User talk:Scjessey: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 00:31, 20 June 2008

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.

About notability

Hi, Scjessey. I've noticed that you've recently been reverting some editorial additions with the justification "per WP:NN". That's not appropriate — the notability guideline is about whether a topic is of sufficient importance to merit an individual article on Wikipedia, not about whether individual details can be included in an article. See WP:NNC. That's not to say that there aren't other guidelines and policies which may argue against inclusion of the details in question — but the notability guideline isn't one of them. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that "run-of-the-mill lawyering" isn't particularly noteworthy. Of course, Andy would probably argue that "representing a slumlord against his tenants", as he would describe it, isn't "run-of-the-mill lawyering". I think that there's a bit of spin involved in either description, and the key would be to see how much emphasis reliable sources put on something like that. The answer, as far as I can tell, is that nobody's made a big deal out of that particular case, so it's probably not worth us mentioning in the main article. (It might have a place in Early life and career of Barack Obama, though.) Anyway, I just wanted to make sure you knew about notability. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

OOPS!

Lol, cheers. --— Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 01:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Despite our differences of opinion I must state that I think what you have done is very mature and civil, I like your attitude on this and hopefully we can come to something that settles reasonably well with everyone. --— Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 18:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we will get a happy medium, its probably going to leave both sides feeling medicre but I think it'l be enough that edit wars stop. I think its important that both sides respect whatever the decision is and try to protect that consensus. I certainly dont want that article to loss its FA states, as hillary lost im guess im gonna have to support the guy lol. --— Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 18:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It a bit too late for this one but when we go onto the next topic we should have a seperate section for votes and a seperate one for comments. Its a little messy and really had to pic out the votes. Some people havent bolded them either which is a nightmare. The blocked editer cast his vote from his talk page, ive provided links. Cheers. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 23:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ill take a look, ive only just got onlone and my watchlist is going crazy, everything seemed fine when I went offline last night, ill take a look asap. Cheers. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 16:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, firstly dont let ips vote, they shouldnt. I think we need to let it chill, #3 will be the consensus, its just a matter of when. There is a lot of partisan talk from both sides, both sides need to consider that #3 is the balanced opinon. Ill leave further comments at talk page. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 17:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would just wait, if these are socks they will be banned, their votes can be removed and a consensus of #3 will push through relatively easily. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 18:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I cant even look at that discussion anymore, too much is going on. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 16:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

Just a suggestion, don't respond to Andy's comments on his talk page (or other peoples' talk pages) about you for now. He's imploding well enough on his own right now and the last thing that is needed is for someone to accuse you of baiting him. Not that I'm saying you are baiting, but it's best to leave this as a disagreement between Andy and several admins. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just as an FYI, people generally only get in trouble with canvasing if that person only contacts contacts people that are more likely to agree with their opinion, not just because they spam multiple article talk pages. So if Noroton had only put his message on the talk pages for Republican articles and user talk pages for people he thinks will agree with him and not on the talk pages for Democratic articles and the user talk pages for people that will not agree with him, then there'd be a case for canvasing. However, he seems to have hit both Dem and Rep articles and several "neutral" locations. I could have done with a better wording of his message, but as far as where he left his messages, I don't think he's in trouble with WP:CANVAS. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 17:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obama

See my comment on the talk page of the article regarding the archiving issue.--JForget 01:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image facing

Ah, now I see. Hadn't occurred to me. Thanks. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 20:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article ban

Hi Simon, I was thinking, perhaps it's best to take a break from editing the Barrack Obama article? I mean, this edit warring business is silly especially with that Andy user. It's completely voluntary, of course. It's up to you, my friend. Regards, Pat. Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 15:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for your opinion

		Please Vote For Change We Can Believe In Or Even No Change at Obama Article
		Requesting your final opinion on the Bill Ayers language You previously !voted (here) on what language to use at the Barack Obama page. We're trying to get a consensus now. Please take another look at how the discussion has progressed (especially here) and consider what option might make the best consensus, then !vote again at Talk:Barack Obama#Call the question after detailed discussion: Option 3 or not?. Please keep in mind the discussion has been long, so if you can accept what seems to be a likely option, please do. This is one of Wikipedia's most prominent articles. Thank you. Noroton (talk) 23:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3.99 GPA

I must know, what cost you the last hundredth? Shem^(talk) 01:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quartermaster chiming in on Obama article and Rezko edits (as well as other stuff)

You come across as an exquisitely honest editor regarding the Obama article. You're a good shepherd. I will tread lightly per your suggestions. Have a barnstar.

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

Revert war

Please accept my caution that revert warring on either side of the Barack Obama article could be seen as disruptive. Given the heat on this article you might want to take a step back. A number of administrators are watching, and probably growing increasingly impatient. They'll clean up the mess sooner or later, and just as a prediction you probably don't want to be one of the people they see in a revert contest or talk page flame war when they finally take action. I happen to agree in substance with your edits and your reasoning (mostly) so the purpose of this notice is not to object. Just urging you to keep cool. For every person participating in the drama, there are probably twenty or more watching on the sidelines, and ten thousand reading the article daily. Those people are the real audience here, and they will respect patience over verbal fighting. Thanks, Wikidemo (talk) 02:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Media coverage

Hey, Jessey. I'm afraid it's just one of those things that're notable simply because the media's decided they're notable. Do I personally think it's fair to dedicate an entire paragraph to media coverage of an incident wherein Obama's accused of no wrongdoing whatsoever? Certainly not, but the media's Rezko obsession made an impact whether I find it fair or not.

From a wider perspective, I'm more worried about a certain serial polygraph-failing con artist being given a platform at the National Press Club today (see Talk:Larry Sinclair). What's Wikipedia to do if the media gives substantial coverage to unsubstantiated, certifiably libelous allegations? I worry the project's BLP policy is on track for a head-on collision with the media's recent low standards. Shem^(talk) 01:05, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't change others' talk page comments

Don't do it unless you know there's a specific part of Wikipedia policy or guidelines that allows you to do it. WP:TALK specifically tells you that you can't do it, and what the exceptions are. It's considered disruptive. Noroton (talk) 00:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 92: / Line 92: @@
 From a wider perspective, I'm more worried about a certain serial polygraph-failing con artist being given a platform at the National Press Club today (see [[Talk:Larry Sinclair]]).  What's Wikipedia to do if the media gives substantial coverage to unsubstantiated, certifiably libelous allegations?  I worry the project's BLP policy is on track for a head-on collision with the media's recent low standards. [[User:Shem|Shem]]<sup>[[User talk:Shem|(talk)]]</sup> 01:05, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
+==Don't change others' talk page comments==
+Don't do it unless you know there's a specific part of Wikipedia policy or guidelines that allows you to do it. [[WP:TALK]] specifically tells you that you can't do it, and what the exceptions are. It's considered disruptive. [[User:Noroton|Noroton]] ([[User talk:Noroton|talk]]) 00:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)