've been reading Klein's work for over a decade. Unlike the mass of newspaper sources and their journalists, he knows intimately the ins and outs of the politics of Hamas and Israel and and is peer-published on that. What he states about the Hamas accommodation in 2021 is well documented, if invisible on wiki pages for that period.
The point follows the standard paragraph which says many Western states consider Hamas ,a terrorist organization, while 'rogue' or non Western states don't consider it thus. The general impression given is that Hamas is nothing but an unbending terrorist organization. It is, properly, a political organization which has quite frequently resorted to terrorism, something not untypical of some Western states, and Israel. The difference is, Hamas is a non.or para-state actor.
The page per NPOV required in the background some bare notation that it also has engaged in political compromises both with the PA and, indirectly Israel, and this particular reaching out for a political arrangement via the PA is known to have been vetoed by the US and Israel. That is a fact and crucial, particularly since planning for the incursions and massacres seems to have begun in the immediate aftermath of the 2021 crisis. That is serious information, as opposed to generic statements that just state Hamas is a terrorist group and nothing else.
Finally, I cannot see any evidence that my edit was contested or reverted before you. No one challenged it on the talk page. You didn't open up a discussion on deleting the information either. In my experience, that is unusual coming from you. Nishidani ( talk) 14:35, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
You misunderstand. I was asking for attribution for the quote, as it is an opinion, per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. It is not a question of referencing. Tim O'Doherty ( talk) 22:13, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
Hi SPECIFICO,
I think your long Wikipedia experience and familiarities with policy would be a welcome voice on the current rfc on the Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign talk page. There's been a lot of back and forth and I think we need some more experienced editors in the conversation. BootsED ( talk) 01:59, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
Re this, Soibangla is being overly stubborn against solid arguments by multiple editors, exhibiting IDHT. Why not start this workshop thread yourself? I'd do it, but it would be too much involvement for my semi-retirement. You could start it off with your own proposed content option, with citations. ― Mandruss ☎ 23:58, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
bullshitwas predictable and the reason for no ping. Your angry, combative, non-AGF tone is offensive, un-Wikipedian, and unwelcome.You may not have noticed that I'm trying to expedite the main article content that you want! For the umpteenth time (IDHT), you don't need an RfC consensus to propose specific content. So get on with it or get out of the way of others who are prepared to do so. ― Mandruss ☎ 00:40, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
I am always happy to host a lttle spat among friends, but I believe that this content was being stonewalled by editors who showed no familiarity or concern with the subject matter. Polling says that half the US electorate are committed Republicans, so it's not surprising that some lesser but still significant minority of WP editors are unaware of what's published in most RS reporting and analysis. The Trump page suffered an earlier crop of same who either got TBANs or got bored blocking and went away. It's disappointing to think that the same thing can happen repeatedly with a new round of visitors. Fortunately, some very thougthful and well-informed new editors have arrived as well. Each time Soibangla has proposed some straightforward article content, various editors have risen up and beaten it down with straw man, red herring, and plum pudding arguments. And that's before the inevitable cheese course. SPECIFICO talk 01:10, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
Fortunately, some very thougthful and well-informed new editors have arrived as well.― Mandruss ☎ 01:42, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
Update the number of displaced people for me please. https://twitter.com/AliciaJ1985/status/1737961681794498946 173.44.89.180 ( talk) 16:58, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar | |
For your spirited defense of me, I award you this smiley barnstar. Andre 🚐 08:26, 26 December 2023 (UTC) |
The following sanction now applies to you:
You are topic banned from the Palestine/Israel conflict, broadly construed, for 60 days.
You have been sanctioned for WP:BATTLEGROUND editing. [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22]
This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles#Final decision and, if applicable, the contentious topics procedure. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.
You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 16:16, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
Hey. This edit, and the corresponding addition to the article talk page are a pretty clear violation of the TBAN that you were sanctioned under on 26 December 2023. Will you please self-revert the removal from the article? Sideswipe9th ( talk) 22:01, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the
guide to appealing blocks (specifically
this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{
unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}
. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, I suggest you use the
arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (
by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page.
Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."
Unless clearly and unambiguously specified otherwise, a topic ban covers all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic, as well as the parts of other pages that are related to the topic, as encapsulated in the phrase "broadly construed".Editing sections of articles or talk pages is explicitly covered by the topic ban. Discussing sources related to the conflict is covered. Removing a section of criticism explicitly about the topic is covered. Discussing removal of criticism about the topic is covered. Editing the phrasing of the sentence
In 2001, the Israeli–Palestinian peace process begun with the Oslo Accords in 1993 and 1995 collapsed with the start of the Second Intifada and the departure of committed peace broker Bill Clinton from office as U.S. president.is covered. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 23:47, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
These edits do not relate to discussion of the topic of the ban, nor are they contentious. I suggest you reverse this.Does that do anything to convince someone that the violations won't recur? ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 22:28, 12 February 2024 (UTC)