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.

Fine page!

That's a very attractive talkpage you've got here. Minimalist yet striking. darwinbish ^BITE ☠ 23:34, 11 November 2016 (UTC).

December 2016

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Barack Obama, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. William Avery (talk) 13:34, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

This was not me. I think my account was compromised. I have changed my password. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:43, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

HJ Mitchell I see you have blocked me because of a compromised account. I have changed my password. Do I need to do anything else to get my editing privileges back? -- Scjessey (talk) 13:49, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Change your email. Marvellous Spider-Man 13:52, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Since we don't know whether the account is still compromised, and must assume it is at this time, some convincing off-site verification will be necessary, preferably using a pre-established non-compromised identity. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:55, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

@Marvellous Spider-Man: The email account associated with my Wikipedia account? I'm not sure what purpose that would serve. My original Wikipedia password (now changed) was not used for anything else. It would be awesome if two-factor authentication was a fully rolled out feature on Wikipedia. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:56, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

@Zzuuzz: Erm... okay. Any suggestions? -- Scjessey (talk) 13:58, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

• Note - I have a meeting I need to go to for about four hours, so I will be away from Wikipedia. If anyone has any good ideas about how I can get unblocked in the meantime, I would greatly appreciate it. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:01, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry about this, Simon, but you'll need to find some way of proving that you're the real Scjessey. Are there admins or well-known editors you know in real life or you've contacted off-wiki that you can contact to verify who you are? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:02, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I suggest a selfie photo taken holding today's newspaper. That could be compared to the photo on his user page.- MrX 14:10, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I'd be satisfied with that. Thanks, MrX. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:24, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

@HJ Mitchell: I don't get a newspaper, but I can take a selfie with this talk page in the picture (functionally equivalent) and then upload it to my personal website. If that doesn't prove I'm me, I don't know what does. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:20, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

@HJ Mitchell: Okay, I've done it. Please don't laugh when you click on this proof it is me. You may need to copy/paste the URL directly into your browser because of the way my server is setup. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:27, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

@MrX: I've had to do a modified version of your idea. Not getting any responses though. Any chance you could mention my plight to a passing admin for me? -- Scjessey (talk) 18:35, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I get a "forbidden" error there. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:38, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

You should be able to just go to the link directly in your browser. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:42, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Works with a copy/paste. It's him (with a sad look)  :)) --TMCk (talk) 18:44, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

That's a relief. I was going to do a Google Photos link, but Google uses a URL shortener that Wikipedia apparently blocks. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:47, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

@TracyMcClark: Well... I'm bummed about being blocked. With that said, I can appreciate the humor of the situation as well as the inconvenience of it. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:49, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I definitely can see your frustration in the pic. The little ordeal should be over shortly, tho. Cheers, --TMCk (talk) 18:54, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Seriously though. Wikipedia needs 2FA more than ever. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:49, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

• Unblocked. Hello there, Scjessey, welcome back. Me, I don't use 2FA (too inconvenient with all my socks, cough), but I have a strong-ass password. Bishonen | talk 18:56, 30 December 2016 (UTC).

• Bless you, Bishonen. Sorry for all the trouble everyone. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:57, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

• I can see it now. Was unblocking but Bish beat me to the button (she moves fast for a dinosaur!). I trust you have a strong password now? One that you don't use anywhere else (and FYI, MediaWiki supports absurdly long passwords)? Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:01, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

• Thank you, User:HJ Mitchell. My password is much stronger now. Fortunately, I never use the same password on different accounts. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:03, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

• Any idea how his happened then? Reuse of passwords between websites was thought to be the cause of the last incident like this. Might be worth an email to the WMF. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:09, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

• I have absolutely no idea. The only thing I can think of is that I've had the same password for years and never really given it much thought. I will change it on a regular basis from now on. And now I think of it, I have a global Wikimedia login setup. I'd better check to see if anything else has been messed with. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:18, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

FYI: A password manager like Lastpass can come in very handy to prevent password reuse. Twitbookspacetube (talk) 03:09, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

As I indicated earlier, password reuse wasn't the issue because I don't reuse passwords. The problem is more likely related to the fact I've not changed the password for many years and it wasn't nearly strong enough. I was just lazy about it. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:46, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

RfC Notice

There is a Request for Comment posted at Talk:New York Daily News#Request for Comment. You are being notified as one of every registered editor who has edited that article in that past year. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:58, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

December 2017

To enforce an arbitration decision and for violating the sanctions already in place, specifically you did not get the required consensus before restoring challenged material (with this edit) on the page Presidency of Donald Trump, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 19:06, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

---

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

@Coffee: Thank you for the absurdly aggressive enforcement detailed above, which was enacted more than 24 hours after the original edit took place, and which I did not interpret as a sanction violation anyway. I recognize that Arbitration Enforcement is a thankless job that few editors want to perform, and I thank you for stepping up to the plate and doing this important task, but I think even a cursory glance at my editing record would lead most people to think a knee-jerk block for a single edit I had made with a satisfactory explanatory edit summary was just a bit harsh. Anyway, I respect your authority and this will be my only complaint about the matter. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:13, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't request anyone respect authority, just the process; your cordiality and understanding, however, are noted and appreciated (not seen often while doing this). I prefer that blocks not be punitive, only preventative. If you can give me your word that you will not repeat such behavior, I will gladly lift the sanction. As is always my standard policy with first time offenses. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 16:56, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

@Coffee: In all honesty, I did not believe I had violated discretionary sanctions (I would never knowingly do so), but I concede that my interpretation may have been in error. I think the block has expired now anyway, but I thank you for the offer. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:19, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

A pie for you!

Thanks for your contributions to WP! Sorry for the whole Trump thing. Hopefully I did not come off in a bad light. I was not trying to be an ass or anything. As I said I don't think either of us did anything particularly reprehensible, but I still feel responsible for getting us both sacked. Hope this pie makes up for anything I did or failed to do. Cheers (and for the record I'm not a MAGA person, not that I would let it get in the way of NPOV if I was) ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 16:45, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Civility Barnstar
		For being unbelievably civil in your response to a frustrating situation here in our community of volunteers (the irony of the beverage in this barnstar is not lost on me). 172.56.21.117 (talk) 21:01, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

DT talk page

Regarding SPECIFICO's actions here [1] and [2], I assure you that my comments were not at all intended to be an attack on you, personal or otherwise, rather - as I pointed out - a comment on the snark behind your comments. I was very clear when I stated that I wasn't saying your comments at any American-focused article aren't welcome because you aren't an American. If I had said otherwise, that would have been a personal attack. But, if you did take it that way and were offended, I do apologize. That was certainly not my intent. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 19:31, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Snark? Scjessey? I've never seen it. SPECIFICO talk 19:43, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Re: COI claim

All I did was run a Google search using that username. I didn't reveal anything about him that isn't obtainable from a simple Google search of his username. Andrevan@ 16:59, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Turns out that's against the policy as it is "attempted outing." That's an unforced error on my part. Oh well. Andrevan@ 17:56, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Ambien editing

You'd better stop doing that. I have it on good authority that it turns you racist. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:04, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Out of line

Run its course. -- Scjessey (talk) 09:36, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Your recent comment about American people[3] was out of line; I took the liberty to hat it. Please edit respectfully. — JFG talk 04:27, 11 June 2018 (UTC) @JFG: Actually, no. It was 100% truthful. Please don't presume to edit my comments again. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:33, 11 June 2018 (UTC) I did not edit your comment; I found it out of line and unhelpful towards improving the article, so I hatted it and informed you here. Meanwhile somebody else unhatted it, which I find regrettable but won't contest. — JFG talk 19:06, 11 June 2018 (UTC) I agree. Perhaps a civility vio is in order since he doesn't seem to understand the gravity of his comment. Atsme📞📧 19:45, 11 June 2018 (UTC) Not sure whether WP:CIVIL policy should extend to all "horrid racists and gullible idiots", or if it was just designed for us lowly Wikipedians. — JFG talk 21:13, 11 June 2018 (UTC) @Atsme and JFG: If you two would like to chat with each other about this, please do so on one of your own talk pages, rather than here. My comment was entirely factual (you can even find tons of sourcing to back it up), and also went on to address the absurd claim that the tax returns issue was "stale". I get that some members of Trump's cult would find my comment hits a nerve, but I don't care about that in the slightest. If you can't see why the comment is factual and necessary, you are part of the problem. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:20, 11 June 2018 (UTC) I'm pinging NeilN to see what he thinks about Scjessey's comment being 100% "truthful" and "factual", or if it was indeed a violation of WP:CIVIL, or perhaps even WP:BLP. Atsme📞📧 21:26, 11 June 2018 (UTC) Sigh. Be my guest. By all means try to use wikilawyering to get someone you often disagree with sanctioned. I'm used to it. The comment in question didn't target any editors, and it was a direct response to the FORUMy stuff you posted with that silly claim about the tax return thing being "stale". -- Scjessey (talk) 21:33, 11 June 2018 (UTC) Nobody was trying to get you sanctioned - we just want you to understand why your comment was out of line. Your refusal to accept that fact is why I'm asking for outside help. Atsme📞📧 21:41, 11 June 2018 (UTC) Methinks there's too much thin skin around here. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 22:12, 11 June 2018 (UTC) Bull, as an American you should thank them for protecting you from something or other. SPECIFICO talk 23:19, 11 June 2018 (UTC) LMAO! Riiiight.... Unfortunately the thin skinned ones are defending the orange one attacking American democracy and just confirming the truth of the offending statement. Sad. Yes, it's a strong personal opinion, but was not directed at any editor, so that they take offense is very telling. Even more sad. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 00:59, 12 June 2018 (UTC) I hadn't thought of it that way. Easier for editors w/o any political views. Just slice and dice the RS. SPECIFICO talk 01:31, 12 June 2018 (UTC) There are many ways of thinking about it, but letting it affect oneself is a sign of weakness. They should just bend and not let it affect their balance. Their resistance and objection allows the adversary to have power over them and push them out of balance. That's what the thin skinned are doing. They are allowing that statement to have power over them. They should grow thicker skin and show they are above such things. Ignoring perceived slights is a sign of strength and infuriates the adversary. They are missing an opportunity by reacting. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:04, 12 June 2018 (UTC) Dear BullRangifer, I don't know what the heck you're talking about. For the record, I don't feel offended in the slightest, I was just trying to maintain a modicum of decorum in our most-viewed political talk page. Speaking as an encyclopedist. — JFG talk 04:47, 12 June 2018 (UTC) Scjessey, can you do us all a favor and provide the sources you say exist that back up your statement? --NeilN talk to me 04:27, 12 June 2018 (UTC) I can't speak for him, but when I read his comment (discovered only because of all the Streisand effect caused by this thin skinned hub bub here), I recognize it basically as a reflection, or other expression of, the content of the Basket of deplorables article. There are plenty of sources there. He may have worded it a bit crudely (not forbidden here), but basically true, and the POV of the largest portion of voters in the election, and born out by current history. It's Scjessey's personal opinion, not aimed at any named editors, and some people should just learn to chill and not be so thin skinned, instead of using it as an excuse to put on their battle attire. Their reaction is exactly what WP:BATTLE is about. It's that tendency to pick up a stick, rather than drop it. That's been my whole point here. I'm not going to defend the comment, as such. I just think that editors who seek to escalate conflicts, and make more of a personal remark than is warranted, are creating too much drama and turning this place into a battlefield. Then when admins arrive on the scene, or the minor comment is blown up and dragged to a drama board they can abuse, the admins should look at the situation and see who is making the most disruption: Was it Scjessey's slightly emotional and pretty passive en passant muttering of frustration, or those who blew it up into far more than it was, showing that they are the ones looking for a fight? Who expended the most effort to make sure a dying ember was not allowed to disappear into oblivion, but kept alive and blasted into a forest fire? Who really started that forest fire using active measures? They are the ones who need a bucket of cold water poured over their heads and told to get a thicker skin, grow up, and not think of abusing drama boards or crying MAMA to admins. They are busy enough. At least JFG was mature enough to say they weren't planning on doing anything more about it ("regrettable but won't contest"). Kudos to them for that. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:23, 12 June 2018 (UTC) I don't feel I need to justify myself just because two editors expressed mock outrage about the way I responded to a ludicrous comment claiming Democrats are out of touch with the American people, especially as my comment wasn't aimed at any specific editor or editors, but a 3-second Google search revealed a scholarly source saying race was a big reason for voting for Trump, and this article pointedly refers to Trump voters (and Republican voters in general) as idiots. There's plenty more where that came from, so how about we dial back the rhetoric for this non event? This kind of nonsensical attack on valued editors is exactly why so many regulars leave Wikipedia. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:47, 12 June 2018 (UTC) Can we talk about why NeilN has become the dial-an-admin for Atsme, et al? He's issued dismissive warnings here before (at the behest of a sock, no less), and doesn't seem to have the nuance necessary to see what's going on in this topic area. Admins SHOULD be better than this. 138.115.53.142 (talk) 17:55, 12 June 2018 (UTC) @IP138, can you please identify yourself? — JFG talk 18:10, 12 June 2018 (UTC) Lamest phishing attempt ever. 138.115.53.142 (talk) 18:35, 12 June 2018 (UTC) @IP138: I appreciate your support, but I disagree completely. NeilN (talk · contribs) has been a solid, impartial administrator in a seriously hot topic area that necessarily needs stricter policing than most of Wikipedia. Every editor I'm familiar with in the topic area, regardless of personal bias, seems to justifiably have full confidence in NeilN's ability to administrate with an even hand. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:33, 13 June 2018 (UTC) Funny how I ended up here, in this discussion, after clicking my way down from something else. Two cents' worth: As it happens, I'm far from a "Trump fan". I do not mind discussions with Trump supporters, even heated ones; just not in Wikipedia. I rarely if ever express personal opinions of any kind, and even less so, support them in Wikipedia. (I've done so plenty of times elsewhere and have admin'd message boards that make Wikipedia look like a primary school debate society, in terms of civility.) Cut to the chase: I would disagree with Scjessey's comments on Trump voters (I believe what drove Trump's victory was mainly something else IMO and not "racism," etc, and that's evidenced, inter alia, by Obama's recent two wins) but that is not why I do not want them on Wikipedia. It's just that they're unnecessary and highly counter-productive in the context of contributing to an encyclopaedia. Words such as "[insert here political inclination of choice] are clowns" I do not mind at all in real life; in fact, I find such ways of "arguing" the easiest to deal with! But with Wikipedia being foundationally (1) a collaborative project, (2) neutral, and (3) balanced, we are forced in a coexistence with persons of different viewpoints in almost everything. Volunteering to work together here, therefore, requires minimizing friction and adversarial interactions on the basis of ideological differences. (Am I trying to remove entirely social context from Wikipedia? I hope not! ) -The Gnome (talk) 05:26, 14 June 2018 (UTC) @The Gnome: I wasn't expressing an "opinion" about voters. It was a verifiable fact, backed by reliable sources. Nobody thought Trump would win when he announced his candidacy, but gradually it began to dawn on politicos that Trump's continuous attacks on Obama (questioning where he was born, questioning his religion, questioning his motives - all on the basis of race) were a vote-winning strategy. That, coupled with an astonishing willingness of the poorly educated and uninformed to vote completely against their own best interests if you chant horrible things like "lock her up" led to what turned out to be a stunning upset. Naked racism and stupidity, which Clinton more elegantly described as "deplorable", is why Trump won the election. Also, it was the culmination of a 30-year campaign by Republicans to brand knowledge as "elitism" and ignorance as "bliss". -- Scjessey (talk) 11:58, 14 June 2018 (UTC) Aaannddd you missed the point. PackMecEng (talk) 12:45, 14 June 2018 (UTC) You're saying, Scjessey, that what you wrote is a verifiable fact. Yet it's not. There are opinions (by others, if you prefer it this way, and not by you) that Trump won on the basis of "racism" and "xenophobia" but nowhere has this been documented by hard facts. Having a poll showing, for example (I'm making this up), that 95% of self-described racists voted for Trump does not mean that Trump won because the racists voted for him en masse. That would be simply bad statistics. There were other factors at work in the 2016 election; it was not a coincidence that all the candidates that were running on an "anti-establishment", "radical" campaign (whether genuine or not) were doing so well in the primaries, while the typical party-candidates were faring so badly (compared to expectations, at least). Bernie Sanders, for instance, was not a coincidence. Sanders has been around for a very long time; yet, it was in 2016 that he caught fire as a national politician. In 2012 and before that in 2008, Americans voted decisively for Barack Obama, a black, allegedly Muslim, possibly foreign-born guy. Yes, those allegations were proved entirely false but they were a strong weapon in the political battlefield for the presidency. They did not affect the race. So, there has been no indication that Americans suddenly turned more "racist" or more "rightward" or more "conservative" since Obama's time. On the contrary, we have solid evidence, e.g. the polls on gay marriage turning completely around, of Americans turning more liberal, and most prominently being seriously unsatisfied with their socioeconomic predicament. In so many words, characterizing as "racists" the American voters who elected (in terms of the electoral college but not in percentages) Donald Trump for president does not represent a fact. -The Gnome (talk) 13:19, 14 June 2018 (UTC) Scjessey wrote: I wasn't expressing an "opinion" about voters. Also Scjessey: Naked racism and stupidity […] is why Trump won the election. That's opinion. Did the same "flyover nation" people who voted for Obama twice suddenly turn racist? — JFG talk 13:52, 14 June 2018 (UTC) I'm not saying the racism and ignorance of the "deplorables" is the ONLY reason Trump got elected, but certainly it's a HUGE and VERIFIABLE reason. Did you not see all the rallies with Nazi symbolism, Confederate flags, ill-informed mouth breathers believing all the extensively documented lies pouring out of Trump's mouth, morons on TV saying they want "government out of their Medicare" and the like? All the articles in reliable sources pointing out these obvious facts aren't just stating opinions. Some of the editors contributing to politics-related articles are playing down these known knowns to help craft false balance narratives. The right wing echo chamber so successful, it is finally starting to have a serious impact on key Wikipedia articles. It's LAUGHABLE that editors believe an unsatisfactory socioeconomic predicament is the reason NAZIS kept showing up at Trump rallies, for fuck's sake. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:09, 14 June 2018 (UTC) The reasons why History moves are typically socioeoconomic, aka material. But ideas do make mountains move, too, I will not deny it. What we had, per documented research, in the 2016 American prez election, was a huge wave of discontent; not of intolerance and racism. That was the neofascists, the alt-right, and the racists who came and stood front and center and made a tremendous amount of noise and had an asymmetrical presence in the media. But Trump's rhetoric did not give birth to new racists and it did not turn liberals or conservatives into fascists; what it did was it legitimized openly racist, aggressive, and boorish behavior, towards the minorities next to us. Numbers are numbers, and polls are polls. What we have as fact, despite what you believe, is that Americans voted for two persons who came from outside the big mainstream tent and chose them to contest the presidency. Such was the depth of mass discontent. One of those two was prevented by his own party to enter the election, as by now everyone admits; while the other defeated the machine of his (nominal) party and won the White House. The Extreme Right might be cheering ever since, but they did not bring on the victory. You could invoke a more legitimate factor by pointing out the huge number of Sanders' voters who stayed home election day. -The Gnome (talk) Trump emboldened racists, who finally had a reason to come out and vote, so they did. That's a fact. Sanders voters were idiots too. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:19, 15 June 2018 (UTC) Geez, in your worldview, only citizens who already voted for Clinton in the primary are not idiots or racists? What a deplorable thing to say! — JFG talk 17:44, 15 June 2018 (UTC) @JFG: The country is going down the shitter because of Trump and Republican enablers, so it is clear anyone who failed to vote for Clinton has fucked us all into a cocked hat. Bernie never had a shot, so a vote for Bernie was just as worthless as a vote for a third party candidate. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:48, 15 June 2018 (UTC) Yeah I remember you were quite mad at Bernie during the primaries, especially as he didn't really bow out until Obama grabbed him by the [bleep] in the White House. But that election is done and can't be brought back, just like the 2000 Florida recount. Your best bet is to push for the Blue Wave in the midterms. Doesn't look easy, from where I'm watching… — JFG talk 17:56, 15 June 2018 (UTC) @JFG: To be honest, I'm not interested in "pushing" for anything. My chief concern is that bullshit and lies has become the "new normal" and it is starting to infect Wikipedia. I find myself drawn to the likes of Steve Schmidt, Michael Steele, and even fucking Bill Kristol for evidence that the Republican party hasn't gone completely tits up. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:03, 15 June 2018 (UTC) I feel your pain. But at least you won't get nuked by a rogue NoKo missile. Rejoice! — JFG talk 18:05, 15 June 2018 (UTC) How do you know? There's nothing in the "agreement" that guarantees that. We are in exactly the same place now as we were before the pretend summit. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:09, 15 June 2018 (UTC) Nah, I don't see residents of Tokyo, Guam and Hawaii being trained for emergency nuke alerts. Situation has seriously de-escalated over the last few months. South Korean President Moon played a great role in that, imho, as he both accepted overtures by Kim and made some of his own. — JFG talk 19:52, 15 June 2018 (UTC) An even bigger concern should be drunk drivers. Atsme📞📧 20:22, 15 June 2018 (UTC) @JFG: "Situation has seriously de-escalated..." You do know who escalated the situation in the first place, right? Tweets about "Rocket Man", fire and fury, and big buttons were not helpful. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:00, 16 June 2018 (UTC) Who says anything escalated? That may play OK for the nightly cable news audience, but encyclopedia editors need to be much better informed, critical, curious, and insightful. This sounds like walking out of a Sci-Fi movie and feeling glad Earth was not destroyed. We don't take any public figure's spin on its own terms. We search for RS descriptions and context. I haven't read this thread closely. Was that supposed to be a joke about "de-escalated"? Who said it escalated? Oh, the same one who said he de-escalated it. Thanks for the de-escalation, Americans. Let's keep some perspective and drop the editor OR. SPECIFICO talk 02:09, 16 June 2018 (UTC) Mmhh, actually, the North Korean regime escalated bigly by sending long-range missiles over Japan and detonating nuclear bombs. Mean tweets don't quite raise to that level imho. — JFG talk 04:07, 16 June 2018 (UTC) The reality is (still on "just the facts, ma'm") is that the US and N.Korea have been at essentially a state of war for more than six decades, long after the Korean War and the Cold War were over. One could posit with confidence that any country in the world that finds itself at a state of permanent, official war with a superpower such as America would go to any extreme imaginable to defend itself. And would be acting irrationally if it were to unilaterally disarm itself, of lessen its military capacity at any level. (Here's an interesting yet not that surprising insight as to how relations between NK and the US could have improved: a brief presentation of the methodical diplomatic efforts undertaken during Clinton's presidency.) Just as in the Middle East conflict, the solution depends on the actions of the party that finds itself at a dominant position. Of course, the very dominance of such a position inhibits moves towards a fair and peaceful resolution of conflicts. We are in the realm of tragedy. -The Gnome (talk) 05:29, 17 June 2018 (UTC) Seriously, Scjessey, do you actually believe that the United States would be under threat of being attacked by North Korea if no rapprochement with North Korea was made and if no agreement between NK and the US is achieved? If we're still talking about facts on the ground, this is a most absurd notion, considering the gigantic difference in military power between the US and the rest of the world's countries, including the other so-called "superpowers," and not on the basis of "defense" spending but of sheer strength and reach. So, I find we're no longer talking about facts but about obsessions and ideology. I perhaps have something to say in that respect but this is not the place to do so. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 05:29, 17 June 2018 (UTC) @The Gnome: "I perhaps have something to say in that respect but this is not the place to do so." Please feel free to speak freely (that sounds weird) on this talk page, provided it doesn't break one of Wikipedia's policies. I welcome healthy debate and hearing alternative views to my own. The threat would not be from North Korea itself, which has failed to really produce a convincing ICBM that can survive re-entry. The problem is that war with North Korea would inevitably draw in China and then other nations. Once the first nuclear weapon is deployed, the rest will follow, and it's goodnight, sweetheart regardless of who is waving the biggest stick. I am delighted the USA is engaged in talks with North Korea, and I really hope Trump can make it a success. Unfortunately, Trump gave away the farm (military exercises ended, praise of a murderous dictator, North Korea given equal billing to the USA) and came away with nothing. Trump metaphorically bowed so low to Kim, he was able to lick the floor. Neville Chamberlain could've got a better deal. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:45, 17 June 2018 (UTC) The comparison to Munich 1938 has no substance. In 1938, the Allies gave away something substantial: the territorial integrity of Czechoslovakia. In 2018, the United States gave away nothing at all: The war games did not cease for ever, they were merely postponed; and the "equal footing" you perceive is nothing but the typical diplomatic environment in meetings between delegations, especially between leaders. What did you expect, that the American would sit on a higher chair than the Korean or that Trump would kick Kim in the balls? Such meetings follow routine, standard protocol. And, of course, when you meet an adversary for peace talks, you cease the belligerent rhetoric. Trump (whom, as it happens, I have been following since he was a New York landlord's son back in the day) is a person more comfortable with one-to-one interaction than with a crowded room. Compare the G7 fiasco with the NK rapprochement. Trump's readiness to engage in talks directly with a North Korean leader is something unprecedented and totally out of book. These talks could, at last, bring peace between the two countries. (Again, check out the link I gave to the history between NK & the US.) Having said that, I find Donald Trump to be a person who, overall, is evidently unfit for the office, and I suspect he did not want the presidency but the glory and the exposure. The presidential campaign was going 100 percent greatly for businessman Trump up until the night he won the White House. -The Gnome (talk) 14:17, 17 June 2018 (UTC) Gnome, this solipsistic nonsense is useless for Wikipedia and need not be published here. This is fringe blog fodder. Please don't put your personal theories on various Wikipedia pages. We're here to work on the encyclopedia and you should not assume anyone cares about your personal theories and opinions. SPECIFICO talk 15:09, 17 June 2018 (UTC) This goes for everyone, by the way. --NeilN talk to me 15:15, 17 June 2018 (UTC) @SPECIFICO: Did you miss Scjessey's comment just above, telling The Gnome that further discussion is welcome. Scjessey is free to decide what is and is not appropriate on his own talk page, just as you are free to determine what you want on yours. Please respect his wishes. — JFG talk 17:17, 17 June 2018 (UTC) Agreed. I did, in fact, invite comment. As long as it doesn't break policy, I welcome it on this talk page, even if it's "a load of old cobblers" (as we British folk like to say). -- Scjessey (talk) 20:59, 17 June 2018 (UTC) Apologies if I broke policy. I'm taking my leave off this thread. (And apologies specifically to SPECIFICO for my engaging in non-mainstream analysis. ). Oh, and an accusation was made that I'm posting "personal theories on various Wikipedia pages." It's a baseless and silly claim. -The Gnome (talk) 06:22, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Hats again

Thanks for hatting that, I was going to but felt odd doing it myself since I was part of the problem in that situation. PackMecEng (talk) 15:59, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Bizarre...

That dupe happened when I published my comment, didn't it? What is causing that to happen? It's not the first time...and I'm not the only one, if my memory serves. ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:34, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Un-miffing

Re: your edit summary here[4], I'm sorry that I made you feel miffed" and I'm coming here to "un-miff" any feelings. My selection of recent versions "on purpose" was not meant to purposedly ignore yours, in other words my purpose was in no way directed at you in particular. In response to your question I invited you to add your proposal to the survey, and you have done it. Now we just have to wait for our fellow editors to take their picks. — JFG ^talk 02:45, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

@JFG: I'm still miffed, but I appreciate you reaching out. It's possible I need a Snickers. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:03, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Of course, contrite apology after the fact doesn't undo the !votes already in place or address the underlying issue as to process. SPECIFICO talk 15:11, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Careful

Editor's priviledge -- Scjessey (talk) 13:57, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Be careful of 1RR [5] [6] ~Awilley (talk) 13:58, 5 July 2018 (UTC) @Awilley: - Not applicable. They were completely different sections, and both edits were challenges to new material, and so permissible by Arbcom ruling. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:04, 5 July 2018 (UTC) I point you to the definition of a revert: "A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material." (From WP:Edit warring emphasis added) Are you able to point me to the Arbcom ruling that makes an exception for challenging new material? ~Awilley (talk) 14:26, 5 July 2018 (UTC) Er... I think this is the way NeilN enforces it, but now you have me confused. Editors must be able to challenge new material in this way, or the system is broken. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:28, 5 July 2018 (UTC) You should be worried about how I enforce it. The system has other checks for editors who aggressively add material. ~Awilley (talk) 14:37, 5 July 2018 (UTC) (edit conflict) One editor doesn't get to sit on an article and revert everything added without considering WP:1RR. That being said, if an editor is adding new material with each edit and constantly getting reverted by different editors then we can look at that as well. --NeilN talk to me 14:39, 5 July 2018 (UTC) @NeilN: In that case, I have misinterpreted how the BRD/challenge system is supposed to work. My first reversion is still under discussion and awaiting new respondents. My second reversion, which I guess took me over 1RR, has been resolved, with the result being the removal of additional material to complement the reversion. If you or Awilley think my reversions are disruptive enough to warrant sanction, I will not complain; however, I believe this will make it hard to cope with multiple, separate additions. In fact, I raised this exact point in one of the discussions. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:52, 5 July 2018 (UTC) (edit conflict) If you really prefer a sanction to simply self-reverting one of your edits then please consider yourself restricted to WP:1RR on all articles related to post-19-whatever American Politics. I'll finish up the paperwork later. ~Awilley (talk) 15:13, 5 July 2018 (UTC) Scjessey has pointed out one dysfunction of the system. The other one that's been mentioned by several talk page editors, and by me on NeilN's talk page a while back, is that after content has "aged" by a month or so, it is being rewritten -- often in flurries of consecutive edits -- to insinuate POV changes under the guise of "copyedit" "remove redundant sources" etc. and anyone who restores the stable version of any of these changes will be making a 'revert' under the current 1RR interpretation. The result is that only a fraction of these bad edits gets reverted each time and the others tend to be forgotten and cannot be reverted for another month until they age so that they can be undone without "reverting". I believe that the Admins who regularly watch this page have seen this and some kind of attention to this issue would be helpful. SPECIFICO talk 15:06, 5 July 2018 (UTC) @SPECIFICO: Regarding your second point, "cannot be reverted for another month until they age" doesn't make a lot of sense. If the rewrites introduce objectionable terms/insinuations then a revert triggers the consensus required restriction. I know I've warned editors trying to change stable material this way. --NeilN talk to me 15:15, 5 July 2018 (UTC) Hi NeilN. The problem is that when there are say half a dozen of these questionable tweaks all at once, an editor "uses up" his daily revert on one of them. Then five other editors can be similarly disabled for the day if they all come to undo the damage. And they usually can't be "undone" en masse because they may have one or two valid cleanup edits among them so a mass revert is not possible and "undo" wont work where some of the text has been tweaked in more than one edit. SPECIFICO talk 15:19, 5 July 2018 (UTC) @SPECIFICO: I'm missing something. Why are the five other editors stopped from reverting changes? Are you saying they've used up their individual reverts but the original editor is still tweaking after that? --NeilN talk to me 15:27, 5 July 2018 (UTC) Editors say they are reluctant to "use up" their daily revert undoing somebody who appears to be gaming the system, leaving them unable to engage with new content that will expand and improve the article. Comments to this effect are scattered on the talk page over time, sometimes even with a call for someone else with a revert available to step in. It appears to be gaming the system when one editor can disable several others by waiting a month and then changing longstanding content (not a revert) while it takes several editors using up their daily budget to undo the damage. This might sound like cloak and dagger stuff, but I assure you it's an increasing problem because it's a very effective strategy for editors who wish to insert non-consensus minority or fringe material in these articles. SPECIFICO talk 15:45, 5 July 2018 (UTC) @SPECIFICO: It would be helpful if you could list diffs of edits that employ this strategy or alert an admin (providing diffs) the next time it occurs. Admins have heard the desire for a greater willingness on their part to employ sanctions so any game playing like that will be looked at. --NeilN talk to me 18:18, 5 July 2018 (UTC) NeilN, that is very constructive and I will do so on your talk page either looking back or next time I feel that this has occurred. SPECIFICO talk 18:21, 5 July 2018 (UTC) @Awilley: I can self-revert if you like, but it will just mean another editor will have to revert my revert, since we already have a consensus on the new version. Do you want me to do that to avoid sanction? Also, I can't actually do an "undo" of the edit in question because of subsequent edits. I'll have to do it manually, then someone else will have to revert my edit. This all seems rather pointless, but I'll do it to avoid sanction if you insist. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:36, 5 July 2018 (UTC) The ship has sailed on avoiding sanction. You would have avoided it if you had self-reverted after my 2nd or 3rd post here. The only thing I haven't decided on yet is the duration. Re: manual reverts, I expect Wikipedians to be proactive problem solvers. I don't have time to hold your hand the whole way and I'm certainly not going to explain how to do a manual revert or tell you what to put in your edit summary. ~Awilley (talk) 16:33, 5 July 2018 (UTC) @Awilley: The second reversion that challenged added material, the one that took me over 1RR, prompted a discussion on the talk page with the editor in question (which is how it is supposed to work). It led to a solution we were both happy with, which the other editor then implemented, before you even had a chance to make your second post to this discussion. Reverting my offending edit thereafter would have been a pointless exercise. I even pinged NeilN because of my confusion, which led to a useful discussion about issues with this policy. So at this point, any sanction you give me would not be to "prevent harm" to the encyclopedia, but rather it would be purely punitive. If you really feel it is necessary, please do what you think is best; however, perhaps you should consider consulting one of your administrator colleagues. Incidentally, if your intention is to restrict me to 1RR on the politics topic, is that not already the case? Is that not why you are sanctioning me in the first place? I'm confused. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:16, 5 July 2018 (UTC) (edit conflict) My objective here is to teach you to follow 1RR and to be proactive in fixing your own mistakes. When an editor or admin approaches you on your talk page pointing out a mistake you have made, it is your responsibility to fix that mistake, not argue endlessly about policy. To me that (preventative) lesson is worth the extra disruption of making SPECIFICO or whoever spend 5 seconds re-reverting your self-revert. ~Awilley (talk) 18:06, 5 July 2018 (UTC) @Awilley: I already understand how 1RR works (I have a substantial, multi-year editing history), although I confess I thought it did not apply to "challenged material". I think what you are suggesting is punitive, not preventative. I'm sorry you can't see the absurdity of me reverting a thing and then asking someone else to undo the revert (costing them their 1RR of the day) just to satisfy what I perceive to be astonishing inflexibility on your part. I'm just shaking my head here. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:33, 5 July 2018 (UTC) We'll just have to agree to disagree I suppose. In the future though, if somebody approaches you on your talk page and correctly informs you that you've exceeded 1RR (or 3RR or whatever) your next edit should be to self-revert something, assuming you want to avoid a sanction. The more you put it off and argue the more likely you are to get a block. In re-reading the above I realize that I didn't actually ask you to self-revert early on. I assumed (incorrectly apparently) that as an experienced editor you would know that was the right thing to do. Because of that I'm not going to make the 1RR sanction as long as I had determined to do earlier today. It will be for 3 months and covers post 1932 American Politics broadly construed. I won't insult you with a template, but it will be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration_enforcement_log/2018#American_politics_2. It can be appealed directly to me or at WP:AE if you want. To answer your question above, this 1RR is only partially redundant with the politics articles you edit, not all of which are covered by the special 1RR and consensus required rules. ~Awilley (talk) 06:27, 6 July 2018 (UTC) @Awilley: I accept the penalty, although I maintain it is entirely punitive, and I think that reflects on your approach to administation poorly. I won't be arguing it, because I admit the violation (although I didn't initially think it was a violation). I believe editors should be able to do what I did without it being a violation, although that's for discussion elsewhere. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:15, 6 July 2018 (UTC) Awilley, you are basically citing Scjessey for jaywalking while there's folks across the street holding hostages by the throat chanting in tongues. Anyway, Scjessey is actually one of the editors who received an AE warning long ago and has done nothing uncivil since then. He's a poster-person for how DS should work, not a problem case. I don't think anything other than acknowledgement of his acknowledgement and a smile is necessary to prevent any future problem. SPECIFICO talk 17:43, 5 July 2018 (UTC) (Personal attack removed) My bad, I thought you were referring to JFG with your "holding hostages by the throat" analogy. ~Awilley (talk) 18:34, 5 July 2018 (UTC) Scjessey had the courtesy to notify me of this discussion, as all his reverts today challenged my edits. Technically he did perform three reverts of newly-added content: 11:28, 13:34 and 13:42. On the other hand, he engaged in good-faith discussion on the talk page, and recognized his errors when pointed out.[7] Any sanction should be lenient. — JFG talk 18:07, 5 July 2018 (UTC) Thanks, JFG, although that middle edit is clearly not a reversion. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:26, 5 July 2018 (UTC) This middle edit at 13:34 was most certainly a revert of the content I added at 12:46. You chose to keep only the part that MrX added at 13:01 for balance, and you called it "false balance" in the ensuing discussion.[8] Note that I had asked you to voluntarily undo your change due to a potential process violation,[9] but out of courtesy I did not push things further. — JFG talk 20:28, 5 July 2018 (UTC) Your interpretation is flawed, but whatever. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:13, 6 July 2018 (UTC) It's pretty clear that Awilley exercised the patience of Job with Scjessey. This is the Trump article. He was within his rights to block the minute he saw the violation. He was within his rights to block the entire time Scjessey was arguing about the "broken system." But what strikes me as troubling is Scjessey's initial remark "permissible by Arbcom ruling" and then when challenged changed his story to "Er... I think this is the way NeilN enforces it." Even after Scjessey's defense of the 1RR has been vacated, Awilley gives him yet another chance with "You should be worried about how I enforce it..." but Scjessey still does not self-revert. Endorse 1RR restriction primarily because when his defense collapsed he didn't take responsibility for it. – Lionel(talk) 01:10, 6 July 2018 (UTC) Thanks, but it's not really a vote. ~Awilley (talk) 06:27, 6 July 2018 (UTC) Awilley is correct; nobody took this incident to WP:AE, and Awilley has decided on a sanction by his own initiative, which is the spirit of "discretionary sanctions". Case closed. — JFG talk 07:53, 6 July 2018 (UTC) @Lionelt: Who asked for your opinion? -- Scjessey (talk) 13:15, 6 July 2018 (UTC) @JFG: It's not "in the spirit of discretionary sanctions" at all. The purpose of the sanctions is to prevent harm coming to Wikipedia. None of the edits I did were harmful. They were productive. In the case of the "violating" edit, it led to a mini-consensus between the two of us that we were both satisfied with. And it was that edit that led to me being sanctioned. That's just dumb. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:15, 6 July 2018 (UTC) I think Awilley has been graceful and lenient in his interactions with you; not sure it's in your best interest to criticize his decision as "punitive". Besides, there were three different reverts, and you are still contesting that they were reverts, while claiming you "understand how 1RR works". Puzzling. — JFG talk 13:23, 6 July 2018 (UTC) @JFG: Lenient? Most other administrators would've passed it off with a slap on the wrist at the most. WP:PUNISH makes it clear this was a punitive act, since it did nothing to serve the goal of preventing harm to Wikipedia. Moreover, criticizing the actions of an administrator should have no effect on my "interests". Finally, two of my edits were reversions. The other one is something you concocted to make me look bad. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:57, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Quick favor

Mind helping out on Hillary Clinton email controversy? I don't want to violate 1RR. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:09, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I've added the page to my watchlist for a bit. Clear violation of WP:SCANDAL. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:18, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm surprised it wasn't already. I gave that user the wrong DS template though, I don't know which is the right syntax. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:35, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

@Muboshgu: I limit the number of politics-related pages on my watchlist to half a dozen, otherwise I'd be going out of my fucking mind with rage. The correct DS template is {{subst:alert|ap}} for post-1932 politics. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:41, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Makes sense. Guess I'm a glutton for punishment. Thanks for the syntax. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:43, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

RfC

A note about making a new RfC... from my reading of the one I just closed, one of the problems was that it had some contentious stuff in the proposed wording, such as saying that they "forcibly separated children from parents". (The word forcibly is probably accurate in a lot of the cases, but probably has a bit too much baggage for it to be widely perceived as NPOV... kind of a WP:WORDS thing.) There are other potential stumbling blocks such as calling it a family separation policy (vs. zero-tolerance policy) or enacted a policy (vs. enforced an existing law) or reversed (vs. revised). Because of this I'd suggest that you work with one or more of the opposers in framing the RfC. User:JFG seems like a good person to work with, as they have the knowledge and experience for crafting a compromise, and indicated in the RfC that they might be open to something like you suggested if a neutral wording could be found. What you don't want to do is to just open (basically) the same RfC again and have everybody come back and make the same arguments again. That would be a waste of time for everyone. Off the top of my head I could see something like "...and temporarily enforced a "zero tolerance" policy that separated migrant children from their parents" as a good starting point. ~Awilley (talk) 15:16, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

@Awilley: Thank you for the advice! I haven't come up with some suitable wording yet, although I'm rolling it around it my head. I have worked with JFG in the past on things like this, although it would be fair to say it has been with mixed results. What I'm not interested in doing, however, is sanitizing the words used by reliable sources to make it more palatable to right-leaning Trump-leaning editors. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:22, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Unless you've conducted a poll or they have indicated what their political preferences and voting record are, you have no clue (not even a reliable source that would tell you) about which way other editors "lean" ideologically or politically. It's best not to imply, infer, or speculate otherwise about those with whom you have disagreements at AP2 articles. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 21:32, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Noting for clarity that the strikethrough and substitution were in the original comment. If a large majority of an editor's article edits and discussion positions are Trump-favorable (in some cases a 100% majority), it's not at all unreasonable to deem them a "Trump-leaning" editor. No mind-reading required. I doubt Scjessey would object to being called "antiTrump-leaning", I certainly hope not. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:07, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Can't agree with your assessment. No one here knows what my politics are, but people have (and still do) assume I'm "Trump-leaning" simply because I try to keep biased POV b.s. out of political articles. In Wikipedia-land, what the personal politics of editors are is no one's business just as it's no one's business what religion they have/don't have. What job they have/don't have. What sex they are. What their sexuality is. Where they live. These are all personal things and it's unimportant. Also in Wikipedia, it does not matter how we vote, who we support politically, what party we identify with (or none at all). Unless an editor wants to disclose that information. And if they don't, it's wrong to assume - especially when that assumption is a negative. What matters is adhering to BLP policy, policy on inclusion of content, and NPOV. Increasingly and shockingly, no one seems to give a fig about any of those three things at the politically related articles unless an individual assumed/labeled "pro-Trump/conservative" violates or even exudes a hint of violating them. Then, suddenly, you would think the world was coming to an end. I don't care what the politics are of other editors and they shouldn't care what my politics are. What everyone should be caring about is following policy in editing. This used to be a place where most everyone cared. In just the six short years I've been here, I've see it change completely. And not in a good way. By the way, "Trump favorable" among long-term, serious and experienced editors is just more b.s. What it really means is, "You're not letting me violate BLP and NPOV because...Trump". I've seen it time and again - so have others. Please don't couch it in a ABF euphemism. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 23:34, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

@Scjessey, I'm definitely not asking you to sanitize anything...more along the lines of WP:WFTO. It is often possible to write the same factual material in a way that is less "offensive" to people who lean the other way. I'm headed out the door, but I'm happy to discuss tomorrow if you're interested.

@Winkelvi, I applaud you for your cautious approach and commitment to protecting BLPs. [10] Sorry, couldn't help a little jab there. ~Awilley (talk) 00:37, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't naturally "get" vagaries, Awilley. Was that supposed to be humor or negative criticism? If it's negative criticism, I think it's really unfair and uncalled for, especially when you take the whole of my editing from 2012 to now. I've always been very conscious of BLP concerns and policy and my editing has almost always, to a fault, reflected that. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 00:40, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

A bit of both, I suppose. Mostly I found it slightly ironic to see someone who says they are very careful about BLPs citing WP:NOTCENSORED as a rationale to "strongly support" reproducing the content of racist tweets in the biography of a living person. That's all. You can have the last word if you want it. If it makes you feel better I can strike out the above. I don't want to blow up Scjessey's talk page talking about Sarah Jeong. ~Awilley (talk) 02:08, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

"I found it slightly ironic to see someone who says they are very careful about BLPs citing WP:NOTCENSORED as a rationale to "strongly support" reproducing the content of racist tweets in the biography of a living person." Sure, one comment at an article talk page that is, in reality, citing accepted policy should be used as a negative criticism against me to overshadow and erase six years and nearly 30k edits of which a majority have been at BLPs where BLP policy has been observed with care. Seems fair to me.

"I don't want to blow up Scjessey's talk page talking about Sarah Jeong." Then it seems you probably shouldn't have brought it up in the first place. Any of it. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 02:20, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

I've been away from Wikipedia for a while, so to come back and see all this discussion was quite the surprise! Let me just clarify a few things:

1. Mandruss is partly right. I have no objection to being called "anti-Trump" (as all right-thinking folk should be) as long as nobody tries to accuse me of being an anti-Trump editor. I do not go out looking for things to add to Trump articles to make the man look bad. Trump is perfectly capable of looking bad all by himself, and needs no help from me. A cursory viewing of my main space editing history will show I don't add much of anything to articles. Mostly, I prefer to weigh in on the talk page about additions of removals of content proposed by others.
2. I am amused that some editors label themselves as crusaders against bias, when their agenda-driven editing is absolutely obvious. Laughing out loud here.
3. Changing language to be "inoffensive" to certain readers smacks of whitewashing, and that is not my style. This is not a shovel. With that said, I will only use these kinds of words in wikivoice if the language is indisputable.
4. I am perfectly happy to let editors talk about the Sarah Jeong article here, if they wish; however, I have never visited the article and I am not familiar with the person. I can always close the thread if it gets out of hand.

-- Scjessey (talk) 18:47, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Scjessey, on #2, I had noticed that about you before you said it, and the thought had crossed my mind that it seems like you are more interested in making sure your point of view is represented than actually "building an encyclopedia". (I'm definitely not saying that's the case, but that's the thought that popped into my mind a couple weeks ago when I noticed how few edits you've actually made to the DT article.)

On #3, let me try again, because it's something I would like you and your talk page stalkers to understand. Let me put it this way:

1. It is easy to see something from your own point of view. It doesn't take a lot of thought or mental capacity.
2. It is also easy to see things the wrong way when you're only looking at something from one side. Reality exists, independent of you, but your perception of reality is flawed and distorted because your vision is limited.
3. You are better able to discern reality if you master the skill of seeing things from multiple points of view. This is the "putting yourself in someone else's shoes" mentioned in the essay I linked above.
4. Seeing the bigger picture will also enable you to write and propose wordings that better represent actual reality (not just your perception of it), and because of this the words you write will be more stable and will result in less partisan bickering.

Let's take the child separation sentence as an example. It's a big subject, enough for several encyclopedia articles. We have to cram it into one sentence or less. We can skew that sentence in different directions depending on the facts we choose to put into it, and our choice of facts will influence how well that small sentence represents the greater reality. Let me give a few examples of how that sentence could be constructed.

1. Trump enacted an immigration policy that forcibly separated children, including infants, from their parents, locking them up for months in special detention centers where some were sedated with injections of antipsychotic drugs.
2. Trump enacted an immigration policy that forcibly separated children from their parents and only reversed the policy after widespread outcry.
3. Trump enacted, and later reversed, an immigration enforcement policy that forcibly separated children from parents. (This was basically MrX's proposal)
4. Trump temporarily enforced a "zero tolerance" immigration policy that separated migrant children from their parents.
5. Trump temporarily enforced a "zero tolerance" immigration policy that resulted in the separation of migrant children from their parents.
6. Trump temporarily enforced a "zero tolerance" interpretation of existing immigration law that resulted in the separation of migrant children from their parents.
7. Trump temporarily enforced existing immigration law with zero tolerance, detaining and prosecuting everyone caught illegally crossing the border, including parents with children.
8. In an effort to reduce illegal crossings of the US border, Trump temporarily enforced existing immigration law with zero tolerance, detaining and prosecuting everyone caught illegally crossing the border, including parents with children.

All of those sentences, I think, contain accurate facts, but they represent different ways that different people see what happened. I would imagine that you would agree most with sentence #2. But I can think of editors you know that probably agree most with #7. Most editors' gut instinct, unfortunately, is to play tug-of-war, trying to get their own point of view into the article. That usually results in talkpage stalemates and fractured articles crammed with facts spun in different directions (depending on which "side" won the tug-of-war on that sentence). Effective editors, on the other hand, are able to look at a situation from multiple viewpoints and propose wordings written from a neutral point of view. This results in quicker consensus on talk pages and well-written, stable encyclopedia articles. I want you to try to become an effective editor. ~Awilley (talk) 16:12, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Awilley, Scjessey, on #2, I had noticed that about you before ... I'm definitely not saying that's the case, but that's the thought that popped into my mind That reads like an artful smear. "Some folks might think you're X. Of course I'm not saying you're X, you might be a good person. There are good people on both sides. Not that you intended it to come out that way, but many folks will read it that way. SPECIFICO talk 16:44, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Just to be clear and offer a more substantive, and I hope constructive, comment. RS tell us that the instant subject matter -- forcible removal of children from their parents seeking asylum in the US, is greatly significant. It is receiving broad and detailed ongoing notice, reporting, and analysis in both media and academic and legal circles. The tactic of a small highly-motivated group of editors fragmenting the discussion by quibbling over the wording -- and all wording involves some degree of editor discretion -- is a time-proven way to suppress valid article content. It is beyond question that there are editors on the American Politics articles who seek to game various WP protocols, who are ignorant of mainstream RS coverage, and, corollary, who do not understand the significance of actions and events related to American government, policy and civic process. Awilley, your well-intentioned and thoughtful comments here suggest you've gotten caught in the weeds and missed the central problem of how we can all collaborate to improve article content. There are editors on WP who will nitpick and snipe to suppress valid content. It doesn't matter whether they're aware of that, whether they do it out of ignorance, or whether they do it out of emotional immaturity. A thoughtful Admin such as yourself might help us all a great deal if you addressed these process issues. Because I don't think there is anything that Scjessey, also a thoughtful and experienced contributor, that would have given us a materially better outcome. SPECIFICO talk 17:08, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

@Awilley: You have completely misunderstood why I don't contribute as much to the main space as I do on talk pages. There are a couple of reasons:

1. Early on in my editing history (many years ago now) I got sucked into the occasional edit war over content. I vowed back then to not fall into that trap again.
2. On political articles, I am more comfortable making proposals for improvement on the talk page, rather than sticking something in the article and waiting for a response. I am also comfortable weighing in on the proposals of others and suggesting occasional tweaks. Much of this behavior comes out of spells I had at WP:MC and WP:DR helping other editors resolve disputes.

It's clear that you have a problem understanding my motivation, which has always been about improving the encyclopedia and helping readers and editors to get the most out of it. I don't contribute to Wikipedia with a goal to push an agenda or get my point across, although I don't have a problem expressing my personal opinions in discussion. What I will not do is express an opinion in articles. Finally, I would say that your advice here has been useful, but it is starting to come across as a bit of a lecture. You've been banging on about my suggested direction for the bit about immigration policy, and you have completely ignored the fact that my suggested text was only intended to be a jumping off point for going in a different direction. I fully expected the language to be modified. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:15, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough, I'll stop preaching. ~Awilley (talk) 22:20, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Geoghegan

Ok then, please explain why the respelling pronunciation shouldn't include a second 'g' when the IPA does and in the cited source he says "It’s pronounced Tayo Gaygan". Regards, Qwfp (talk) 19:23, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

@Qwfp: Oops! My bad. You are absolutely correct. I misread what I was looking at. Profuse apologies! -- Scjessey (talk) 19:28, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Trump

If you're unhappy with my manner of speaking, bring it up at my talk page or at WP:ANI.
I'll bite.
There is plenty of doubt as to whether Trump is actually a racist or whether he shrewdly exploits American racism for political purposes. No, the latter doesn't make him a racist, it makes him a politician of the worst, most destructive kind. My view leans toward the latter, but I don't claim to be certain since I can't climb inside Trump's mind. So there is nothing "patently true" about "Trump is a racist". Per Snow Rise, your comments to that effect are self-defeating in a content debate, and per me your persistent and long-standing inability to check personal opinion at the door jeopardizes your continued participation in the AP2 area. I think the only thing preventing a topic ban has been the relatively low frequency of such comments—the impact on article talk hasn't been great enough for anybody to pursue that. So far. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:31, 13 November 2018 (UTC)