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

💚♥️🤍 NikolaosFanaris (talk) 21:17, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are making this old gal blush. Just remember that politics and BLP articles sometimes attract editors who have lots of enthusiasm but not complete information about the subjects. Even if this frustrates you, it's better to use the article talk page rather than make article edits that are likely to be misunderstood or reverted. And sometimes, the enthusiasts will be more numerous or more persistent than those proposing good article text. In such cases, keep an eye on the article and return later. You can always go to WP:NPOVN WP:RSN or WP:BLPN. But when you find yourself outnumbered or outblustered, there's no easy solution. SPECIFICO talk 14:19, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to let you know I will be taking a step back for the rest of the day. Things have been difficult lately for me personally, and there is a lot of strange behavior going on as of late, which I find contagious. I invite you to take a step back with me and breath some fresh air or drink something relaxing. Water your plants, pet your animals or your kids etc.. XD. Take care of yourself and be at peace even if for just a moment. It really helps. DN (talk) 21:18, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. And John Lott had his day in the sun 10 years ago. One thing to keep in mind is that these pages are not equally important. If the few users looking for John Lott the gun advocate cannot locate his page, that is a far lesser problem than if thousands or tens of thousands cannot find our most important articles on significant subjects. Enjoy your time off. SPECIFICO talk 22:29, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that Nik was TB at CO, truly a shame since they did seem to be acting in good faith. Things seemed to escalate quicker than I thought they would, and was hoping everyone would just slow down a bit. I thought about adding my two cents but I have decided that you are probably much more informed on the situation, and the last thing you need or want is me mucking things up. I will be watching, in case you would like an uninvolved second pair of eyes. DN (talk) 17:47, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

After checking in at CO, it seems clearer that the body would have been a better place to start than the lead as far as Nik's edit. I'm not sure if he would have run into the similar resistance, or some other predictable counter-argument, but AGF keeps us from making any such assumptions. Just a thought. DN (talk) 22:28, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I just need to make a friendly request for you to avoid pulling me into discussions on editors talk pages that I am actively trying to avoid. If you care to see the response I received from them I think it may shed some light [1] [2], not to mention the new accusations of me that seemed to pop up around the same time [3], strangely enough. Thanks for your continued concern in all of these matters, sorry to keep crashing your page like this but all we can do is role with the punches from here out. Trying to WP:AGF as hard as I can...Cheers. DN (talk) 03:42, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So maybe I misunderstood their last comment [4], however this was my original cause for concern [5] (wrong diff-fixed), along with Springee's response which I addressed with them here [6](wrong diff-fixed) DN (talk) 17:49, 19 April 2022 (UTC)...DN (talk) 04:13, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I really would suggest you ignore anything that is inscrutable or upsetting. Both TFD and Springee are civil and collaborative editors. Each of us has our own information set and sometimes editors dive into articles without reading the sources and background information. That can lead to lots of misunderstanding but it is generally nothing personal with longtime accounts. There are some very aggressive and even suspicious newcomers who will make personal remarks, but these generally burn out and attract little support. With respect to the Lott article, it really is unimportant. Lott and "gun control" were controversial in the past but not very much today. The issues have become clear over time. SPECIFICO talk 18:41, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that is insightful and I will take it to heart. We may still disagree that gun control is no longer "controversial", but it has never been a problem between us. I never understood the respect John Lott has received due to his continuously shoddy research methods, but I understand that he is unique in terms of being one of the few, if not the only prolific scholar that is anti-gun-control. Without trying to sound too cynical, it seems difficult to reconcile being an academic and anti-gun control IMO. Maybe he just has bad luck on his research as he has claimed, but I certainly have a hard time listening to editors, even veteran editors that somehow accidentally poison the well with unsourced claims of "imaginary evil-doers out to get him". Perhaps there is some RS out there that gives more insight into that theory, but I have yet to see any that isn't partisan. Thanks again, and cheers! DN (talk) 19:10, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SPECIFICO. As you know, the Julian Assange article is under a discretionary sanction stating "You must not make more than one revert per 24 hours to this article." You reverted material in this edit (despite having consensus from an RFC that occurred in part due to your stonewalling of the content in the first place - added back after the RFC closed). Less than 24 hours later you reverted content that had just been added. Are you willing to discuss this violation here or do we need to go to AE? Mr Ernie (talk) 14:34, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The first one was not a revert. It was an edit to established content in light of new information and the AfD. There is no prohibition on such edits, otherwise our articles would never change and improve. Please reflect. Such edits have not been counted against DS 1RR. If you disagree, you can ask @El C:, although I'd hope you would not feel it's necessary to disturb one of our busiest Admins on this matter, since another editor has already reverted my edit to the status quo. Up to you. SPECIFICO talk 14:53, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It was absolutely a revert. You participated in the RFC. It was added with RFC consensus here and reverted by you yesterday here. Calling it an "edit to established content" is nonsense and bad faith - you wholly removed it despite a clear RFC result. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:03, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence is not clear enough to me, but I don't really want to do any Assange stuff right now, anyway, so best report it to WP:AE. Or maybe WP:AN3. Regardless of the report's venue, AN3's Previous version reverted to parameter is what's needed to prove that the edit in question is, in fact, a revert. El_C 15:07, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) I'd urge a self-revert. I think it's likely that at least some uninvolved admins will perceive your first edit as a revert, given that the language was restored to the article about a month ago. You're demonstrably aware that the language was added back post-RFC, and Mr Ernie has already linked the March edit you "undid". The content you're being asked to restore via self-reversion is not so problematic, I think, that it would be worth the AE drama or a potential block. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:22, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The edit was already reverted before Ernie appeared. There was nothing to do. Otherwise I would have considered more. SPECIFICO talk 16:07, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  If that first edit (now undone) was a revert, your second edit (this one) was a 1RR violation. You can still undo that one, and avoid any potential issues. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:11, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Your first revert was reverted. Your second revert was the current version of the article when I opened this discussion. It was just recently reverted by Valjean. Regardless of if was still on the page or not, the DS was violated when you made the second revert within 24 hours. Do you understand that it was a violation? Mr Ernie (talk) 16:14, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate it if you would respond and let us know whether or not you understand the violation. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:24, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ec... SPECIFICO, you need to be more careful. In this case, Mr Ernie is right. In general, and specifically here, deleting properly-sourced content generally runs contrary to our mission here, which is to document the sum total of human knowledge as found in RS. Yes, other concerns come into the picture, but don't abuse them. Deletion of reliably-sourced content usually runs contrary to our POLICY to WP:PRESERVE such content. That policy informs us that deletion should be avoided. Instead, we are supposed to fix any issues and improve the addition. Deletionism is generally dubious, unless problems literally cannot be fixed or there is a very clear policy violation. DUE weight and NOTNEWS are often questionable arguments as they are completely subjective personal interpretations, often used by POV pushers of all persuasions. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:20, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, Google is (trying to be) the sum total of everything. WP is a coherent narrative of the mainstream views of what is most significant. I know your good work on WP is focused on current events, and that you frequently must work with material that has not yet stood the test of time. But NOTNEWS and RECENTISM, NPOV, and ONUS among others, try to warn us not to do as you suggest. Ironically, you violated the page sanction "consensus required" with your revert. However I doubt Ernie will bother you about it, so all is well. Cheers. SPECIFICO talk 13:31, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since you seem completely unwilling to discuss your violation, next time we'll just have to go straight to AE for the return of your inevitable Assange topic ban. The alternative is to collaborate a bit more on the talk page and stop reverting content that you don't like. This revert in particular was very bad - you knew the content had RFC consensus for inclusion, yet you reverted it anyways with an irrelevant edit summary, I guess hoping you could sneak it by since it had been a while since last mentioned? The RFC close isn't even in the archives yet, so I'm really curious why you thought you could remove that content. Mr Ernie (talk) 12:46, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[7] SPECIFICO talk 13:41, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What does an ongoing AFD have to do with content enjoying consensus from a recent RFC on a separate page? Mr Ernie (talk) 15:03, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SPECIFICO: thank you for improving AssangeDAO today, although I don't understand why you would do so, given that you advocate its deletion. Rinpoach (talk) 14:54, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs need to be edited rigorously to see what remains. In this case there was lots of fluff, e.g. "Assange's plight" SPECIFICO talk 15:26, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SPECIFICO. Would you mind having a look at my edit request for Jonathan D. Gray, the president and COO of The Blackstone Group. I saw your name listed as a member of Category:WikiProject Finance & Investment participants, so I hope this will be of interest to you. Current information on the page nearly stops about 3 years ago -- this is to make it more current Talk:Jonathan D. Gray. Thanks so much for your attention. ThomasClements Blackstone (talk) 17:42, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will have a look. Maybe tomorrow however. SPECIFICO talk 18:48, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I made a few edits. While he is an impressive financier and philanthropist, the details of his career don't warrant much encyclopedic content, really. The details of his product and marketing strategies, proposed on the talk page, read more like inside chatter and have yet to play out. All kinds of similar things appear in Bloomberg and WSJ and are of little lasting public concern. SPECIFICO talk 16:21, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SPECIFICO, greetings! Regarding your comment on my edit to Treasury Inflation Protected Securities: you feel that The New York Times is a weak source. With respect, I humbly submit that you're being a bit too stringent. The Times is a well-known news organization, and Wikipedia's guidance on reliable sources favors well-known news organizations. The article I cited was a balanced story that quotes multiple investment professionals at well-known firms - Vanguard, PIMCO, Morningstar, Raymond James. If it would satisfy you, I'd be happy to re-write the language on the Times story to quote by name the people at those firms that made the statements. But I think we should keep the Times citation. It improves the article. It's also more reliable than the 14-year-old post on InvestingDaily.com that now graces the TIPS section. Now that's what I'd call a weak source. Unlike The Times, I've never heard of it, and their About Us statement doesn't impress. Cordially, BuzzWeiser196 (talk) 18:58, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Investors Daily is not RS for anything and should not be used. For matters relating to business or monetary economics, I think it's not hard to find academic or notable practitioners who have published peer-reviewed writings or textbooks. NYT has lots of fluff on everything from cooking to rock concerts and it's not really the best basis for encyclopedic content. It's not as if this were the sort of story for which we rely on news journalists, IMO. I encourage you to find what texts or peer-reviewed survey articles say on the subject. I haven't read the rest of the article, but you are correct that there are many bad sources and outdated content in all the finance and economics and investments articles and your efforts to improve them are most welcome. SPECIFICO talk 19:51, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SPECIFICO: Found a potentially useful textbook reference that supports this statement: "Finance scholars Martinelli, Priaulet and Priaulet state that inflation-indexed securities in general (including those used in the United Kingdom and France) are an efficient way of diversifying a portfolio because they have a weak correlation with stocks, fixed-coupon bonds and cash equivalents. They can also be used by insurance companies and pension funds to optimize asset and liability management."^[1] I'll keep searching. Cordially, BuzzWeiser196 (talk) 15:41, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is a much better soutce, and note that it says something quite different than NYT. Good work. What article text would you suggest? SPECIFICO talk 16:12, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. BilledMammal (talk) 03:23, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. 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)

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)

Did you really mean WP:PAG? It seems to be about how to write guidelines and policies? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:04, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well yes, He needs to follow all the links in the box on the right and read about enforcement, etc. I doubt he's even looked at the page, however. I think he's on a downward spiral. SPECIFICO talk 21:36, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is SPECIFICO. Thank you. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 02:49, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SPECIFICO. I'm Michael from Sculptor Capital. I noticed your active involvement in WikiProject: Finance & Investment and WP:ECON, and would appreciate your review of my pending edit request. This edit request relates to including the resolution of the lawsuits mentioned in the article. Other editors have helped me improve and expand the page in the past, but they are not currently responding to edit requests. Thank you Michael at Sculptor Capital (talk) 11:42, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Michael. My quick reaction is that the article needs some work. There is too much primary or weakly-sourced content and the problems that apparently led to the company's rebranding are glossed over. There should be mainstream coverage of that and other aspects of the company's history. The current content sounds more like a sales document leave-behind that describes the company to prospective investors. Presumably that is not what you or the company would want for its Wikipedia article. I suggest you do some searches in NY Times, Wall St. Journal, and other mainstream publications and see how the company has been described over the past many years. SPECIFICO talk 18:00, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the sort of reference that would need to be more closely reflected in the tone and content of the article text [8] [9]. SPECIFICO talk 01:06, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Today you closed a discussion on an edit request [10] titled, "Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 June 2022" on the Donald Trump talk page. You explained, "Request has been answered. Circular discussion is pointless." Your action seems to assume that an editor has the monopoly to make a final determination on an edit, which I don't think is the case. An editor answered the edit request, but I wanted to discuss their answer and build consensus about the edit and the edit request. I believe the closing of the discussion was improper. Supporting documentation:

1. Per WP:CONSENSUS, "Decisions on Wikipedia are primarily made by consensus. [...] Decision making and reaching consensus involve an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines."
2. Per WP:TALKDONTREVERT, "If an edit is challenged, or is likely to be challenged, editors should use talk pages to explain why an addition, change, or removal improves the article, and hence the encyclopedia."
3. Per WP:TALK, "A rule of thumb is that discussions should be kept open at least a week before closing, although there are some exceptions to this."
4. Per WP:ERREQ, "edits likely to be controversial should have prior consensus".

Documentation to consider:

• Per WP:EDITXY, "Responding editors may decline to make any edit, and are especially likely to reject edits that are controversial, violate Wikipedia policy, or do not have evidence of consensus."

Therefore, lacking the closure proper reason and summary reflecting basis on policies or guidelines, I appeal this closure and respectfully request that the discussion be reopened. Thanks. Thinker78 (talk) 16:39, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• No respected source suggests the election was stolen. It was a landslide by Trump’s own definition. There were 60 some failed lawsuits, dozens of recounts and audits, Trump’s own U.S. Attorney General investigated and said there was no fraud that could have reversed the election. Yes, there were attempts at fraud. Republicans created fake electoral panels in multiple states. 147 Republican Congressmen voted to overturn the election results. Trump pressured Georgia to “find” enough votes to overturn the state’s election. Arizona hired a conspiracy theorist to run his own “audit” looking for bamboo in the ballots to prove they were Asian. Multiple state houses were pressured to disenfranchise voters, ignore the results and send their own electoral panels. A Republican county clerk was indicted for conspiracy to commit attempting to influence, criminal impersonation, impersonation conspiracy, identity theft, official misconduct, violation of duty and failing to comply with the secretary of state's office. There was an insurrection attempting to violently overthrow the election resulting in deaths, injuries to 140 officers, and 862 arrests. New laws have since been passed allowing state legislators to ignore votes. This election was 20 months ago. There is a consensus. Can we move on? O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:01, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]