This is an old revision of this page, as edited by James500 (talk | contribs) at 05:34, 25 January 2016 (→Your message on my talk page: Comment). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 05:34, 25 January 2016 by James500 (talk | contribs) (→Your message on my talk page: Comment)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| This is SPECIFICO's talk page, where you can send her messages and comments. |
|
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: 31 days  |
ANI notice
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
WP:ANI Notice
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
GA reassessment for Murray Rothbard article
Murray Rothbard, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.
WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#WP:TPNO violation by User:SPECIFICO
There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion
Hello, SPECIFICO. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Your message on my talk page
I did no such thing, and you need to read WP:BEFORE. James500 (talk) 16:51, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Regarding this comment: I will now be permanently watching that article, so nothing that happens to it will escape my attention. The only one making personal attacks was yourself. The unconstructiveness in that talk page thread was coming entirely from your direction. I don't believe for one moment that you ever at any time imagined that I was affiliated with the article topic. Groundless accusations of COI are a standard deletionist obfuscation and provocation tactic. I take a very dim view of your behaviour because it seems to me that you are consistently misrepresenting both the nature and extent of the coverage available in a way that could not possibly be an accident. Bearing in mind the lengthy profile of the topic in the New York Times etc etc etc, I don't believe that any editor could possibly have believed that there was no indication that the topic might possibly be notable as you originally claimed, and your subsequent claims appear to follow the same pattern of making claims that are as extravagant as you think you can get away with, with no meaningful attempt to justify them. That is another standard deletionist trick. I have not confused the notability template with an AfD. What I have pointed out is that the notability template should not be placed on the article of a notable topic and that it is a highly controversial template, that was recently very nearly deleted at TfD, that is very likely to encourage certain forms of unconstructive editing, such as mass nominations and vote stacking. James500 (talk) 05:34, 25 January 2016 (UTC)