This is an archive of past discussions with User:SPECIFICO. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hi there. I appreciate your support on the edits to mathematical finance and financial economics. I think we can both see a certain user wants to believe that a lack of training in finance/economics makes them better or superior in terms of math. Unfortunately this kind of ego trip gets in the way of users who want to understand the 'true' relationship of finance, economics and math. I do not teach or work in finance but I am a trained economist and I'm going to keep insisting on these edits. Thanks again and feel free to reach out for any reason. Thesmeagol2 (talk) 13:32, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
I'm an economist who had an academic career early on before being recruited to finance as a practitioner. Many or most of the economics articles on WP are in poor shape. It's too bad that efforts to improve them are met with this kind of resistance from editors who, simply put, don't know better while at the same time can be quite obstinate in their views. Do carry on. There are not very many editors available to help out on these articles. Thanks for your visit. Come back any time. SPECIFICOtalk13:49, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
I noticed you reverted one of my edits, citing a lack of consensus. However, there already existed a discussion on the talk page regarding that proposed edit, in which a majority of those taking part agreed to include the discussed source. In the future, before simply reverting another user's edit, please first check an article's talk page to see if a discussion exists, and voice your concerns there.
Here are a couple of good resource pages to use when considering reverting edits:
Following your reasoning, we should change Watergate Scandal to "Washington Post/Watergate Hotel break-in story." It could begin, "The Washington Post/Watergate Hotel break-in story involves allegations by liberal journalists working for the Washington Post that there was a break-in at DNC HQ...." Articles should not cast doubt on established facts. That's the type of deceptive writing one would expect to see in right-wing media. It's the tactic they use for climate change denial, which they call "scepticism." But whether or not articles should be used for Democratic Party propaganda isn't something that should be argued across numerous article talk pages. If you want to change the policy, then go to the Village Pump. TFD (talk) 02:32, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
@The Four Deuces: The argument SPECIFICO is making is obviously that there is doubt amongst RS that the Hunter Biden laptop story constitutes a controversy/scandal. To compare it to Watergate, one of the most researched scandals of all time, is an intrepid false equivalence on your part. ––FormalDude(talk)02:43, 16 September 2022 (UTC) (talk page watcher)
No, the claim SPECIFICO is making is that there is doubt that the laptop existed, which is similar to making the claim that the Watergate break-in was in doubt.
After the Watergate burglary, the White House claimed it was a "third rate burglary" and they had nothing to do with it. The Watergate scandal obviously wasn't "well documented" at the time and the majority of Republicans defended Nixon until shortly before he resigned. But none of them claimed the burglary itself was a hoax. They didn't say for example that it was staged by Castro whom Nixon believed was colluding with the Democrats. (One purpose of the break-in was to find evidence of this.)
This seems to be a new approach. Instead of questioning just what has not yet been proved, question everything. In any case per Expressions of doubt, articles are not supposed to imply that established facts are in doubt, except in the case of criminal charges that have not yet been proved in court. But owning a laptop is not itself a criminal offense, and therefore no policy based reason question its existence.
As I said in the discussion page, the article should certainly not use the New York Post as a source, since it is not considered rs, and not present any of its claims as facts except if verified in reliable sources.
Thank you for your suggestion on how to structure my response to the rfc. I provided the suggested rewrite of the lead to show how the article in general can be written in a neutral fashion, which avoids using the undue weight qualifier which violates npov. I'll add this note to explain my policy/guideline based !vote. --Guest2625 (talk) 05:46, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
My point was that, after you explain your !vote, it would be clearer if the proposed replacement text can be discussed in the discussion section. IMO the basic problem is that the subject of the page, "controversy", is contrived and the content belongs in other articles. SPECIFICOtalk13:00, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
If you want to make a duplicate copy of my proposed changes that is fine and you can place it where ever you like. My reading of the the wikipedia article and the sources that I found is that the subject of the controversy is the lead sentence which I proposed:
"The Hunter Biden laptop controversy involves a laptop computer and the question of its ownership by Hunter Biden, son of the then presidential candidate Joe Biden, and if the emails on the hard drive reveal unethical behavior."
It is important that everyone working on the article is on the same page as to what the controversy and topic of the article is about. Discussion of content of the article is better if continued on the article's talk page. --Guest2625 (talk) 22:20, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
I have no interest in discussing anything about the article content with you on this page. My point is that you should not have placed extended discussion in the polling section, because it makes the RfC harder to understand for participants and whoever closes the RfC. I can't post your comments for you. Incidentally, you should never change your comments on a talk page after other editors have responded to your comment. That is highly misleading. Please see WP:TPG. Thanks for your visit. SPECIFICOtalk23:10, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
Just saying Hi! as we disagree
Hey, just wanted to leave a friendly Hi! on your talk page. I know we are currently disagreeing but I figured a "Hope all is well!" is still welcome. Hope all is well! Springee (talk) 23:21, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Aw, we disagree all the time :D That's OK. Rarely did an article end up worse off after a friendly disagreement. Springee (talk) 23:30, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
Substantiate accusations
Hey there. You’ve recently accused me of misrepresenting sources, saying I called Mother Jones inaccurate and mislabeled Tablet Diff. Can you provide a diff to substantiate those claims? If not, I’m going to
open a case at AE to review these aspersions. Mr Ernie (talk) 02:21, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Please provide a diff where I did this (quoting you) “Ernie has misrepresented two sources, calling greenlit Mother Jones inaccurate…” I would like a diff of mine to back up this aspersion. It is a serious accusation to say another editor has misrepresented a source. Mr Ernie (talk) 22:00, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
So you concede you misrepresented Tablet? I was one of three editors who objected to your deprecation of Mother Jones in that thread. Mother Jones is greenlit RS. Do you also wish to threaten @Mobshgo and Zaathras: as well? I really don't know what's brought you here. SPECIFICOtalk22:10, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Oops @Muboshgu:. Ernie, this is your thread. It's all in the talk page about Hunter Biden. As I said, I am not able to make any sense of your appearance here, and I've tried to correct some of your misaprehensions. Others -- such as your linking a blocked editor's opinion and claiming it's somehow the same thing as to a greenlight at RSPN -- I simply can't understand. SPECIFICOtalk22:57, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
It’s a simple request. You accused me of something. Please provide the diff where you think I did what you accused me of. Mr Ernie (talk) 23:11, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Can you point out where I misrepresented a source? You quoted me quoting the text at the RSN entry about Mother Jones. Mr Ernie (talk) 00:38, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Just so we are clear, you are saying a quote from our Reliable Sources overview misrepresents a source? If that’s what you believe then you’ll need to raise that at the RS noticeboard Mr Ernie (talk) 17:20, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Please be very careful with your language. You misrepresented the Reliability of 2 sources and their suitability for verification. I did not say that you misrepresented the content of a particular publication by any source in article text. Your language is ambiguous. At any rate, I've already tried my best to respond to you above. SPECIFICOtalk00:50, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
You been asked and warned at least a dozen times to be careful with your language. You are casting aspersions against me, again, without providing any diffs. The last time you were at AE quite a few admins felt you deserved a topic ban. I will ask you one final time to please strike your aspersions against me or provide diffs. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:21, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Your revert to my update after talk page discussion Talk:Hunter_Biden_laptop_controversy#NBC_News_Change_of_Position_-_Other_Press_Outlets caused a lot of discussion, and the update was reinstated by another editor.
I made a call to the group on 23 May asking if EVERYBODY was happy with the cut down wording that was discussed in the section above, and got one comment that it was 'well on track', before putting in the update after waiting 2 weeks for any further comment.
My suggestion is that when you disagree with something after talk page discussion, rather than immediately reverting it, count to 10.
You have an incredibly busy talk page that suggests lots of active discussions with other editors. I think you would enjoy Wikipedia more if you took a little more time before reacting, especially if you disagree.
In this case you could have started a further discussion on the talk page to say why the entry was wrong, and sent me a message asking to revert because the discussion was not closed.
Anyway enjoy your weekend, and I hope this is helpful. RonaldDuncan (talk) 16:58, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
Nobody owes you further discussion on a matter that receives little or no support. I stated several times why your edit was no good. Maybe review my edit summaries and talk page comments if it's slipped your mind. BTW, there's no such user as EVERYBODY. If you wish to notify or seek comment from specific users, please use the standard ping format templates. Thanks for your visit. SPECIFICOtalk17:02, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi, I should probably have been clearer and more direct. You do a lot of editing in controversial topics. You seem to get into a number of edit wars. You get sanctioned. You continue edit wars and talk page discussions and get broader bans and sanctions.
My suggestion is that you think before you respond, and then review your response. And if the response is not friendly and helpful maybe leave the response to review the next day. That way, I hope you will stop being sanctioned. It may also give you some ideas on how to produce a better response. RonaldDuncan (talk) 19:41, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
I have not been in an "edit war" in nearly a decade. And taking a trip to AE is not the same as being sanctioned. I am neck and neck with Marek for frequent flyer miles there. Please check your facts. Fortunately, I doubt anyone will take your complaint seriously without the least bit of eidence or detail. Please do better next time you visit. SPECIFICOtalk20:36, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
I have not been in an "edit war" in nearly a decade.
I think you are mistaken on this. What are the two entries above this one if not warnings about edit wars? You have 21 archived talk pages, and 19 mentions of "edit war" when searched. You also have not yet made a decade on Wikipedia. So both assertions are false.
This what I mean by THINK before you respond. You are obviously not stupid. You are clearly passionate about the topics you edit. But when you say some thing that is obviously provably false, it does not help your case.
I am not complaining. I am trying to educate you, and help you so that you passion for wikipedia is productive. Good luck
If I recall correctly, you've been around Wikipedia for quite some time. And you are citing unsubstantiated, unadjudicated complaints by random talk page visitors as evidence of something or other? That just makes you look bad. Please, if you're going to embarrass yourself, do it on your own talk page or do it in private. SPECIFICOtalk19:34, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
August 2022
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Sigurdur Thordarson. 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:
Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
I see you have already posted a warning on the other editor's talk page so I won't add to that. You really don't want to make another trip to WP:ANEW. LizRead!Talk!22:30, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Hello Liz. What do you mean by "another trip to ANEW?" When do you think there was any credible claim that I have been edit warring? The complaints that were dismissedr? The ones from now-banned users? The one when I was a brand new editor and didn't understand the rule? Please check the archives and consider whether an Admin should gratuitously post that sort of thing when only a short time ago an editor came here with false allegations of edit warring apparently based on other false allegations of edit-warring. I know you to be a solid longtime Admin, but careless, snide statements like that take on a life of their own and encourage a lot of needless and baseless drama by others. See also this waste of time and attention. I'm well aware of the history of that page and the content dispute there, as are other editors at that page. SPECIFICOtalk23:48, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
I wish an admin would take a look at that section and weigh in. SPECIFICO lied about me, saying I "misrepresented two sources, calling greenlit Mother Jones inaccurate and mislabeling Tablet." Naturally I came here to ask for diffs, which resulted in the productive back and forth you can see above. The problem was that SPECIFICO thought my comment about Mother Jones was my opinion, and probably didn't realize I was simply quoting directly from the Mother Jones entry at Perennial Sources. Normally editors aren't supposed to cast aspersions like that, but some seem to have more leeway. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:13, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
I don't think that personal attacks in edit summaries are a great idea in general, but they especially aren't on this of all pages. I realize it's annoying to deal with people being stupid, and appreciate that you have been helping with such, but there is no need to feed the hitpieces by embedding hostility into the edit history. jp×g02:36, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
There is no personal attack. It is a direct reply to the edit summary given when that content was removed. And I see no basis for you to call that other editor a troll. There are plenty of misinformation trolls on that page, but the registered editor whose contribution I reverted was not one of them. That editor gave a reason for their contribution, and I gave a reason for reverting it. SPECIFICOtalk11:15, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
ANI Refusal to say why something is a BLP violation
@Liz: FYI -- This editor has now opened two simultaneous ANI threads about me in addition to his complaints on the article talk page and at BLPN. As you may have seen, OP is a single purpose account whose edits are overwhelmingly about Julian Assange and pages that feed narratives about the Assange page content. I think this user may have a significant inability to engage in any constructive way SPECIFICOtalk13:02, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion
I've been wondering, when you refer to something as "BLP smear" what do you mean by that? I have asked you this before here, but you never gave a specific answer. I remember you using the expression a couple of times since that, but, off the the top of my head, I remember only one specific instance. So, what is "BLP smear" and why do you say it? If you cannot provide a clear answer, would you kindly stop using the expression, if you already haven't? Cheers, Politrukki (talk) 15:50, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
Does that mean that you don't personally like the content? What, if any, is the message you wish to convey to others, policy wise? Politrukki (talk) 18:53, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
You're welcome. I've been here only for a couple of minutes, but I know what WP:UNDUE is, thank you very much. What I don't understand is why you assume that some outsider would infer that "BLP smear" refers to the UNDUE policy. There's no U in "BLP smear". I assume most editors would think that by using the expression you claim that the material violates BLP policy in some way. Politrukki (talk) 20:19, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
You are putting words into my mouse. No mas, no mouse. Negative BLP material that meets WEIGHT is often not a BLP violation. Negative BLP content that is UNDUE is unsound. Maybe take your concerns to the village pump or the tea room if you want to discuss with folks whose opinions you might value more than mine. SPECIFICOtalk21:45, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
"You are putting words into my mouse." I don't think I am, but if I am, it could be that Russian intelligence stole the words from you or hacked me. I don't need help for understanding policy. I would like to convince you use normal expressions. I don't see how pumps or opium rooms can help me in the task. If you mean to express that something is given undue weight, perhaps use the word "undue", not "BLP" nor "smear". You can say "thanks, I shall take this into consideration" or you can continue misleading and disparaging editors. Your choice. Thanks, Politrukki (talk) 13:01, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
August 2022
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for Edit warring / Consensus Required, as was discussed at this discussion. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.
Note that this is a standard admin action, not a DS block. It is highly unlikely that a future sanction will be as generous. Dennis Brown - 2¢19:25, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
Please do not accuse me of being coy. I am struggling to understand your action. The only plausible reason I can see for any sanction would have been a violation of the letter of the sequences spelled out in the essay you cited and the wording of the page restriction in the absence of any BLP issue. But that would not have been a standard Admin block. In terms of standard Admin actions, I made a single revert of content related to the documented longstanding BLP issue of Assange vs. Wikileaks, and there was talk page discussion as to the application of that issue to this specific edit. So I do not see what policy would trigger an ordinary Admin action block. I'm really surprised you would think I am being disingenuous here. I've tried to articulate these distinctions at the AE page. There was no violation of Consensus even if the letter of the CR page restriction was deemed violated because the BLP issue does not meet whatever threshhold might be needed. As you may be aware, the talk page thread indicates that there is no consensus for the material that Softlemonades and I removed. So except for the letter of the page restriction, ignoring BLP, the two violations of consensus are the editors who reinstated the content. It's a textbook example of content that was longstanding without consensus. SPECIFICOtalk20:55, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
I'm not going to rehash what is already spelled out at AE. You simply disagree. This is a standard admin action, so you aren't forced to go to AN or AE to get it reviewed. You are welcome to appeal it here on your talk page. Any AE familiar admin is welcome to vacate my sanction and replace it with one of their own choosing, or none. I grant full permission without consultation. Dennis Brown - 2¢21:00, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
Dennis, I am not trying to annoy you. You stated this was "not a DS block" and was an ordinary Admin action. I do not see any basis for an ordinary admin block, and I am just trying to understand that basis before any appeal request. SPECIFICOtalk21:03, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
Let me break it down for you: It is a violation of DS policy to do that third revert, period. AP is the area, CR is the issue. DS stands for "discretionary sanctions" meaning I have a full pallet of choices in front of me. It is at my discretion what the sanction will be, within broad limits. I could have indef topic banned you under DS, I could have blocked you 1 year under DS, or I could choose to take action as a "standard admin action", which limits what I can do somewhat, but is less severe and is what I chose. Making it a 48 hour, standard admin action means you are only blocked for 48 hours and there is zero logged under discretionary sanctions. It is literally the least amount of sanction a person could get, and I fully expect that some will complain that it is insufficient and that I should have done more. Just as you are complaining that I did too much. I even covered this in the close. You violated policy with the 3rd edit, whether you realize it or not (and you should), and you got off with the least amount of sanction I could possibly do. Again, I'm welcoming any admin to review and if they decide, to completely vacate my actions and insert their own, without any further discussion with me. I don't think you will like it if they do, but this is your call. I had to do something, and I did something very, very mild, mistakenly thinking you would get the point if I only used a very lenient sanction. Dennis Brown - 2¢21:14, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
I don't seem to be communicating clearly enough. I am not "complaining" at all. You will recall that at AE I affirmed that you or any Admin could have unilaterally sanctioned based on what I understand to be your view -- that BLP was not at play and that the letter of the sanction was a bright line. So you could applied any of the sanctions under the authority delegated to Admins under DS. But my question, and what I still am not seeing resolved, is that you said you were not acting under DS -- you said that it was an ordinary Admin block not a DS block. Note, I'm not sure that violating a page restriction under DS is the same as "violating a policy", or at least I have never seen it referred to that way before. I think you completely misunderstand what I have said here, starting with the premise that I am complaining or aggrieved by a 48 hour block.
At this point either I will have communicated better or not, but it's not worth either of our time. I have one request however, which I hope you'll agree is more constructive than that. Many editors have quit that page, including half a dozen Admins who were formerly active editors there. It would be very helpful if you could periodically have a look at the talk page and the nature of the interactions there. To get a sense of the tone there, please have a look at the user talk page of the other editors who were involved in the article text relating to the AE complaint. It is at User talk:Softlemonades. This young woman, a newcomer to that article, is being harassed and insulted by other Assange page editors in ways that she clearly finds upsetting. It's unfortunate that we do not have more Admins who are as willing as you to devote time to the most difficult areas such as politics and AE. We really could use many more eyes on these pages so that this kind of thing does not get escalated to noticeboard complaints. Anyway thanks for your moderation. I really do not have any complaints, just the procedural point I raised above. Maybe it is just a matter of nomenclature. SPECIFICOtalk22:01, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
I was kind to you and hoped you would get the point, that's why it is not a DS action. It's still a block, but it can't be used for escalating DS sanctions in the future. You don't seem to realize it, but I did you a favor by making it a vanilla block, and it is fully within my authority to do so. This is a good faith gamble that I won't have to see you at AE for a long time. Issuing a "standard admin action" block is not that unusual at AE, I do at least a couple a month. We are not forced to use DS authority at AE and we can use DS authority outside of AE. Probably 80% of DS actions happens outside of AE. DS is just a set of very powerful extra tools/authorities granted by Arb. AE is just the board setup for reviewing DS cases, we aren't forced to use DS tools at AE, they aren't hard linked. It is within admin discretion to use (or not use) whatever tools we have at our disposal.
And as for working AE, there is little pleasure or satisfaction to be had, and it isn't something I actually like to do. It certainly isn't my best work, I just stumble through the best I can. The problem is, someone has to do it and very few are willing. So I do it out of some stupid sense of duty, wholly out of my element, out of my comfort zone. I don't recommend it. Dennis Brown - 2¢22:53, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
Well, as I said when I acknowledged your rejection of my views during the AE, I fully acknowledge Admin's discretion to block on their own judgment, so I have no problem with that. I tried to make clear here is really nothing to be said in such instances. It comes down to a matter of judgment. Usually when very few Admins voice their views at AE, it is a sign that the complaint is not serious enough to warrant their attention. Also, as you may be aware this Consensus Required page restriction has largely been superceded by the "24-hour BRD" restriction, which is many editors and Admins think is more effective and more conducive to achieving consensus. The switch to that restriction on American Politics pages has dramatically reduced the number of AE cases arising from them.. SPECIFICOtalk23:09, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
The problem is that few admin are commenting on any case, so you can't infer that a lack of participation means they agree or disagree with the report. I have to go to AN to request input regularly, and typically, that doesn't increase participation by more than 1 or 2, if at all. Admin just don't like working AE. It is usually because they don't want to read through something they aren't familiar with, or they simply are not willing to get involved as DS areas are minefields. AE has always had a problem with insufficient admin participation, as does SPI: not enough admin working the boards. ANI/AN don't have this problem. AE and SPI are formal boards, with a lot more rules, which may be why admin don't like working them. AN/ANI are free-for-alls. Dennis Brown - 2¢23:38, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
How do you know Softlemondes is a young woman? I don't see her say so. She has been following your bad arguments closely despite my best efforts to try and get her to follow the five pillars. NadVolum (talk) 23:51, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
Now might not be a good time to bug someone that just got blocked on your AE report. Some admin might see that as badgering. Dennis Brown - 2¢00:04, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Well you're quite right about others disagreeing, I would have preferred something stiffer like a topic block, I doubt there's very many other topic where they have such strong feelings that they'd do the sort of things they do. NadVolum (talk) 09:50, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Hello, SPECIFICO. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
And I thought that I was the one taking a hard line! (I agree with your action, lest it is not obvious),
Given that the Mas-Colell model has been in the article for a very long time, I hesitated to outright delete it (which was my reaction when I first saw it a few months ago but decided against precipitate action. No more Mr Nice Guy 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:58, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. Our economics-related articles are in terrible shape and there are very few editors who watch or work on them. That one was ridiculous -- our readers would not begin to understand that schematization, and the article is about a qualitative concept, albeit one that is modeled and quantified in lots of applied research. SPECIFICOtalk17:03, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Supply-side and trickle-down
If you are feeling brave, there are two essentially political articles masquerading as economics that could maybe use some TLC. See Supply-side economics and Trickle-down economics. You may well feel (as I do) that it is a political morass and life is too short to spend weeks trying to clean it out. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:46, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
These attract a lot of drive-by, but they're in such poor shape that they more or less invite it. The underlying substance of the economic issues, and most of the economics articles, are in poor shape and have been in poor shape for years. Some disciplines, like history and literature, attract knowledgeable competent editors. Economics needs a lot more attention, but the best informed editors seem to move on after a few attempts to improve the articles. SPECIFICOtalk16:06, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
