Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by CFredkin (talk | contribs) at 19:18, 19 September 2016 (→Gaming 1RR in American politics). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Barnstar!

		The BLP Barnstar
		For your continuing devotion to ensuring that biographies of living politicians are not used as platforms to attack them, which is a very real danger at Misplaced Pages. Your diligence and civility in this regard are admirable.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:31, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for writing on current events

		The Current Events Barnstar
		message Colin Shui (talk) 02:06, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

You've Been Awarded The BuzzFeed Famous Barnstar

	BuzzFeed Famous
	Because sometimes the truth is stranger than fiction. Onward and upward, eh? Champaign Supernova (talk) 00:46, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Sarcasm in Trump lead

FYI, this new sentence in the Trump lead is pure sarcasm: "His name appears on such iconic brands as Trump Vodka, Trump Steaks and the Trump Shuttle."166.216.159.153 (talk) 00:43, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring. The thread is Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:CFredkin reported by User:MrX (Result: ). Thank you. - MrX 16:59, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Donald Trump

Thank you for spotting the omission at Donald Trump#Real estate. I've gone back to Talk and rewritten the draft (added a source, cleared up the wording, and added a line explaining why the Trumps got targeted). Take a look and let me know what you think. --Dervorguilla (talk) 07:07, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

PS: Saying that a person "legally discriminated" does sound rather pejorative to some people. But in the dictionary sense, it's a neutral term. I propose we leave it in for now, with the understanding that it can easily be revised later (if needed). --Dervorguilla (talk) 07:16, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Also, I'm removing this language: "The Trumps denied the allegations and counter-sued. Two years later the matter was settled without any admission of guilt by the Trumps." I think that most interested readers would understand that if the defendants had made such an admission, the article would have mentioned it somewhere, because an admission of guilt is more noteworthy than a mere allegation of guilt.

Important: The countercomplaint was dismissed rather than settled. --Dervorguilla (talk) 07:47, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

3RR on 1RR DS sanctioned article

Here is a reminder in case you've "forgotten" that Political positions of Donald Trump is under DS sanctions and 1RR applies. 1st revert, 2nd revert and 3rd revert.--TMCk (talk) 17:52, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, but I don't think that article is under 1RR discretionary sanctions.CFredkin (talk) 20:33, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Apologies. You seem to be right and I'm quite surprised that it is only under standard DS sanctions w/o the 1RR.--TMCk (talk) 21:13, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, the Donald Trump article is under 1RR and you have twice (I believe on successive days, 11 and 12 August) made 2RR's. You point out the second sentence of the restriction while violating the first (1RR). Please obey the rules.Gaas99 (talk) 00:56, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

It counts as 1RR if the edits are made consecutively.CFredkin (talk) 01:13, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

CFredkin is correct here. --NeilN 01:25, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I stand correctedGaas99 (talk) 06:05, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Notification about new RFC

Because you have participated in a previous RFC on a closely related topic, I thought you might be interested in participating in this new RFC regarding Donald Trump.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:51, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Clinton Foundation-State Department controversy for deletion

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

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.} Wikidemon (talk) 03:31, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to ask you only once

please don't make "revenge reverts" as you did here. You have shown no interest in this article or topic before so the only reason you would come to it and revert me is as "revenge" for the fact that we have a disagreement somewhere else.

This kind of behavior is both obnoxious and disruptive and if you persist, yes, you know what's going to happen.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:25, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Volunteer Marek You've followed me to an article in the past to revert me as your once and only edit to the article. So, bring it on my friend.CFredkin (talk) 15:27, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Both of you probably have better things to do. Jonathunder (talk) 15:44, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton e-mail controversy

This edit did not delete the content. You are misinformed or may have misunderstood.
14:40, 13 September 2016‎ ResultingConstant (talk | contribs)‎ . . (138,312 bytes) (-609)‎ . . (→‎Alleged similar precedent: once in the comparisons section is enough)
So we are all now on the same page. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:34, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Gaming 1RR in American politics

Reverting at Clinton Foundation–State Department controversy, and then making the exact same revert 26 hours later is obvious gaming of the 1RR imposed on the article. Being an experienced editor, of course you know 1RR is analogous to 3RR: "The one-revert rule is analogous to the three-revert rule as described above, with the words "more than three reverts" replaced by "more than one revert". Moreover, "The 3RR says an editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, on a single page within a 24-hour period. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside of the 24-hour slot may also be considered edit warring." Your reverting a second time just outside the 24-hour period has a blatant appearance of gaming the system, and I regard it as edit warring. If you continue to game the 1RR restrictions in the area of American politics you may be topic banned from it. Compare also this comment. Bishonen | talk 19:01, 17 September 2016 (UTC).

Without commenting about the particular conduct, I'd like to just clarify the rule. Per WP:Game, "Borderlining" means "habitually treading the edge of policy breach or engaging in low-grade policy breach, in order to make it hard to actually prove misconduct. Example: An editor never violates the three revert rule, but takes several months to repeatedly push the same edits over the objections of multiple editors.

" I have not looked at the particular edits at issue.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:12, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Although I have to say that, from my perspective, threatening a topic ban for reverting after 26 hours seems a tad excessive.CFredkin (talk) 20:49, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the DS sanctions can be excessive. They are very stringent and very strict. You were just warned about this by one of our most senior and most respected administrators. You should keep that in mind. --MelanieN (talk) 19:47, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

It might be excessive... only if this was the first time or the only trick you tried to pull in recent history.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:12, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

VM, I'd really like to suggest that you two stay off each other's talk pages. There is no need for this kind of needling. It does nothing for the encyclopedia and reflects badly on you. --MelanieN (talk) 19:47, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Volunteer Marek: It's clear now why you continue to unabashedly violate discretionary sanctions. I mean, the complaint I filed just documented the most recent violation. In this past week, you also violated 1RR with these two edits. You blow off strong encouragement by an admin to self-revert and instead post a profanity-laced screed at the AE board. You complain about being brought to AE repeatedly, when a casual review of your edit summaries (let alone your edits) demonstrates your obnoxious behavior toward other editors. Why do you continue to behave this way? Perhaps because the same admin intervenes on your behalf at AE each time to give you a pass?CFredkin (talk) 01:03, 19 September 2016 (UTC)