User talk:Scjessey

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.

Blockery

Blocked for 3RR

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 12 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule . Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Nothing personal — consider this a short shock from the proverbial electric fence. Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

September 2008

I have left a note directly with the blocking editor suggesting that the block is a mistake and that the editing in question was routine, uncontroversial article patrol. The 3RR report itself is an over-the-top act of wikigaming by a problem editor. Wikidemon (talk) 00:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, Scjessey, as peculiar as this is, to eliminate any possible argument for the ongoing block will you kindly signal that you will not do more than 3 reverts per day on the main page, even unrelated uncontroversial ones, until and unless we clarify per the terms of article probation that this is okay? Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 01:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I've been away from Wikipedia for a few hours, and this block has come as a complete surprise to me. I agree that this is a highly dubious piece of wikigaming, and this is clearly confirmed by the reporting editor's attempt to ensure the block remains - an agenda-based 3RR report, basically. Oh well. No real harm done. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Re unblocked

I'm glad you got unblocked. I'm sorry you experienced problems with an autoblock. I hope that my comments, with perhaps an overly-strict interpretation of 3RR enforcement, didn't have too much adverse effect on your ability to edit freely. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 02:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

May 2009

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeated personal attacks. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:12, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Nice stuff

		The Anti-Flame Barnstar
		Thanks, Mom! Quartermaster (talk) 20:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Soxwon (talk) has bought you a pint! Sharing a pint is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a pint, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Cheers!

Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding {{subst:WikiPint}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

ALLST☆Recho's Placenta Award Because life begins, and ends, with WikiPedia. Thanks for living. =) - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 12:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Scjessey. You have new messages at QueenofBattle's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Award again

Explanation: the award was for Wikipedia and bias. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 21:59, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Blocked

Hey. Because of your edit warring at the Presidency of Barack Obama article, you've been blocked (not by me). Edit-warring on an article group on probation that's in an arbcom case you're a party to.. well, that wasn't the best move, and it is something I'm going to look at while writing up the proposed decision. Wizardman 02:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I cannot see how that could possibly be described as edit warring, and the two edits I made occurred several hours ago. I received no complaint, and no warning. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Toddst1 (talk) 13:09, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the unblock. Apart from this edit, I intend to keep my promise to take a voluntary 24-hour wikibreak. I will return to editing no earlier than 02:45, 9 May (UTC), which is 24 hours after the block was applied. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't feel that's necessary, but do as you wish. Toddst1 (talk) 15:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Block explanation please

(this note after edit conflict with previous section)

I have been accused of edit warring at Presidency of Barack Obama, and blocked for 24 hours. I have received no warning and no explanation. My last 4 edits to that article are as follows:

1. 21:05, 29 April 2009 (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by 128.240.229.68 identified as vandalism to last revision by QueenofBattle. using TW")
2. 22:08, 6 May 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 288296766 by Grundle2600 (talk) - this isn't Wikiquote, it's Wikipedia.")
3. 22:29, 6 May 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 288358928 by ChildofMidnight (talk) - rv quote again. "Consensus before contentious", CoM")
4. 23:19, 7 May 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 288570875 by ChildofMidnight (talk) - rv per talk page consensus that you must've missed")

I am completely at a loss as to why this block has occurred. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I actually pointed this out here and got this response. Soxwon (talk) 02:57, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I see. Well I think this is a bad block (although I would say that, I suppose). -- Scjessey (talk) 03:00, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Could be worse Soxwon (talk) 03:05, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

You reverted the same text three times, triggering a large revert war on the article. Edit-warring is a bad thing for the project, and you should know better than to engage in it. I don't care whether you reverted three or four times, the principle remains the same. — Werdna • talk 03:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I have just realized that User:ChildofMidnight has also been blocked for the same thing. I think that was also a bad block. We were in the middle of an active discussion about this on the talk page. I do not understand the logic of your heavy-handed approach. The lack of a warning, or even a courtesy notice after the block, is quite unreasonable to my mind. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Scjessey, Wizardman, is one of the arbitrators so I think you should pay some serious attention there. Personally, I think that the administrator Werdna was within the bounds of blocking policy. Whether you should have been blocked is perhaps a different question, but setting the content and consensus question aside for the minute you were at 3RR in 2 days, versus ChildofMidnight being at 4RR in the same period. Unblock requests that look like protests against perceived unfairness don't really work - you might take that as a sign to take things easy. Wikidemon (talk) 03:18, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

In light of Werdna's explanation above, the block is justified - perhaps not strictly necessary, but within discretion. Given the assurances in the unblock request, though, I'd support an unblock at this point.  Sandstein  09:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Allow me to explain

I'm putting this on you talk page because it relates more broadly to your function as an editor than it does to the specific article on Olbermann. Part of our function is to keep material that doesn't belong in Wikipedia biographies out of them. Our function is not to protect Olbermann (or any other profiled subject) from the inclusion of any and all established facts that some editors think demean him. One can make a decent case that Wikipedia editors should not routinely specify Olbermann's particular college within Cornell University system as a free standing fact. It's gratuitous, possibly malicious, and, of course, not the kind of thing that Olbermann, himself, would ever do to embarrass a rival. As part of a a notable, verifiable, separate event in Olbermann's life, however, the situation is entirely different. For example, were President Obama, following an epiphany, to announce to the world that Olbermann was a fraud who misrepresented himself as a bona fide Ivy League-er when he was really a state supported Aggie, and were Olbermann to respond by naming the President as one of his "Worst Persons in the World", I dare say the information would be worthy of inclusion in Olbermann's Wikipedia article. Context is "everything". Remember that if you happen to see the Coulter-Olbermann-true-Cornellian saga appear in an article some time down the road. Regards. Badmintonhist (talk) 06:44, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Revert to April 2

I think that rather than vandalism, it might have been an honest mistake. In the section before the one where you warned him, there was a link from you pointing to the diff he reverted to. If he missed the "this is an old diff" message, it would cause the behavior we saw.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Given his editing record, and his record of basically POV-pushing, I feel disinclined to believe this was some sort of accident. Nevertheless, I will note the possibility on his talk page. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Presidency of Barack Obama

I added info from USA Today, citing several different, independent studies, each of which showed that CAFE laws killed thousands of people every year. You erased the info on the studies, and commented, "rewrite a horribly one-sided paragraph with more neutral language." You then added false info to the article by saying "Critics have pointed out that CAFE laws may have forced tradeoffs between fuel economy and auto safety." That info you added is false, because the article does not say "may have." The article is very definite that these deaths did indeed happen. This is proof that you are biased. Grundle2600 (talk) 15:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Bullshit. The use of "may have" reflects the fact that it is not always the case that a tradeoff between fuel economy and auto safety must be made. There is no direct relationship between the two and the article you cited does not say there is. Your version was original research presented in a way that was as far away from neutral as it was possible for you to be. I'm no longer interested in discussing this, quite frankly. Your blatant agenda-driven editing approach disgusts me, and you should've been topic-banned (at the very least) weeks and weeks ago. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The source that I cited says the deaths are definite - there is nothing in the source that says "may have." Wikipedia articles are supposed to reflect their sources. Grundle2600 (talk) 18:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Scjessey. You have new messages at SarekOfVulcan's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-- and, incidentally, you can be blocked for personal attacks here just as easily as at DreamHost.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Scjessey, this is what the source says:

"The National Academy of Sciences, Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, Congressional Budget Office and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration have separately concluded in multiple studies dating back about 20 years that fuel-economy standards force automakers to build more small cars, which has led to thousands more deaths in crashes annually."

It says those four studies show that those deaths definitely happened. There is no "may have." It is definite, according to the source.

Wikipedia requires that articles match the source.

Therefore, for you to replace my comment about those four studies showing that those deaths happened, with you saying that those deaths "may have" happened, is against wikipedia policy.

Please stick to wikipedia policy, and make sure that articles reflect their sources. Thank you.

Grundle2600 (talk) 05:57, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

You fail to see the problem with your approach. You have chosen to focus on some ancient studies that indicate a relationship between the fuel efficiency and the safety of vehicles instead of neutrally presenting the facts. You have used language that synthesizes a direct relationship (fuel efficiency == deaths) when that is a gross misrepresentation. I did not say deaths "may have" happened - that is also a gross misrepresentation. I have already explained my position and I will not be doing so again. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:36, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 hours for "you fail to see the problem" -- warned you about that on Talk:DreamHost. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Civility

Despite including some nice words about me, this comment is not acceptable and I know you know better. "Notorious bad faith POV-pusher" is not a phrase that should be in your Wiki-vocabulary, particularly on the Obama articles. You know I'm taking a very stringent approach to civility on the Obama articles and that I have repeatedly warned other editors for accusations of bad faith or using terms like "POV-pushers." Yes Grundle's edits have been problematic, and yes C of M's comment on my talk page was not particularly constructive, but that does not excuse the reply you made. I think you are aware that you sometimes have a tendency to use highly intemperate language like the above, and you need to do a better job of keeping that in check or like any other editor you risk a block for incivility per the terms of the article probation. Comments like the one you made make a bad editing environment worse, plain and simple.

I'm also going to be weighing in on an exchange you are having with SarekOfVulcan on that editor's talk page in a few minutes. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:03, 22 May 2009 (UTC)