Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) at 05:21, 25 December 2016 (Archiving 1 discussion(s) to User talk:SPECIFICO/Archive 8) (bot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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: 21 days

Nomination of Clinton Foundation-State Department controversy for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Clinton Foundation-State Department controversy is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Clinton Foundation-State Department controversy until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Notice

Pretty sure those have to be given out by a previously uninvolved admin. Sagecandor (talk) 17:31, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

No. Please read it. It's not an accusation, just housekeeping that we all have the notice. All editors on these articles should routinely be given them. Here's the template you can use to notify others: {{subst:Ds/alert|topic=ap}} SPECIFICO talk 17:34, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Source please ? This means involved parties can notify each other even at same time as potentially in conflict and edit warring with each other ? Sagecandor (talk) 17:38, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO:Do you intend to take me to WP:AE for something in particular, or was this just a neutral notification due to general editing on the topic ? Sagecandor (talk) 18:07, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Can you please answer this question ? Sagecandor (talk) 19:00, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Question

Had you ever specifically been given notice in the past about specific case Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2 ? Sagecandor (talk) 18:59, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, we may be getting off on the wrong foot here. I checked your logs and saw you had not been notified before about this particular case, unless I am mistaken ? Sagecandor (talk) 19:12, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

My apologies

Sorry, I checked your talk page archives, now I see the log shows by Coffee.

I see it is not in your talk page archives but is in the logs.

Please accept my apologies. Sagecandor (talk) 19:15, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't know anything about you or your edits. As I said, you were a new face to me on these articles, so I didn't want you to violate these restrictions inadvertently. The only other thing I'll say is that from time to time, experienced editors will snare relatively new editors into defending disingenuous and rule-bending edits that promote a non-mainstream point of view. Disruptive editors can be quite persistent at trying to conceal this behavior. It's not an easy area in which to edit. Good luck. SPECIFICO talk 19:22, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Understood. Duly noted. Thank you. Again, I'm quite sorry about all this and I hope you can accept my apology. Sagecandor (talk) 19:23, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks no need to apologize, but I will accept it and file it alongside my other WP memorabilia. WP is a worthwhile and important project, so we all need to work together. Sad to say that these politics-related articles attract disproportionate participation by ideologues and ill-informed editors. SPECIFICO talk 19:31, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, thank you. My main goal at that particular article is for it to be able to be read easily, cut down on quotations and make the writing style more concise. And especially not have people adding new info directly into the intro, and instead first add it into the article body. Sagecandor (talk) 19:34, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Glass houses

Unlike me, you actually have (by your own admission) violated 1RR at 2016 United States election interference by Russia with these reverts. (Keep stalking and reverting only my edits, and "TTAAC needs to blocked or banned" is going to come back to haunt you.) Unlike you, I'm going to give you a chance to self-revert before crying to a drama board. I hope you take it.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:49, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm assuming this is connected as well, but it's a bit disingenuous to claim on one hand that a DS notice is not an accusation, just housekeeping that we all have the notice. All editors on these articles should routinely be given them.(), and in the same breath when you yourself are given the same, reply that I am going to file a complaint if you don't remove that sanctions notice from my talk page. It's clearly a violation of WP:POINT and I have no idea what constructive purpose you could claim it accomplished.(). Just a friendly reminder. TimothyJosephWood 20:56, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't know whether the page is up, because it's somewhat sexist and not all that witty, but "Don't be a dick" applies to your message, TJ Wood. I had previously received that notice, as is evident from the "My Apologies" thread above. If you're trying to stir up trouble, that's a violation of ARBAP2 and you might be surprised one day to be called on the carpet. Do be careful. SPECIFICO talk 21:46, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

That was pretty much my message as well. If you'll look at my talk, I was given the same by the same user, which completely makes sense, if it is indeed housekeeping we should be routinely reminded of. Unlike yourself, I attempted to explain why it was not the best use of the template rather than threatening to take them to ANI.

The fact that you in turn threatened to take me to AE over the issue, probably means that you need to take a good hard look at your assumptions of bad faith, and fix yourself. TimothyJosephWood 22:43, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Not only have I not threatened you, but you've disregarded my observation that you are speaking without first checking the context that would address whatever concerns you may have. Don't post any more on this thread. Please read all the context on all the related pages. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 22:51, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

You did indeed, and I was following the conversation at the time, because I was having the same conversation, at the same time, with the same user on my talk. That you did not simply remove the notice yourself, as I sure you will this comment, is silly, and that you insult my intelligence by insinuating that I am unable to look through a half dozen diffs is more so. Fix yourself. TimothyJosephWood 23:12, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

AE report

This is to let you know that I am filing an Arbitration Enforcement request against you at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement, for violation of the Discretionary Sanctions.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:03, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Using SYNTH far too liberally

How can a direct quote violate BLP?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:06, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

You are on thin ice, as half a dozen editors and Admins have recently told you. It does nobody any good to see you blocked or banned, but I can tell you that you are headed down a dangerous path. I hope you will reflect on all the feedback you've gotten recently, take some time off from the American Politics articles, and study the policies and guidelines and Arbcom restrictions that have been cited to you. Synth has to do with the juxtaposition of content to insinuate a conclusion not intended by the sources. I'd again urge you to go back and heed my message to you from yesterday. Your response is nothing more than a denial of the Discretionary Sanctions restrictions about which you've repeatedly been warned. Now, please reflect and don't come to this page again for at least 30 days. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 01:34, 19 December 2016 (UTC)