User talk:Scjessey: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 20:25, 5 September 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.

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]

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]

Your edits are being discussed

User talk:HandThatFeeds#Closing ANI here - I am notifying you, without comment, because I think you are entitled to know that sanctions against you are being discussed with an administrator. Wikidemo (talk) 02:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion

Hello! I removed a CSD tag you placed on Korto Momolu, and redirected it to Project Runway (season 5), since there was no more content there than in the PR article. Note that WP:CSD#A7 is only in cases where notability is not asserted. It seems clear that competing on a reality TV show bradcast nationally is an assertion of notability, even if he doesn't meet the guidelines for an entire article. Just thought I'd clear up my removal of the template. - Toon⁰⁵ 21:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know, I completely agree that reality TV shows are a sad indication of a celeb-crazed society in which people just want to be famous. At least we don't (usually) give them their own articles! - Toon⁰⁵ 21:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, you are allowed to remove warnings and block notices per WP:TALK - expecially as blocks are recorded in your block log - Toon⁰⁵ 15:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obama page

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with Mr. Obama's biography. Have you read it? If so, you would find that Jeremiah Wright is the predominant figure in Obama's conversion to Christianity. Please look into that in the future before making edits that only remove pertinent information and restore redundancy. Trilemma (talk) 20:31, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you are familiar with Obama, then you know how instrumental Wright was to Obama's conversion. Do you need me to find interviews and specific book references? The pertinent information includes when and how Obama converted to Christianity, considering that he did not become a Christian until adulthood. Trilemma (talk) 20:45, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The heading is about Obama's religion. Not only is it relevant for background detail, but being that it became a major campaign issue, his relationship with Jeremiah Wright must be mentioned. Trilemma (talk) 20:56, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion

Could you please explain why manchin is a personal attack?

Thanks, John —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inetace (talk • contribs) 21:26, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably the implications of the "popularity" and "placement" sections in combination with one another. Also, I can't locate a single source indicating that such a thing exists. Can you please provide reliable sources? Thanks, --Clubjuggle ^T/C 21:37, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the thing doesn't exist but that doesn't make it an attack page. I declined the CSD for this reason. If you believe that it doesn't exist, you can tag it as vandalism (WP:CSD#G3). Oren0 (talk) 21:45, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kind words

Thanks for the thought. I'm actually going through a fair amount right now — not only my father's hip surgery, but last month I donated bone marrow to my mother, who is battling lymphoma. One of my sisters is staying with her in an apartment in Baltimore, taking her to Johns Hopkins daily for treatment. So I took some time off from work and came down to Virginia to help my father until he's self-sufficient again. "When sorrows come, they come not single spies, but in battalions." But we're all holding up OK so far.

Anyway, I hope this explains why I haven't been as active on the Obama pages in the last month or so! I'm still dabbling in Wikipedia here and there, recreationally, but I don't have the energy for the political battles right now. (Editing pages on Doctor Who is much more relaxing!)

I do wish you luck in keeping the Obama pages consistent with NPOV and BLP. The next three months are going to be long! :) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:59, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your note to User:CJK

While a template message can be helpful to new users who are still learning their way around, when communicating with established editors it's usually better to use a more personalized message. Established editors are likely familiar with policy (even if they've inadvertently violated it). With established editors, there's also a greater chance of a good-faith misunderstanding. A personalized note invites discussion and is more likely to resolve any such misunderstandings. Thanks, --Clubjuggle ^T/C 07:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Ecodestrian

An article that you have been involved in editing, Ecodestrian, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ecodestrian. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 21:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Care to explain?

Why did you undo my changes? They are factual and relevant. Jwissick ^(t)^(c) 21:40, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Misspoken? No way. That's like a proctologist misspeaking and saying he is a brain surgeon. There is NO way that was a simple error. He was clearly claiming credit for something he didn't do. Jwissick ^(t)^(c) 23:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, YouTube is not the source... but the HOST. The SOURCE in this case would be MSNBC. MSNBC is a legitimate source. Jwissick ^(t)^(c) 23:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New template

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, that an article to which you have recently contributed, Talk:Barack Obama, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation. Please accept this as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that you have violated the probation terms. Thank you.

Hi. I know you know, I'm just trying out a new notice template that I'm planning on distributing to a few people. You're the first-ever recipient - not trying to prove anything by that, just hoping for a friendly audience. Cheers, Wikidemo (talk) 04:32, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

FYI, you're being discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Scjessey_harassment. I think it's best that you don't leave messages on User_talk:CENSEI anymore. Friday (talk) 21:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy tag on Bernie Wandel

Hi Simon. Just to let you know I removed the speedy on that article and added some references. Feel free to bring it to AfD, though, if you think further discussion is needed. Best, Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:36, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough; I won't hold it against you. :) Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:49, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing the pic

How do you do that? Noroton (talk) 00:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I wasn't clear: How do you change a pic after it's already been initially uploaded? I don't know how to do that. By the way, do you have the book? It's very good. ;) -- Noroton (talk) 01:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good! Check's in the mail. When can I move in? -- Noroton (talk) 02:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inviting your comment

Here (and also, if possible, here?) $\sim$ Justmeherenow ( ) 05:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obama

It references the Italian article. The scoop was by Vanity Fair Italia, not Vanity Fair. About the reference to L'Indipendente, you can keep or remove, as you like, but cosider that the reference to the Telegraph is not to the original source too, so it is worth as well as mine.--Dejudicibus (talk) 13:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC) PS. I did not reverted your removal but specified that you cannot find the articl ein the English version of Vanity Fair since the interview was a mondial exclusive interview to the Italian magazine. I assume what I did is correct.--Dejudicibus (talk) 13:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting statement. So you state that a blog is by definition less reliable than a newspaper. Why? (it is a serious question, not a provocation) [PS Sorry for duplicates but I still have to understand how to manage a thread or discussion on two differente pages. I found no way to keep the thread in a single page. This mechanism of talk page is confusing me.]--Dejudicibus (talk) 13:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the "routine friendly notice", pal

Thank you so much for that little message. I earnestly followed the link to the page (which I actually had already seen before), and found the following very useful advice that, with a feeling of overflowing gratitude, must share with you. Please benefit from it:

Avoid repeatedly discussing other editors, discuss the article instead;

Cheers!

Noroton (talk) 22:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I made the notice, so I don't want anyone feeling unhappy to get it. Consider it an honor! But really, I'm thinking that if someone has demonstrated through their comments or by participation in on the article probation meta-pages that they are aware of probation, it's not necessary to give a notice at all - one can simply link to the diff where they acknowledged that they knew about probation. The only purpose here is to ensure that people get notice, both as an aid to administrators reviewing possible sanctions but also as a way to point the fact out to new users on the page. Hope this helps. Wikidemo (talk) 23:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scjessey, you have that diff! Please feel free to complain that I'm disagreeing with you. I'm sure your complaint will get the full consideration that it deserves. Cheers! Noroton (talk) 23:13, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On Barack Obama

If YouTube was "bad" (which was not to my best judgement - unless you are a die-hard Republican), then why did you not care to maintain my resizing of the main photograph (I did give a reason for that in my edit summary)? Please kindly do not respond to this message, as I do not intend to argue; I just wished to convey that I feel deeply offended by your unreasonable reverting of my contributions. --BF 00:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I filed a complaint against you for violating the Obama article probation

The complaint is here. -- Noroton (talk) 20:59, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: Discussion about you on ANI.

Please check this out and comment. I can't really understand what this is about. Thanks! =) [1] --mboverload @ 02:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are mentioned in an Obama incident report

HereTalk:Barack Obama/Article probation/Incidents#Noroton - courtesy notice. - Wikidemo (talk) 10:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

edit summary

Ha - yeah, that's what happens when they let me edit at 2:30 in the morning... Tvoz/talk 18:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Image:Simon jessey 2005.jpg

A tag has been placed on Image:Simon jessey 2005.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I8 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is available as a bit-for-bit identical copy on the Wikimedia Commons under the same name, or all references to the image on Wikipedia have been updated to point to the title used at Commons.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:Image:Simon jessey 2005.jpg|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Scjessey (talk) 21:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford Wikimania 2010 and Wikimedia UK v2.0 Notice

Hi,

As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.

We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.

You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Wikipedia:Meetup, for updates on future meets.

We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!

Addbot (talk) 20:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:DreamHost Icon.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:DreamHost Icon.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obama-Ayers Controversy

You are invited to participate in the dispute mediation regarding POV in the Obama-Ayers Controversy article. Thank you. Freedom Fan (talk) 19:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Obama Image

I apologize for not using the talk page to come to a consensus with you. I'm not a frequent contributor of Wikipedia, so I don't use the user talk page all that much. As for the Obama probation, I must've missed the part which specifically mentioned that all Obama-related articles are under probation -- I reread to confirm.

Still, I believe my contribution is valid. I do not see how my contribution was original research. The facts I stated may be verified from multiple sources, and I believe the events mentioned are common knowledge. The only opinion specifically expressed in my contribution was not mine and was paraphrased from a reliable source, The Politico. The opinion may be critical, but that is valid content for a biography of a living person which the article falls under.

As for undue weight, I believe that instead of deleting contributions, other contributors should add to the article since to me it appears that the article is relatively short and lacking in content. If contributions are reverted because they only add a small piece to the bigger picture then the article will not be able to grow. From what I've seen, great Wikipedia articles are created from multiple small contributions.

--Amwestover (talk) 21:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've revised my contribution to the Cultural and political image of Barack Obama article and would appreciate your opinions and contributions.

--Amwestover (talk) 16:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism?

I'm curious why you felt the IP-editor's question at Talk:Barack Obama was vandalism? It's certainly a contentious topic that's been beaten to death, but I don't see any evidence that it's vandalism (unless I'm missing something, which is certainly possible). --Clubjuggle ^T/C 15:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barack Obama

For your information my addition to Barack Obama was neutral and well sourced. For the future please discuss on Wikipedia:WikiProject Political parties which I head. --Megapen (talk) 21:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still looking...

Can you give me the link to "months of talk page discussion on Obama's associations with both individuals, including the most recent consensus debate." Thanks, I am a vandal fighter too.. --Megapen (talk) 21:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly. The most recent consensus debate is here, but you can actually go back into almost every page of the talk page archive since April and see exhaustive discussion. Please note that it even has its own article: Obama–Ayers controversy -- Scjessey (talk) 22:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I report re. Weathermen / terrorists

An AN/I report has been started here concerning the WP:TERRORIST dispute at Weatherman (organization) and the events described at Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation/Incidents#Scjessey and Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation/Incidents#Noroton. Your user name has come up in the discussion. This is a courtesy notice that you and/or matters in which you participated on one of these pages, are at issue in the AN/I report. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 02:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

September 2008

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

I'm not seeing edit warring at the article, and I believe this was a simple mistake after reviewing the contribution history of Scjessy and the filer of the original 3RR report. Wikidemon is not completely innocent in this whole matter, and these type of reports and tenacious/gaming editing practices is becoming tiring. That said, I don't think that ceasing editing at Barack Obama is necessary, but please be aware of the sanctions that are in existence and save wholesale reverts for blatant vandalism. Cheers, seicer | talk | contribs 04:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request handled by: seicer | talk | contribs 04:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Scjessey (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

It appears I am still blocked, even though my block log says otherwise. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I'm unable to find any block affecting you. Chances are this will go away on its own. You might try clearing your browser's cache; it's possible it had saved the block message. If not, it's probably an autoblock, in which case you need to post the entire text of what you see when you try to edit. Mango juice^talk 13:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Name

Yeah, now that you mention it, I think it did go something like that. But I think the whole thing was a manufactured problem anyway - don't remember now who was behind it, or why, but it seems to me to be unnecessary to footnote his name specifically or repeat it - what point is being made? I didn't remove the source, by the way, I just moved it to the end of the sentence as it verifies the facts. Could expand the footnote to include the full name, I suppose. I don't think this is a big deal either way, but it stuck out to me reading today, even though I've read this article hundreds of times. Tvoz/talk 23:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to dig through the history/archives to find a link, but the reference after the name was used to support the "II" vs. "Jr.". --Bobblehead ^(rants) 16:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Autoblock of 69.142.97.141 lifted or expired.

Request handled by: UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 15:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You should be fine now. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 15:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on Weathermen, Ayers, Dohrm, Obama, and "terrorism"

Please note that I have created an RfC to discuss the matter of whether, how, and where we should use and cover the designation "terrorist" describe the Weathermen and their former leaders. It is located here: Talk:Weatherman (organization)/Terrorism RfC. The intent is to decide as a content matter (and not as a behavioral issue regarding the editors involved) how to deal with this question. I am notifying you because you appear to have participated in or commented about this issue before. Feel free to participate. Thank you. Wikidemon (talk) 20:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 229: / Line 229: @@
 You should be fine now. [[User:Ultraexactzz|UltraExactZZ]] <sup> [[User_talk:Ultraexactzz|Claims]] </sup>~<small> [[Special:Contributions/Ultraexactzz|Evidence]] </small> 15:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
+== RfC on Weathermen, Ayers, Dohrm, Obama, and "terrorism" ==
+Please note that I have created an [[WP:RfC|RfC]] to discuss the matter of whether, how, and where we should use and cover the designation "terrorist" describe the Weathermen and their former leaders.  It is located here: [[Talk:Weatherman (organization)/Terrorism RfC]].  The intent is to decide as a content matter (and not as a behavioral issue regarding the editors involved) how to deal with this question.  I am notifying you because you appear to have participated in or commented about this issue before.  Feel free to participate.  Thank you.  [[User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon]] ([[User talk:Wikidemon|talk]]) 20:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)