User talk:Caspian Delta

January 2022

Hello, I'm Mako001. An edit you recently made to Larry (cat) seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want more practice editing, the sandbox is the best place to do so. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Mako001 (C) (T) 06:31, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Standard Discretionary sanctions alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in COVID-19, broadly construed. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 21:00, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

April 2022

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in the Uyghur genocide. Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has authorised uninvolved administrators to impose discretionary sanctions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, expected standards of behaviour, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

— Mhawk10 (talk) 21:22, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Your editing at Controversial Reddit communities has been highly disruptive. The assertion in the article (that Time Magazine described it in those terms) is factual - regardless of what you believe to be true, you should not be attempting to change that. You need to ensure that any changes you make to articles are supported by reliable sources. Any further disruption in this area will likely see your account being blocked from editing. Thank you. Girth Summit _(blether) 11:55, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

September 2022

Hi Caspian Delta! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Cracker (term) several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:Cracker (term), please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. General Ization ^Talk 04:54, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain how removing the short paragraph concerning the word's etymology is an improvement. General Ization ^Talk 04:55, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Its supposed to be an improvement its supposed to be more neutral Wikipedia:Neutral point of view Caspian Delta (talk) 05:00, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How does removing the paragraph make the article "more neutral"? General Ization ^Talk 05:04, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The "article" was a book from 2006 with no link attached honestly the rest of the page with this book as its source should be removed Caspian Delta (talk) 05:05, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraph you removed with this edit was sourced to this 2013 CNN article: [1]. I'm not sure what "book" you're referring to, but your edit was not an improvement, and you are now at 3RR as described below. Your edit also created a sentence fragment as the opening sentence in the second paragraph. I encourage you to revert (undo) your change. General Ization ^Talk 05:09, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There was a source in the article that was not related to the topic, regardless I checked the cnn article and it has no sources attached at all, the only thing of note is that the journalist said that the word cracker "might be a racial slur" implying that is here opinion. Nothing about this source is objective, The source I linked is much more reliable includes sources and its goes more in depth into the topic at hand Caspian Delta (talk) 05:16, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Do you realize that the source you added directly contradicts the content to which you added it as a citation, in that it argues that many to whom it might be applied do not see the term "cracker" as a racial slur? General Ization ^Talk 05:23, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Again I would like to ask where in the article it says this because it clearly states that cracker is seen as a slur my article is still overall irrelevant I can find a difference source that agrees with the assessment "cracker" is a racial slur Caspian Delta (talk) 05:27, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Cracker (term) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. General Ization ^Talk 04:59, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Caspian_Delta reported by User:General Ization (Result: ). Thank you. General Ization ^Talk 01:38, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

September 2022

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Cracker (term). Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 03:37, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please justify your edit at Hellstorm (film)

You changed the description of Kyle Hunt (white supremacist) (which was piped to just say "Kyle Hunt" from white supremacist as in the article tile to white nationalist. Doug Weller talk 07:17, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes because the term "white nationalist" is more accurate and is what the article calls him. Caspian Delta (talk) 09:56, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't seen the redirect. I take your point but there are sources calling him a white supremacist. I'll look into those. Doug Weller talk 15:45, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article sourcing Kyle Hunt as a "white supremacist" actually call him a "white nationalist". Caspian Delta (talk) 18:43, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. But the ADL also called him a white suprematist which I’ve added to the article And of course this is useless here, but a lot of people who pose as nationalist are supremacist. Like him . Also if you read the article it says the Renegade Tribune is white supremacist, thus Hunt is. I’m sure I can find more sources as it seems to be correct, but maybe I can’t. Both outlets are absolutely disgusting. Doug Weller talk 19:58, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The ADL is not a reliable source for information on anything they call Pepe the frog "white supremacist". I dont think there is any evidence of him being a white supremacist and saying Renegade Tribune is "white supremacist" thus so is Kyle Hunt is guilt by association. Caspian Delta (talk) 22:13, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's your opinion and in any case you are misrepresenting the ADL, which is concerning as it suggests a bias. "The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) included Pepe in its hate symbol database in 2016, but said most instances of Pepe were not used in a hate-related context." Of course, Pepe the Frog is not real and our article does not say he is is always depicted as a white supremacist, quite the opposite. As for guilt by association, are you really claiming that a non-white supremacist would run/own a white supremacist media platform? Doug Weller talk 07:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What about the platform is white supremacist the video is just hosted on the site and as for the ADL article it nowhere mentions that its used by non-white supremacists and provides no sources the organization is clearly biased and shouldn't be used to source anything. Caspian Delta (talk) 10:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't care about your opinion about the ADL. So long as it's attributed it can be used, so please drop that argument. We don't need sources for their statement. So far as lack of mention of its use by non-white supremacists, what bit of " most instances of Pepe were not used in a hate-related context." do you not understand? I do not know what video you mean, but are you trying to say there's nothing wrong with the Renegade websites? Doug Weller talk 13:14, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well I would assume the articles you site would need sources to back up that claim no? As for the ADL nowhere on the website does it say that Pepe "most instances of Pepe were not used in a hate-related context" and when it comes to the website you can disagree with what they post but its not illegal so the morality is not my judgement Caspian Delta (talk) 19:09, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What article doesn’t have my quote about Pepe? Also, we. don’t require reliable sources to always show their sources.

I’m asking if you support the thrust of opinion on those sites. Doug Weller talk 20:37, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why would wikipedia allow you to source articles that dont have sources themselves and I could careless what is hosted on those sites I'm here to edit factual information. Pepe the frog article Caspian Delta (talk) 04:36, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing. Instead of looking at our article Pepe the Frog you find an old ADL article and haven't the slightest idea of their overall view of it. "The ADL has clarified that most Pepe memes are not racist, and that innocent versions will not be subject to the hate symbol designation.

"The mere fact of posting a Pepe meme does not mean that someone is racist or white supremacist," the group said."[2]

Your failure to answer my question about your view of those sites tells volumes, as does your failure to understand our policies and guidelines on sources - I'm not sure which is worse. Doug Weller talk 06:57, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was not referencing the Wikipedia article on pepe the frog why do you think I sourced the ADL's website on the meme and the fact the article is still up shows their journalistic integrity.

As to the websites I dont know why I would have to voice an opinion on them when the point of the article is to be factual but if you want my opinion I think what they do is morally wrong but legal so its non of my business. Caspian Delta (talk) 09:23, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a waste of time. Yes, it's still up. And Pepe the frog is listed as a right wing meme. That's because it is.A lot of the stuff in the ADL listing is also used in a non-racist way. But it's not just that as the later ADL page that discusses in in depth makes clear and you want to ignore. Your refusal to accept that is just part of your rejection of the ADL and possibly all Jewish sources. It's sad that morals are something you don't care about.. Doug Weller talk 10:20, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Funny how you had to backtrack on the article calling pepe a white supremacist symbol. I'm also pretty sure anybody with a brain cell knows the meme is not right wing in anyway. Also the page you linked was an article form a news outlet with a statement from a representative not the CEO, and despite that the ADL article on pepe is still up calling it white supremacist. Caspian Delta (talk) 20:56, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't backtrack on anything. The meme is not rightwing itself but has been adopted by rightwingers - or are you actually challenging that? How does it matter that the CEO's representative made the statement? It doesn't make any difference to how we use the statement. In any case, they do not have "an" article, they have several. Eg [3] "The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) is joining forces with the artist who created “Pepe the Frog” in an effort to take back the popular internet meme from racists and use the frog’s likeness as a force for good.....“Pepe was never intended to be used as a symbol of hate,” said Jonathan A. Greenblatt, ADL CEO. “The sad frog was meant to be just that, a sad frog. We are going to work with Matt and his community of artists reclaim Pepe so that he might be used as a force for good, or at the very least to help educate people about the dangers of prejudice and bigotry.” Does that satisfy you? More at [4]. Doug Weller talk 07:02, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't take away from the fact they still have an article on the website claiming its a white supremacist symbol in its glossary of hate and I could probably find a million other examples of ridiculous articles just like this. Caspian Delta (talk) 10:36, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where would you find those examples? I would really like a straight answer.

Pepe the Frog is a white supremacist symbol. That's an immutable fact.

The Swastika is also listed as a hate symbol. That's also a fact.

Neither is exclusively used as a hate symbol, and both have been appropriated by white supremacists. Again, fact.

Ditto the Vinland flag. And more at List of symbols designated by the Anti-Defamation League as hate symbols. Doug Weller talk 13:08, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well its unreliable now Caspian Delta (talk) 12:18, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whether it is or is not for that list is still being discussed. Doug Weller talk 19:07, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]