Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:01, 15 November 2019

This is SPECIFICO's talk page, where you can send her messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22Auto-archiving period: 2 months

Conflict of interest policy

Welcome back!

Welcome back! Just in time for the good stuff. But aren't your @Awilley:-originated special discretionary sanctions still in force for 22 days, meaning you are not allowed to post a dozen talk page comments like you did at Talk:Donald Trump? Careful now, better not screw it so close to the safe harbor. --Pudeo (talk) 19:58, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, happy to see you again! It's unfortunate that upon your return you would immediately dive into WP:BLUDGEON behaviour with this series of comments after starting the thread titled Talk:Donald Trump#Racial views ? Better heading? on 20 June 22:44, you proceeded with extensive comments on 21 June 01:00, 02:17, 02:49, 18:47, 20:43, 21:33, 21:37, and the next day 17:09, 17:42, 17:52. Maybe you should slow down a little… — JFG 12:21, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

FYI I've vacated the anti-filibuster sanction because it is too complicated. ~Awilley (talk) 18:52, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Good to see you back! I wondered where you had been. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:40, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Gaining consensus

I think I've discovered a more efficient method for gaining consensus on any article talk page. Have a look at this ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 23:17, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Change to Trump economy section

Was there a consensus for this major change? Maybe I missed it. soibangla (talk) 18:14, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Donald_Trump&diff=916055130&oldid=916028870

Hello. I believe there was discussion on the talk page about the need to trim the size of the article and that I removed detail from that and at least one other section. This was because I felt that the detail was more appropriate either for the Presidency article or in this case for one of the Economy articles. I tried to give the gist of the material while greatly shortening the detail and explanation that would be found in those other articles -- percentages and other descriptions. SPECIFICO talk 19:35, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

I understand the need to trim the article, but that paragraph was exhaustively discussed with no consensus reached to change/remove the long-standing content. soibangla (talk) 23:29, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Well, there's nothing to stop anyone from reverting, but frankly I think the reasons I gave above are sound and I wasn't involved in the discussion you reference so I can't comment on it. Do you happen to know the link? It's full of stuff that may be of interest to economic policy buffs and may or may not be true or valid statistics signifying much of anything. I'd be glad to look at the discussion or to hear your concerns if you'd like. SPECIFICO talk 23:35, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

There's at least two archived Talk threads about it, but I'm too busy to dig them up. It went on and on and on and I had hoped the matter had finally been settled. Alas, perhaps not. Disclosure: I wrote the paragraph, so there's that. soibangla (talk) 23:39, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

I've seen your work on economic topics elsewhere, so I know you are knowledgeable. I'm not sure that much detail is really needed for the biography. Especially about macro statistics and policy details the results and ultimate importance of which are as yet unkown. SPECIFICO talk 00:19, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Not doing anything

My response started before Mr. X turned out the lights. Not sure why I didn't get an edit conflict, but didn't. Fair game, I find, but also fair of you to bury my two cents with the others rather than simply destroying it. Some editors would. Thanks for compromising. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:43, October 4, 2019 (UTC)

You are an experienced editor. You should know that soapboxing on an article talk page is not cool. Cut it out. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 12:56, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

I wasn't soapboxing, just pointing out how this president has objectively killed, maimed and imprisoned fewer people through all of his alleged abuses of power combined than Bush or Obama did in their sophomore years alone. This one lonely positive aspect of his presidency was in no means brought up to persuade anyone into re-electing him, if that's what's bugging you. Millions of Americans could and should do far better.

If I'm pushing any agenda, it's simply one where no marginalized people are systematically made miserable on Earth, either through the "new normal" on Twitter and Google News or the "old normal" in Iraq and Afghanistan. Is that little squirt of Canadian propaganda really so dangerous, when sprinkled as conservatively as I have? Every dark cloud I've interjected into backstage discussion of world leaders and events since 2012 has had a silver lining, I assure you. Many have poured forth vile acid, but most have helped corrode layers of pointless falsehood in article space, albeit sometimes only on the shallowest levels.

If this is what you'd like me to cut out, I respectfully decline. But if you want me to stop reminding people that Trump has done some good for world peace, I could shut my mouth forever on that minor socioeconomic difference of opinion. I bet we agree on more than we don't, and I'm down for being work friends later if you're amenable to forgetting how we already met. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:09, October 4, 2019 (UTC)

You are pretty far out in "left field", as the Americans say, but do feel free to continue on this page. I have accumulated a fair number of talk page watchers, and I'm sure they are interested to hear your thoughts. SPECIFICO talk 15:38, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Hunter Biden

Just to let you know I took off your BLP template from the discussion on what salary to show for Hunter Biden, suggest we discuss closing the discussion rather than hiding it.RonaldDuncan (talk) 22:17, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I have proposed closing the discussion on Hunter Biden's salary. I think in favour of your point of view. I think you need to calm down since the article is under discretionary sanctions, and I suspect that since you have an interest in Donald Trump any article that has any relation to him is likely to be a war zone. hence the need for everyone to try to be on best behaviour :) RonaldDuncan (talk) 14:53, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

My "point of view" is WP:BLP and WP:NOR and WP:V. If I recall that thread correctly, I believe several editors tried to tell you that and the whole thing should have ended quite a while ago. Thanks for your visit. Come back any time with fresh insights and ideas. SPECIFICO talk 15:43, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Cite error at Trump

Cite error: The named reference nyt05312016 was invoked but never defined (see the help page). was introduced by this edit. Removal of that ref tag would fix it, but how to fix it should be your call since you know what you intended. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:19, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I think I fixed it, I hope. So many different shapes and symbols. Software is a guy thing. Who can tell? SPECIFICO talk 13:03, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Just an FYI

Your last few edits at Trump introduced some errors. You might want to review them. _Talk 📧 22:48, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Thx. SPECIFICO talk 23:05, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Silly tech question

What does &nbsp: mean. I've seen you use it in edits were money is mentioned. I can usually figure out coding syntax but not this. Thanks.Oldperson (talk) 02:46, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

@Oldperson: Non-breaking space. ~Awilley (talk) 03:56, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Donald Trump, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Palm Beach (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 07:21, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Closure of discussion question

Would it be in line with Misplaced Pages's etiquette and rules for me to close my own submitted discussion? I was going to close it and submit in the lead: "A special counsel investigation did not find sufficient evidence to establish specific criminal charges of conspiracy or coordination with Russia, but found that Trump and his campaign welcomed and encouraged Russian foreign interference under the belief that it was politically advantageous.". But I wanted to make sure first if it was alright. Thanks! ZiplineWhy (talk) 22:54, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello. It's fine with me. Clearly there is consensus and has been for a long time. That would be my personal take on it. If the revert warring starts up again, there are other ways to deal with it. However I think it's just about run its course. SPECIFICO talk 23:12, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Alright. I'm adding it. Thanks. ZiplineWhy (talk) 23:42, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Per Mandruss' concern on the article talk page, I suggest you conform the article exactly to what was written in the poll option 1. Then you can separately poll again regarding your revisions. That will leave the article and @Mandruss: both in stable condition 😐 SPECIFICO talk 00:40, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

I am a stable genius! I.e. I'm really good with horses. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:41, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

That you're good with horses is certainly the leading indicator that shows you are truly a stable genius.--Steve Quinn (talk) 00:45, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Apologies

I was trying to be funny (i.e., humorous) with this edit on the Trump-Ukraine talk page . I'm realizing it may not have come across like that. It may have come across as "snippy" or something like that. So, apologies. Pertaining to other related news, I'm thinking of opening up a section on "Conspiracy theories in the lead" so some perspective can be gained on using this in the lead. Not sure if I will - just thinking about it. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 16:25, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi I knew that, but thanks for the visit. I think we should drop it for the time being. I made a brief comment on the talk page to that effect. I went ahead and reverted "obtain", which is clearly against the grain of the extended talk discussion. Everything will be clearer and easier to write in a week or two. SPECIFICO talk 16:41, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

My mistake. Now looks like you were not actually "funny" at all. I've left a note on your talk page. This kind of behavior is very surprising and disappointing coming from you. You'll always do better to be responsive to your colleagues around here, especially when you disagree, because by responding to identified points and reasoned disagreements most often results in a constructive solution. SPECIFICO talk 16:13, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

I believe

... this nbsp needs to go away – again. Thanks. --Brogo13 (talk) 05:41, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Responding here

to this comment to avoid unnecessarily cluttering Snoogans's talkpage.

"...your negotiation with Snoogs above looks too much like you bullied an editor under threat of sanction so that you could walk back your own misstep and avoid scrutiny at AE or ARBCA" Anybody with one eye can see that I pressured Snoogans into making those commitments, but that I did it to "avoid scrutiny" is 100% false. And I think you know that. It was only 2 weeks ago that I wrote the following in a comment that pinged you and that you responded to: "I'll sometimes give editors a choice: "Here's the problem I see with your behavior. I am prepared to sanction you with Sanction A or Sanction B, but I'm also open to your input. You can choose sanction A or B, or you can propose an acceptable Solution C. If you can convince me that you can solve the problem voluntarily with Solution C then we'll go with that and forego sanctions." There is power in allowing people the freedom to choose, and people who have a choice are more likely to change their behavior than those who are simply acted on by an external force. You know better than most that that's my M.O.

Re: "I don't think anybody believes your claim that it would be easy for Admins to spot POV pushers and address them with Discretionary Sanctions" I never made that claim. I said that it is easy for admins to identify WP:Hounding. (Of course that requires the hounding to be reported to the admins...we can't be expected to track and analyze all the interactions.) ~Awilley (talk) 20:01, 15 November 2019 (UTC)