A visitor from Vale of Glamorgan writes...[edit]

Surely Donald j trump, 'was' a politician not is a politician..?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.2.144.16 (talk • contribs)

Recent deletion on Julian Assange page[edit]

You recently deleted an edit I made on the Julian Assange page saying:

“Remove unencyclopedic, UNDUE, and unspecified text. Without statement as to what in Assange's long saga they support, it is also a BLP violation with respect to those listed.”

I would like to discuss the edit/deletion you made and the justification you provided for deleting. For instance “undue” - these are high profile people – so why are there opinions “undue”. That they chose to speak out on this is surely of interest. I don’t know what you mean (in this context) by “unspecified text” perhaps you could explain that to me? Do you require/ask for a quote from each of the people listed (along with citations) making clear the support they gave Assange? (that can be provided in most cases if you wish.) As for “BLP violation” I think not – these are people who have gone on public record to support Assange – the citations I supplied are clear in that regard – more can be provided. Prunesqualor billets_doux 22:56, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[]

"Support XYZ" is a very broad and undefined statement. Presumably they do not support every action or public statement in his life. Please review WP:NPOV WP:V and WP:BLP. The place to discuss article content is on the article talk page, but I am not going to tutor you on fundamental WP site policies and practices there. Please read the pages I've linked and consider my edit summary and the text I deleted. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 23:53, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[]

Responding to your concerns regarding my conduct.[edit]

Imported from Talk:American Enterprise Institute: Really not helpful for you to do a blind revert without responding to my clear explanation above. There's nothing in the 501(c)(3) about taking policy or analysis positions. It's a prohibition on lobbying and supporting electoral campaigns. Please be responsive here. I fixed the problem identified above, on which you commented, and you don't appear to fully understand the issue. Kindly undo your blind revert or provide a detailed explanation of your sourced and reasoned objection, if any. SPECIFICO talk 15:31, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[]

I have responded to your substantive concerns on the AEI talk page. With regard to my conduct, I don't know what a "blind revert" is and would welcome you educating me on that term. I did not first respond to your clear explanation for one of your two edits on talk because I didn't know it was there when I did the revert. All I knew was that the edit summary said "ce" and the edit was clearly more than correcting for grammar, spelling, readability, or layout. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 21:02, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[]

Thanks for coming here with your concern. A blind revert is undoing an edit without stating any substantive objection or engaging other editors as to the reason for your revert. Now that you have read the explanation, I presume that -- unless there's some further issue you want to raise -- you'll restore the text you reverted. If there's some problem with it, please identify it on the article talk page. The previous text simply reflected a misunderstanding of the 501(c)(3) restriction. SPECIFICO talk 22:46, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[]

Please see my post at Talk:American Enterprise Institute regarding restoring your changes. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 00:14, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[]

I fear you may not be receptive to hearing this from me.[edit]

But, I'll try anyway.
According to Help:Minor edit, "A good rule of thumb is that edits consisting solely of spelling corrections, formatting changes, or rearrangement of text without modification of the content should be flagged as minor edits." In other words, a copy edit that changes text (such as this one) is not one for which checking the "This is a minor edit" box would be appropriate. That said, the example is one for which a "ce" edit summary would be appropriate because it involves "correcting for grammar, spelling, readability, or layout" (quoting WP:COPYEDIT) without changing the meaning of the text. Had the edit changed the meaning then the edit summary should explain the change (or referred to a talk explanation of the change). Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 23:18, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[]

I've already addressed that concern. My careless, hasty edit summaries do not validate your behavior. You are welcome here any time, even when you repeat yourself. SPECIFICO talk 01:19, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[]

Thank you for your courteous reply. I completely agree that two wrongs don't make a right. In retrospect, I should have led with the post set forth above. I apologize for not having done that. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 01:51, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[]

Better yet, fix the reinstated bad text. SPECIFICO talk 04:24, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[]

I hesitate to undo my revert because I am not the one who could properly explain the restored changes in an edit summary. I do not know - as you apparently do - whether 501(c)(3) prohibits support of candidates, parties, or both. And, while I have a guess, I don't know why you removed "grants" from description of funding sources. (If my guess is right then I'd disagree inasmuch "grant" and "donation" are not necessarily synonyms. If my guess is wrong and you removed the word because AEI doesn't have any grant funding then I don't know whether that is true or not.) Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 06:39, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[]

With far less effort than you've wasted on this nonsense, you could have researched and found a reference. I have no further interest in this. SPECIFICO talk 11:42, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[]

Recent reversion[edit]

Please note the new section in Julian Assange Talk page: "Russian intelligence officers working with WikiLeaks?" which deals with your recent reversion of an edit. Prunesqualor billets_doux 11:12, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[]

altering other users posts[edit]

This [[1]] was unacceptable, never change a users choice in an RFC.Slatersteven (talk) 17:29, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[]

Thanks for catching this. I was returning to the edit window from another application and instead of bolding my "no", I inadvertently bolded the initial word "no" in @NadVolum:'s post. I'm rather surprised you'd imagine I would do that deliberately or talk about a "warning" rather than a notification on the talk page. Regards. SPECIFICO talk 18:15, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[]

Accidental rollback insted of undo[edit]

Sorry I accidentally hit rollback button instead of undo when reverting your last Assange edit, hence no edit summary – It would have said; Your addition of “for ongoing criminal activity” in the Assange page is not meaningful here as Assange is currently in prison. Prunesqualor billets_doux 15:04, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[]

I have no idea what you're talking about. The ongoing criminal activity relates to the witness, who is a known criminal, per source. You should reinstate the text you apparently have removed. SPECIFICO talk 15:32, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[]

Sorry - Lost the plot today have reverted Prunesqualor billets_doux 15:36, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[]

Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 15:48, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[]

DS violation[edit]

This edit is a DS violation. You reinstated an edit that was reverted without opening a talk page discussion. Please self revert and start the discussion to avoid sanctions. Mr Ernie (talk) 23:10, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[]

A violation would entail 2 reverts by me. What is the first? SPECIFICO talk 23:30, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[]

It’s a bespoke DS, quite uncommon, but reads “If an edit you make is reverted you must discuss on the talk page and wait 24 hours before reinstating your edit.” I don’t know what you mean by 2 reverts. There are two conditions to this DS, and only one was fulfilled. Mr Ernie (talk) 23:45, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[]

@Awilley: I am well aware of the restriction, but you have not shown, with your single link, that I reinstated any edit. SPECIFICO talk 23:49, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[]

Thanks for opening the discussion. Let’s just figure this out on the talk page. Mr Ernie (talk) 00:26, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[]

@Awilley: No, Ernie. You apparently came here to harass me with a bogus demand regarding a nonexistent violation. That's why I've pinged an Admin here. I made the mistake of taking you at your word and sel-reverting. My mistake.You appear to stalk various editors who reject your POV UNDUE editing, and hats not OK.@Valjean:.

@Valjean: Sorry Valjean, I think the ping didn't work due to my not having signed the preceding post. Ernie has posted a false allegation that I stupidly took at face value, resulting in my self-revert and opening a pointless talk page thread where he's continued to advocate unverified and unsourced content. I believe you have suffered similar incidents in the past, so I thought you might be interested. SPECIFICO talk 13:12, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[]

Check your own eye for splinters before accusing me of posting false allegations. Useful talk page discussions are not pointless. Here are the sources - [2], [3], [4], [5], [6] - BBC and CNN are top quality RS. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:02, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[]

Ernie, if you do not give diffs to document your claim that I violated the DS restriction, you should be TBAN-ed for it. Let's see the diffs. SPECIFICO talk 14:28, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[]

You removed text with an edit summary "unsourced text," despite the source right behind the text, I restored the text and added another source, and then you removed that source too. The spirit of the DS says if there is an edit and then reversion, there should then be a talk page discussion instead of additional reverts. I have now produced a further 5 sources for the content, where a fruitful discussion is now occurring. Thank you for starting the discussion. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:59, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[]

This removal (the "R" in BRD undid a "bold" edit (the addition of a ref which SPECIFICO disputed by "R"eversion), IOW the "B" in BRD. That leaves it up to Mr Ernie to start a "D"iscussion. Since the discussion has been started, just discuss there and stop the sniping. Stick to the content. -- Valjean (talk) 15:06, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[]

Ernie, you are digging deeper and deeper. Please just provide the two diffs that would be necessary to document a DS violation prior to your appearance here. You are well aware that I immediately went to self revert, taking your complaint in good faith to be true (my mistake) and screwed up the revert with a few edits before reinstating it when I realized your complaint was false. Now I'd like to see either 1) an explanation of the violation you claim -- which would be documented by 2 diffs. Or an explanation as to why you came here to present a false complaint. Your repeated failure to respond to that request is hard to understand, but the time to correct that is now. Thank you. SPECIFICO talk 15:58, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[]

BR, there's really nothing to discuss. It's the familiar unverified content with googled cherrypicked sources that don't address the problems with the original unverified content and blog source. The only reason there is a talk page thread is because I stupidly didn't imagine that Ernie would come here with a false complaint and I didn't give it any thought before honoring his demand. You've complained bitterly on talk and perhaps elsewhere when he's pushed unverified and UNDUE content on other articles. I don't consider it "bickering" to expect honesty and responsiveness from editors here. If you do, I'm afraid you're going to continue to experience the same in the future. My opinion. At some point, when the pattern of behavior is clear, it needs to be addressed. SPECIFICO talk 15:58, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[]

(talk page stalker) Mr Ernie, I have looked at the article history. Specifico's edit here did not violate the discretionary sanction If an edit you make is reverted you must discuss on the talk page and wait 24 hours before reinstating your edit. It didn't bring the DS into play at all. Specifico reverted your addition of a source, with an edit summary criticizing that source. He didn't revert your revert of his original edit. Never touched it, and still has not. You did get ahead of yourself in accusing him of violating DS. Please read histories more slowly. Me, I have to stare at them back and forth forever to understand what's happening. Bishonen | tålk 16:40, 30 August 2021 (UTC).[]

Thanks for taking a look and providing some clarity. I brought the issue here instead of a noticeboard hoping to address it directly with SPECIFICO. Their removal of the source triggered a revert notice in my notifications, which I thought was the entire edit and not just the removal of the source. Closer inspection and outside opinions have cleared it up, and there’s now a productive talk page discussion about the topic. Happy to hear there was no violation. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:12, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[]

Ernie, you continue to evade the issue. A single revert would never constitute a violation. The revert notice referred to your edit being reverted. That is not what 24-hr BRD is about. Are you going to give an honest reply, or are you hoping for this to be escalated against you? You don't really think anyone believes you are glad I did nothing wrong, do you. SPECIFICO talk 17:40, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[]

Just reviewed this (belatedly) myself. Mr Ernie reverted a Bold edit by SPECIFICO, and SPECIFICO reverted a Bold edit by Mr Ernie. Mr Ernie has (kind of) admitted fault for the false accusation of a BRD violation. It doesn't look like an apology is forthcoming, and I doubt trying to extract one is going to make anybody really feel better. Best to drop it and move on IMO. ~Awilley (talk) 22:12, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[]

Awilley, your inaction only enables and empowers Ernie to continue this kind of behavior, which is by no means an isolated incident. His failure to respond until an Admin arrived here, and the excuse he presented about a flag that his edit had been reverted once lacks any possible fraction of credibiliity. You have volunteered to take a lead role in the enforcement of DS for the politics articles, and the response you have given above does not address this behavior or do anything to improve and sustain a collaborative editing environment. Even after denying the problem and then googling a list of defective "sources" for his preferred edit, Ernie came here to tell me to "take splinters out" of my eyes. I've seen you post at length at AE and elsewhere about lesser infractions and here most likely your inaction only enables more such behavior in the future. In my opinion, if you do not have the time or intention to monitor the sanction you placed, it would be time to recruit someone else to assume that role so that you don't get pinged when there's a problem. That would save your time and attention and would not lead to pointless dead end requests to maintain a baseline level of honesty, civility and yes, WP:COMPETENCE in these difficult articles. Please consider. SPECIFICO talk 22:21, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[]

Politician & Conspiracy theorist discussions, should be separate.[edit]

Howdy, you should make the "conspiracy theorist" discussion into a separate section, from the preceding topic "politician". The former is muddying up the latter. GoodDay (talk) 02:40, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[]

I agree. Thinking of starting an RfC for the question. ––FormalDude talk 04:09, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Multiple manual reverts and transparency issues[edit]

Re. the Assange article. SPECIFICO you reverted an edit of mine where I had removed two doubtful sentences from the intro – in your next edit you manually re-deleted those two sentences and put them in the “2016 U.S. presidential election” section – ok no big deal - but during the same edit you manually re-instating several questionable sentences in different parts of the section, that had earlier been removed. This cannot be good practice as it is easy for editors to miss stuff when several edits are being manually reverted and messed around with at the same time – all with an inadequate edit summary (instead of being individually and more transparently reverted). Please in future if you are going to revert several edits could you do so individually with some kind of explanation for each. Prunesqualor billets_doux 14:52, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[]

No, this was very well-sourced longstanding article content and I am reverting the removal and sending it back to the talk page. Any concerns can be raised by you, ad the editor who initially cut this content, as you are well aware of what was reinstated. SPECIFICO talk 14:57, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Sorry SPECIFICO that’s just not good enough – It should be clear - the issue I am dealing with here is not about the specific things you changed - but the way you performed the changes i.e. you altered lots of things in different parts of the article, all with one single edit and one edit summary. Not good practice especially on a fast moving page like the Assange one with it’s multiple issues Prunesqualor billets_doux 15:42, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[]

I understood you the first time. Thanks for your visit. At any rate, you should not reinstate edits that have been reverted without first discussing them and gaining consensus on the article talk page. SPECIFICO talk 16:39, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Discretionary sanction at Julian Assange[edit]

@SPECIFICO: Thank you for undoing your third revert within 24 hours to Julian Assange. Please also undo your second revert within 24 hours, made just four minutes after your initial revert to that page. Basketcase2022 (talk) 10:19, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Consecutive edits are single reverts. There was an edit conflict and a simultaneous edit at 10:00 made the third one non-consecutive, which is why I undid it. I hope somebody else examines it and makes the edit. SPECIFICO talk 10:46, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Bullying in advance![edit]

I would invite you to self revert your comment on the FRB talk page [7]. By saying "mobilize the kiddie corps" what you are doing is saying that anybody that answers my request for information is a child - this goes extremely against the principles of Wikipedia. Wikipedia says that you should assume good faith and you are failing to do so. By the way my request for information was genuine. I do not know what the latest editions of the textbooks are saying. I do have a hunch but not strong enough to put money on it. Reissgo (talk) 17:45, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[]

No, I'm saying that people who have recently purchased elementary economics texts would be among the youngest of Wikipedia editors. You seem to misunderstand lots of things, so it's best not to speculate -- most of all about article content with your Original Research. SPECIFICO talk 18:11, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[]

I don't know why you put the word "no" at the start of your first sentence there. It makes more sense for it to be the word "yes". The phrase "kiddie corps" is demeaning to any younger person that may contemplate actually answering my legitimate request for information. Your language is diminishing the likelihood of getting an answer. This has got to be against everything Wikipedia is about. So I'll say it again: Please edit or remove your comment. And what is this "original research" that you speak of? Reissgo (talk) 08:07, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Thank you for sharing your concerns. SPECIFICO talk 13:45, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Double standards in editing[edit]

Your double standards in Tagging my edit and warning me Here should be plain to see as other (hopefully disinterested) editors will note far more clear-cut examples of “NOTFORUM” in preceding contributions like: “criminal turncoat”: “obsess with tawdry American politics” or: “Assange's self-declared 14-year war against America's national security and its domestic politics”. You should either revert, or give the same treatment to these other edits. Prunesqualor billets_doux 10:03, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[]

That is deflection to avoid taking responsibility for your conduct. I already explained to you that, if Assange's slanders about Rich were true, this innocent victim would have committed a crime against his employer, the Clinton campaign. As to the Otherstuff you keep throwing at me -- take up your complaints with whoever might have said it. You are on a downward spiral to a block or ban, not just from this. I hope you can take a break and start to collaborate constructively instead. SPECIFICO talk 13:10, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Your revert breached WP:OWN[edit]

You should be aware that when you reverted my recent edit in Julian Assange you effectively reinstated an edit by Valjean which was placed there the midst of our RFC debate and WAS in breach of WP:OWN. In other words my edit rectified a breach of WP:OWN and by reverting me you reinstated the breach (effectively putting you in breach) – Please be good enough to undo your revert Prunesqualor billets_doux 13:53, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]

PS, If, whist performing your undo, you wish to reinstate the misleading and unpopular sentence which Valjean’s controversial and unauthorised edit replaced - I cannot prevent you: as that dogs dinner was considered the last “stable edit” – that’s up to you. Prunesqualor billets_doux 14:01, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Prunesqualer, what do you mean by "breach of WP:OWN"? I have never seen that expression before. Are you accusing SPECIFICO or myself of engaginng in OWN behavior, IOW edit warring to preserve our own content (content we have installed)? -- Valjean (talk) 19:20, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]

I should probably ping you about...[edit]

... m:Talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_Chief_Executive_Officer/Maryana’s_Listening_Tour Epistemology follows Ontology (talk) 03:02, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Curious what on earth prompted you to ask that? Not that I can comment. SPECIFICO talk 03:09, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Manifestly unjust persecution contrary to the Vision (why is your opinion on Austrian economics unsuitable for inclusion in the sum of all knowledge?), due unintentionally to Wales' co-founding. Are you allowed to comment on the issue on Meta? Epistemology follows Ontology (talk) 03:16, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Perhaps misplaced in RSN[edit]

I liked your comment that went along with your !vote in RSN re DW, and I commented underneath it. However, I think you may have mis-placed it by putting it under the section "Malformed survey" (a discussion) instead of the section "Survey, The Daily Wire" (where the !votes are being posted). If you plan on moving it to the preceding section, then please drag my response along with it. I didn't want to move your comment, in case it was placed exactly where you wanted it. Platonk (talk) 05:17, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Thanks. Please feel free to move both. SPECIFICO talk 08:17, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Thanks, I moved them, as well as the reply-comments that had been added below them. [8] Platonk (talk) 16:19, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]

NPOV[edit]

Your comment at the NPOV noticeboard is not much of a help, as it is not exactly neutrally worded itself.Slatersteven (talk) 09:44, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Could you be specific? It was just asking for eyes on the page, I think. Anything you would add to attract more editors there? SPECIFICO talk 11:58, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]

This (in every forum you placed it) "- a troubled page frequented by various self-described fans of Assange, opponents of the US, and disparagers of mainstream media. ".Slatersteven (talk) 12:53, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Really, another RSN thread about this?Slatersteven (talk) 12:59, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Also, to paraphrase WP:SOUP:

Like someone who spits in your soup in a restaurant, then when you complain says: "Thank you for your comment. [Could you be specific? It was just asking for eyes on the page, I think. Anything you would add to attract more editors there?] I welcome constructive discussion to reach an amicable solution."
— User:Tearlach 16:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Kleinpecan (talk) 13:18, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Sorry folks, but the biases of various editors there have been self-declared at the article talk page repeatedly and consistently -- referring to Assange as "our hero", declaring that we should not follow mainstream sources, etc. The notices were asking for eyes on the article talk page, not to start a discussion on NPOVN or BLPN. The statement of the RfC on article talk said only that it existed -- nothing at all on any viewpoint about it. Spitting in soup is an ugly image to bring here -- you can do better expressing yourself I'm sure. SPECIFICO talk 13:43, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]

See WP:Canvassing#Campaigning. NadVolum (talk) 14:22, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]

And notices must always be neutral, as in "there is a talk page discussion here", and never "help me fight then POV pushers". All you are doing (see above) is undermining your credibility.Slatersteven (talk) 14:29, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Sorry, but no. You misunderstand what neutral notice means. And there was no suggestion in my notice as to the substance of the issue or whether any of the self-identified biases would come down on one side or the other of the RfC or my view. Who said I have any credibility to begin with? It's just a notice, folks can take it or leave it. Have a look or not, as they wish. Your mischaracterization of the notice is disappointing. SPECIFICO talk 14:38, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Slatersteven (talk) 15:39, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]

To add to this, I've made a comment in the WP:ANI thread, regarding your behaviour, to which you should probably respond. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:01, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]