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

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 [1] [2]. SPECIFICO talk 01:06, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Today you closed a discussion on an edit request [3] 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]

If there were consensus then it would be rather helpful to state it in the closed discussion thread and I would perfectly understand. Because not every editor or visitor to the page is aware of the multitude of threads in the talk page of the article. In addition, I checked the Current consensus, stolen election is not within the items. Thinker78 (talk) 02:28, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See our policy on consensus and associated links. SPECIFICO talk 02:42, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your revert to my update after talk page discussion Talk:Hunter_Biden_laptop_controversy#NBC_News_Change_of_Position_-_Other_Press_Outlets caused a lot of discussion, and the update was reinstated by another editor. I made a call to the group on 23 May asking if EVERYBODY was happy with the cut down wording that was discussed in the section above, and got one comment that it was 'well on track', before putting in the update after waiting 2 weeks for any further comment. My suggestion is that when you disagree with something after talk page discussion, rather than immediately reverting it, count to 10. You have an incredibly busy talk page that suggests lots of active discussions with other editors. I think you would enjoy Wikipedia more if you took a little more time before reacting, especially if you disagree. In this case you could have started a further discussion on the talk page to say why the entry was wrong, and sent me a message asking to revert because the discussion was not closed. Anyway enjoy your weekend, and I hope this is helpful. RonaldDuncan (talk) 16:58, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody owes you further discussion on a matter that receives little or no support. I stated several times why your edit was no good. Maybe review my edit summaries and talk page comments if it's slipped your mind. BTW, there's no such user as EVERYBODY. If you wish to notify or seek comment from specific users, please use the standard ping format templates. Thanks for your visit. SPECIFICO talk 17:02, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Now I think we all are officially "aware"

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:32, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You really would make better use of your time if you'd check whether users are already aware before templating the most active AP contributors. It would be more helpful to alert those who may not have received the notice or may not understand DS. SPECIFICO talk 19:51, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Making that prior check is a requirement of the DS alert procedures. I admit I may have overlooked evidence, but I looked for Template:Ds/aware on your user page and talk page, and I checked the system log. Since DS Alerts expire after 12 months, I provided you with refreshers. I did the same for some others in the thread, and in one of those cases I only did DS for AP because they already had a current one for BLP. When it comes to time well spent, please restrict your commentary at the article talk to discussion of article improvements. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:06, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You don't seem to be engaging successfully either on user talk pages or article talk pages that I've seen. But I haven't searched -- maybe it's just where we happen to have intersected recently. SPECIFICO talk 20:20, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Behavorial complaints about me should be posted at ANI/AE NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:54, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest you tone down your telling other editors what you think they ought to do. Nobody is under any such obligations here. This has run its course now. Thanks for your visit and the nice new templates. SPECIFICO talk 20:56, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Uh no, that's not what the proposal at List of coups is about. I'm the main contributor to the main spot we discuss the label of "coup" to Trump 2020, and I am compiling more research (all of which supports the coup label) at my Sanbox2, which youre welcome to visit. You're welcome to add RS suggestions at the sandbox2 talk page, if you don't want to work them into the section I linked above (or elsewhere). At the list article, adding "possible" PLUS the explanatory LISTCRIT paragraph is just another way of describing our standard P&G in the title and LISTCRIT, nothing more, nothing less. But it should end the drama some folks are injecting as they try to fight the coup label applied to Jan 6. And ending the drama so we can improve content is the actual intent of the proposal NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:59, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry that is not the meaning I intended. I meant to say that the proposal appears to have arisen out of an insistent and repetitive discussion of the matter that was initiated and shopped to BLP (including misrepresentation and straw arguments) by another editor, not you, and that should have run its course quite a while ago and been dropped. I think we should not go overboard trying to satisfy the repetitive claims that have been resolved, including by your additions. I'd also be surprised if the move would put an end to the objections btw. SPECIFICO talk 17:18, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah the other's tendon-whatever editing (never could spell that) is annoying, that's true. A followup please....if the name remains the same, do you support the LISTCRIT I added to the lead as a means to end the drama? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:23, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PS apologies for reading it wrong NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:24, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. I have had time now to calibrate your self-expression. More direct is better than less, IMO.

I'll consider the listcrit. On that article, my opinion is a TBAN will end the drama, and nothing less. I was around when that editor was first banned. It took forever to happen, and it was a horror for a couple of years while the behavior was ongoing. It is all very familiar. I was all for lifting the ban based on that editor's representations in the process, but it hasn't panned out. SPECIFICO talk 17:29, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hope it doesn't come down to that but we all make our choices NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:02, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Me too! Incidentally, I will wholeheartedly support the coup label in wikivoice for January 6 if and when reliable sources start using it, instead of reliable sources merely reporting about other people using it. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:05, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On the strength of Judge Carter's opinion and the 100+ page analysis by jurists at the Brookings Institute (see the section I linked above) I think we are already there. But I'm not going to be the one to fight that fight until there are more heavy-WEIGHT RS of that sort. The myriad pundits and offhand remarks don't count. I'm talking indeoth analysis by expoerts. (Technically, its a "self coup" NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:14, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you recognize that you’re only referring to primary sources? See WP:PRIMARY. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:09, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What's the legal term for that fallacy? Counterfactual conditional, or something simpler? SPECIFICO talk 19:39, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't follow...what fallacy? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:42, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"...I will wholeheartedly support the coup label in wikivoice for January 6 if and when reliable sources start using it" I suspect that, unlike some of the AP editors, this one actually does know what RS say. It's just inconvenient. SPECIFICO talk 19:45, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh now I get it. I once tried looking up formal fallacies and found a swampland of math theory gobbledeegook that was over my head, or at least my patience. Beats me. If you just say "crackpot" or other vernacular I'll try to follow along..... NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:49, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid she is not a crackpot, just an ideologue. SPECIFICO talk 19:51, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I didn't even notice that A had joined us. I thought you, Specifico, were saying you'd use Wikivoice. @Anythingyouwant: Please visit Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election#Trump2020CoupLabel and open each cited reference to actually read all 200+ pages of professional analysis. Afterwards, I'll be interested to hear if you have reasons to not live by the promise you just made. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:08, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to copy the relevant part (minus the personal stuff of course) to the article talk page. Thanks for your visit. SPECIFICO talk 20:10, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also feel free to review WP:PRIMARY. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:13, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Primary RSs are still RSs and when written by nationally recognized jurists on legal matters have massive weight. Now lets leave Specifico at peace here in their living room. And if you wanna fight about Jan 6, the list is a lousy place. Go to the main article, which I linked above and I'll see you there. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:17, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anything is sufficiently unique that it merits copying. The important next thing, at the article, is to develop LISTCRIT. Sorry the party was crashed, S, I was enjoying our two way. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:17, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. SPECIFICO talk 22:20, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn’t have crashed the party if the party hadn’t been discussing me. 😀 Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:53, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If there's a discussion of you that requires your participation, you will be notified. Of course, your disclaimer begs the question as to whose edits you were following to know the discussion was happening. SPECIFICO talk 22:55, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have your talk page on my watchlist, presumably that’s not forbidden. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:00, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Watching isn't but if the host tells you to stay off their page and you don't, you'll likely get blocked for harassment. And I don'tbelieve your stated reason for showing up here because that's not what you talked about when you arrived. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:04, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If SPECIFICO at any time would ask me to stay away from this talk page, I will of course. My first comment here was in response to comments (e.g. “that editor's representations”) that seemed to be about me. If they weren’t about me, then it’s my mistake. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:13, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

I would just like to inform you regarding that you have been mentioned regarding your reverts on the page Manifesto against work.

Kind regards,

Pauloroboto (talk) 17:45, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the future, you can just use the notification function {{ping|Pauloroboto}}@Pauloroboto: SPECIFICO talk 18:06, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I missed that this time! Pauloroboto (talk) 18:12, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I see from your talk page comment that you made a strange and erroneous reference to the 3 revert rule. Please read our documentation at WP:3RR and if you do not understand it, you can get help at this page. SPECIFICO talk 20:39, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your removal of the template. As I stated, the template has been in use on the Oath Keepers page for a number of years. You had not given any rationale for removing the template. The discussion was to form a consensus it appears you acted unilaterally. Why? Myotus (talk) 20:24, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you do feel consensus cannot be made you have the option of taking it to arbitration however, I do feel consensus can be reached. Myotus (talk) 20:27, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As several editors have said on the talk page, the nature of "conservatism" and the actions of the Oath Keepers have changed since the template was added and contemporary sources do not tell us they are conservative. Your recent post on the talk page failed to give affirmative reasons for inclusion and when there is no affirmative consensus to include, the content should stay out of the article.Please use the article talk page. If you are saying you think the default is to retain your preferred content merely because it has been on the page for a while, that is incorrect. Contrary to your statement, if no consensus is reached to include it, then it will not remain in the article. SPECIFICO talk 23:07, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do ask sincerely, can you bring up Wikipedia policies that would support your thoughts? It appears you are trying to frame the debate with your title "The case for inclusion" rather than "The case for removal." You appear to be making the judgments by yourself. Also, by "several editors" you mean only two editors. You have made no statement on talk page. Also there is at one other editor that is arguing for inclusion which you are not taking into account. Myotus (talk) 23:54, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) since Jan 6 last year there has been a spotlight on this bunch. Frankly I don't care, but it seems like if you have RSs no more than 18 months old, and say Oath Keepers fall under the "conservatism" umbrella, then the template might apply (and its a question of WEIGHT/UNDUE. If you don't have such RSs then it should probably go away. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:53, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's more or less my view as well. I don't think any of Myotus' arguments are well-reasoned or convincing, and I see no rationale for inclusion there. Anyway further discussion should be on that article talk page. SPECIFICO talk 01:02, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi NewsAndEventsGuy, My reason for posting on SPECIFICO's Talk page is not to debate the merits of including or deletion of the template (that is goin on the Oath Keeper's talk page) but rather why they felt the need for unilateral speedy deletion of the template rather than discussing it and coming to a consensus. If consensus cannot be made then there are other avenues for dispute resolution. Myotus (talk) 13:11, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting from the article is one thing, speedy delete is a procedure to vaporize the thing everywhere. I'm not interested however. Carry on. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:13, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Myotus, you are misusing terminology that has defined meanings on WP -- "speedy deletion" and "arbitration". It's hard to follow. Nonetheless, this is a simple content matter and should be discussed on the article talk page so that your views are widely seen by those interested in the article. SPECIFICO talk 13:56, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies on misuse of both terms, you and NewsAndEventsGuy are correct in the matter. Myotus (talk) 14:02, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed here that you refer to the Nobel prize winning economist Milton Friedman as "Uncle Miltie" Friedman. Using demeaning names for academics that support views in opposition to your own is the language of a school bully. I remember you using the same trick twice (long ago) when debating me. Please do not do it again. Reissgo (talk) 19:16, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will never "debate" you again. Scouts Honor.👸 SPECIFICO talk 19:30, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. In the talk page of Donald Trump, you closed the discussion started by SandRand97 titled Political legacies. I request that you reopen said discussion because you were an involved editor in the dispute and it was done too prematurely, among other potential issues. I believe this closure was not according to Wikipedia's guidance.

1. Per WP:INVOLVED, "In general, editors should not act as administrators in disputes in which they have been involved."
2. Per WP:CLOSE, Most discussions don't need closure at all, but when they do, any uninvolved editor may close most of them – not just admins.^[1]
   1. I have to point out that this was a contentious circumstance where the editor who started the thread didn't agree with you. In addition, I don't agree with your closing.
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. Any uninvolved editor may write a closing statement for most discussions, not just admins. However, if the discussion is particularly contentious or the results are especially unclear, then a request specifically for a closing statement from an uninvolved administrator may be preferable."
4. Per Template:Hidden archive top (the template that you used), "This template should only be used by uninvolved editors in conjunction with the talk page guidelines and relevant advice at refactoring. It should not be used by involved parties to end a discussion over the objections of other editors."
5. Per WP:REFACTOR, "Good refactoring practices are an important part of maintaining a productive talk page. Discussion pages that are confused, hostile, overly complex, poorly structured, or congested with cross-talk can discourage potential contributors, and create misunderstandings that undermine fruitful discussions. Refactoring should only be done when there is an assumption of good faith by editors who have contributed to the talk page. If there are recent heated discussions on the talk page, good faith may be lacking. If another editor objects to any refactoring that was performed, those changes should be reverted."
   1. I have to point out that the summary of the closing that you made was, in my view, needlessly hostile: "actually, we won't "be here all day" [...] Nobody is obligated to respond to you."
6. Per WP:TALKDONTREVERT, "The goal of a consensus-building discussion is to resolve disputes in a way that reflects Wikipedia's goals and policies while angering as few editors as possible."
7. Per WP:Consensus, "Decision making and reaching consensus involve an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. "
   1. The discussion was closed in the same day, in less than 5 hours, when the regular time advised by Wikipedia's guidance is 7 days, too early to achieve any meaningful consensus.

Given the aforementioned guides, guidelines, policies, and issues, I respectfully request that you reopen the discussion. Thanks in advance. Thinker78 (talk) 21:21, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The reasons for hatting the thread were given by several editors within the thread. I'm hard pressed to see any grounds for your concern about such a thing. Note that OP said they would not further contest the consenus. Maybe you could have another look at the course of the discussion. None of the flaws were addressesd, let alone resolved. SPECIFICO talk 21:32, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The stated summary of the closure doesn't justify closing the discussion and it is even contradictory: "@SandRand97: actually, we won't "be here all day", because the WP:BURDEN is entirely on you to show that your proposed content comports with our Policies and Guidelines regarding Verification, Neutral Point of View, and article Lead sections. If you have well-reasoned policy-based arguments and sources, please present them here. Nobody is obligated to respond to you."

A discussion doesn't need to end in a day or sooner, the normal running time for a discussion is a week. I could understand if you or someone else didn't want to discuss the issue all day, but then the correct thing to do is to let others keep discussing if they want. The contradictory thing in your closing summary is that you told SandRand97 that "If you have well-reasoned policy-based arguments and sources, please present them here". I guess you were thinking that a new post should be started and if so why if this is the post that was discussing the relevant edit. Regarding your statement that "OP said they would not further contest the consenus", I have to point out that they weren't accepting your argument about the consitutionality, but the thread is actually about the removal of the text they added. In addition, the editor kept replying after this. And even if out of frustration SandRand97 had dropped of the thread, the issue still needed to be resolved. There was one editor at least, JLo-Watson, who was making a point to include some of the content of SandRand97 in the lead. This discussion needed to be allowed to continue. The closure was premature and improper, given that you were an involved editor in the dispute. Please reopen the discussion and let's avoid further processes with administrators (meaning clarification of the proper procedure or challenge in the proper venue, this is not a warning nor a threat), because to be honest, I rather do other things. But I also like due process and I will stand for proper procedures. Thanks in advance. Thinker78 (talk) 15:31, 29 June 2022 (UTC) Edited 17:13, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an involved ed, and I concur that it was properly hatted. The thread asserts a lot of editor opinion, but contains not a single RS. It assserts fact in WIKIVOICE which are inevitably the sort of controversial things that will require inline attribution. Had I closed it, I would have simply closed it by saying, like I usually do with such threads, "WP:SOAP and WP:FORUM click 'show' to read anyway". I'll also comment on Thinker78's pestering of Specifico here. You're just repeating yourself. See WP:Tendentious editing. If you want to talk about Trump's great legacy, fine. Leave here, and start a new thread at the talk page with your proposed RSs and draft text. Be constructive instead of just bickering NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:54, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NewsAndEventsGuy your attempt to shut down discussion by throwing baseless accusations against me is duly noted. This is not your talk page for you to be telling me to leave, although if Specifico tells me I would certainly oblige, not that I was planning on staying after my previous reply. Btw, I am no fan of Trump, but I guess you are too immersed in your bias to be able to consider that. Next time if you plan to interject in the discussion in someone else's talk page, at least behave professionally. Thinker78 (talk) 16:54, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing to do with any of our personal opinions. The problems with your participation were given on the article talk page. Please take some time to read our policies and guidelines so that you can offer improvements that will be within the requirements for article page text. Also, please do not be impolite to the other visitors on this page. SPECIFICO talk 17:28, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Thinker78: worth revisiting -

WP:BATTLEGROUND

WP:Focus on content

WP:SOFIXIT

WP:No personal attacks

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:33, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also uninvolved and thought SPECIFICO's close was reasonable. I agree with NewsAndEventsGuy that this, your second such post (at least) on SPECIFICO's page, borders on pestering. If you see a close discussion and think there's a diamond in the rough, start a new talk page section focused on the diamond. The rough stuff can waste a lot of editor time. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:10, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FYI not just here [4] NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:18, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]