User talk:Casprings

December 2016

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)