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.
Thanks, but while I'm sure I would have relevant thoughts on the matter, I have been told that I'm blocked and have been warned not to comment further. SPECIFICOtalk02:40, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Seraphimblade I believe generally such bans include an exemption for commenting on only the remedies/findings that apply to Specifico. Is that correct? 02:43, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
In the interest of fair comment, if you'd like to make a statement here, I'll copy it to the PD talk page provided that it does not contain violations of your interaction ban or attacks against other editors. That being said, the change suggested in your case is rather minor, just changing your existing community sanction to an ArbCom one. It's the same restriction, just with different enforcement. SeraphimbladeTalk to me02:56, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)
With due respect, the problem is larger than that. I carefully approached the Arbcom via email before the case began about my testimony. I followed the understanding that was provided via that channel. In the post which precipitated Seraphimblade's action above, I certainly did not intend to violate that permission (nor do I believe that I did violate it -- I was making a statement about Eric Corbett. I'm not permitted to explain in more detail.) I would hope members of the committee examine the FoF, the proposed Remedies, and the ANI thread and related evidence at ANI and this Case. The speed with which a few Arbs have endorsed these new additions to the Case do give me concern that they may not have done that research before registering their views. SPECIFICOtalk03:02, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
No, @Seraphimblade: it's not minor (among other reasons because the proposed additions insinuate new FoF) nor is it restricted to a change of venue.
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
Editors topic banned by the Committee under this remedy are prohibited on the English Wikipedia from: (i) editing the pages of the Gender Gap Task Force; (ii) discussing the gender disparity among Wikipedians; and (iii) participating in any process broadly construed to do with these topics. An uninvolved admin may remove any comments that breach this remedy, and impose blocks as necessary. The Committee's standard provisions on enforcement of arbitration provisions and appeals and modifications of arbitration enforcements apply.
For her actions discussed in this case, Carolmooredc is indefinitely banned from the English Language Wikipedia. She may request reconsideration of the ban twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
Eric Corbett agrees to a restriction prohibiting him from shouting at, swearing at, insulting and/or belittling other editors. The restriction comes into immediate effect on the passing of this motion.
If Eric Corbett finds himself tempted to engage in prohibited conduct, he is to disengage and either let the matter drop or refer it to another editor to resolve.
If however, in the opinion of an uninvolved administrator, Eric Corbett does engage in prohibited conduct, he may be blocked. The first two such blocks shall be of 72 hours duration, increasing thereafter for each subsequent breach to one week, one month, and three months. Any blocks under this provision are arbitration enforcement actions and may only be reviewed or appealed at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. Should a fifth block (three months) prove necessary, the blocking administrator must notify the Arbitration Committee of the block via a Request for Clarification and Amendment so that the remedy may be reviewed.
The enforcing administrator may also at their discretion fully protect Eric Corbett's talk page for the duration of the block.
Nothing in this remedy prevents enforcement of policy by uninvolved administrators in the usual way.
For their actions discussed in this case, and in particular for adopting a consistently hostile attitude to other contributors, Neotarf is indefinitely banned from the English Wikipedia. They may request reconsideration of the ban twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for pages relating to the Gender gap task force. The availability of sanctions is not intended to prevent free and candid discussion on these pages, but sanctions should be imposed if an editor severely or persistently disrupts the discussion.
I thought you were banned from making edits on any pages connected with the Austrian School
I noticed you made edits to the page "Foundation for Economic Education" which has the words "Ludwig von Mises Institute" in its very first paragraph, along with a photograph of its founding vice-president Henry Hazlitt. It smells very Austrian School to me. Reissgo (talk) 17:05, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "America: Imagine the World Without Her". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 24 January 2015.
The request for formal mediation concerning America: Imagine the World Without Her, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
My apologies. I was rushing to get to the dvr before missing the new episode of GIRLS. I think you don't deserve this kind of harassment, especially since it appears to have resulted from your having asserted yourself in a straightforward manner after having been the target of unsubstantiated aspersions at ANI. In the recently concluded GGTF Arbcom case there was much discussion of the corrosive and intimidating effects of undocumented aspersions. The aspersions remain undocumented, despite the matrix meaningless links at the SPI. I advise you to channel your inner Clint Eastwood and tough it out. Also, remember that the SPI thread is not the place to discuss the conduct of MrX in this matter. Just stick to comments as to the sock complaint. The SPI will be closed soon, and you can get back to your editing or your retirement. SPECIFICOtalk14:52, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
The SPI has been closed. You may wish to consider whether and how to address the behavior of MrX in order to reduce the likelihood of him filing yet another of these false SPI reports. This is the second one I've seen. He doesn't seem to understand what would constitute evidence when dealing with stochastic data and its interpretation. SPECIFICOtalk15:34, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Don't accuse editors of edit warring when they are writing prose to expand an article. I reverted once to correct an edit by Jytdog because he reverted to a fundamentally noncompliant version. Please stay off my TP. Your reasons for being there are clearly not in GF. Atsme☯Consult04:45, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Specifico, I just wanted to give you a note of encouragement that you aren't the only one to get these strange posts. It's common for some who have tried to help out Atsme on the behavior end in good faith to get this [4][5] when they try to warm Atsme like you did. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:58, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
I hope you all realize that what you're doing - your tag team efforts against me at Griffin and at the various noticeboards have not gone unnoticed. You are now violating WP:CIVILITY, and I consult you to stop with the spurious allegations. Atsme☯Consult17:09, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello. I tried to convey the reasons in the edit comment. I feel this is a current events fact and is undue detail for an article about the film. We've already mentioned the initiative to show the film to students, but day to day details don't add encyclopedic information. Imagine reading this article 1, 2 or 10 years from now. I think this information is undue. Thanks for your note. I will copy this to the talk page as well. SPECIFICOtalk16:52, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Request
If you find my interaction with User:Steeletrap a problem, you should take it to WP:AN/I immediately. I'm not messing around with editors who violate WP:NPA or those who support them. As far as I was concerned, the matter was closed, but if you feel it needs further attention, then let's get to it right away. Dreadstar☥23:47, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
I appreciated your comments in the BLP discussion on Dreadstar's page. As noted, it's now continuing on BLP/N where I find his latest comment troubling: [6]
Let me reiterate to you, if you link to an attack site with BLP violations, I will block you or anyone else who does so.
My initial complaint was that the link had been redacted, by other editors -- no one had been sanctioned. It seems Dreadstar's interpretation has since become more certain and severe. Also notable is the preceding comment which examines the likely consequences of such a broad interpretation of BLP policy. —EncyclopediaBob(talk)07:39, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello. I feel that I've inadvertently stepped into a contentious area regarding Gamergate, a subject with which I'm entirely unfamiliar. I tried to express my concern about the BLP Policy issue in the talk thread on Dreadstar's page, but he did not express any agreement or interest, so I'm not sure what I have to add. I do think it's good to have motivated, active Admins like Dreadstar watching the BLP articles among others. SPECIFICOtalk18:57, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Don't you see the sexist implications of your remarks? I am upset, yes. But I'm upset for good reason: the inability of administrators to adopt clear and consistent evidentiary standards for evaluating allegations of socking. If I were a man, I think you'd commend my righteous anger.Steeletrap (talk) 19:47, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
I've hidden the sentence where you claimed that Atsme was engaging in tendentious editing as you didn't supply evidence of it (from what I've seen in talk page archives only you have comments on the reliability of the Forbes source) and article talk pages aren't the place for it in any case. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:42, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.
Just wanting to make sure you're aware the 1RR/week restriction on Griffin has now ended -- Callanecc set it for one month, on 10th February. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:09, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it ended with a flourish! I hope that we can all respect the spirit of that. Thanks for your efforts in that regard. SPECIFICOtalk21:41, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia email re Newspapers.com signup
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.
You are receiving this message because the Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to HighBeam. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:
Make sure that you can still log in to your HighBeam account; if you are having trouble feel free to contact me for more information. When your access expires you can reapply at WP:HighBeam.
Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, make sure to include citations with links on Wikipedia: links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed. For more information about citing this source, see Wikipedia:HighBeam/Citations
Write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, let us know and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.
Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services the Wikipedia Library can offer.
You are receiving this message because The Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to Questia. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:
Make sure that you can still log in to your Questia account; if you are having trouble feel free to get in touch.
When your account expires you can reapply for access at WP:Questia.
Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, make sure to include citations with links on Wikipedia: links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed.
Write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, email us and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.
Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services The Wikipedia Library can offer.
You are receiving this message because The Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to Questia. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:
Make sure that you can still log in to your Questia account; if you are having trouble feel free to get in touch.
When your account expires you can reapply for access at WP:Questia.
Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, make sure to include citations with links on Wikipedia: links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed.
Write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, email us and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.
Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services The Wikipedia Library can offer.
Dear Editor SPECIFICO: I respect your extensive work in the banking-related articles, and I'm concerned that maybe you and I are not communicating 100% effectively with each other at this particular moment. Yours, Famspear (talk) 23:58, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Not to worry. I am not concerned and I have appreciated your many contributions to banking-related articles. Thanks for your note. SPECIFICOtalk03:30, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Library needs you!
We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!
With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:
Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
By what reasoning are the deleted additions considered unrelated to the main topic?
- The term 'egg cream' clearly has its origin in a drink so-called because it has both ingredients in it
- The Transformations section specifically addressed the issue of that earlier drink being transformed into the fountain drink we know today - since milk was cheaper than cream and raw eggs were likely to have become less acceptable. And yes, the latter may be speculative - but so is absolutely everything in the article as it stands. 69.228.36.17 (talk) 22:48, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Please move this thread to the article talk page. Please review WP:NOR and WP:V for content and sourcing guidelines. The connection you call "clear" is not documented by any WP:RS. It is only your opinion. Any discussion belongs on the article talk page. SPECIFICOtalk01:39, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Promotion of economic pseudoscience with obvious contradiction on "money creation" page.
It is absurd that two things that are in fact opposites describe one FACT - how money is created.
Just because a topic is "well sourced" does not mean ANYTHING.
The "mainstream" theory is the accurate one. I am extremely disappointed in constant reporting on quack "theory" and promotion of pseudoscience by yourself.
94.1.254.207 (talk) 16:54, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
These are described in the article as heterodox theories, which we can represent as such when they are properly sourced. Please launch a thread on the article talk page if you wish editors to respond to your views. Stating "absurd" is not apt to be constructive. Thanks. SPECIFICOtalk18:32, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
My talk page
Hi, Specifico. I deleted your post from my talk page, mostly because I don't want my talk page to become a sub-page of AE, but also because it missed the point. I am aware that the case is about edit-warring on the one hand and general behaviour on the other. The reason Guy posted to my talk page is that I said it was not correct for him to call it edit-warring on both sides. Beyond that, I am not going to wade into the dispute. Happy editing. Scolaire (talk) 07:11, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
You seem to get into a lot of edit wars with many other users... perhaps wikipedia needs to ban you entirely
In compliance with wikipedia's editing pages, I marked the talk page for Keynesian economics with a request for other opinions. So far, no one has commented one way or the other.
Until they do, your efforts to censor differing opinion by deleting my comments is in violation of wikipedia rules. If you delete my edits, I will report you to wikipedia so they can ban you once and for all. Ogreggy (talk) 03:04, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
That photo is hardly out of focus and the lighting is certainly sufficient. It might not be 100% focused, but it is far superior to have a good headshot than a distant poorly composed stopped-motion photo. Spartan7W§04:23, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Your initial message above does not belong on this page. It should have been placed on the article talk page where the entire community can see and comment on it. I did not mean to suggest that you are/were obligated to comment, only that, in the event you feel motivated to do so, this is not the place. I hope that is more clear. No problem. SPECIFICOtalk22:06, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
re: FG MSH rephotography
Hey, I'm new to wikipedia, so I hope this is an ok way to handle this disagreement. It's a point well taken that "rephotography" needs to be defined in some way, but I'd advocate for keeping the link to the wiki page rather than including a definition within the text as you have. The wiki page defines rephotography as "the act of repeat photography of the same site, with a time lag between the two images; a 'then and now' view of a particular area." While I can think of one before/after pair in the body of work that spans minutes ("Visitors on the rim of Mount St. Helens"/"Ten minutes later"), the pictures I'm referring to are Gohlke's panoramic views, made at the same site, with as near to the same framing as he could achieve, over his successive trips to the region. There are examples published in "Accommodating Nature" and the MoMA catalog, which I think it would be useful to cite (there are also examples reproduced here: http://galleryluisotti.com/images/mt-st-helens-1981-90/).
Akensett (talk) 15:23, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi. I didn't mean to remove the link to the rephotography article. I've restored it now. See whether you are comfortable with this revision. An alternative, I suppose, would be to mention FG's short-interval rephotographs of Mt. St. Helens and other subjects on the Rephotography article. Generally article-related discussion is placed on the article talk page rather than a user talk page, the purpose being to attract comment by others who may be watching the article. Thanks for your note. SPECIFICOtalk15:39, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your response--I think the in-text definition w/ link works great. I'll add a citation to that sentence. And thanks for the heads up about talk pages. Will do going forward.
Akensett (talk) 16:06, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
I think it would be worth mentioning FG's short interval rephotography in that article. He may have written or spoken about this in some published source. SPECIFICOtalk16:18, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Federal Reserve Ownership
Wikipedia states, "Private property is a legal designation for the ownership of property by non-governmental legal entities.[1]"
The Federal Reserve's ownership is clearly defined,FRB: Who owns the Federal Reserve? "The 12 regional Federal Reserve Banks, which were established by the Congress as the operating arms of the nation's central banking system, are organized similarly to private corporations--possibly leading to some confusion about "ownership." For example, the Reserve Banks issue shares of stock to member banks. However, owning Reserve Bank stock is quite different from owning stock in a private company. The Reserve Banks are not operated for profit, and ownership of a certain amount of stock is, by law, a condition of membership in the System. The stock may not be sold, traded, or pledged as security for a loan; dividends are, by law, 6 percent per year."
It is clear that the Federal Reserve is NOT owned by the U.S. Government. This is NOT fringe, it's actually verifiable.
The sentence has ownership as a theme, thus it is an appropriate location to put a reference.
What is you issue with the clarification?
You may post content discussion on the article talk page. You appear to be a Single Purpose Account that promotes fringe theories about central banking. WP articles must present the mainstream view as documented by RS, not cherrypicked facts used out of context to support an unwarranted narrative. Use the article talk page. SPECIFICOtalk15:30, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Regarding this comment: I will now be permanently watching that article, so nothing that happens to it will escape my attention. The only one making personal attacks was yourself. The unconstructiveness in that talk page thread was coming entirely from your direction. I don't believe for one moment that you ever at any time imagined that I was affiliated with the article topic. Groundless accusations of COI are a standard deletionist obfuscation and provocation tactic. I take a very dim view of your behaviour because it seems to me that you are consistently misrepresenting both the nature and extent of the coverage available in a way that could not possibly be an accident. Bearing in mind the lengthy profile of the topic in the New York Times etc etc etc, I don't believe that any editor could possibly have believed that there was no indication that the topic might possibly be notable as you originally claimed, and your subsequent claims appear to follow the same pattern of making claims that are as extravagant as you think you can get away with, with no meaningful attempt to justify them. That is another standard deletionist trick. I have not confused the notability template with an AfD. What I have pointed out is that the notability template should not be placed on the article of a notable topic and that it is a highly controversial template, that was recently very nearly deleted at TfD, that is very likely to encourage certain forms of unconstructive editing, such as mass nominations and vote stacking. James500 (talk) 05:34, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
January 2016
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Bradley Foundation may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
capitalism and the institutions, principles and values that sustain and nurture it."<ref>[http://www.bradleyfdn.org/What-We-Do/The-Foundations-Mission Bradley Foundation Mission Statement</
Murray Rothbard, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.
Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion
Hello, SPECIFICO. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
False warnings
Issue resolved at article and article talk. Verified text expanded
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Issuing false warnings is a policy violation. The source on MHP states in the very first sentence "Melissa Harris-Perry will not appear on her MSNBC show Saturday because she said she feels editorial control was taken from her." It wasn't just related to preempting for election coverage. Issue another false warning to me or anyone else and you'll be explaining it at WP:ANI. Don't message me about this again. Sundayclose (talk) 18:46, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Talking in threats is not an effective way to engage resolution of disagreements with other editors. You've made repeated reverts there and a friendly warning should not rub you the wrong way. SPECIFICOtalk21:52, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Friendly or not ("friendly" is laughable), it was a false accusation that I was adding unsourced information to the article. It's not a threat; it's a promise: Issue another false warning to me or anyone else and you'll be explaining it at WP:ANI. Sundayclose (talk) 22:37, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
As I noted on the talk page, the text you added is not verified by the source. Feel free to file your ANI if you wish, but threats are pointless. Thanks. SPECIFICOtalk23:41, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Do your ANI do your RfC -- There's no reason for you to return here after you initially declared the discussion over. Thanks. SPECIFICOtalk01:42, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Melissa Harris-Perry. 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.
Hi no intention to offend you I was just responding to the tone I understood by "funny" which I think accurately reflects the fact that the entire thread is somewhat about nits and beyond the immediate edit issue. Thanks for the note. SPECIFICOtalk20:41, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Arbitration Enforcement Sanctions Notice
This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
I believe you are breaking your topic ban by writing on the Ayn Rand page: "She became friends with journalist Henry Hazlitt and his wife, and Hazlitt introduced her to the Austrian School economist Ludwig von Mises. Despite her philosophical differences with them, Rand strongly endorsed the writings of both men throughout her career." Reissgo (talk) 11:22, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
"The following sanction now applies to you: You are topic-banned from everything and everyone related to the Austrian School of economics, in addition to your previous topic ban covering the Ludwig von Mises Institute and persons related to it."... anyone with more than a passing interest in Austrian economics will soon discover that there is a strong link with Ayn Rand. Are you telling me that you didn't know there was such a link? Reissgo (talk) 14:11, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
It is just about conceivable that SPECIFICO did not know about the connection, so if he does not post again I will not take it further. Reissgo (talk) 16:08, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Nope. You've previously been told not to post here. There are at least a dozen editors who would gladly see you banned for your antics, if it were ever to become worth the effort. Go away. SPECIFICOtalk23:55, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
Formal mediation has been requested
The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Paul Singer (businessman)". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 7 June 2016.
Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 20:26, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
Request for mediation rejected
The request for formal mediation concerning Paul Singer (businessman), to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
Hi, it looks like you have made 5 edits since I have posted this question on your talk page, so I can only assume that you have seen the above message. On the discretionary message that YOU left it says, and I quote, "Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarize yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions." So going by your own statement, I am here contacting you because I have questions. What is this thing that you put on my page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.197.160.241 (talk) 20:32, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Please read the linked pages which are contained in the notice. On the article talk pages you should discuss content, not other contributors e.g. @Volunteer Marek:. Any further questions, please ask someone else or at one of the Teahouse. Please do not post here again. Your talk page is on my watchlist. Thanks. SPECIFICOtalk22:53, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
mention of Discretionary Sanctions at Trump campaign article
Thanks for the splash of ice water to cool me down. I was just about to reply; "Yes, Limbaugh. The radio host that calls the president "Barack the Magic Negro". Buster Seven Talk16:55, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Your accusation of sockpuppetry is not appreciated
In Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Murder_of_Seth_Rich, you accused me of being a "sleeper sock account" because I've had an account since 2007 but only made 25 edits. Ever consider that I'm just a regular user, who mostly just reads Wikipedia, doesn't have time to make many edits, and just occasionally corrects small errors?
As you've noted, there's something odd going on at John Faso. I believe it also extends to Zephyr Teachout. I thought I might be paranoid, but I wouldn't be surprised if both campaigns are editing both articles. There is an odd amount of single-purpose account edit-warring going on. Champaign Supernova (talk) 17:02, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
I don't have time right now, but I believe this can be brought to the COI Noticeboard. I agree it could be both, although the Faso one is rather ham-fisted, whereas the Teachout one for the most part may be policy compliant edits, once disclosure is made. You might also add a Discretionary Sanctions template to the talk pages per BLP and American Politics Arbcom decisions. Thanks for the note. SPECIFICOtalk17:06, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! -- AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 16:32, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Rants
Based on your updated comment at AR/E I'm thinking you might be interested in this: [8] (see:"Inappropriate User page content"). Of course a comment is not required. Steve Quinn (talk) 04:21, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the laugh, my friend. Before you get too deep into the talk page guidelines, I suggest a refresher course in WP:N which explains the key distinction between notability and noteworthiness. As I said in the comment you are now edit-warring to collapse on the talk page, the discussion of whether the reward has been documented is entirely germane to the sourcing and content decision at hand. This appears to have eluded you, and based on that I may try to be more direct in the future. SPECIFICOtalk21:38, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
complete the set!
collect all four!
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions did not appear constructive and have been undone. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you.
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been undone.
If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you.
If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use talk pages for inappropriate discussion, you may be blocked from editing. Mmyers1976 (talk) 19:36, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Before you get too deep into the talk page guidelines, I suggest a refresher course in WP:N which explains the key distinction between notability and noteworthiness. As I said in the comment you are now edit-warring to collapse on the talk page, the discussion of whether the reward has been documented is entirely germane to the sourcing and content decision at hand. This appears to have eluded you, and based on that I may try to be more direct in the future. SPECIFICO talk 21:38, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions did not appear constructive and have been undone. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you.
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been undone.
Please stop making disruptive edits.
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia.