User talk:Scjessey

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~). Place comments that start a new topic at the bottom of the page and give them ==A descriptive header==. If you're new to Wikipedia, please see Welcome to Wikipedia and frequently asked questions. Please note this is not a forum for discussing the topic generally.

Talk page guidelines

Please respect etiquette and assume good faith. Also be nice and remain civil.

Like the motto[edit]

I really like that motto of yours, "If in doubt, leave it out. Consensus before contentious. — Simon Jessey." I hope you don't mind if I use it from time to time. :D danielkueh (talk) 22:49, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

A brownie for you![edit]

Brownie transparent.png Thank you for your effective mediation on the Eurovision Song Contest 2012 article. CT Cooper · talk 19:25, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change[edit]

Resolved by motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment that: The Climate change case is supplemented as follows:

The editing restriction described in remedy 16.1 ("Scjessey's voluntary editing restriction") of the Climate change decision is terminated, effective on the passage of this motion.

For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 12:52, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Discuss this

Have a beer[edit]

Export hell seidel steiner.png Thanks for jointly taking on Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/13 November 2011/Usage share of operating systems! Having an experienced mediator there is going to be a big help. Have a virtual beer on me :) — Mr. Stradivarius 14:52, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Have a packet of crisps with that[edit]

Thanks for your contributions to the dispute I raised on Billy Fox. The result isn't everything I'd want, but the other editors haven't reverted it and I think your help contributed to a compromise. Thanks. --Flexdream (talk) 16:22, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Your fan club[edit] holding meetings on my talk page. I hope they will bring something to eat, I'm hungry. Viriditas (talk) 08:29, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Faithful sockuppet[1] reporting for duty! I forget, are you the sock and I'm the puppet, or are you the puppet and I'm the muppet? - Wikidemon (talk) 08:39, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm totally confused. I'm not sure I can even remember my name today. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:49, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
You're number 6. Viriditas (talk) 23:22, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
I am not a number, I am a free man! -- Scjessey (talk) 23:36, 21 June 2012 (UTC) Don't tell my wife I said that. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:39, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
You think I am your sock, but consider yourself pwned, you are my sock. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:43, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
That's bullshit. I know for a fact that you wear sandals. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:47, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


Hi Scjessey. Just wanted to drop a quick line and say that in my estimation, the overall tenor of your editing shows that you are (a) a lot more experienced in the Ways of Wikipedia than I am, and (b) an editor who cares deeply on a personal level about Truth and Building a Better Encyclopedia. Cheers. Wookian (talk) 23:20, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. The thread is "Public opinion on health care reform in the United States, United States National Health Care Act". Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 15:01, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Mother Jones[edit]

Hi, I made those edits with the co-founder of Mother Jones, as I work for him. The citation I did leave, didn't seem to work. What you removed is information about who founded the magazine, so now the article is incorrect. Kristina Mastro (talk) 19:22, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Followup RFC to WP:RFC/AAT now in community feedback phase[edit]

Hello. As a participant in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abortion article titles, you may wish to register an opinion on its followup RFC, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abortion advocacy movement coverage, which is now in its community feedback phase. Please note that WP:RFC/AAMC is not simply a repeat of WP:RFC/AAT, and is attempting to achieve better results by asking a more narrowly-focused, policy-based question of the community. Assumptions based on the previous RFC should be discarded before participation, particularly the assumption that Wikipedia has or inherently needs to have articles covering generalized perspective on each side of abortion advocacy, and that what we are trying to do is come up with labels for that. Thanks! —chaos5023 20:32, 24 October 2012 (UTC)


You have been mentioned in this AfD Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/You_didn't_build_that. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:47, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Team Barnstar Hires.png The Teamwork Barnstar
In particular for the ongoing discussion on Star Trek into Darkness regarding a pesky little I. At the end of the day, it may not have been resolved but we all did work together to try and get it sorted, even if we did feel at times we were banging our heads on our desks and calling our computer screens idiots. MisterShiney 14:33, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Obama not notable for being a Gun Control advocate?[edit]

How is he not notable for being a gun control advocate? He voted for a handgun ban in IL, he has for years stated on the white house site that he wants to "make the assault weapons ban permanent". He stated he wanted an assault weapons ban in the 2nd debate, and also appointed Joe Biden as the head of a gun control committee. What does this man have to do to be considered a "gun control advocate"? IronKnuckle (talk) 15:57, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

When it comes to categorization, you put a person in categories for which they are chiefly notable. When you think of President Obama, you don't automatically think "gun control advocate", do you? -- Scjessey (talk) 18:13, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Actually I do. IronKnuckle (talk) 23:49, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
LOL. Then you have some personal issues that you need to deal with. Most people think "first black POTUS" or "healthcare" or "voting against the Iraq war". Your view is basically a fringe view. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:43, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Actually it's not a fringe issue. He's been extremely pro gun control for years. He's not the first black POTUS, he's the first mulatto POTUS. We dont think of healthcare, we think of Obamacare. And the Iraq War is irrelevant to what we are discussing now. He has said he is making gun control a major issue in his 2nd term. IronKnuckle (talk) 08:22, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
IronKnuckle. Be. Very. Careful. Wikipedia:General sanctions/Obama article probation --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:51, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
I am being careful...Believe me.
I guess the Washington Post must have personal issues that they need to deal with huh?
And if that isnt enough, just type Obama gun control into google news. I really think he should be added to that category of "American gun control advocate". IronKnuckle (talk) 15:39, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
You evidently don't understand the concept of "chiefly known for". He is not "Gun Control Advocate Obama", he is "President Obama" (formerly "Senator Obama"). By way of example, you will find there are almost as many hits for "Obama basketball" on Google News as there are for "Obama gun control". -- Scjessey (talk) 15:46, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
That is completely untrue what you just said, I just searched "Obama Basketball", all where unrelated articles, however when I searched "Obama gun control", all were related to his gun control agenda. But here's a compromise idea. How about a new category of "gun control supporters" or "American gun control supporters"? That would be more accurate for Obama huh? IronKnuckle (talk) 17:43, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
No. Like I said, he should only be placed in categories for which he is chiefly notable. This is covered under WP:COP#N. Obama is known to favor some limited gun control, but he is far more well known as a president, a senator and a writer (for example). He is certainly not a notable figure of gun control advocacy. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:43, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Quick note[edit]

Hi, just writing to let you know I've reverted Wee's strange edit. I'm sure it was a mistake related to WP:TW so I just went ahead and did it. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 01:17, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Xkcdreader / Talk:Star Trek Into Darkness[edit]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:06, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I think by disrupting the Administrator's Noticeboard he didn't do himself any favours. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:22, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


It's cute that you think that of me, but i have the article on my watchlist and happened to notice the edit. I didn't revert to spite you, I just don't want another Into/into issue over something so minor. RAP (talk) 18:32 19 February 2013 (UTC)

We'll wait until the consensus is solidified. RAP (talk) 18:46 19 February 2013 (UTC)

On diplomatic silence[edit]

Hi Scjessey, I'm writing here because I don't want to further disrupt the discussion over at DRN. We are very close to an agreement which has taken a full month to achieve and I wouldn't want to see that go away by starting a new discussion on how the section should look from scratch.
We obviously disagree on the meaning of "diplomatic silence". To you it means a clear support for the status quo and to me it means a neutral stance on the issue. Either interpretation would need reliable sourcing to back it up and I would be more than willing to continue this discussion with you after this issue is solved. Also keep in mind that given Wee and Kahastok's insistence that the section be as short as possible, I'm not sure a listing of pretty much every country out there would suit them.
Right now the only thing blocking the addition of your last version to the article is Wee and Kahastok unwillingness to either compromise about not mentioning the Commonwealth or to at least provide one secondary source to back its inclusion. I've compromised on the inclusion of China (which I still believe should be included) so I think I'm being pretty reasonable here. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 18:46, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Scjessey. You have new messages at Gaba p's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Aurora Awards[edit]

Hi Simon,

Thank you for contacting me on this issue. I moved the Canadian science fiction awards article to Prix Aurora Awards partially because that is its full name but mostly in order to distinguish it from the international film and video awards, also known as the Aurora Awards. There is no other name for the international film and video awards than "Aurora Awards", so I thought it cleanest for both articles to go by their official titles. You are welcome to initiate a move discussion if you so desire. Please let me know if you do so.

Neelix (talk) 17:10, 23 February 2013 (UTC)


Hi Scjessey, I wanted to make a quick comment on Wee and Kahastok's behavior at the Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute article. They are both still opposing the inclusion of the nearly consensual version even after I accepted pretty much all of their demands. Wee has now moved the goalposts suggesting yet another version (the largest one so far, even though he and Kahastok were the ones asking for a minimal version) with substantial changes made. He knows this version will not be accepted which gives him and Kahastok another excuse to push the addition of the section even further.
As Kahastok made very clear at the DRN ticket, he assumes the last consensus is having no section at all which is completely not true. I warned about this happening at the ANI opened after Wee and Kahastok removed the old section with no consensus where I said "the lack of this section can be used by those two editors to prevent the addition of a new version of it based on no consensus to alter the status-quo". I explained the same thing to user Irondome in his talk page where I said "they will base all new attempts at introducing the re-factored section on "no consensus" given that the status-quo of the article is to have no section at all.". Exactly what I said would happen is happening right now. Wee keeps moving the goalposts even after I accommodated all of his requests, knowing this will hinder any consensus from ever forming and Kahastok has openly said that if no consensus is reached then we should not include any section at all.
It's getting harder with every comment they make not to assume they are attempting to game the system. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 14:11, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Frankly your comments were nonsense[edit]

You won't find any comment from me that were about other editors, so how you reached the conclusion the personal rhetoric was down to me is a mystery. I'm going to simply remind you of your previous comments about children fighting over a cuddly toy. My suggested text, is just that, a suggestion and its based on what I proposed at WP:DRN, which the mediator there suggested was a good compromise. Comment on content not editors. Your disappointment that I disagree with the "compromise" YOU agreed with another editor is not justification for escalating matters when agreement could be rather close. I disagree but the differences are very minor. Was it worth making matters worse when it could easily be solved in a matter of hours by discussing content not other editors? Wee Curry Monster talk 16:03, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry but I have to call bullshit on that comment, [2], [3], both comment on me not the edit and yes when your comments are unfounded it really does put your back up. Talk about rubbing salt in, when in a hole stop digging. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:38, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
I disagree with your analysis. Furthermore, I think you are having trouble with the concept of compromise. The proposal that I put forward was based on your work, and I simplified modified it a little to try to draw both "sides" together. Your new proposal wanders off into new territory and so we're essentially starting from scratch again. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:54, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Well if you disagree, then back up your comments by pointing to a diff where I engaged in personal rhetoric before Gaba p. We were close to working something out, your ill-chosen remarks are as responsible for derailing discussions as anything else. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:14, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
BTW did you not notice I did in fact compromise already and struck out part of my proposal for later discussion. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:17, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
I can't help notice you chose neither to provide a diff or comment on unfounded allegations by Gaba p of racism. Thanks. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:47, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
I didn't even read all that bollocks. I just created a new section and pretended all that childish bullshit didn't exist. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:58, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Can I have a diff please? Yes/No? Wee Curry Monster talk 22:07, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
I don't even know what you are referring to. Are you talking about Gaba's characterization of your comments about Chavez? If so, I agree with you. Chavez is a certifiable nutcase. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:05, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Muslim Brotherhood Conspiracy Theories[edit]

Hi, thanks for the message. I do not understand what my edit has to do with any political opinions. My edit is based off an obvious assumption that sending money to the ruling party would surely qualify for that section. Again, I simply would like to know why you disagree with my edit. Under what circumstances would you consider this to no longer be a "conspiracy theory"? What other form of sending money would qualify? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:22, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Muslim Brotherhood Conspiracy Theories[edit]

I'm sorry but your description of the reversion shows that it is you who is inserting opinion. What does lawfully-elected have to do with it, it it is THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD that is lawfully elected. That being the case, I guess nobody aided the Nazis, they just aided the lawfully-elected German government. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:28, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Also, look at the article as it is currently written. Even you could agree it is incorrect. I quote "The US government gives Egypt over $1.3 billion in military aid to Egypt annually and the US Agency for International Development (USAID) has provided over $28 billion in economic and development aid to Egypt since 1975,[3] but it is not likely[who?] that any US aid goes to the Muslim Brotherhood or affiliate organizations which oppose US policies" At this point, the Ikhwan being the government, isn't it highly likely that some aid goes to the Ikhwan? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:34, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


Hi Scjessey,

could I ask you to open an RfC regarding the inclusion/exclusion of the word illegal or the statement having no legal value discussed over at Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute? About a month ago the edit was included into the article after a discussion that involved 8 editors where 6 agreed that it should be there. Wee Curry Monster removed it unilaterally and so far has prevented its re-inclusion. Right now there are at least 6 editors backing the edit. Wee Curry Monster is still hell bent in blocking it. If the idea is to expand the self-determination issue (as Kahastok proposed and Apcbg agreed) then I'm all for it. I just don't see why that would mean this thoroughly sourced and relevant piece of information should be obscured though. Furthermore I don't think it's fair than an edit be left out when it can be thoroughly sourced (I've presented no less than 14 sources for it), it entails a minimal addition (literally no more than 2-3 words), a big number of editors have spoken in its favor and finally it was removed from the article following no discussion whatsoever.

It's funny how Wee Curry Monster asks everybody else to get consensus before making any edit while he can just remove with no consensus an edit agreed by 6 editors and then blocks its re-inclusion, again agreed by 6 editors, due to no-consensus (meaning: his written approval)

In any case, I'd really appreciate it if you could take the time to open the RfC because doing so myself will only bring the familiar NPOV accusation by Wee Curry Monster. If you don't have the time to do it please let me know and I'll see about asking another editor, though I doubt an outsider would be willing to dive into that apparent mess (which is really a very simple issue). Regards. Gaba (talk) 12:06, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I am not interested in getting involved with the ridiculous bickering on that article. I occasionally poke my head around the door and contribute where I think it might be helpful, but I have no wish to get ensconced in constant kerfuffle. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:14, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Fair enough. I can't blame you, it can get really annoying over there. Cheers. Gaba (talk) 16:48, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

your personal attack at Barack Obama[edit]

please strike thru your personal attack here and consider posting an apology. [4] Darkstar1st (talk) 09:09, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean. There's no personal attack there, only facts. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:36, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
calling someone crazy would be as well as wp:bite, as well as wrong as it has been described a "scandal" by several RS and one could hardly consider huffpost right wing. anyways, no biggie, just dont do it agian plz. Darkstar1st (talk) 17:56, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
I did not call anyone on Wikipedia "crazy". Only complete morons with zero intelligence would think the Benghazi thing was a "scandal" by any stretch of the imagination. Now, don't tell me what I should and shouldn't do and kindly stay the fuck off my talk page. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:22, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Who was attacked? What is the meaning of an attack without a target? SPECIFICO talk 21:01, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Exactly. Dunno what Darkstar1st is on about. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:03, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Well, it can't be an attack on right-wing crazies, because calling such a one "right-wing crazy" is a logical truth, not an attack. And since those topics are not in the article, it sounds like the right-wing crazies are not WP editors here, so there's no Personal Attack on a WP editor. However, maybe it was not a nice thing to say about the politicians and media types who are whipping up the real world non-WP right-wing crazies by pretending they think there are one two or three scandals in effect. Maybe, but then it's not a WP problem and their real-world crazy right-wing hurt feelings is off-topic for WP. SPECIFICO talk 21:09, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Whoa there, trigger[edit]

Slow down a second. Before mass-reverting, you can see the relevant policy: WP:NUMERAL and WP:HYPHEN. "Centuries are given in figures or words using adjectival hyphenation where appropriate: the 5th century BCE; nineteenth-century painting." -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:32, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Cheers for your recent edit[edit]

Thanks for going after someone's 'popular' comment I missed in my recent edit of Ashtead, Surrey. As you know such comments are totally Peacock whoever added that. (talk) 17:49, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

reverting my edit[edit]

Why did you remove my adding the category:Men in politics? There is already a category:Women in politics so I thought it only appropriate that there should be a Men in politics category, too. NorthernThunder (talk) 09:03, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Notification of automated file description generation[edit]

Your upload of File:Abk-key.gif or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 11:26, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.[edit]


This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Assassination threats against Barack Obama. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! - TransporterMan (TALK) 03:14, 19 March 2014 (UTC) (DRN volunteer)

Your consensus on Obama is being stated by someone there.[edit]

Hi Scjessey; Your consensus for section blanking at the "Obama" page for Legacy section blanking is being stated there, could you glance at this. FelixRosch (talk) 15:39, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Media Matters for America[edit]

If a user is being disruptive or whatever, report them to the appropriate noticeboard. Removing or refactoring other editors' valid comments on talk pages is not permitted. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 21:44, 14 June 2014 (UTC)


Blocked as a sock but will be back again. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cavefish777. Dougweller (talk) 13:15, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Do It Again (EP)[edit]

Could you please show me where in Wikipedia's rules that forbids album templates from showing EPs in the chronology section, in contrast to most other album articles on this website?

And considering that the article for Back to Mine: Röyksopp lists an EP (Röyksopp's Night Out) in its template, could you please at least maintain consistency while adding misinformation to articles? Because at the very least you should edit this article to state that Melody A.M. was the previous release. (talk) 21:38, 8 December 2014 (UTC)