Misplaced Pages

User talk:Casprings: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 18:00, 9 March 2017 editPolitrukki (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users6,474 edits →Jeff Sessions: new section← Previous edit Revision as of 15:59, 18 April 2017 edit undoMartijn Hoekstra (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users19,333 edits →2nd korean war: new sectionNext edit →
Line 110: Line 110:


] is under discretionary sanctions. One of the remedies clearly says {{tq|'''Consensus required''': All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any ''edits that have been challenged (via reversion)''. If in doubt, don't make the edit.}} Please self-revert ] immediately and obtain consensus on the talk page before reinstating any challenged edits. ] (]) 18:00, 9 March 2017 (UTC) ] is under discretionary sanctions. One of the remedies clearly says {{tq|'''Consensus required''': All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any ''edits that have been challenged (via reversion)''. If in doubt, don't make the edit.}} Please self-revert ] immediately and obtain consensus on the talk page before reinstating any challenged edits. ] (]) 18:00, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

== 2nd korean war ==

Hi Casprings, earlier this month you requested the deleted text of ]. As you may have noticed, I'm not really active on Misplaced Pages anymore, so I'm sorry about the delay. The full text of the content was:

<blockquote>
Could there be a second Korean War?
Most likely the chances of of a 2nd Korean War is a 5 in 6. It is most likely going to happen because there has been a lot of tension between North and South Korea since the cease fire agreement in 1953. There has been Artillery strikes against South Korea and The Cheneon has been sunk highlighting the tension that persists in the region.</blockquote>

(attribute to ])

There really doesn't seem to be anything that can be salvaged from that to me. A WWIII-style article doesn't sound like a good idea to me. I doubt sufficient source material exists to work out an article in that style, and keeping the current material together in the article on the North-South Korea Relations article still sounds like the best option to me. You're welcome to disagree and try for it anyway of course. With the current situation around North Korea being highly politically sensitive, I'd strongly urge you to stay away from that completely, at least until things calm down a bit. It doesn't tend to make for a fun editing environment. ] (]) 15:59, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Revision as of 15:59, 18 April 2017

Archiving icon
Archives
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3
Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

This page has archives. Sections older than 31 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

December 2016

Information icon Hello, I'm JFG. I wanted to let you know that some of your recent contributions to Template:Trump presidency have been reverted or removed because they could seem to be defamatory or libellous. Take a look at our welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Please refrain from adding allegations of Russian involvement in the US presidential election everywhere you can think of. The discussion at Talk:United States presidential election, 2016#Russian influence by Trump does not show any support from other editors to emphasize this material. Don't make it a personal crusade; your actions are getting borderline disruptive. Thanks. — JFG 22:39, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Dear Casprings, I am totally convinced that you are acting in good faith and you think this story is "historical", My view is that this story is more "hysterical". Whatever our personal views, we must keep a balanced presentation of the issues for readers to make up their mind. Most editors who commented happen to disagree with you on the appropriate weight to give this incident, so I'm just asking you to WP:LISTEN. Sorry if my tone was a bit harsh: the goal was to get your attention. Regarding the "libelous" warning, this was the closest boilerplate warning available, it doesn't exactly reflect the situation. Happy editing! — JFG 08:19, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
If both parties agree the user was acting in good faith, he should not have been templated. Sagecandor (talk) 09:15, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
Dear JFG, that is true that in one discussion on the placing it into the opening of Donald Trump, more editors disagreed. Consensus building is important, but wikipedia must maintain WP:balance and I have not seen a logically convincing argument why outside interference by a foreign government does not belong in the opening of any article that mentions the 2016 election. I am more then willing to work for a compromise, but that that also involves my viewpoint and eventually using the dispute resolution process to get more outside viewpoints. Casprings (talk) 14:15, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
Understood. I have commented on your RfC at WP:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. — JFG 06:59, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Your suggestion for a new article

Thank you for your suggestion for a new article at Talk:2016_United_States_election_interference_by_Russia#Trump.27s_Linkage_to_Russia_Sub_page.3F.

Here are some sources that could be used, this might be helpful to you :

  1. Tom Hamburger, Rosalind S. Helderman and Michael Birnbaum (June 17, 2016), "Inside Trump's financial ties to Russia and his unusual flattery of Vladimir Putin", The Washington Post, retrieved December 14, 2016
  2. Nesbit, Jeff (August 15, 2016), "Donald Trump's Many, Many, Many, Many Ties to Russia", Time, retrieved December 14, 2016
  3. Michael Stott and Catherine Belton (October 16, 2016), "Trump's Russian connections", Financial Times, retrieved December 14, 2016
  4. Miller, James (November 7, 2016), "Trump and Russia", The Daily Beast, retrieved December 14, 2016
  5. Kirchick, James (April 27, 2016), "Donald Trump's Russia connections", Politico, retrieved December 14, 2016
  6. "Obama hits Trump over intel briefings, alleged Russia connections", Fox News, December 13, 2016, retrieved December 14, 2016
  7. Farkas, Evelyn (December 12, 2016), "Here's What America Needs to Know About Trump and Russia", Politico, retrieved December 14, 2016
  8. "Trump advisers with Russian ties", MSNBC, December 11, 2016, retrieved December 14, 2016
  9. Reich, Robert (December 13, 2016), "Robert Reich: Donald Trump's Treacherous Ties to Russia", Newsweek, retrieved December 14, 2016
  10. Rozsa, Matthew (November 4, 2016), "Presidential candidate Donald Trump's Russian ties are scaring NATO allies", Salon, retrieved December 14, 2016
  11. Wasserman, Harvey (December 12, 2016), "Electoral College Must Not Vote Until Possible Trump Ties to Russian Hacking are Fully Investigated", The Huffington Post, retrieved December 14, 2016
  12. Smith, Geoffrey (November 2, 2016), "Meet the Russian Bank with Ties to Donald Trump", Fortune, retrieved December 14, 2016
  13. Foer, Franklin (October 31, 2015), "Was a Trump Server Communicating With Russia?", Slate, retrieved December 14, 2016
  14. Rozsa, Matthew (November 1, 2016), "Donald Trump company's server was connected to Russian bank", Salon, retrieved December 14, 2016
  15. Scott Bixby and Ben Jacobs (November 1, 2016), "Trump campaign denies report of Trump Organization tie to Russian bank", The Guardian, retrieved December 14, 2016
  16. Mastroianni, Brian (November 1, 2016), "Was a Trump computer server connected to Russia?", CBS News, retrieved December 14, 2016
  17. Montini, EJ (November 10, 2016), "Russians admit Trump connection. Will Trump?", The Arizona Republic, retrieved December 14, 2016
  18. "Are there any Trump links to Putin?", BBC News, BBC, July 27, 2016, retrieved December 14, 2016
  19. Grimes, Roger A. (November 1, 2016), "Is it real? The Trump-Russia server connection", InfoWorld, retrieved December 14, 2016
  20. Benen, Steve (November 1, 2016), "Trump's Russia ties become the subject of multiple controversies", The Rachel Maddow Show, MSNBC, retrieved December 14, 2016
  21. Kim, Lucian (December 14, 2016), "Trump's Men In Moscow: Trump Disciples Suddenly Showing Up In Russia", National Public Radio, retrieved December 14, 2016
  22. Chance, Matthew (December 15, 2016), "Why are Trump loyalists showing up in Moscow?", CNN, retrieved December 15, 2016

Here are some sources that are examples. Sagecandor (talk) 01:31, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Title change

Greetings Casprings! I noticed that you recently changed the title of Business projects of Donald Trump in Russia to Donald Trump's affiliations with Russia. This title change is potentially controversial, so I have undone it, with no prejudice to its validity. Please open a move request so that it can be discussed among editors. Kind regards, — JFG 19:44, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

If nobody contests it, then it is not "controversial". Are you contesting it? It's clear that Casprings' new title is innocuous by virtue of being more general, and is therefore less in need of justification, than the old one. SPECIFICO talk 19:50, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
JFG, SPECIFICO That's fine. I will open a move request. I tried to move it in haste and not sure how to undue what I just did. Casprings (talk) 20:00, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm unclear as to the history of this. Have there been 3 or more moves/move-backs? SPECIFICO talk 23:18, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Notice

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Misplaced Pages. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Template:Z33

Please be careful when editing this article. There are editors who may aggressively claim that you have violated these sanctions.

SPECIFICO talk 19:57, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions

You seem to be in breach of the Arbitration Remedy reading: You...must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus on the talk page, which you did on 19:51, 17 February 2017 to this version. Therefore, you are admonished and sanctioned as follows: topic ban from the article's subject for 24 hours (including talk pages). El_C 22:00, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Casprings (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

This seems a harsh to me. I reverted once to JFK revert and went to the talk page. I thought that would be 1rr. I also feel the user or admin should have notified me of a discussion about me.That said, I understand the need to gain concensus and I have been working to that. Casprings (talk) 22:34, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You're not blocked from editing. To appeal your discretionary sanctions, see WP:AE. Max Semenik (talk) 22:46, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

What does JFK has to do with anything? Do you understand your penalty? (And reason for it?) You are not blocked, though came very close to it. You are topic banned (self-enforced). I actually thought you were aware of that discussion, my mistake. (Though I am certainly not obliged to serve such notifications when implementing DS). El_C 22:53, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Casprings, you had not yet received the template notice at the time of the offending reinstatement of sourced content. The TBAN seems inappropriate. SPECIFICO talk 23:35, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I am not obliged to use the template, nor does the timing need be immediate. Casprings may, of course, appeal at AE. El_C 23:39, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Oh hi @El C: -- I didn't mean the appeal template. I meant the Notice of the Discretionary Sanctions I posted here. Casprings seemed unaware of the reinstatement of disputed content provision. When I saw the edit in which he violated that provision, I realized that nobody had placed the required notice on his talk page. I have known Casprings to be a thougthful and unaggressive editor on many articles, so it was evident to me that his violation was inadvertent. SPECIFICO talk 23:46, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
It is possible to miss I'd certainly grant you. At the same time, it is at the top of the page whenever an edit is made. It's not the simplest provision, but editors have been blocked due to it, and I suspect will continue to. I opted not to block, and frankly, expected relief rather than angst. El_C 23:53, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
That is true. However, I went to the talk page and didn't go beyond 1rr. Maybe it isn't too harsh. I just rather appeal then not.Casprings (talk) 00:20, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm not relieved, because the other editor brought this up as a retaliatory move against his "enemies list" whereas Casprings is a scrupulously careful editor for whom a simple reminder, which I gave him with the notice, is sufficient preventive therapy. Gucci, in my opinion, was looking for retribution, not WP policy-based prevention. SPECIFICO talk 01:07, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Might as well close the AE appeal

Per my comment. Assume this is OK with you. Even though the issues have some interest, a decision won't make much difference. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:58, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

EdJohnston works for me.Casprings (talk) 17:53, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Cite error

This edit introduced a cite error because no ref named "Dorrel" exists. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:02, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Another user has removed the invalid refname. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:27, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Survey signature

Hello. I fixed your signature at the recent Survey on the talk page for "Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections". Here is the diff. I just wanted you to know. Ciao. Steve Quinn (talk) 05:09, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I could say that I added your signature, more so than fixing it. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:13, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Jeff Sessions

Jeff Sessions is under discretionary sanctions. One of the remedies clearly says Consensus required: All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). If in doubt, don't make the edit. Please self-revert this immediately and obtain consensus on the talk page before reinstating any challenged edits. Politrukki (talk) 18:00, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

2nd korean war

Hi Casprings, earlier this month you requested the deleted text of 2nd Korean War. As you may have noticed, I'm not really active on Misplaced Pages anymore, so I'm sorry about the delay. The full text of the content was:

Could there be a second Korean War?

Most likely the chances of of a 2nd Korean War is a 5 in 6. It is most likely going to happen because there has been a lot of tension between North and South Korea since the cease fire agreement in 1953. There has been Artillery strikes against South Korea and The Cheneon has been sunk highlighting the tension that persists in the region.

(attribute to User:Rich7851)

There really doesn't seem to be anything that can be salvaged from that to me. A WWIII-style article doesn't sound like a good idea to me. I doubt sufficient source material exists to work out an article in that style, and keeping the current material together in the article on the North-South Korea Relations article still sounds like the best option to me. You're welcome to disagree and try for it anyway of course. With the current situation around North Korea being highly politically sensitive, I'd strongly urge you to stay away from that completely, at least until things calm down a bit. It doesn't tend to make for a fun editing environment. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:59, 18 April 2017 (UTC)