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.
SPECIFICO and Magnolia677 engaged in coordinated editwar 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: Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; Do not edit war even if you believe you are right. 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) SPECIFICO and Magnolia677 engaged in coordinated editwar (2) 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. The matter of the lead is currently under review. patience is advised. SPECIFICO talk 14:19, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Users should take edits under review BEFORE deciding to revert them, not after; per WP:REV#When_to_revert and WP:REVERT#Before_reverting. And it's ironic that you advise others to be patient while being rather impatient yourself to revert edits (just 9(!) minutes after they're made) PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:23, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I second this request. This type has behavior has gotten you sanctioned several times now. Stop reflexively reverting sourced content you don’t like, especially when they are clear improvements.. The most recent warning to you at AE leads me to think the next sanction will be more severe than the usual 2 week hand slaps you get. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:30, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This aspersion with no supporting diff is likely to work to your disadvantage in the future. You should know better than to do that. Think very carefully about the specific allegations you make and whether they can be verified under scrutiny. SPECIFICO talk 15:21, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Careful. Just because diffs aren't searched out and provided doesn't mean they don't exist. This is simply a talk page message, not an ArbCom submission. You should know full well the discussions/threads referenced, but if you're seriously at a loss for which of your behaviors warranted a message like this, you can request that information directly. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 16:25, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As a page watcher (who disagrees with Specific as often as I agree), the edit by PhotogenicScientist looks very like a WP:BLP violation that absolutely should be reverted on sight. I don't have an NYT subscription to verify the actual phrase used but if it was then it should have been attributed to the NYT and not given in wikivoice. I find that Specifico can sometimes be too terse with explanations for what they do but that's it. The reversion was justified. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:34, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I very much disagree with you about it being a BLP matter. I agree with the reversion, and SPECIFICO's complaint about it being marked as minor is reasonable. He didn't say anything about BLP and I don't think it makes the slightest difference to Hunter Biden's reputation one way or the other whether the number is 1, 10 100, 1000, or 10000. And when putting in BLP as a reason for reversion one should always give a clear reason why it violates BLP as otherise it can be used to game the system by forcing stuff out until an RFC or other method is used to override the BLP injunction to remove immediately. NadVolum (talk) 11:14, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

!!! A surprise visitor !!! Since JMF didn't do the edit, he was unfortunately not in a position to state the BLP issue with which you disagree. So the circle is complete. Your view about BLP and "forcing stuff" is incorrect, but there are more widely participated discussion pages on which you can get community feedback as to that theory. SPECIFICO talk 11:34, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So what can be done if an editor says they have removed stuff for BLP reasons without specifying what the reasdon is? How can other editors know whether putting something back in again would violate BLP or not? NadVolum (talk) 12:34, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First, do no harm. As I said, you'll do better to seek guidance at the village pump or tea room, where you'll get the attention you deserve. SPECIFICO talk 12:41, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

You should pick your battles. Minor edits are those that do not materially affect the content of the article. Your edit was anything but. You seriously damaged the meaning of that sentence. (In the classical example, to change "not" to "now" is just a one,-letter change but is certainly not minor. Effect matters deeply.) --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:51, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Minor edits are those that do not materially affect the content of the article. This is patently wrong, per the info page I quoted.

And you should probably read the edit I linked. It was not a big change. The Washington Post review concluded that up to 22,000 could be verified. My edit reflected exactly that. I only removed the unnecessary lower count from the one half of the analysis. Anyone curious could read about the 1828 emails on their own; but their inclusion in the article seemed redundant, and their removal did not SEEM like a major change to me. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 19:06, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It would have been just as bad if the upper bound had been removed, i.e. "1828 emails were verified..." Content discussion really should go on the article talk page, where you'll get broader participation than at this backwater. SPECIFICO talk 19:22, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

true but let's put the egregious misreading of WP:minor to bed first. As you say, it would be equally wrong to quote only the lower bound and illustrates why PhSc is so wrong

PhSc, which part of 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)[reply]

You're right - I misconstrued the part about "Content additions of extremely minimal size" to include changes of minimal size as well. However, on further reading, the info page says that removing content or editing content are edits that cannot be marked as minor. Not sure that's an "egregious" misreading, though, fwiw. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 20:15, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

No. SPECIFICO talk 04:06, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SPECIFICO You failed to respond to any of my arguments or allegations. X-Editor (talk) 01:56, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. SPECIFICO talk 03:05, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

new visit December 6 2022

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)[reply]

No, there were two forensic examinations, the range was something like 1800-22000 emails. This was all discussed in some detail the first time you made that edit. It's important to use very clear language that does not insinuate UNDUE detail or frame content in a way that might lead our readers to false impressions or conclusions. Best thing is just to recognize the feedback on the article talk page the first time you made that edit. It was rejected. Thanks for your visit. I moved this down here to a December section for clarity. SPECIFICO talk 14:55, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your "old consensus" edit was rejected 5 to 1. This is clearly another example of your WP:STONEWALLING to preserve status quo you personally like, against consensus. That's all I wanted to say. Take heed or don't, up to you. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 17:49, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The scare quotes are kind of offputting. I advise against that if you wish to build solid relationships. We don't count votes on article content. The reasons that your preferred text was rejected were explained by me, by an Admin who edits the article, and by others. Perhaps you are misremembering. At any rate, it's not serving the needs of our readers to use misleading text, and in a BLP is is strictly against policy. SPECIFICO talk 18:07, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

& de plus... alleged DS violation

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)[reply]

Consecutive reverts are counted as a single revert. Please review our documentation on revert restrictions. SPECIFICO talk 21:39, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that helpful link to the policy you were citing... on further reading, it seems you are technically correct that "a series of consecutively saved reverting edits by one user, with no intervening edits by another user, counts as one revert." Though I'm sure you can forgive my confusion, since it was you who informed me that this is how reverts were counted just months ago when you leveled a similar warning to me which included consecutive edits. Cheers. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 21:57, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You seem upset by this. My advice is to relax and focus on reading as many RS sources as you can and work on fresh article content. That warning, if I recall correctly, was when a different page restriction was in effect. Cheers to you too, and happy editing. SPECIFICO talk 22:10, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just technically correct. It would be difficult to improve ordinary articles if editors were only allowed three edits per day. It only becomes a problem when they are disputed. TFD (talk) 23:40, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Quattro: ANI Notice #1

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)[reply]

Cinque: ANI Notice #2

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thanks! Same to you. A little tinsel on my complaint board! Best to you in 2023. SPECIFICO talk 19:20, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

It's not helpful to jump the gun and preemptively replace longstanding text under discussion. Also, such an edit should not be marked "minor". SPECIFICO talk 03:22, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Those are separate issues. My edit respected the clear views of the discussion. As the changes were relatively minor, I marked them as such. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:23, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, and your denials are concerning. When it is important enough to be under talk page dispute, it is not "minor", full stop. SPECIFICO talk 05:05, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't important. Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:22, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Given this comment, why would you mark this edit as minor? Mr Ernie (talk) 14:43, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One revert doesn't constitute an edit war. Now, stop harassing me, with OTT warnings. GoodDay (talk) 16:42, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The template, which was the mildest of the many that apply to your recent patterns of disruptive editing, clearly explains that it doesn't matter how many reverts you have made. In the context and substance of that edit, you were indeed in WP:BATTLEGROUND mode. As long as you're here, I must say I am just amazed that an editor of your experience would try to claim that a page about a living person such as Hunter Biden laptop controversy might be exempt from our core BLP policy. I have serious doubts as to your ability to contribute constructively to that and other politics-related pages. Please try to do better. SPECIFICO talk 16:47, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your commitment to stay away from talk pages is on the record and noted. I think that's constructive. SPECIFICO talk 03:04, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

One revert doesn't qualify as edit warring. GoodDay (talk) 16:43, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt your competence, when with your hundreds of thousands of edits, you claim that a tag-team edit war is not an edit war. And the central point, which you have ignored with your deflection to "not an edit war" is that you claimed consensus is needed to add content to an article page. That is false. Please review our policy and please self-revert. SPECIFICO talk 16:45, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is your talkpage. But I must ask you, to stop harassing me on it. GoodDay (talk) 16:47, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another deflection. I am advising you to self-revert. There is already a discussion at the edit-warring noticeboard, and you have recently been under scrutiny that you appeared to want to avoid. You can ignore me and my talk page if you wish. SPECIFICO talk 16:51, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page participation

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

No, the "key demographic" bit is sourced only to the Forbes Contributor article, which is not a Reliable Source for Wikipedia. You should not have reinserted it, and I'll politely ask you now to undo your reinstatement and remove it. SPECIFICO talk 23:09, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I’ll check. Not later than tomorrow. Boscaswell talk 00:16, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve just checked, and the "key demographic" 148,000 is supported by the statista citation. No mention there of Forbes. All good, I think. Boscaswell talk 01:03, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"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)[reply]

Jelly doughnut. SPECIFICO talk 20:23, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hello Callanecc. That is longstanding article content going back as long as I can remember. I left a note on the article talk page replying to the editor who boldly removed it. Good to see you keeping an eye on that page. I hope you will continue to do so. SPECIFICO talk 12:56, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Callanecc: The editor who removed that image file has now reinserted the file,14:33, 11 February 2023 (UTC) repeated the initial removal without consensus on the talk page. In looking more closely at the page restriction, I now see that it was you who added the "consensus required" restriction there last month. There's been some discussion on the article talk page, which you may wish to review. There are two issues, I believe. One is that it's well-established practice for editors to reinstate longstanding content that's been removed, while not precluding subsequent talk page discussion about eventual removal. That relates to consensus established per WP:EDITCON. I believe the editor who removed the image misunderstands that policy. The second issue is the page restriction, which that editor has now breached by repeating the removal edit prior to demonstrating consensus to remove. I don't expect to engage further on the talk page about this, but I would appreciate it if you would have a look. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 23:21, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Callanecc if I'm misunderstanding the intent behind the "affirmative consensus" aspect of the editing restriction, yes by all means please let me know as well. @SPECIFICO, I didn't "reinsert" any file. VQuakr (talk) 00:37, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus required provision states that "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)[reply]

@Callanecc: it seems to me like VQuakr made an edit that was challenged by reversion, and that VQuakr shouldn't have restored that edit without affirmative consensus. If there exists some documentation related to the consensus required restriction that limits its application to addition of content, and not removal/replacement, I'd appreciate being pointed toward it. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 06:23, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You could look at it that way I suppose and it wasn't ideal to re-remove the content. Howver, as SPECIFICO had already breached it by readding the image VQuakr's edit would have been covered by the the provision about reverting edits that breach page restrictions at WP:AC/CT ("Edits that breach an editor or page restriction may be reverted.") Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:31, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Only if you consider V's first edit as a revert. It just looks like a removal. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 06:36, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

Yes, sorry, SPECIFICO, I got editor names and edit timings round the wrong way. Valjean, you are right, VQuakr made an edit that removed article content, SPECIFICO reverted thereby triggering consensus required. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:02, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@VQuakr: RE:@SPECIFICO, I didn't "reinsert" any file - not sure what this is about. I did not say you reinserted anything.15:41, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
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)[reply]

You mistakenly said "reinsirted the file" in your comment above at 23:21, 10 February 2023 (UTC). Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:05, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks F³, fixed. I thought they were referring to the article talk page thread where they had been commenting. SPECIFICO talk 14:33, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SPECIFICO, thanks for the ping as I'd quit following this conversation prior to Callanecc's clarification above. I don't believe any portion of this has been personal?? VQuakr (talk) 23:08, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@VQuakr:I see that you've undone your violation of the page restriction. This all could have been resolved more easily and more pleasantly. Yes, your article talk page comments have been personal and inappropriate. I see that you've launched an RfC there. It is way premature for an RfC. Please read WP:RFCBEFORE. Your attitude has been quite WP:BATTLEGROUND from the start of this. It's uproductive, unpleasant for all, and a huge waste of time. Please consider removing the RfC until the issue has been more clearly delineated on the talk page. There may be third alternatives that are better than the current image.@Callenecc: just fyi if you wish. SPECIFICO talk 23:27, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pot, kettle, etc. Happy editing! VQuakr (talk) 03:54, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Well, thanks very much for the tip on the vegan pho in a box. I never imagined such a thing and I'm eager to find some now. I was never entirely on board with idea of boiling some animal's bones just for a good warming bowl of soup. There are more plant-based foods available than animal based, and they're much more varied. Of course in the early stages of the vegan era, we see manufacturers trying to make "fake meat" products, but Western markets also offer an increasing variety of true vegetarian and vegan cuisine, starting with an extensive array of foods that were already available to be imported from India and the far East.

When I was more or less new around here I tried to remove a lot of gibberish, self-promotion and other primary sourced material from some articles and it ended up in a big mess with 3-4 editors leaving the site, some voluntarily, and me getting sanctioned. SPECIFICO talk 02:37, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Please discuss content on the article talk page. I do not consider any of those a valid source for claims of controversy regarding the NY Times. SPECIFICO talk 19:06, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Please see WP:BURDEN WP:RS WP:V and WP:ONUS. Then you can get started by copying your initial post here to the article talk page. SPECIFICO talk 19:14, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thanks. I did not anticipate the trifecta. SPECIFICO talk 01:04, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hi. I found it here. Other, secondary, publications are here and here. Hope this helps, and thanks. SPECIFICO talk 01:21, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:NY Post Cover 10 14 2020.PNG. Restored with source. It’ll need a proper NFCC template and go back in an article to not be speedied again in a few days. I don’t know if it will survive FFD if it gets sent there, but that’s a discussion to be had away from AN drama! Courcelles (talk) 02:18, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The two parties are separate and distinct. The wording you inserted changed the meaning and it also was false, according to current RS. SPECIFICO talk 01:10, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

For starters, he died in 2007. SPECIFICO talk 03:03, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake. But the introduction he wrote was from October 1997, not 1947. Why did you claim he wrote it in 1947? TFD (talk) 03:09, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The limits of Schlesinger's clairvoyance would seem to have been reached well before Trumpism exposed the underbelly of contemporary Republican instincts decades later. SPECIFICO talk 03:15, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hello. Dunno what it could be? Thumbing thru watchlist on phone maybe. So, please disregard. Sorry. SPECIFICO talk 03:08, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's cool. I got it with my first guess. You have offered me unintended epistemological reassurance - thanks! Newimpartial (talk) 03:14, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thanks. You've got your work cut out for you! SPECIFICO talk 16:21, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

you've falsely attacked me once on the Trump talk page - Mistakenly is not the same as "falsely". I agree it's a good decision for you to step away from that page. There appears to be little support for your views there, so the more you repeat them - without addressing the concerns of editors who have taken the time to point out their flaws - the more frustrated you might become. Thanks for your visit. SPECIFICO talk 19:52, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]