User talk:Scjessey

Simon Jessey

Simon Jessey

This user supports the fight against breast cancer.

enThis user is a native speaker of the English language.

This user has made over 28,000 edits on Wikipedia, including deleted edits.

This user has edited over 8,000 unique Wikipedia pages.

This user has been on Wikipedia for 19 years, 4 months and 5 days.

This user is a donor to the Wikimedia Foundation. You can be one, too.

This user has been editing Wikipedia for more than 15 years.

This user never employs socks.
Review my IP's contributions.

53YThis Wikipedian was born on 6 March 1971 and is 53 years, 2 months, and 10 days old.

This user is from England.

This user lives in the U.S. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

This user is mixed-handed.

STAR TREK

This user likes firing all phasers and a full spread of photon torpedoes.

I ride a British motorcycle.

DH	This user has a website hosted by DreamHost.

This user believes in eating proper food.

This user believes that butter tablet is the finest confectionery mankind has ever created.

Diet Coke

Diet Pepsi is no match for Diet Coke. Not even close.

diet PEPSI

IIFYMThis user follows a low carb, low fat and high protein diet.

This user is an ally of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and trans community.

If in doubt, leave it out.
Consensus before contentious.

— Simon Jessey

Simon Christopher Jessey (born 6 March 1971) is a British web designer and college instructor, currently living in Malvern, Pennsylvania.

Biography

Simon Jessey was born in Rochford, Essex, the son of Michael Jessey and Brenda Jessey (née Chorley) and spent most of his childhood in Ashtead, Surrey. Between 1988 and 2001, he worked as a videotape editor for a Wandsworth-based corporate video production company. Following an internet romance, Jessey met and married Deborah Ryan (née McCown), an American web developer for the Vanguard Group, and the mother of two children. He is now a part-time college instructor, web designer, and web standards evangelist.

Politics and religion

Jessey describes himself as a conservative liberal. From the liberal perspective he is pro-choice, a secularist, and believes strongly in free speech; however, he advocates minimizing the tax burden and reducing state intervention. He dislikes government corruption, lobbying, and any kind of pork barrel politics. Jessey categorizes himself as an explicit atheist, insofar as he regards the concept of a god or gods to be ridiculous. He believes that religion (particularly "organized" religion) does more harm than good, and should be actively discouraged.

Getting around

Countries lived in

England, The United States of America

Countries visited

Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, England, France, Germany, Malta, Spain, United States of America, Wales

U.S. States visited

Delaware, District of Columbia, Kentucky, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia

External links

• si-blog - personal weblog
• Keystone Websites - web design firm

Other Stuff

• Simon's Sandbox
• Userboxes
• Userboxes include
• Purge this page

This editor is a Tutnum and is entitled to display this Book of Knowledge.	nomen or birth name Simon in hieroglyphs Era: Old Kingdom (2686–2181 BC)
	nomen or birth name Deborah in hieroglyphs Era: Old Kingdom (2686–2181 BC)

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 and ArbCom ruling

what a dipshit

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)

knock knock

I have left faggy 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)

Michael Jackson is adead pedophile

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)

Blocked

Hey. Because of your edit penis 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)

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)

That's just totally ridiculous, and especially unbelievable given that this is my own talk page. Shamefully bad block, Sarek. I have attempted to explain to Grundle why his approach is problematic, and you have blocked me for it. Neither a personal attack nor harassment. I will consider bringing up your block-happy approach at WP:ANI as soon as this bad block expires, because this is your second bad block of my account. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I've unblocked you, after discussion with Sarek. I agree this block was overly severe, given the phrase cited as the blocking reason, which occurred in the context of a legitimate spirited debate. Still, you'd probably do well to try to keep the rhetoric down in some other contexts you are involved in discussions. -- Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the review and the unblock. I will take on board your suggestion, and the suggestions of the blocking administrator and try to moderate my comments in future. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Though it's over now, I'd just like to second the view that this was a bad block, as there's really nothing uncivil in Scjessey's comment. And I say this as one who warned him about some recent incivility in the section immediately below this one about 10 hours before the block happened. Bad call here by Sarek I'm afraid. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 16:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

User:SarekOfVulcan/Recall criteria--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

? Wikidemon (talk) 16:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Just in case he felt it was something he needed to know.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:06, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Just offering my own two cents (I'm not sure if the recall link was for me or Scjessey or anyone who happened by), I certainly don't think this is remotely cause for recall. I just don't think a block was at all needed in this circumstance. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Me neither. I'm not interested in turning this into a big deal. I didn't like getting either of the harassment blocks, as I believed them to be unwarranted, but the good admin work that Sarek does far outweighs what I perceive as the bad. I do not see any reason to take this further, but I reserve the right to stamp and scream and throw my toys out of the pram at some point in the future. ;) -- Scjessey (talk) 19:19, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

RE : Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above.

• Stevertigo (talk · contribs), Sceptre (talk · contribs), ChildofMidnight (talk · contribs), Scjessey (talk · contribs) and Grundle2600 (talk · contribs) are admonished for their edit-warring. Furthermore, they shall be subject to an editing restriction for one year. They are limited to one revert per page per week (except for undisputable vandalism and BLP violations), and are required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page.
• In addition, Scjessey (talk · contribs) and ChildofMidnight (talk · contribs) are topic-banned from Obama-related articles for six months, including talk pages.
• ChildofMidnight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Scjessey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are not to interact with each other, including replying or reverting of each other’s actions. ChildofMidnight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Wikidemon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are not to interact with each other, including replying or reverting of each other’s actions.

Non-compliance to the above are grounds for blocking for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling.

• Wikidemon (talk · contribs) is admonished for his part in the edit warring.
• Grsz11 (talk · contribs) and Tarc (talk · contribs) are reminded to be civil when dealing with hot-button and controversial situations.
• Baseball Bugs (talk · contribs) is reminded to be more civil when dealing with users and to not use talk pages as a forum.

The probation on articles relating to Barack Obama will be reviewed by a group of involved and non-involved editors and administrators to see how effective it has been. The process will last two weeks. After the two weeks elapse, the working group will provide their findings to us and the community, and will outline how the article probation will run in the future.

- For the Arbitration Committee, Mailer Diablo 15:38, 21 June 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)

Message from Scjessey concerning Obama-related articles

I have de-watchlisted all Obama-related articles (and talk pages) for the time being because I could use a break from them and a glorious summer beckons. Any editing of this group of articles that I do will be restricted to reverting or fixing vandalism/spam I have spotted while patrolling Special:RecentChanges. I'm happy to answer questions related to this group of articles, but I would prefer to stick to user talk pages for now. Keep me posted here if anything interesting happens. I will continue to monitor the Obama-pages ArbCom thang. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Update

It seems as if ArbCom is planning to topic-ban me from this group of articles for 6 months, which seems harsh and unnecessary. Of more concern is an inexplicable 1-year, Wikipedia-wide editing restriction, which will leave me unable to do my usual "article patrol" activities. The ArbCom process does not seem to include much in the way of discussion, so I was unable to defend myself or even get clarification for questions I had. Oh well. It is what it is. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:49, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of DreamHost

An article that you have been involved in editing, DreamHost, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DreamHost_(2nd_nomination). Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Judas278 (talk) 17:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration request

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#DreamHost and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requesting Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks,--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

changes on Bashir page

Dear Scjessey,

Allow me to explain why I changed some lines on the 'Martin Bashir' page (which you very quickly changed back). I have also included these reason's on the discussion page.

- Bashir has lost credibility when it specifically comes to his statements about Michael Jackson. To come to this conclusion, you only have to compare his documentary 'Living with Michael Jackson' to the rebuttal 'Living with Michael Jackson, take two'. Therefore the line 'Bashir himself states he has no personal vandetta against Jackson, even calling him "the greatest entertainer" in an interview with the British newspaper, The Sun' must be deleted. Bashir saying with crocodile tears that 'the world has lost the greatest entertainer', after the role he played in MJ demise is not believable to put it mildly.

- It is a fact that Bashir came fifth in the notorious Channel 4 poll 100 Worst Britons, and this was a result of the Michael Jackson interview controversy, so this line deserves to be restored.

- Michael of course contributed greatly to his own demise by saying the things he said, but rogue editing and perhaps even more importantly praising Michael's actions off-camera (off Bashir's camera to be precise), whilst feiging concern on-camera most likely caused even more damage. (In short: it was no fair interview.) Therefore the sentence 'the most damning parts of the documentary were quotes from Jackson directly and not due to any rogue editing' must be deleted.

I ask to please take these reason's seriously and to please revert your reversion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.238.152.16 (talk) 02:55, 2 July 2009 (UTC)