User talk:Casprings/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

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 talk 22:39, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

  • Hello JFG. While I will return to the talk page try to discuss the issues regarding WP:Weight, I would ask that you WP:assumegoodfaith. There is nothing in WP:BLP that would prevent including well sourced statements from WP:RS. To call them defamatory or libel is ridiculous.Casprings (talk) 04:42, 11 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 talk 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 talk 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)

  • Sagecandor I agree. Just got busy so I am not sure when I will be able to put something together.Casprings (talk) 04:21, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
    • Okay no rush and good luck with it, I hope this above will be helpful to you in your research. Note that two of the authors, above, are notable. Sagecandor (talk) 04:23, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Added one to above list. Sagecandor (talk) 21:43, 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 talk 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia, 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.

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 Wikipedia 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)

Transclusion of RFC on Russian Interference Opening - Conclusion versus accused

I just realized I deleted something you had added. Sorry about that. Since it's a transclusion, we can't work on it anyway. If you want us to resume that thread, please find the original and actually move (or copy) it to the talk page. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:26, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Donald Trump Leaking Classified Information to Russia

The article Donald Trump Leaking Classified Information to Russia has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

WP:NOTNEWS

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. reddogsix (talk) 00:30, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Donald Trump Leaking Classified Information to Russia for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Donald Trump Leaking Classified Information to Russia is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donald Trump Leaking Classified Information to Russia 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. reddogsix (talk) 00:35, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

DS violation

Dear Casprings, with this edit you have violated the DS provision that forbids reinstating a challenged edit before reaching talk page consensus. Please be more careful when editing those controversial topics. — JFG talk 03:45, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

ANI and AE

FYI, I have mentioned some editing of yours at ANI, but subsequently withdrew the matter from ANI because it is more a matter for Arbitration Enforcement. This regards the article Dismissal of James Comey. For more information about discretionary sanctions, please see the notice above at your user talk page. Discretionary sanctions require compliance with all applicable Wikipedia policies and guidelines.

You deleted this:

References

  1. ^ Wilber, Del Quentin (May 16, 2017). "Trump Asked Comey to Drop Flynn Investigation, According to Memo Written by Former FBI Director". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved May 16, 2017.

According to WP:BLP, "If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported." I also note another Wikipedia policy: WP:UNRESPONSIVE, which says "Be sure to leave a comment about why you made the change. Try to use an appropriate edit summary." Your deletion was unaccompanied by any edit summary, much less any discussion at the article talk page. Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:51, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Extra move unhelpful

Hi Casprings, your extra move of the page here[1] was not discussed compared to prior consensus, is breaking the AfD listing and the edit notice, and I'm not going to fix it all a third time. I will revert; please open a formal move request if you want to change the title again. — JFG talk 11:38, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Writer's Barnstar
For creation of new article, Donald Trump disclosure of classified information to Russia.

Great job. Sagecandor (talk) 17:07, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Have a look

Great America Committee -- Have a look, see if you can find more sources? Sagecandor (talk) 01:28, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Sagecandor I will put it in my watch list. Pretty interesting when it was created. Casprings (talk) 02:04, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Murder of Seth Rich

I undid your move here. Someone else had suggested a different move on the talk page, and given how controversial this topic is, it became clear from that conversation that a formal requested move was necessary. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:55, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions notification

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. 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 living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, 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 Wikipedia, 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.

TonyBallioni (talk) 16:03, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Re: the Murder of Seth Rich. Just letting you know it is currently under BLP discretionary sanctions. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:04, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Be aware that Donald Trump's disclosure of classified information to Russia is under a discretionary sanction that forbids editors from reinstating an edit which has been removed until consensus is reached. Your edit here violated that. Please be careful in the future. ~ Rob13Talk 03:46, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Add to intro but not body ?

[2] ?

Added to intro but not body?

When you do stuff like that, can you first add new additions to the body text, and then to the intro, after that?

Instead of the other way around? Sagecandor (talk) 13:44, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Report: Russia Launched Cyberattack On Voting Vendor Ahead Of Election

  1. Cole, Matthew; Esposito, Richard; Biddle, Sam; Grim, Ryan (June 5, 2017), "Top-Secret NSA Report Details Russian Hacking Effort Days Before 2016 Election", The Intercept, retrieved June 6, 2017
  2. Fessler, Pam; Ewing, Philip (June 5, 2017), "Report: Russia Launched Cyberattack On Voting Vendor Ahead Of Election", National Public Radio, retrieved June 6, 2017
  3. Mathis-Lilley, Ben (June 5, 2017), "Leaked NSA Report Says Russian Hackers Targeted Voter Registration Officials in November 2016", Slate, retrieved June 6, 2017
  4. Weissman, Cale Guthrie (June 5, 2017), "Leaked NSA report finds Russian hacking of U.S. voting machine companies and election officials", Fast Company, retrieved June 6, 2017
  5. Shabad, Rebecca (June 5, 2017), "NSA report indicates Russian cyberattack against U.S. voting software vendor last August", KPAX-TV, CBS News, retrieved June 6, 2017
  6. Quigley, Aidan (June 5, 2017), "Who won the election? NSA report suggests Russia might have hacked voting system", Newsweek, retrieved June 6, 2017
  7. Dreyfuss, Ben (June 5, 2017), "The Intercept Discloses Top-Secret NSA Document on Russia Hacking Aimed at US Voting System", Mother Jones, retrieved June 6, 2017
  8. Kilgore, Ed (June 5, 2017), "Leaked NSA Report Suggests Russian Hacking Could Have Affected Election Day Itself", New York Magazine, retrieved June 6, 2017
  9. Rozsa, Matthew (June 5, 2017), "Russia attempted to hack US voting software days before election: NSA document", Salon, retrieved June 6, 2017
  10. Bertrand, Natasha (June 5, 2017), "Top-secret NSA report: Russian hackers tried to breach US voting systems days before the election", Business Insider, retrieved June 6, 2017
  11. "Breached - NSA: Russian Hackers Targeted U.S. Election Officials", The Daily Beast, June 5, 2017, retrieved June 6, 2017
  12. Ng, Alfred (June 5, 2017), "NSA report discloses Russian hacking days before US election", CNET News, retrieved June 6, 2017
  13. Gallagher, Sean (June 5, 2017), "Leaked NSA report says Russians tried to hack state election officials", Ars Technica, retrieved June 6, 2017
  14. Mindock, Clark (June 5, 2017), "Russian hackers tried to hack US voting software days before election, leaked NSA document suggests", The Independent, retrieved June 6, 2017
  15. Smith, David; Swaine, Jon (June 5, 2017), "Russian agents hacked US voting system manufacturer before US election – report", The Guardian, retrieved June 6, 2017
  16. Dellinger, AJ (June 5, 2017), "Did Russia Hack U.S. Election? NSA Details Attempts To Compromise Election Systems, Report Says", International Business Times, retrieved June 6, 2017
  17. Uchill, Joe (June 5, 2017), "Report: Russians hacked US voting systems maker just before election", The Hill, retrieved June 6, 2017
  18. Kosoff, Maya (June 5, 2017), "Russian military intelligence may have tried to hack U.S. voting system", Vanity Fair, retrieved June 6, 2017
  19. Pierce, Charles P. (June 5, 2017), "Why Would Russia Stop at 'Influence' When They Could Hack Directly?", Esquire, retrieved June 6, 2017
  20. Vara, Shannon (June 5, 2017), "Report: Russians targeted U.S. election officials before election", Axios, retrieved June 6, 2017
  21. Coldewey, Devin (June 5, 2017), "Leaked NSA report names Russia in pre-election hacks, contradicting Putin's claims of innocence", TechCrunch, retrieved June 6, 2017

New topic.

Might this merit its own Wikipedia article? Sagecandor (talk) 00:37, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Forgive me, but...

Forgive me, but, as a courtesy, could you please confirm that the comments, at the AFD you started on Reality Winner, from 77.66.12.7, are not from you?

Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 07:55, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Christopher A. Wray

The article Christopher A. Wray has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Ochib (talk) 11:54, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Comey testimony

Not sure of a title yet.

Might this be an article? Sagecandor (talk) 19:04, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Donald Trump's Russian Investigation Interference for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Donald Trump's Russian Investigation Interference is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donald Trump's Russian Investigation Interference 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. — JFG talk 19:15, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Your contributed article, Donald Trump's Russian Investigation Interference

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Donald Trump's Russian Investigation Interference. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Donald_Trump's_Russian_Investigation_Interference. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Donald_Trump's_Russian_Investigation_Interference. If you have new information to add, you might want to discuss it at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page 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 tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Legacypac (talk) 19:17, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Legacypac, "Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page" is not true. This is a sub-topic within that meta-topic, and the sub-topic deserves to be developed. Speedy deletion is not proper. Just let the deletion discussion proceed. Please strike this section. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:06, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Please use edit summaries, especially for anything not minor, such as this. I try to keep mine at 100%. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:15, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Donald Trump's Russian Investigation Interference listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Donald Trump's Russian Investigation Interference. Since you had some involvement with the Donald Trump's Russian Investigation Interference redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:59, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Go the normal route and get what you want.

I think your best bet to finally get a separate sub-article (Obstruction of justice investigation of Donald Trump) would be to take all that content and include it in this section #Obstruction of justice investigation. That would create the undue weight situation which justifies and requires a sub-article. That's the normal sequence.

Even if your current article were to be deleted at the AfD, it could be recreated. It deserves it, but currently there's lots of opposition. By going the normal route, you prove its legitimacy as a stand alone sub-article.

Also please comment here. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:25, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Saved for you

In case you might need this, I saved it: User:BullRangifer/Donald Trump's Alleged Interference in Russian Investigation -- BullRangifer (talk) 22:55, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Donald Trump

Hello, the change you made to the Donald Trump article removed the section heading for "Family and personal life" [3]. I replaced that part, just a heads up. Have a great day! PackMecEng (talk) 23:06, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you

Great Tidbits Didn't Know Before
For a new tidbit about the Substitute Amendment that is very interesting. Smghz (talk) 22:47, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

July 2016 Trump Tower Meeting listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect July 2016 Trump Tower Meeting. Since you had some involvement with the July 2016 Trump Tower Meeting redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Mattflaschen - Talk 02:26, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

TTAAC

I think the place to discuss this user is on Sandstein's talk page. During his ban, TTAAC engaged in personal attacks, sockpuppetry, and violations of the ban. I think his appeal to Sandstein was misleading at best. We've already lost many good editors due to the failure of Admins to stop the POV disruption on the politics pages, and even his reply to you on his talk suggests that he's far from "over" the poisonous mindset that led to his sanction. SPECIFICO talk 15:25, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: Do you have some links or diffs to show that?Casprings (talk) 16:35, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
There's the rub. Normal folks don't keep dossiers on bad behaving editors. But I'll have a look. He socked right after he was TBANNED then he was blocked for socking but with nobody paying enough attention to track the nonsense he returned to editing, etc etc. Of course the "I don't edit politics" bit is exactly what he said on one of his threads at AE or some other occasion when Admins were scrutinizing his editing. I forget. SPECIFICO talk 16:53, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

97.98.86.66 at ANI

[4] Darmokand (talk) 02:08, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your comments at Whataboutism. You bring some sense to those who want to engage in violating WP:No original research. Sagecandor (talk) 16:35, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Ike Kaveladze for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ike Kaveladze is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ike Kaveladze 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. — JFG talk 07:35, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

1RR

Dear Casprings, I understand that you are contesting the merge of Comey memos into Dismissal of James Comey, but in the process of reverting to the pre-merge version, you have unwittingly violated the 1RR restriction in place at Dismissal of James Comey, with this edit. This is a courtesy message allowing you to self-revert. Thanks, — JFG talk 13:26, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

And FYI, I have sent Comey memos to AfD per WP:CFORK. — JFG talk 13:26, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Second Korean War

An article that you have been involved in editing—Second Korean War—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. PackMecEng (talk) 02:59, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

BTW, since you did not create the article, you can contest the speedy deletion by simply clicking the blue box. – S. Rich (talk) 23:14, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
@Srich32977: I did. It just takes you to edit the talk page with a preloaded template?Casprings (talk) 23:22, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Roy Moore teenager sexual assault and harassment scandal for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Roy Moore teenager sexual assault and harassment scandal is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roy Moore teenager sexual assault and harassment scandal 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. MelanieN (talk) 02:17, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewing

Hello, Casprings.

I've seen you editing recently and you seem knowledgeable about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 09:31, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Casprings. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. 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 site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer granted

Hello Casprings. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk.

  • URGENT: Please consider helping get the huge backlog down to a manageable number of pages as soon as possible.
  • Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
  • You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
  • Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
  • Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. Alex Shih (talk) 03:06, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Casprings, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

  • The new page backlog is currently at 12713 pages. Please consider reviewing even just a few pages each day! If everyone helps out, it will really put a dent in the backlog.
  • Currently the backlog stretches back to March and some pages in the backlog have passed the 90 day Google index point. Please consider reviewing some of them!

Outreach and Invitations:

  • If you know other editors with a good understanding of Wikipedia policy, invite them to join NPP by dropping the invitation template on their talk page with: {{subst:NPR invite}}. Adding more qualified reviewers will help with keeping the backlog manageable.

New Year New Page Review Drive

  • A backlog drive is planned for the start of the year, beginning on January 1st and running until the end of the month. Unique prizes will be given in tiers for both the total number of reviews made, as well as the longest 'streak' maintained.
  • Note: quality reviewing is extremely important, please do not sacrifice quality for quantity.

General project update:

  • ACTRIAL has resulted in a significant increase in the quality of new submissions, with noticeably fewer CSD, PROD, and BLPPROD candidates in the new page feed. However, the majority of the backlog still dates back to before ACTRIAL started, so consider reviewing articles from the middle or back of the backlog.
  • The NPP Browser can help you quickly find articles with topics that you prefer to review from within the backlog.
  • To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. — TonyBallioni (talk) 20:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Your reversion at Trump campaign–Russian meetings

You have violated the consensus required restriction at Trump campaign–Russian meetings with your last edit. Unless you can link me to the established consensus for your addition of challenged material, you need to undo your edit to the article. The current page restriction in effect reads: You must not make more than one revert per 24 hours to this article, must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus on the talk page of this article, and are subject to discretionary sanctions while editing this page. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation! — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 00:41, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

You have 10 minutes. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 00:43, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

December 2017

To enforce an arbitration decision and for violating the sanctions already in place, specifically you did not get the required consensus before restoring challenged material on the page Trump campaign–Russian meetings, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 00:53, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

[[Unblock|I was blocked for 24 hours for a revert I made. I fully understand how hard it is to police these pages. I saw an edit by another editor that said it was removing an overlinkage of people. When I looked at the edit, I saw a removal of the material not if the wiki link. With that, I thought the edit was wrong and reverted. I logged off once I made the edit.

I would have certainly reverted. User Coffee gave me 10 minute warning. I did not see this. I thought I was making a 1rr edit and was not in violation of any rules.

Again, I am sorry for any violation and will stay alert in efforcement changes. I would ask for the block to be reversed.

I will lift the block since I fully trust your explanation is true. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 02:44, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Civility Barnstar
For being unbelievably civil in your response to a frustrating situation here in our community of volunteers (the irony of the beverage in this barnstar is not lost on me). 172.56.21.117 (talk) 21:01, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

New Years new page backlog drive

Hello Casprings, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Announcing the NPP New Year Backlog Drive!

We have done amazing work so far in December to reduce the New Pages Feed backlog by over 3000 articles! Now is the time to capitalise on our momentum and help eliminate the backlog!

The backlog drive will begin on January 1st and run until January 29th. Prize tiers and other info can be found HERE.

Awards will be given in tiers in two categories:

  • The total number of reviews completed for the month.
  • The minimum weekly total maintained for all four weeks of the backlog drive.

NOTE: It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing. Despite our goal of reducing the backlog as much as possible, please do not rush while reviewing.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. — TonyBallioni (talk) 20:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Roy Moore sexual misconduct allegations for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Roy Moore sexual misconduct allegations is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roy Moore sexual misconduct allegations 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. Guy (Help!) 10:56, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Conor Lamb Deletion

I would like to reopen the debate about the deletion of the page. Unfortunately, I am a novice at Wikipedia.

Conor Lamb easily meets the meet the primary criteria of notability of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article". He has had articles written about him in Politico, Washington Post, New York Times.

http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2018/01/17/us/politics/18dc-campaign3.html

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/11/trump-special-election-pennsylvania-pittsburgh-336502

https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/rural-democrats-left-for-dead-see-an-opening-in-pennsylvania/2017/11/21/b66af814-cc4e-11e7-b0cf-7689a9f2d84e_story.html?utm_term=.b375c7607f8a

There is also an inner contradiction that should be reviewed. If the election is notable enough to warrant its own article. All the candidates in the election are also notable persons.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsylvania%27s_18th_congressional_district_special_election,_2018 Quigley david (talk) 18:52, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Quigley david (talk) 19:16, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Casprings/Archive_3&oldid=1142919212"