User talk:SPECIFICO/Archive 8

549:

a felon and even devoted a major part of his most recent movie to a dramatization of his time in a halfway house. You are assuming that our inclusion of it there was to "embarrass" him. Had you employed "good faith", and simply asked a question, you would've found out otherwise. And since you disagreed with our decision to include it, I compromised and promptly took it down. You act as if we are insisting on using that photo. We gave in. Learn to take "yes" for an answer. As for the rest, you seem to ignore my many edits where I include praise from the press of D'Souza's many box office successes. He's like a conservative Michael Moore and deserves props for making big money for his movies like Moore. I am very fair to the man and even limited the marriage scandal sections to the bare minimum facts, using neutral language. There is far more damaging news about the man's personal life according to his ex-wife. There are many stories about D'Souza's mental instability, his pathological lying, his coded racism against Obama, and his misogynistic remarks against Hillary and Trump's sexually assaulted victims. I have included NONE of that since I do believe that kind of drama, though true, is largely unencyclopedic and heresay from a wikipedia standpoint. Say what you will, but I am more invested in a good article from a journalistic standpoint. I only include in these talk pages my personal opinions and feeling about D'Souza since I do not pretend NOT to have my own biases, politically speaking. However, by being honest about them, it helps me to make more neutral constructive edits. Also, when called out on it, I have compromised in many cases. That's my personal stance on this and you should stop putting words in my mouth and speaking on my behalf. I'm not perfect but I strive for objectivity and neutrality when possible. Nuff said.

1392:

for him to bring up his AE in another AE. Clearly he is trying to influence uninvolved admins with his statements there so that when they come to his AE they will be left with a better impression, like when he changed his intro page into a milder version so no one would notice. This is a straight forward violation of sanctions and rather than apologize he is accusing the system of being rigged and admins of being part of a liberal conspiracy to censor alt-right editors like him, hence his "the fix is in" attack against admins. He refuses to back down on that accusation against Knowledge authority because he's convinced the system is a loss cause for him. So he shouldn't be upset then at an indefinite topic ban on political pages, which is the only practical solution for an out-of-their-mind WP:NOWHERE editor. Maybe a few weeks off to cool off would do him some good too. His big thing is other banned editors calling a political figure "corrupt"? Well, then... calling the President the founder of ISIS certainly is as big a BLP violation as any, and no, he doesn't get to pass it off advance a joke if other banned users putting mug shots up of convicted felons is beyond the pail for him. By his own logic he should be banned. Also, dont respond to me here since we don't want to be guilty of gossip. Rather, bring these concerns to the AE if anything here that U brought to your attention warrants discussion there. After awhile crocodile ;)

716:

been TBANned from that topic after posting some truly sickening stuff that Arbcom decisively rebuked. She is now tendentiously and disingenuously entwined in the US election articles due to the Supreme Court vacancy and others likely to follow that could determine the future of Roe v. Wade. She has a variety of tactics. She can play dumb, such as when she says that "if A then B" entails "if B then A" (rape/assault). She can do the rope-a-dope. She can pop up in many articles almost at once like an internet Houdini. She's very good at this and she is charming and rarely overtly uncivil. She's the consummate wikilawyer. Anyway, IMO you should have seen that, after she pretended to accept your advice 6-7 weeks ago to simmer down, she went right back at it with a vengeance. Now she's up at AE yet again with the preposterous claim that reverting your edit was a BLP violation. Sooner or later the Admins need to enforce the sanctions and/or recognize that this election does fall under her TBAN vis a vis abortion-related topics. I doubt she's going to pull the election out of the bag for her candidate, and she recently seems more or less resigned to a politics TBAN, so calmer seas lie ahead.

1371:

repeated deletions and POV tilts of content there. In the case of this particular edit, I believe that you have made an error of logic. What I attempted to do was to address the specific comment you made, to wit, that we had no basis to assert that "most opinions are X" without defining the universe and taking count of the number that are X. In the formulation you just reverted, my language avoids that problem by saying that "few opinions are Y". We can state that because we do not see many Y opinions, and we can be confident of no misrepresentation because if any editor disagrees with my version, the remedy is simply to find more than a few Y opinions, in which case no reasonable person would continue to feel my words are correct. Please confine any further discussion of this matter or the movie to the article talk page.

2270:

a strange sign of the times that admins are possessed by the urge to enable creeps like TTAAC when banning them should be a no-brainer. I mean, the creep actually accused Obama of being the founder of a terrorist organization. If that isn't a WP:BLP violation, then I don't know what is. But some dark cloud is spreading over the earth and sending us into an anti-intellectual dark age. It is like something is toxic in the air and turning everyone into pod people, like something out of "Invasion of the Body Snatchers." How else to explain how Americans would elect a clearly racist uneducated man like Trump. He bragged about raping his co-workers on audio tape no less!?!??? These truly are dark times.

179:

of little significance due to his medical exemption (1Y). I reverted this deletion and he proceeded to revert my revert, in apparent violation of 1RR, "do not restore content which has been reverted without consensus on talk page." You may be interested in weighing in on this discussion. FYI, I am particularly interested in this section of the article and feel that 1) it is buried in a section titled "Childhood and education" and 2) significant information has been deleted by Anythingyouwant and others. In July 2015, I noticed that there was absolutely no discussion of this matter (his Vietnam service or lack thereof) and wrote a

1104:

what the model is supposed to predict. NPR also writes incorrectly about the model, as do many other sources. The problem is that, in most cases, scientists are not writing the articles. In statistics, this is known as the "sharpshooter's fallacy" (you shoot the barn first, then draw the bull's eye). Lichtman claims he correctly predicted the Bush v. Gore election, because he predicted Gore would "win" (i.e., get a plurality of the votes). But now, he (or at least the media) say he correctly predicted this election, using a different criterion! If I get to shift the target after the fact, I can predict lots of things correctly.

1111:. See the bottom left-hand column of page 7230 in that article. Furthermore, Lichtman wrote multiple books about the subject (basically, he writes another one every four years). The latest one is "Predicting the Next President" (2016) Rowan & Littlefield, publishers. Page x of the introduction mentions that only the popular vote is being predicted and it is stated even more explicitly on page xi: "Thus they predict only the national popular vote and not the vote within individual states." This point is repeated throughout the book, and every book he has written on the subject. I hope this is convincing. 449:. There isn't an obvious 3RR violation, but both sides continue to revert vigorously in the service of what I assume are their personal opinions. One option for the admin who closes the AN3 is No Violation, due to the lack of a 3RR. Another option is to ban both parties from the topic of Dinesh D'Souza for a period of time. Since I notice you have been editing the article and I know you to be a long-term editor who works on a variety of topics, I wonder if you think that the dispute is at a stage where topic bans ought to be considered. Thanks for any opinion, 2507: 966: 2245:

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.

465:

immediately into revert warring and personal attacks on good faith editors. I have seen Oneshotofwhiskey less frequently. I find that ID to be constructive and usually policy-based in its edits and comments. Oneshot will sometimes take the bait when taunted by an aggressive editor such as TimesAreChanging and would probably do better to walk away rather than engage, but I see no reason for any disciplinary action. So I think that a TBAN is warranted for Times and constructive advice to Oneshot to

31: 1736: 1336: 1652: 1217: 1768: 131: 502:" is a sad reminder that SPECIFICO is just as biased and sloppy as I remember him being—and certainly not a neutral party to take advice from. The case for topic-banning me from D'Souza is weakened by the fact that I have made no actual edits to the article—I have only reverted back to the status quo when confronted with what can only be called an extraordinary assault on all normal BLP standards by Oneshotofwhiskey. 760: 1049:

predicts the outcome of the popular vote. The previous version of this page (13:25, 10 November 2016) is actually accurate. I'm wondering why you changed the wording. The public already has a poor understanding of statistical models and predication and this exacerbates the problem. You can't change the metric by which you measure success of a model after you see the result.

306:

on the street. It may be boorish, rude, jerk behavior but is not "illegal." In the US it is illegal only in the workplace and in education. Please tell me what "In most modern legal contexts" means? If you can do so succinctly, then that should go in place of current sentence. You should also provide a supporting citation for that proposition/conclusion.

2377:. Again, something else that should be properly reported to both arbcom admins AND processed in a proper SPI so TTAAC will be held accountable and won't get away with this. When similar situations have arisen, TTAAC has demanded that an user be indeffed for block evasion. So honor his wishes and help him out with that. 2698:

I was also disturbed by your inflammatory comments in the discussion, which I took as condescending towards editors who happen to disagree with you and make an effort to lay out their arguments in a clear and civil manner. I know you can do better, and I will simply suppose that you were a bit tired,

2561:

I've added a comment to the article's talk page, on the sources relating to Nakamoto's use of the Bitcoin Gensis block to make a point about full-reserve banking (or, if you like, a protest aginst fractional-reserve banking). It's arguable whether the earliest source is the Github repo or the Bitcoin

2519:

Hi, SPECIFICO! I'm sure you can tell this rapidly-shifting IP is TheTimesAreAChanging, who was recently blocked for a month for violating his TBAN. Or maybe it's Kingshowman, who is furious at having his name linked to TTAAC's. In any case I have semiprotected your page. I will let you do the cleanup

2244:

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

1391:

What's more "jaw dropping" is the part where he admitted to "baiting you" (his words) in tthe subject heading of his rv when removing your good faith warning on his talk. Also, he is using the AE by the other banned editor to passive aggressively canvass the community for his own AE.There is no need

694:

and count how many of the 23 people who have responded so far supported having an entire lead paragraph about the assaults. (I count 4 supporting a full paragraph, 10 saying it shouldn't be in the lead at all, and a bunch of people saying stuff along the lines of "1-3 short sentences".) Sorry for not

548:

There you go again. D'Souza proudly identifies himself as a political prisoner who he believes was imprisoned by Obama for making a movie critical of him. Even so: the photo, in fact, was cropped so only the most knowledgeable would ever identify it as such. However, D'Souza is proud of his status as

2694:

What triggered me was your second removal of disputed text while the discussion was ongoing on the talk page (diff 7 of my report) and you had denied violating sanctions the first time around (diff 3 of my report) while repeatedly accusing me and other editors of an "egregious BLP violation". I have

2269:

Sorry you are getting harassed by TTAAC. You are a good editor who is clearly trying to be fair and do what is right by Knowledge. Everyone has their biases and no one is perfect, especially us. haha. But I don't see any reason for this constant berating you receive by trolls like TTAAC. Also, it is

1997:

Actually, you did a pile of stuff that was inapprpriate. Looking back, I think I inadvertently undid more than I'd intended -- some innocuous formatting but also some POV tweaks as well. At any rate, you have my assurance that I give no thought to you personally, or any other editor here personally,

1600:

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.

497:

and should (IMHO) have gotten him topic-banned from all articles related to Austrian economics. (Unlike SPECIFICO, I am not topic-banned from anything.) The strikingly dishonest way in which he pretends to be above the fray while defending (and in some cases restoring) the egregious BLP violations I

305:

I accept that "illegal" does not necessarily mean criminal. That was only one objection. However, what does "In most modern legal contexts" mean? What is a legal context? How many such contexts are there and in what proportion is this behavior illegal? Sexual harassment is not illegal when it occurs

183:

which remained relatively stable until 31 May 2016 when Anythingyouwant rewrote it. There was a discussion on the talk page which lead to no resolution since there appeared to be no other interest. My point in bringing this up is that Anythingyouwant seems to think that a 1 month interval makes an

178:

I noticed your comments on Anythjinguwant's talk page and though you might be interested in the current controversy which is spelled out on his talk page. This concerns the Trump article and basically he removed the reference to the selective service guy stating that Trump's high lottery number was

126:

So hard to understand why a friendly, collegial, non-template reminder of policy would trigger such an angry invitation to escalation that would only waste time and attention. So hard to understand this behavior from editors after they've unintentionally and inadvertently made a mistake, unless the

2586:

Hi. Well I believe that editors are claiming that no RS connects Trump to Sippenhaft and that the disputed content is therefore SYNTH and a BLP violation. However I believe that the two sources I cited do explicitly link Trump to Sippenhaft, so that they can be used to rebut the SYNTH claim. At any

2322:

The edit (listed above) in particular that he chose to make was about the US and Russia's interference with elections which is the hottest thing being debated in America politics right now! Before his TBAN he was busy making disruptive edits about this subject as well, but on directly related pages

1130:

You did a fair amount of editing at the article on Value Walk and expressed doubts about the notability but haven't participated in the AfD. I was just wondering if there was any sort of reasoning, like that you avoid AfD's or something? Not that you need to explain, just idle curiosity on my part.

1048:

The current wording on Allan Lichtman's web page: "Based on his model, Lichtman correctly predicted Donald Trump's shock victory in the 2016 Presidential Election" is highly misleading. Lichtman has always maintained that he does not predict winners of presidential elections. Rather, his model only

641:

Ohh, don't count me back in action yet. I hate politics and I avoid political articles like the plague. I don't know what possessed me to ever get involved here. I guess I felt a quick AE warning was softer than an AE action and then that drew me in and got me involved. Been working, lately, on

1880:

It appears that you don't understand the policy and DS rules that apply to reverts and editing in this article. Please review WP definitions and policy regarding reverts and the rules that apply to Discretionary Sanctions in this article and in the ARBAP2 decision and don't post on this talk page

1823:

and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion

1707:

Hi. Yours reinstated something that I had challenged by reverting -- exactly what the talk page Notice says not to do. I had also opened a separate talk page thread. I do not think you intended to do this, but the effect of it is counterproductive and I am on record elsewhere as believing that DS

1103:

Happy to contribute! Just by way of background, I've been teaching Lichtman's model in my statistics class at the University of Texas for about 20 years. I have also personally seen Lichtman talk about his model at academic conferences. It is not surprising that the Washington Post doesn't mention

418:

A decision was reached in the edit war. We are now moving forward on the article itself, having what I hope is a friendly debate about the content. I started this debate with the subject about D'Souza's photo, which one we should use. Let us know your feelings on it and, of course, remain neutral.

280:

and who use these articles to promote their political agendas. Arbcom went through the motions of cleaning out the next a year or so ago, but the Admins don't appear willing to do their job right now. The behavior is egregious and willful and highly motivated. I doubt any neutral editor has the

2436:

Another of TTAAC's IP socks. Here he is block evading pretending to be User:Kingshowman upset at the idea of being associated with "a racist troll" like TTAAC but the problem with this con is that the edit history of this IP shows TTAAC's presence on the Donald Trump pages where he was soapboxing

2408:

related to him. But what is MORE interesting about this is that it sounds like he thought this sock strategy was fool proof in some way and it failed him for his gaming purposes. So I'm guessing this is at least meatpuppetry and his insecure meltdown over it betrays the following: he probably has

2130:

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

715:

Hi. Well several editors have now edited or otherwise indicated they agreed with me. I see you haven't been very active recently, so this is no doubt a difficult topic area to keep in full view. Ms. Anythingyouwant is a POV-pusher who it's safe to call an anti-abortion rights extremist. She's

464:

Hello Ed. I very much appreciate your reaching out. I have encountered TimesAreChanging on several of the American Politics articles, and I feel that editor has been consistently obstructive and unwilling to collaborate with editors of any stripe who disagree with him. He short circuits almost

199:

This is what happens when Admins fail to enforce Arbcom's decisions. If you feel anyone is violating the 1RR or is otherwise behaving disruptively in this topic, I suggest you file an Arbcom Enoforcement thread. Thanks for the note. You also might ping Admin Awilley, who has recently counseled

2111:

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

1691:

Hey SPECIFICO, I replied to your warning on both my talk and on the article talk - probably best if you reply on article talk so all involved can participate. I'm happy to revert, but my edit seems exactly like yours previously: on a contested topic, but not a reinstatement of contested material

2353:

Now, here's the thing: one has filed a proper SPI about this so could you do so? This will bolster the case for his indeff since that's the only remedy that makes sense at this point, etc.. and we need this documented if the investigation finds (and it will) that this is TTAAC. Clearly the sock

1567:

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

260:

Sorry for the delayed response -- I've been travelling for the past couple of weeks (currently in Japan). I appreciate the input and have decided that although I think Anything has violated the 1RR rules I probably will let it slide and try to get some consensus on the talk page. I tried this

2825:

P.S. Of course there is a significant difference between someone who does follow the rules (like you) and someone who does not (like JFG). However, I am not sure that admins will really appreciate that difference. I think they should, but they really did not in a number of cases I know about.

1370:

Thank you for the lovely template. I will treasure it. Since the article has very few page views, I am not inclined to work on it any more right now. If you are, you should note, first, that you are the lone editor dissenting from the opinion of several others who have asked you to stop the

2174:

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

492:

before, the page was on my Watchlist when it underwent a series of attacks from sockpuppets, IPs, and now Oneshotofwhiskey (who claims to be a brand-new user around for a few weeks, but who is quite obviously too familiar with Knowledge policy for that to be true). I had a few contentious

828: 2155:

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.

1619:

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.

1083:

I've now reviewed the Washington Post article about his model and it says nothing about "only the popular vote" so I am not seeing confirmation of your concern. I am, however, flattered that you chose to celebrate your Knowledge editing debut with a visit to my humble talk page.

2016:

Well, I appreciate your reply and take it as an apology for "inadvertently und more than 'd intended". To clear the disagreement, I would kindly request you to revert your mass-revert and then address each edit of mine for which you have a legitimate concern. Thanks in advance. —

570:-- don't let it upset you. It's not worth taking all these complaints seriously. I am mildly curious to know why Changing thinks I endorse the use of a mug shot, not to mention what drew him to this thread, but I'm afraid I wouldn't understand anyway, so I'm not going to ask. 515:"You claimed oh so arrogantly that you 'know a sock when you see it' and then tried to use that in service of an agenda to silence another editor. Apparently you/ew shouldn't trust your eyes and your credibility has suffered as a result of your penchance for false accusations" 511:"Your excuses and spins about D'Souza's scam-artisty, journalistic fraud, and unfounded conspiracy theories betray your political agenda. It has no place here. Nor did your failed attempt at a SPI witch hunt that went no where, and was clearly in service of your agenda" 2872:. It means JFG will continue doing the same. If you care about it, you might wish to ask a clarification if it was a revert from one of admins who was recently active on WP:AE, but better not the one who recently commented on the same issue because you want to have a 2682:

Hello SPECIFICO, I have just now read your statement in reply to my AE report, and I would like to make some comments which would be off-topic and bludgeon the process there, so I hope you don't mind that I come to your talk page for a more detailed explanation of my

1003:

name them? Then again, is there any reason why we should cover this incident at all? This seems like a sensationalized headline that never should have been publicized in the way it was (with early reports letting readers assume it was a young guy attacking an elderly

2357:

Also, we NEED to bring this to the attention of arbcom admins but they don't like us anons to file these reports and this place isn't worth it enough for me to create a formal account and deal with that drama. I'm content will my on-and-off editing and lurking.

2686:

First, I'm sorry that I had to drag you there, this is not my habit. Second, I can assure you that my report is in no way retaliatory, as you alleged in your reply: when I started composing my report, I wasn't even aware that there was an open process against

2691:, and when I posted it I had not yet seen your comments there (posted, as you say, 15 minutes earlier, whereas it took me a good hour to compose my own report). Had I seen them, it would have made no difference to my case, and I have no comment on his case. 1851: 1229:

is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

811: 799: 2587:

rate, as a public figure who's spoken at length on this topic, I don't think Trump could credibly claim that these sources are libeling him, so I see no BLP violation. Feel free to copy this to the board if you think it helps clarify my remarks.

1678:

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.

487:

I don't edit articles on American politics. As you can see from my user page, I mostly edit articles on video games and recent Middle Eastern history, including a handful of Good Articles and one Featured Article. Although I have never edited

614:

Hi glad to see you back in action, TP. I will have a look this eve. The regulars on that page already know where one another stand and I find the bludgeoning (some of it marvelously light-handed and delightful such as served up by my crush

2273:

I don't know you and I can't say we are friends. But I respect your strength and conviction as an editor so in the meanwhile keep your chin up and don't let these trolls drag you down. Knowledge needs you. Good luck lass and God speed.

2570:

It's not quite clear which way your comment is to be taken there, or perhaps you prefer not to come down on either side. If you have a view as to whether this is a BLP violation or not I'd appreciate a note one way or another. Regards,

600:

Can you please look at the comment statistics I've posted at the bottom of that thread and then talk to Slaw about slowing down and allowing other editors to discuss an issue without the constant replying to every single person?--v/r -

2703: 1416:

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}}

1182:

Well, I didn't think I'd be adding anything by jumping on the AfD alongside the article's author after I had made my views clear on the article talk page. Anyway, thanks for the reminder. I left a note on the AfD page this morning.

1021:

Please copy your thoughts onto the talk page and we can engage in normal process. This is not about what you or I think. I thought there was undue detail, given the immense scope of the article topic. Seek consensus on talk. Thanks.

2695:

explained several times, in my edit comments, on the article talk page, and now at the AE board, why I think your claim of BLPVIO is invalid in this particular case, and believe me I hate genuine BLPVIOs probably as much as you do.

1982:

on the Russian intervention article. You apparently carefully selected all my individual edits of the last day and undid all my work in one fell swoop, saying "rv edit w/o consensus . Use talk". So, if I understand you correctly,

1956:

The reason I am bringing this up on your talk page rather than the talk page of money creation is that I am pretty sure that you already know that the sentence is perfectly correct an uncontentious. So why did you undo that edit?

1952:

On the money creation page I modified an existing sentence to become "in most countries today, most of the money supply is in the form of bank deposits, which is created by private banks in a fractional reserve banking system".

2484:

Again, made even MORE offensive about the fact he's pretending to be someone else when it's clearly him, so it's a (multiple) block evasion AND a (multiple) sock violation. Someone PLEASE indeff the sockmaster please.

529:

as a "personal attack." There can be no pretense that SPECIFICO has no dog in this fight. In fact, if he thinks using D'Souza's mugshot is appropriate, we should probably consider adding D'Souza to the list of topics

1568:

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.

382:

Would you be willing to remove "numerous" from last sentence of lead? It's a vague term, and doesn't add much. If you would do that, then I plan to add "during past decades" at the end, for a total of 15 words.

1682:

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.

2409:

some friend in a far away state willing to let him use their computer to make edits so he can insulate his IP. Still a socking offense, which is why we have behavioral investigations to counter this type of con.

1675: 2744: 850: 1064:

Could you copy here the link to the source that says his model is designed to predict the popular vote? I will have a look. At any rate, there should be a secondary RS, not his own web page. Thanks.

281:

energy or concentration to assemble a case against them, so this will continue through the election. Even Awilley is sitting on his hands after his counsel to Anythingyouwant was roundly disregarded.

519:"Oneshotofwhiskey's blatant vandalism continues. Compare the old, accepted "Personal life" section with the Oneshotofwhiskey version, complete with a brand-new "Marriage scandal" subsection. Is there 1241:. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose 795: 1874: 1107:

In any case, there are multiple sources to see that his model only intended to predict the popular vote. The main one is his original paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences:

856:

You will soon be blocked. If you wish to avoid that, you need to undo your edits and pay attention to the warnings on the article talk page and your talk page. Nothing more to discuss here.

2332:

Maybe he should be indeffed at this point if he's going to go that route??? This all the more offensive since the thing he likes to rant about the most is OTHER people's alleged sockpuppetry.

999:

Actually, both the 69-year-old woman—Shirley Teter—and her alleged assailant—the 73-year-old, legally blind Richard L. Campbell—have been named in many reports. Is there any reason Knowledge

2535:

Hello thanks MelanieN. It's all Greek to me -- socks impersonating one another's socks. If either of them has a complaint, my humble talk page would be the last place to get it resolved.

1641: 237:

Ha. Well, who's going to put a stop to this kind of nonsense? Nothing personal against her. She is quite charming but there are half a dozen similar ones repeatedly at odds with ARBAP2.

972: 523:

BLP written in this manner? Of course not; Oneshotofwhiskey is simply making a mockery of Knowledge policy. Arbitration is now necessary, and probably a topic ban to end the disruption"

2555: 1257: 1708:

must be strictly observed if there's any hope of improving these politics-related articles. Thanks for coming here with your note. I'm away for most of the next 24 hours. Regards.

2773: 941: 838: 830: 2702:

Finally, I wish to entertain you with a satirical illustration of what could happen to Knowledge if we followed your interpretation of BLPVIO and revert restrictions to the tee:

2368:

with no desire to rehabilitate himself during his six month cooling off period they assigned to him for that very purpose. Now is the time to bring justice on this subject, etc.

433: 842: 2323:

on the subject. Unbelievable. Clearly he's just trying to find a creative way around his ban so he can sneak in edits about it and resume edit warring on the subject, etc.

690:

those sentences had been heavily edited by others. Anyway, I don't plan on doing any reverting at this point, and before you do any more yourself I'd encourage you to go to

1987:

has by your definition no consensus? This behaviour is dishonest and disruptive. Please self-revert, and then I'll be happy to discuss each of my edits on the talk page. —

2565: 1998:

but only to your edits. You swung and missed, so I called you out on those particular attempts. Nothing more. Thanks for keeping your concern off the article talk page.

1519:

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 ?

442: 980:...and while we're on the subject of your disruptive behaviour - I notice that you are breaking your topic ban yet again by editing the Stefan Molyneux page (Nov 1st). 891: 880: 2469: 2448: 2423: 2388: 2342:

Then TTAAC decided to protest his socking violation with MORE socking, using these IPs to protest his ban by engaging in a lame con against the admin who blocked him:

1920:

I was trying to be as gracious and polite as possible. Your complaint is two degrees weaker than the one that got a previous AE complaint against me tossed out on its

1747: 164: 989: 2496: 2285: 1861: 1275: 2835: 2295: 735:

P.S. Now that other editors have made it clear that your good-faith edit did not represent emerging consensus, you might consider restoring the previous version.

458: 2473: 2452: 2427: 2392: 2134:

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

2106: 2580: 2500: 1501: 558: 1828:. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. 869: 1846: 686:

was poorly written and garbled ;-) Actually, most of that phrasing was already in the paragraph that I condensed from 3 to 2 sentences, and by the time you

407: 2258: 1035: 543: 2885: 2866: 2862: 2859: 2853: 2808: 2464:. This is made even MORE offensive about the fact he's pretending to be someone else when it's clearly him, so it's a block evasion AND a sock violation. 1756: 1116: 1054: 2628: 2614: 1751: 419:

For the record: I am not canvassing for your support. Just making you aware of the content debate since you frequent that page. Thank you for your time.

261:

before when she edited the article in May but there didn't seem to be much interest from other editors. Maybe I will try an RFC. Anyhow, thanks again.

2916:

All in, a very constructive outcome. The dozens of unheeded warnings and denials will finally come to an end. Thanks for moving things forward. MVBW.

2650: 2187: 2169: 2150: 2125: 2039: 1857: 493:

interactions with SPECIFICO four years ago, during which time he displayed the same mix of incompetence and POV-pushing that got him topic-banned from

583: 2238: 1899:

I understand the rules, and your two reverts (diffs above) are a violation of the rules. In your further editing, please keep these rules in mind. -

2906: 2046: 2043: 2035: 1937: 1908: 1894: 2057:

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.

1435:

Source please ? This means involved parties can notify each other even at same time as potentially in conflict and edit warring with each other ?

428: 2792: 1971: 1820: 1793: 1761: 1659: 1643: 1528: 1483: 1469: 1206: 1175: 1159: 945: 120: 1804:

how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the

1629: 1614: 1595: 1581: 1444: 1430: 482: 2662:

If I be wicked, woe unto me; and if I be righteous, yet will I not lift up my head. I am full of confusion; therefore see thou mine affliction.

2600: 2404:

is not related to him. Of course, that lame protesting over it with anon IPs screams guilt and a behavioral investigation will find this to be

1727: 1329: 1196: 1112: 1050: 148: 2548: 2329:

TTAAC has also just been found guilty for socking puppetry for, you guessed it, so he could edit U.S. political pages and get around his TBAN.

1991: 1863: 1364: 823: 334: 1721: 1097: 1078: 729: 250: 232: 925: 667: 649: 636: 294: 213: 2330: 894:

your comment to be in-line with your proposal, as this is where it probably should be. Otherwise, editors may be confused and will have to

349: 315: 102: 1384: 1323: 2736: 2718: 2021: 2011: 748: 682:

Hey, the conversation on the assault paragraph has become so messy that I figured I'd respond here. I'm highly offended that you thought

2333: 1805: 691: 2807:

blocked when someone reports this violation because your own editing on this page shows a pattern of edit warring and gaming the rules

2207: 709: 180: 2301: 1966: 1288: 953: 270: 193: 1664: 2676: 2066: 413: 2506: 2337: 1801: 372: 363:

edit? Based on your previous comments and behavior toward that editor it really looks a lot like sarcastic grave dancing of sorts.

1797: 184:

edit stable whereas he blithely rewrote a section which had been stable for close to a year. Your comments woudl be appreciated.

2219: 1120: 1058: 300: 2074:

not an accusation, just housekeeping that we all have the notice. All editors on these articles should routinely be given them.

2306: 1757: 1344: 1340: 1013: 837:

Can we at least let the consensus go on for about another week before we do anything? Plus, only six people have looked at the

829:

Can we at least let the consensus go on for about another week before we do anything? Plus, only six people have looked at the

753: 168: 2657: 1701: 937: 2224: 1140: 2465: 2444: 2419: 2384: 1743: 1271: 677: 173: 160: 2375: 2335: 2289: 1561: 906: 360: 2819: 2492: 2281: 1947: 949: 392: 846: 1513: 518: 514: 2529: 2092: 1410: 2085:

going to file a complaint if you don't remove that sanctions notice from my talk page. It's clearly a violation of

1304: 2412:

SO...don't let him get away with this. File a proper SPI so we can expose Kingshowman as his obvious meatpuppet.

1292: 2706:. I hope you will agree with me that such an outcome would be on par with the perfectly well-adjusted society of 2638: 1267: 526: 510: 354: 2349: 2347: 2345: 2343: 2929: 2300:

Saw that you were part of AE where an user a named "TheTimesAreAChanging" was TBANNED with this very condition:

2234: 2215: 2077: 2062: 1586:

Understood. Duly noted. Thank you. Again, I'm quite sorry about all this and I hope you can accept my apology.

1540: 1043: 1009: 784: 539: 94: 86: 2870: 2881: 2831: 2815: 2759: 2748: 2072:

I'm assuming this is connected as well, but it's a bit disingenuous to claim on one hand that a DS notice is

687: 683: 608: 321:

This belongs on the article talk page. Please raise your concern there so that editors can engage. Thanks.

81: 69: 64: 59: 2307:

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Foreign_policy_of_the_United_States&diff=prev&oldid=760179804

2050: 977:

If you are not going to constructively contribute to the discussion on a talk page then please stay away...

2610: 1777: 1460:

for something in particular, or was this just a neutral notification due to general editing on the topic ?

1250: 2554: 2711: 1686: 1262: 789: 1825: 1360: 554: 494: 424: 38: 2230: 2211: 2058: 1668: 1005: 912:

Thanks, I wasn't sure how to do this and knew I should not disturb previous editors' comments there.

535: 403: 388: 218:

No need, I've already seen Gaas99 complaining about Anythingyouwant on 3 different user talk pages.

2877: 2827: 2811: 2803:

I would not like to be involved in this, but I think that guy made 1RR violation on purpose to get

1784: 1348: 875: 2902: 2606: 1904: 1870: 1837: 2176: 2139: 2095: 819: 107:

Please stop posting to my talk page. If you have a complaint about me, feel free to take it to

505:

To give just one small example of what I find so distasteful about SPECIFICO's approach: His "

498:

outlined in my complaint—such as replacing the accepted photo of D'Souza with his mugshot—as "

2769: 1865:. This is a violation of arbitration remedies which apply to that page. Please self-revert. - 1238: 1171: 1136: 1125: 565: 550: 420: 154: 2488: 2440: 2415: 2380: 2277: 2206:

This is to let you know that I am filing an Arbitration Enforcement request against you at

2029: 1852:

Violations of arbitration remedies at "2016 United States election interference by Russia‎"

1809: 1625: 1591: 1557: 1534: 1524: 1509: 1479: 1465: 1440: 1406: 1249:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 771:

that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

618: 454: 399: 384: 2175:

insinuating that I am unable to look through a half dozen diffs is more so. Fix yourself.

8: 2924: 2848: 2787: 2731: 2671: 2624: 2595: 2576: 2543: 2253: 2164: 2120: 2006: 1932: 1889: 1716: 1609: 1576: 1425: 1379: 1318: 1282: 1191: 1154: 1092: 1073: 1030: 920: 864: 743: 724: 662: 631: 578: 477: 329: 289: 245: 208: 143: 116: 47: 17: 2645: 1978: 2898: 2688: 2525: 1915: 1900: 1866: 1832: 1735: 1295:

doesn't appear to have anything to do with me. Perhaps you had another edit in mind? —

368: 345: 311: 1800:, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not 2514: 2365: 2264: 2201: 2112:

ARBAP2 and you might be surprised one day to be called on the carpet. Do be careful.

1962: 1697: 1225: 1207: 985: 931: 898:

for where your proposal is. Please let me know if you have any questions. Cheers! --

815: 764: 703: 277: 226: 2765: 2562:

blockchain itself - the two links could be swapped around without loss of meaning.

1495: 1234: 1167: 1132: 646: 605: 446: 266: 189: 1166:

Ok. I once ran across an editor that avoided AfD's for some reason. Just curious.

1108: 2707: 2086: 1621: 1587: 1553: 1520: 1505: 1475: 1461: 1436: 1402: 994: 776: 489: 450: 435: 1824:

tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with

1796:

requesting that it be speedily deleted from Knowledge. This has been done under

965: 46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

2917: 2841: 2780: 2724: 2664: 2620: 2588: 2572: 2536: 2405: 2246: 2157: 2135: 2113: 1999: 1925: 1882: 1709: 1676:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Clinton Foundation-State Department controversy

1602: 1569: 1451: 1418: 1396: 1372: 1356: 1311: 1300: 1246: 1184: 1147: 1085: 1066: 1023: 913: 887: 857: 807: 736: 717: 655: 624: 571: 470: 466: 322: 282: 238: 201: 136: 112: 2462: 806:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a

654:

Ha. Well you're one of the top collaborators and builders here. Best to you.

623:

has the effect of discouraging new editors from engaging to share solutions.

2521: 2482: 2089:

and I have no idea what constructive purpose you could claim it accomplished.

1242: 877: 695:

getting back to you sooner, it's been a very long day with little free time.

377: 364: 341: 307: 108: 1500:

Had you ever specifically been given notice in the past about specific case

2605:

Hi SPECIFICO, thanks for responding. I copy-pasted to the BLP noticeboard.

2079:), and in the same breath when you yourself are given the same, reply that 1958: 1693: 1457: 981: 698: 221: 1776:

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read

1543: 1401:

Pretty sure those have to be given out by a previously uninvolved admin.

899: 643: 602: 595: 262: 185: 2704:

The alternative BLP-friendly encyclopedia according to SPECIFICO and OID

1253:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

276:

Frankly, I think that's useless. Knowledge attracts ideologues who are

2798: 1351:

and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.

1815:

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may

2840:

Yeah, like I always say, "rules are made to be followed." -- Cheers.

1352: 1335: 1296: 1216: 445:

about this article. Each participant has already been notified under

692:

Talk:Donald Trump#RfC: Lead issues regarding recent news/allegations

2715: 2654: 2018: 1988: 1808:, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about 1539:

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

780: 130: 1549:

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

1921: 1256:

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review

159:

Are you one of the EEML editors? Your style seems familiar...

2305:

So wouldn't this EDIT be a clear violation of his TBAN then?

2897:

This bizarre conspiracy theory definitely helps your case.

2402: 2876:

opinion here. You might use their talk page if you wish.

127:

thrill of the battle gets the best of them? Who knows?

2481:

TTAAC using yet EVEN another IP sock to evade his block

2401:

Hmmmm...TTAAC seems adamant about proving that this guy

2361:

So could you file this new development with the admins?

1657:

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article

1502:

Knowledge:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2

1237:

is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the

2891:

I think that guy made 1RR violation on purpose to get

398:

Never mind, I missed the Cassandra Searles accusation.

2566:

RE your comment on the BLP Noticeboard on Sippenhaft

1663:

is suitable for inclusion in Knowledge according to

2510:

A sock puppet decorated with eyes, a mouth and ears

2311:In the header of the article, it even says BOLDLY, 1858:

2016 United States election interference by Russia‎

1339:Please do not add or change content, as you did at 2651:2016 United States election interference by Russia 2461:TTAAC uses yet another IP sock to evade his block 2040:2016 United States election interference by Russia 973:"Enough with the damned Bank of England already." 2296:Need help filing complaint about disruptive user 2049:(Keep stalking and reverting only my edits, and 509:" ally Oneshotofwhiskey leaves comments such as 2319:So that irony could not have been lost on him. 2210:, for violation of the Discretionary Sanctions. 1660:Clinton Foundation-State Department controversy 1644:Clinton Foundation-State Department controversy 1109:http://www.pnas.org/content/78/11/7230.full.pdf 1798:section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion 2745:Thanks for hatting that nasty bullshit from 2374:Here is TTAAC now engaging in block evasion 2895:blocked when someone reports this violation 2643:Dear SPECIFICO, you are hereby notified of 1924:. You are now banned from this talk page. 469:when he's being baited. Hope this helps. 2208:Knowledge:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement 2034:Unlike me, you actually have (by your own 1734: 2437:previous under his logged-in account. 1972:Do you have a personal grudge, or what? 1778:the guide to writing your first article 890:! I just wanted to let you know that I 434:Complaint of edit warring by others at 14: 1728:Right back at you. Congrats sweetheart 1474:Can you please answer this question ? 1341:America: Imagine the World Without Her 1330:America: Imagine the World Without Her 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 1810:what is generally accepted as notable 1976:Dear SPECIFICO, I take objection to 1226:2016 Arbitration Committee elections 103:Please stop posting to my talk page. 25: 2229:How can a direct quote violate BLP? 1826:Knowledge's policies and guidelines 1783:You may want to consider using the 1665:Knowledge's policies and guidelines 23: 2505: 2313:"This article is part of a series 1856:You made two unrelated reverts at 1766: 1347:. Please review the guidelines at 1291:me at WP:AE, but the accompanying 964: 642:military history articles.--v/r - 517:; SPECIFICO does nothing. I write 24: 2940: 2317:of the United States of America." 1674:The article will be discussed at 443:a currently open complaint at AN3 2649:, for violating DS/1RR twice on 2556:Sources for Full-reserve banking 2131:threatening to take them to ANI. 2053:TTAAC needs to blocked or banned 1739:A cup of hot tea to welcome you! 1650: 1334: 1223:Hello, SPECIFICO. Voting in the 1215: 758: 129: 29: 301:Sexual Harassment edit reversal 200:Anythingyouwant on her editing. 2354:master account needs banning. 754:Reference errors on 30 October 414:Content debate on D'Souza page 350:02:07, 22 September 2016 (UTC) 335:01:52, 22 September 2016 (UTC) 316:01:12, 22 September 2016 (UTC) 295:02:32, 16 September 2016 (UTC) 271:02:15, 16 September 2016 (UTC) 251:03:24, 14 September 2016 (UTC) 233:03:05, 14 September 2016 (UTC) 214:02:37, 14 September 2016 (UTC) 194:06:43, 13 September 2016 (UTC) 13: 1: 2737:04:38, 22 February 2017 (UTC) 2719:02:50, 14 February 2017 (UTC) 2677:04:27, 13 February 2017 (UTC) 2658:23:45, 12 February 2017 (UTC) 2290:06:22, 25 December 2016 (UTC) 2259:01:34, 19 December 2016 (UTC) 2239:00:06, 19 December 2016 (UTC) 2225:Using SYNTH far too liberally 2220:00:03, 15 December 2016 (UTC) 2188:23:12, 14 December 2016 (UTC) 2170:22:51, 14 December 2016 (UTC) 2151:22:43, 14 December 2016 (UTC) 2126:21:46, 14 December 2016 (UTC) 2107:20:56, 14 December 2016 (UTC) 2094:). Just a friendly reminder. 2067:20:49, 14 December 2016 (UTC) 1967:23:54, 19 February 2017 (UTC) 1630:19:34, 14 December 2016 (UTC) 1615:19:31, 14 December 2016 (UTC) 1596:19:23, 14 December 2016 (UTC) 1582:19:22, 14 December 2016 (UTC) 1562:19:15, 14 December 2016 (UTC) 1529:19:12, 14 December 2016 (UTC) 1514:18:59, 14 December 2016 (UTC) 1484:19:00, 14 December 2016 (UTC) 1470:18:07, 14 December 2016 (UTC) 1445:17:38, 14 December 2016 (UTC) 1431:17:34, 14 December 2016 (UTC) 1411:17:31, 14 December 2016 (UTC) 1324:14:05, 25 November 2016 (UTC) 1305:12:43, 25 November 2016 (UTC) 1276:22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC) 1239:Knowledge arbitration process 1197:17:06, 15 November 2016 (UTC) 1176:16:29, 15 November 2016 (UTC) 1160:14:32, 15 November 2016 (UTC) 1141:05:23, 15 November 2016 (UTC) 1121:03:46, 12 November 2016 (UTC) 1098:23:02, 11 November 2016 (UTC) 1079:22:46, 11 November 2016 (UTC) 1059:22:20, 11 November 2016 (UTC) 169:00:34, 1 September 2016 (UTC) 2756:I know its hard not to feed 2629:15:33, 23 January 2017 (UTC) 2615:00:14, 23 January 2017 (UTC) 2601:22:56, 22 January 2017 (UTC) 2581:18:45, 22 January 2017 (UTC) 2549:21:37, 15 January 2017 (UTC) 2530:21:06, 15 January 2017 (UTC) 2501:20:14, 15 January 2017 (UTC) 2474:19:56, 15 January 2017 (UTC) 2453:19:38, 15 January 2017 (UTC) 2428:19:32, 15 January 2017 (UTC) 2393:19:19, 15 January 2017 (UTC) 1938:18:04, 23 January 2017 (UTC) 1909:17:09, 23 January 2017 (UTC) 1895:15:06, 23 January 2017 (UTC) 1875:05:12, 23 January 2017 (UTC) 1860:within a short time period: 1847:19:46, 19 January 2017 (UTC) 1806:criteria for speedy deletion 1787:to help you create articles. 1752:06:09, 15 January 2017 (UTC) 1552:Please accept my apologies. 1456:Do you intend to take me to 1385:21:58, 3 December 2016 (UTC) 1365:04:47, 3 December 2016 (UTC) 1036:00:36, 6 November 2016 (UTC) 1014:00:21, 6 November 2016 (UTC) 990:15:54, 5 November 2016 (UTC) 954:14:17, 1 November 2016 (UTC) 926:23:40, 27 October 2016 (UTC) 907:22:59, 27 October 2016 (UTC) 870:14:34, 23 October 2016 (UTC) 851:13:03, 23 October 2016 (UTC) 824:00:22, 31 October 2016 (UTC) 749:13:43, 20 October 2016 (UTC) 730:13:41, 20 October 2016 (UTC) 710:06:27, 20 October 2016 (UTC) 678:That assault paragraph thing 668:00:24, 20 October 2016 (UTC) 650:00:12, 20 October 2016 (UTC) 637:00:03, 20 October 2016 (UTC) 609:23:52, 19 October 2016 (UTC) 584:19:36, 18 October 2016 (UTC) 559:05:15, 18 October 2016 (UTC) 544:04:01, 18 October 2016 (UTC) 483:23:13, 17 October 2016 (UTC) 459:22:54, 17 October 2016 (UTC) 429:05:57, 18 October 2016 (UTC) 408:03:24, 16 October 2016 (UTC) 393:03:05, 16 October 2016 (UTC) 373:16:29, 27 October 2016 (UTC) 174:Anythinguwant is at it again 7: 2723:Sleep with your eyes open. 2712:Index Librorum Prohibitorum 1948:Why did you undo this edit? 1722:12:30, 5 January 2017 (UTC) 1702:12:23, 5 January 2017 (UTC) 1260:and submit your choices on 149:16:19, 27 August 2016 (UTC) 121:16:01, 27 August 2016 (UTC) 10: 2945: 2930:01:28, 15 March 2017 (UTC) 2907:22:16, 14 March 2017 (UTC) 2886:16:45, 14 March 2017 (UTC) 2854:16:04, 14 March 2017 (UTC) 2836:15:48, 14 March 2017 (UTC) 2820:15:17, 14 March 2017 (UTC) 1881:further about this. Thx. 1268:MediaWiki message delivery 1258:the candidates' statements 495:Ludwig von Mises Institute 2869:. However, JFG denies it 2793:03:18, 2 March 2017 (UTC) 2774:02:55, 2 March 2017 (UTC) 2710:or the totally justified 2646:an AE process against you 2022:03:16, 7 March 2017 (UTC) 2012:02:55, 7 March 2017 (UTC) 1992:02:33, 7 March 2017 (UTC) 1792:A tag has been placed on 946:2A01:4F8:191:84C3:0:0:0:2 359:Could you please explain 1667:or whether it should be 1349:Knowledge:Citing sources 843:Yuri Alexeyevich Gagarin 812:report it to my operator 2760:Personal attack removed 2749:Personal attack removed 2639:AE process notification 1692:removed by reversion. - 355:What did you mean here? 181:paragraph describing it 2699:as I must admit I was. 2511: 1817:contest the nomination 1789: 1771: 1740: 1310:Hi. Fixed. Thank you! 1044:Allan Lichtman Webpage 969: 769:automatically detected 2509: 1774: 1770: 1738: 1235:Arbitration Committee 1208:ArbCom Elections 2016 1146:Hi. Just scheduling. 968: 42:of past discussions. 2231:TheTimesAreAChanging 2212:TheTimesAreAChanging 2059:TheTimesAreAChanging 1006:TheTimesAreAChanging 536:TheTimesAreAChanging 527:partially redacts it 2878:My very best wishes 2828:My very best wishes 2812:My very best wishes 1687:DS sanction warning 1343:, without citing a 18:User talk:SPECIFICO 2858:First edit by JFG 2512: 2364:TTAAC's clearly a 2339:What a hypocrite! 2038:) violated 1RR at 1979:your latest revert 1772: 1741: 1251:arbitration policy 1210:: Voting now open! 970: 2763: 2752: 2619:Thanks Specifico. 2503: 2491:comment added by 2455: 2443:comment added by 2430: 2418:comment added by 2395: 2383:comment added by 2292: 2280:comment added by 1821:visiting the page 1802:credibly indicate 793: 707: 230: 100: 99: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 2936: 2922: 2846: 2785: 2764:editors but...-- 2757: 2746: 2729: 2669: 2648: 2593: 2541: 2486: 2438: 2413: 2378: 2275: 2251: 2185: 2182: 2179: 2162: 2148: 2145: 2142: 2118: 2104: 2101: 2098: 2004: 1981: 1930: 1919: 1887: 1844: 1835: 1831: 1769: 1714: 1654: 1653: 1607: 1574: 1455: 1423: 1377: 1338: 1316: 1219: 1189: 1152: 1090: 1071: 1028: 918: 903: 862: 787: 762: 761: 741: 722: 708: 701: 660: 629: 622: 576: 569: 566:Oneshotofwhiskey 551:Oneshotofwhiskey 475: 421:Oneshotofwhiskey 327: 287: 243: 231: 224: 206: 141: 134: 133: 78: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 2944: 2943: 2939: 2938: 2937: 2935: 2934: 2933: 2918: 2842: 2801: 2781: 2754: 2725: 2708:Brave New World 2665: 2644: 2641: 2589: 2568: 2559: 2537: 2517: 2315:on the Politics 2298: 2267: 2247: 2227: 2204: 2183: 2180: 2177: 2158: 2146: 2143: 2140: 2114: 2102: 2099: 2096: 2032: 2000: 1977: 1974: 1950: 1926: 1913: 1883: 1854: 1842: 1838: 1833: 1829: 1790: 1767: 1765: 1758:Speedy deletion 1733: 1730: 1710: 1689: 1655: 1651: 1648: 1603: 1570: 1537: 1498: 1449: 1419: 1399: 1373: 1345:reliable source 1332: 1312: 1285: 1280: 1279: 1263:the voting page 1220: 1212: 1185: 1148: 1128: 1086: 1067: 1046: 1024: 997: 975: 962: 934: 914: 901: 884: 858: 835: 759: 756: 737: 718: 696: 680: 656: 625: 619:Anythingyouwant 616: 598: 572: 563: 534:is banned from. 525:—and SPECIFICO 471: 439: 416: 400:Anythingyouwant 385:Anythingyouwant 380: 357: 323: 303: 283: 239: 219: 202: 176: 157: 137: 128: 105: 74: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 2942: 2914: 2913: 2912: 2911: 2910: 2909: 2888: 2861:was revert of 2800: 2797: 2796: 2795: 2753: 2743: 2742: 2741: 2740: 2739: 2700: 2696: 2692: 2684: 2660: 2640: 2637: 2636: 2635: 2634: 2633: 2632: 2631: 2567: 2564: 2558: 2553: 2552: 2551: 2516: 2513: 2466:71.218.141.119 2445:71.218.138.120 2420:71.218.138.120 2385:71.218.138.120 2297: 2294: 2266: 2263: 2262: 2261: 2226: 2223: 2203: 2200: 2199: 2198: 2197: 2196: 2195: 2194: 2193: 2192: 2191: 2190: 2132: 2031: 2028: 2027: 2026: 2025: 2024: 1973: 1970: 1949: 1946: 1945: 1944: 1943: 1942: 1941: 1940: 1853: 1850: 1840: 1785:Article Wizard 1773: 1764: 1760:nomination of 1755: 1744:71.218.145.175 1731: 1729: 1726: 1725: 1724: 1688: 1685: 1649: 1647: 1642:Nomination of 1640: 1639: 1638: 1637: 1636: 1635: 1634: 1633: 1632: 1536: 1533: 1532: 1531: 1497: 1494: 1493: 1492: 1491: 1490: 1489: 1488: 1487: 1486: 1398: 1395: 1394: 1393: 1388: 1387: 1331: 1328: 1327: 1326: 1284: 1281: 1221: 1214: 1213: 1211: 1205: 1204: 1203: 1202: 1201: 1200: 1199: 1179: 1178: 1127: 1124: 1101: 1100: 1081: 1045: 1042: 1041: 1040: 1039: 1038: 996: 993: 974: 971: 958: 933: 930: 929: 928: 883: 874: 873: 872: 834: 827: 808:false positive 804: 803: 777:Dinesh D'Souza 755: 752: 733: 732: 679: 676: 675: 674: 673: 672: 671: 670: 597: 594: 593: 592: 591: 590: 589: 588: 587: 586: 503: 490:Dinesh D'Souza 438: 436:Dinesh D'Souza 432: 415: 412: 411: 410: 379: 376: 356: 353: 338: 337: 302: 299: 298: 297: 258: 257: 256: 255: 254: 253: 175: 172: 161:107.77.223.185 156: 153: 152: 151: 104: 101: 98: 97: 92: 89: 84: 79: 72: 67: 62: 52: 51: 34: 15: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2941: 2932: 2931: 2928: 2927: 2923: 2921: 2908: 2904: 2900: 2899:Guccisamsclub 2896: 2894: 2889: 2887: 2883: 2879: 2875: 2871: 2868: 2864: 2860: 2857: 2856: 2855: 2852: 2851: 2847: 2845: 2839: 2838: 2837: 2833: 2829: 2824: 2823: 2822: 2821: 2817: 2813: 2809: 2806: 2794: 2791: 2790: 2786: 2784: 2779:my pleasure. 2778: 2777: 2776: 2775: 2771: 2767: 2761: 2750: 2738: 2735: 2734: 2730: 2728: 2722: 2721: 2720: 2717: 2713: 2709: 2705: 2701: 2697: 2693: 2690: 2689:Guccisamsclub 2685: 2681: 2680: 2679: 2678: 2675: 2674: 2670: 2668: 2663: 2659: 2656: 2652: 2647: 2630: 2626: 2622: 2618: 2617: 2616: 2612: 2608: 2604: 2603: 2602: 2599: 2598: 2594: 2592: 2585: 2584: 2583: 2582: 2578: 2574: 2563: 2557: 2550: 2547: 2546: 2542: 2540: 2534: 2533: 2532: 2531: 2527: 2523: 2520:operation. -- 2508: 2504: 2502: 2498: 2494: 2493:71.218.143.35 2490: 2483: 2480: 2476: 2475: 2471: 2467: 2463: 2460: 2456: 2454: 2450: 2446: 2442: 2435: 2431: 2429: 2425: 2421: 2417: 2410: 2407: 2403: 2400: 2396: 2394: 2390: 2386: 2382: 2376: 2373: 2369: 2367: 2362: 2359: 2355: 2351: 2350: 2348: 2346: 2344: 2340: 2338: 2336: 2334: 2331: 2328: 2324: 2320: 2318: 2316: 2309: 2308: 2303: 2302: 2293: 2291: 2287: 2283: 2282:71.218.141.67 2279: 2271: 2260: 2257: 2256: 2252: 2250: 2243: 2242: 2241: 2240: 2236: 2232: 2222: 2221: 2217: 2213: 2209: 2189: 2186: 2173: 2172: 2171: 2168: 2167: 2163: 2161: 2154: 2153: 2152: 2149: 2137: 2133: 2129: 2128: 2127: 2124: 2123: 2119: 2117: 2110: 2109: 2108: 2105: 2093: 2090: 2088: 2084: 2078: 2075: 2071: 2070: 2069: 2068: 2064: 2060: 2056: 2054: 2048: 2045: 2041: 2037: 2023: 2020: 2015: 2014: 2013: 2010: 2009: 2005: 2003: 1996: 1995: 1994: 1993: 1990: 1986: 1985:anything I do 1980: 1969: 1968: 1964: 1960: 1954: 1939: 1936: 1935: 1931: 1929: 1923: 1917: 1916:Thucydides411 1912: 1911: 1910: 1906: 1902: 1901:Thucydides411 1898: 1897: 1896: 1893: 1892: 1888: 1886: 1879: 1878: 1877: 1876: 1872: 1868: 1867:Thucydides411 1864: 1862: 1859: 1849: 1848: 1845: 1843: 1836: 1834:Non-Dropframe 1827: 1822: 1818: 1813: 1811: 1807: 1803: 1799: 1795: 1794:Street Contxt 1788: 1786: 1781: 1779: 1763: 1762:Street Contxt 1759: 1754: 1753: 1749: 1745: 1737: 1723: 1720: 1719: 1715: 1713: 1706: 1705: 1704: 1703: 1699: 1695: 1684: 1680: 1677: 1672: 1670: 1666: 1662: 1661: 1645: 1631: 1627: 1623: 1618: 1617: 1616: 1613: 1612: 1608: 1606: 1599: 1598: 1597: 1593: 1589: 1585: 1584: 1583: 1580: 1579: 1575: 1573: 1566: 1565: 1564: 1563: 1559: 1555: 1550: 1547: 1545: 1541: 1530: 1526: 1522: 1518: 1517: 1516: 1515: 1511: 1507: 1503: 1485: 1481: 1477: 1473: 1472: 1471: 1467: 1463: 1459: 1453: 1448: 1447: 1446: 1442: 1438: 1434: 1433: 1432: 1429: 1428: 1424: 1422: 1415: 1414: 1413: 1412: 1408: 1404: 1390: 1389: 1386: 1383: 1382: 1378: 1376: 1369: 1368: 1367: 1366: 1362: 1358: 1354: 1350: 1346: 1342: 1337: 1325: 1322: 1321: 1317: 1315: 1309: 1308: 1307: 1306: 1302: 1298: 1294: 1290: 1278: 1277: 1273: 1269: 1265: 1264: 1259: 1254: 1252: 1248: 1244: 1240: 1236: 1231: 1228: 1227: 1218: 1209: 1198: 1195: 1194: 1190: 1188: 1181: 1180: 1177: 1173: 1169: 1165: 1164: 1163: 1162: 1161: 1158: 1157: 1153: 1151: 1145: 1144: 1143: 1142: 1138: 1134: 1126:Just curious? 1123: 1122: 1118: 1114: 1110: 1105: 1099: 1096: 1095: 1091: 1089: 1082: 1080: 1077: 1076: 1072: 1070: 1063: 1062: 1061: 1060: 1056: 1052: 1037: 1034: 1033: 1029: 1027: 1020: 1019: 1018: 1017: 1016: 1015: 1011: 1007: 1002: 992: 991: 987: 983: 978: 967: 963: 961: 956: 955: 951: 947: 943: 939: 927: 924: 923: 919: 917: 911: 910: 909: 908: 905: 904: 897: 893: 889: 882: 879: 871: 868: 867: 863: 861: 855: 854: 853: 852: 848: 844: 840: 832: 826: 825: 821: 817: 813: 809: 801: 797: 791: 786: 782: 778: 774: 773: 772: 770: 766: 751: 750: 747: 746: 742: 740: 731: 728: 727: 723: 721: 714: 713: 712: 711: 705: 700: 693: 689: 685: 669: 666: 665: 661: 659: 653: 652: 651: 648: 645: 640: 639: 638: 635: 634: 630: 628: 620: 613: 612: 611: 610: 607: 604: 585: 582: 581: 577: 575: 567: 562: 561: 560: 556: 552: 547: 546: 545: 541: 537: 533: 528: 524: 522: 516: 512: 508: 504: 501: 496: 491: 486: 485: 484: 481: 480: 476: 474: 468: 463: 462: 461: 460: 456: 452: 448: 444: 437: 431: 430: 426: 422: 409: 405: 401: 397: 396: 395: 394: 390: 386: 375: 374: 370: 366: 362: 352: 351: 347: 343: 336: 333: 332: 328: 326: 320: 319: 318: 317: 313: 309: 296: 293: 292: 288: 286: 279: 275: 274: 273: 272: 268: 264: 252: 249: 248: 244: 242: 236: 235: 234: 228: 223: 217: 216: 215: 212: 211: 207: 205: 198: 197: 196: 195: 191: 187: 182: 171: 170: 166: 162: 155:Stupid Polak? 150: 147: 146: 142: 140: 132: 125: 124: 123: 122: 118: 114: 110: 96: 93: 90: 88: 85: 83: 80: 77: 73: 71: 68: 66: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 2925: 2919: 2915: 2892: 2890: 2873: 2849: 2843: 2804: 2802: 2788: 2782: 2755: 2732: 2726: 2672: 2666: 2661: 2642: 2596: 2590: 2569: 2560: 2544: 2538: 2518: 2487:— Preceding 2478: 2477: 2458: 2457: 2439:— Preceding 2433: 2432: 2414:— Preceding 2411: 2398: 2397: 2379:— Preceding 2371: 2370: 2363: 2360: 2356: 2352: 2341: 2326: 2325: 2321: 2314: 2312: 2310: 2304: 2299: 2276:— Preceding 2272: 2268: 2254: 2248: 2228: 2205: 2165: 2159: 2136:fix yourself 2121: 2115: 2082: 2080: 2073: 2052: 2033: 2030:Glass houses 2007: 2001: 1984: 1975: 1955: 1951: 1933: 1927: 1890: 1884: 1855: 1839: 1816: 1814: 1791: 1782: 1775: 1742: 1717: 1711: 1690: 1681: 1673: 1658: 1656: 1646:for deletion 1610: 1604: 1577: 1571: 1551: 1548: 1538: 1535:My apologies 1499: 1426: 1420: 1400: 1380: 1374: 1333: 1319: 1313: 1286: 1261: 1255: 1232: 1224: 1222: 1192: 1186: 1155: 1149: 1129: 1106: 1102: 1093: 1087: 1074: 1068: 1047: 1031: 1025: 1000: 998: 979: 976: 959: 957: 935: 921: 915: 900: 895: 885: 865: 859: 836: 816:ReferenceBot 805: 800:Ask for help 768: 765:ReferenceBot 757: 744: 738: 734: 725: 719: 681: 663: 657: 632: 626: 599: 579: 573: 531: 520: 506: 499: 478: 472: 440: 417: 381: 358: 339: 330: 324: 304: 290: 284: 259: 246: 240: 209: 203: 177: 158: 144: 138: 135:Who cares? 106: 75: 43: 37: 2766:Malerooster 2607:Ijon Tichy 1287:Hello. You 1283:Wrong diff? 1168:Niteshift36 1133:Niteshift36 763:Hello, I'm 36:This is an 2366:WP:NOTHERE 1622:Sagecandor 1588:Sagecandor 1554:Sagecandor 1521:Sagecandor 1506:Sagecandor 1476:Sagecandor 1462:Sagecandor 1437:Sagecandor 1403:Sagecandor 1247:topic bans 942:WP:NOWHERE 839:discussion 831:discussion 814:. Thanks, 810:, you can 507:good faith 500:good faith 451:EdJohnston 278:WP:NOTHERE 95:Archive 15 87:Archive 10 2920:SPECIFICO 2867:this edit 2863:this edit 2844:SPECIFICO 2783:SPECIFICO 2727:SPECIFICO 2667:SPECIFICO 2621:Nishidani 2591:SPECIFICO 2573:Nishidani 2539:SPECIFICO 2515:Protected 2479:Update#7: 2459:Update#6: 2434:Update#5: 2399:Update#4: 2372:Update#3: 2327:Update#2: 2265:Hey there 2249:SPECIFICO 2202:AE report 2160:SPECIFICO 2116:SPECIFICO 2036:admission 2002:SPECIFICO 1928:SPECIFICO 1885:SPECIFICO 1712:SPECIFICO 1605:SPECIFICO 1572:SPECIFICO 1452:SPECIFICO 1421:SPECIFICO 1375:SPECIFICO 1314:SPECIFICO 1289:mentioned 1243:site bans 1187:SPECIFICO 1150:SPECIFICO 1088:SPECIFICO 1069:SPECIFICO 1026:SPECIFICO 1001:shouldn't 932:Checkmate 916:SPECIFICO 888:SPECIFICO 860:SPECIFICO 785:URL error 783:caused a 781:your edit 767:. I have 739:SPECIFICO 720:SPECIFICO 658:SPECIFICO 627:SPECIFICO 574:SPECIFICO 521:any other 473:SPECIFICO 447:WP:ARBAP2 441:There is 325:SPECIFICO 285:SPECIFICO 241:SPECIFICO 204:SPECIFICO 139:SPECIFICO 113:Guy Macon 82:Archive 9 76:Archive 8 70:Archive 7 65:Archive 6 60:Archive 5 2683:motives. 2522:MelanieN 2489:unsigned 2441:unsigned 2416:unsigned 2381:unsigned 2278:unsigned 2087:WP:POINT 2047:reverts. 1496:Question 960:FUNnnnn! 902:~Oshwah~ 688:reverted 365:Mr Ernie 342:Ileanadu 308:Ileanadu 2406:WP:DUCK 2178:Timothy 2141:Timothy 2097:Timothy 1959:Reissgo 1694:Darouet 1669:deleted 1361:contrib 1113:Sting52 1051:Sting52 1004:woman). 995:Comment 982:Reissgo 944:to go. 881:comment 775:On the 699:Awilley 684:my edit 467:WP:DENY 383:Cheers. 340:I did. 222:Awilley 39:archive 2874:second 2865:, and 2181:Joseph 2144:Joseph 2100:Joseph 1544:Coffee 1397:Notice 940:, one 779:page, 263:Gaas99 186:Gaas99 109:WP:ANI 2044:these 2042:with 1458:WP:AE 892:moved 876:Your 378:Favor 16:< 2926:talk 2903:talk 2882:talk 2850:talk 2832:talk 2816:talk 2789:talk 2770:talk 2733:talk 2714:. — 2673:talk 2653:. — 2625:talk 2611:talk 2597:talk 2577:talk 2545:talk 2526:talk 2497:talk 2470:talk 2449:talk 2424:talk 2389:talk 2286:talk 2255:talk 2235:talk 2216:talk 2184:Wood 2166:talk 2147:Wood 2122:talk 2103:Wood 2063:talk 2008:talk 1963:talk 1934:talk 1922:face 1905:talk 1891:talk 1871:talk 1841:talk 1748:talk 1718:talk 1698:talk 1626:talk 1611:talk 1592:talk 1578:talk 1558:talk 1525:talk 1510:talk 1480:talk 1466:talk 1441:talk 1427:talk 1407:talk 1381:talk 1357:talk 1353:Erik 1320:talk 1301:talk 1297:DoRD 1293:diff 1272:talk 1233:The 1193:talk 1172:talk 1156:talk 1137:talk 1117:talk 1094:talk 1075:talk 1055:talk 1032:talk 1010:talk 986:talk 950:talk 938:down 936:One 922:talk 896:look 866:talk 847:talk 820:talk 790:help 745:talk 726:talk 704:talk 664:talk 633:talk 580:talk 555:talk 540:talk 513:and 479:talk 455:talk 425:talk 404:talk 389:talk 369:talk 361:this 346:talk 331:talk 312:talk 291:talk 267:talk 247:talk 227:talk 210:talk 190:talk 165:talk 145:talk 117:talk 111:. -- 2893:you 2805:you 2716:JFG 2655:JFG 2019:JFG 1989:JFG 1819:by 1812:. 1732:;) 1546:. 1542:by 1363:) 1303:) 886:Hi 878:ANI 796:Fix 794:. ( 596:HRC 2905:) 2884:) 2834:) 2818:) 2810:. 2799:Re 2772:) 2627:) 2613:) 2579:) 2528:) 2499:) 2472:) 2451:) 2426:) 2391:) 2288:) 2237:) 2218:) 2138:. 2083:am 2081:I 2065:) 1965:) 1907:) 1873:) 1830:-- 1750:) 1700:) 1671:. 1628:) 1594:) 1560:) 1527:) 1512:) 1504:? 1482:) 1468:) 1443:) 1409:) 1359:| 1274:) 1266:. 1245:, 1174:) 1139:) 1119:) 1057:) 1012:) 988:) 952:) 849:) 841:! 822:) 798:| 557:) 542:) 532:he 457:) 427:) 406:) 391:) 371:) 348:) 314:) 269:) 192:) 167:) 119:) 91:→ 2901:( 2880:( 2830:( 2814:( 2768:( 2762:) 2758:( 2751:) 2747:( 2623:( 2609:( 2575:( 2524:( 2495:( 2468:( 2447:( 2422:( 2387:( 2284:( 2233:( 2214:( 2091:( 2076:( 2061:( 2055:" 2051:" 1961:( 1918:: 1914:@ 1903:( 1869:( 1780:. 1746:( 1696:( 1624:( 1590:( 1556:( 1523:( 1508:( 1478:( 1464:( 1454:: 1450:@ 1439:( 1405:( 1355:( 1299:( 1270:( 1170:( 1135:( 1115:( 1053:( 1008:( 984:( 948:( 845:( 833:! 818:( 802:) 792:) 788:( 706:) 702:( 697:~ 647:P 644:T 621:: 617:@ 606:P 603:T 568:: 564:@ 553:( 538:( 453:( 423:( 402:( 387:( 367:( 344:( 310:( 265:( 229:) 225:( 220:~ 188:( 163:( 115:( 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.