User talk:Scjessey: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎WP:CIVIL: happy monday...
Line 350: Line 350:


:::Are you okay? That seems unusually cross. Just trying to be helpful, but I'm equally fine to go away if that's unwelcome. Have a happy Friday, or Monday, or whenever day it is in your part of the world... - [[User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon]] ([[User talk:Wikidemon|talk]]) 01:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
:::Are you okay? That seems unusually cross. Just trying to be helpful, but I'm equally fine to go away if that's unwelcome. Have a happy Friday, or Monday, or whenever day it is in your part of the world... - [[User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon]] ([[User talk:Wikidemon|talk]]) 01:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

::::Not really, no. I am absolutely sick and tired of bad faith assumptions. I can't do anything on Wikipedia without someone coming out and saying that I have some sort of sinister ulterior motive. And then I get comments from random editors (whom I almost always later discover that they are part of what I now like to call "The King's Court") telling me what to do and how to behave. I didn't initially realize that CoM had started that article, but ''so what''? It's not CoM's article, it's ''Wikipedia's'' article. Once it's out there, the creator cannot claim [[WP:OWN|ownership]] of it. I was told to recuse myself from the AfD because CoM had created the article. What the fuck is ''that'' all about? That's not how Wikipedia is supposed to work, and I'll be damned if I'm going to let the King and his Court dictate how I conduct myself within the project. I did not ''interact'' with CoM, and as soon as he popped up on the AfD I specifically went out of my way to note that I could not interact with him even if I wanted to. But that wasn't good enough for one of his Court, evidently. The way I see it, I participated in the AfD long before CoM did; therefore, if an "interaction restriction" also means "stay away from each other" (and I don't believe that it does), it means CoM should not have participated in the AfD once he saw that I was doing so. Instead, I essentially got forced out of it by the subjects of his little kingdom. -- [[User:Scjessey|Scjessey]] ([[User talk:Scjessey#top|talk]]) 15:04, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 15:04, 7 November 2009

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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]


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—

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

Obama articles arbcom case

I've requested an amendment to the Obama ArbCom case to examine and remove several of the findings of fact and remedies passed by the Committee. Your comments would be appreciated here. Thank you. Sceptre (talk) 13:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]



Broccoli slaw

I removed your ProD and fixed it up a bit. Bearian (talk) 19:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NODRAMA reminder

Thanks for signing up for the Great Wikipedia Dramaout. Wikipedia stands to benefit from the improvements in the article space as a result of this campaign. This is a double reminder. First, the campaign begins on July 18, 2009 at 00:00 (UTC). Second, please remember to log any articles you have worked on during the campaign at Wikipedia:The Great Wikipedia Dramaout/Log. Thanks again for your participation! --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 21:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I could hardly contain my laughter. In fact, I couldn't and pee'd myself laughing out loud so hard. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here 03:15, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for making WP:NODRAMA a success!

Thank you again for your support of the Great Wikipedia Dramaout. Preliminary statistics indicate that 129 new articles were created, 203 other articles were improved, and 183 images were uploaded. Additionally, 41 articles were nominated for DYK, of which at least 2 have already been promoted. There are currently also 8 articles up for GA status and 3 up for FA/FL status. Though the campaign is technically over, please continue to update the log page at WP:NODRAMA/L with any articles which you worked during the campaign, and also to note any that receive commendation, such as DYK, GA or FA status. You may find the following links helpful in nominating your work:

  • T:TDYK for Did You Know nominations
  • WP:GAC for Good Article nominations
  • WP:FAC for Featured Article nominations
  • WP:FLC for Featured List nominations
  • WP:FPC for Featured Picture nominations

Again, thank you for making this event a success! --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 02:15, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amended remedy

The Committee has amended several remedies of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Obama_articles, at least one of which mentions your name. You may view the amended remedies at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Obama_articles#Remedies.

On behalf of the Committee. MBisanz talk 03:25, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this

Requests for clarification

Please note that there are two requests for clarification of the Arbcom remedy, including one I recently filed, that may affect you. They are here and here. Thanks. Wikidemon (talk) 05:03, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Not a big deal at all and nothing you even really need to comment on it, but see my request for clarification to the Arbs here regarding the recent amended remedy. It's a technical issue but it was the source of some confusion so I'm asking for the matter to be clarified. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RFAR

A request for arbitration to which you are an involved party has been filed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#194x144x90x118. Erik9 (talk) 05:23, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RFAR opened

A request for arbitration to which you are an involved party has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/194x144x90x118. Erik9 (talk) 16:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your wrongness

You have misinterpreted my edit summary, and misrepresented my actions as a result. I have replied in full on the DreamHost talk page. Please leave me alone and stop creating/augmenting drama. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i've moved this thread here because i do not want you ever contacting me for any reason on my talk page. to clarify, i have no interest in ever, for any reason, discussing anything with you on my talk page. any further attempts to contact me will be considered attempts to provoke. if you want to discuss making articles better, do that on an article's talk page, not my personal talk page. do not contact me privately. i feel that you are harassing me. do not respond to this. Theserialcomma (talk) 03:35, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Simon, when someone says "stay the hell off my talk page", generally accepted convention is not to run over and post saying that you'll post there if you want to. At best, that message was a breach of civility. If there's some really compelling reason to post there in the future, fine, but "nyah nyah" is not a compelling reason. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ChildofMidnight topic banned

As a party to the Obama articles arbitration case, you are notified as a courtesy of this amendment to the final decision.

By motion of the Committee at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification,

Remedy 9 in the Obama articles case is replaced by the following (timed to run from the date the case closed):

ChildofMidnight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is topic-banned from Obama-related articles for six months, and any related discussions, broadly construed across all namespaces.

Discussion of this motion should be directed here.

For the Arbitration Committee,
AGK 12:53, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this[1] I don't think vandalism reversions are described as an exception. So please be careful. Take these off your watch-list. If you don't, someone will. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 15:35, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I stand corrected - there is a vandalism exception and this is obvious vandalism. Still, do be careful! - Wikidemon (talk) 15:43, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's keep working together to make wikipedia even better.

Hello. As someone like myself who enjoys improving the Obama related articles, I thought you might like to know about a wonderful, reliable new source of information on that topic. The new book Culture of Corruption: Obama and His Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks, and Cronies by Michelle Malkin has 76 pages of endnotes, so everything in the book is well sourced and reliable. The book has also been at #1 on the New York Times Nonfiction Hardcover bestseller list for the past four weeks. First week at #1 Second week at #1 Third week at #1 Fourth week at #1 Given our past cooperation on improving Obama related articles, I am sure that you will be as pleased with this new book as I am. I know that you will enjoy reading it and using it as a source to help improve the various Obama related articles. Please keep up your good work here at wikipedia! Grundle2600 (talk) 16:45, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I assume this is some kind of sick joke. As you know, I am topic banned from editing Obama articles for at least another 3 months. Leaving that aside, there is absolutely no way I would consider using Malkin's printed vomit as a source for information, except in cases where it is necessary to cite her own comments. And please don't use my talk page to advertise her filth again. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:51, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We are both topic banned - but that is only temporary, so we have time to think about what we have done. I will not mention that person or her writing on your talk page again. Anyway, when our topic bans expire, I hope we have a lot of fun improving the articles - we are both excellent editors, as long as we remember to avoid edit warring. Grundle2600 (talk) 19:43, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Beehold

He's refactored his userpage, so if you want to change your !vote.... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

magazines

except for web magazines, are not covered by A7. They're products. Sometimes an outrageously spammy article about one may fit G11, or one may be copyvio--but in both those cases they can generally bestubbified. A magazine publishing company would be covered, though they are usually with some at least minimal claim to notability. DGG ( talk ) 15:42, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

apologies: the People's Economics does come fairly close to being web content, but I think will need a discussion at WP:CSD & I will send it there. DGG ( talk ) 15:52, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions at arbitration case

Hi there. I've asked a few questions about matters relating to the arbitration case. The questions are here. If you have time to look at them and answer them, that would be great. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 01:59, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've now posted some new sections at the proposed decision in the case. Given the late posting of this, I'm notifying you on your talk page so you can respond at the talk page if you wish to do so. Carcharoth (talk) 15:43, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Saturn faliures

Yes, actually Saturn rockets did have malfunctions see Apollo 6, Apollo 13 and hence can be deemed a partial faliure of the rocket launcher. 76.65.20.117 (talk) 20:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is definitely NOT a failure but a "partial failure" (per WP:TLS). Any launcher has a malfunction but can be corrected somewhat is deemed a partial failure (I guess this is specific terminology) and neither a failure nor a success. 76.65.20.117 (talk) 20:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/194x144x90x118

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

194x144x90x118 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned for a period of one year. All editors of the DreamHost article are reminded to abide by Wikipedia's policies of neutral point of view, using reliable and verifiable sources; to engage in civil discussion on the talk page to resolve editorial disputes; and to use the relevant noticeboards and dispute resolution processes to seek external opinions on coverage of matters where the current editors may lack objectivity.

194x144x90x118's account has been blocked for a period of one year pursuant to this case.

For the Arbitration Committee

Seddσn talk|WikimediaUK 03:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for TOC help

Hi Scjessey. Thanks for your help in fixing the TOC on Talk:Robert_J._Sawyer. What was the problem? I hunted through the code but could not find where the TOC was being suppressed. (Or why my attempt to force its inclusion didn't work.) Bowrain13 (talk) 16:00, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Message from Simon

Been moving!

I have spent the last few days moving apartment, during which time I have been without access to teh intarwebs. I managed to hook my modem back up late last night, but my computer equipment is still packed away. I'm using my wife's laptop to post this brief message to let interested parties know I should be up and running properly in a few days. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:37, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replies

Good luck!--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I should be able to pop on every so often, but I am sure I will be my usual prolific self by the beginning of October. One of the annoying things that happened is that Verizon failed to move my phone line at the scheduled time, so I'd be screwed without my internet connection. Cell phone service here is almost completely useless too. -- Scjessey (talk)
Just got the phone line hooked up. Hoping that AT&T's femtocell offering will be available in the near future (although I will need to get a 3G cell phone to make use of it). Hopefully will be hooking up my own PC a bit later today, and then I'll be able to launch myself back into the drama contribute productively! -- Scjessey (talk) 17:13, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. See you in a bit... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:51, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for interjecting at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moonies. I agree with your assessment of the situation. Cirt (talk) 11:33, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merci

Thank you for your Sept 29th revison on the Robert Sawyer article. The word 'self-promotion', was used without supporting references and context. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Msklystron (talk • contribs) 16:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Went to your website

Most of your pages have broken stream references which display across the top of the page. Looks like you did an update and overwrote a folder, or your provider changed your rights.

Either way, someone who wants to hire you is going to look at that and think twice, so I thought I'd let you know. 68.47.243.229 (talk) 11:36, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question

I asked you a question at Talk:Tubefilter#Sourcery.--Otterathome (talk) 19:42, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am awaiting a response at the same section again.--Otterathome (talk) 18:53, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom

The comment you just made on the Arbcom talk page is reasonable and a fair summary of the Obama editing history. I think a number of people who are commenting that the two are unrelated are just making flash judgments without knowing the history of the article or the Obama dispute. Nevertheless, I think you and I are best off taking a rest from discussing the question of whether ACORN falls under Obama article probation in that particular venue and discussion thread, so if it's not too bold you might just want to remove it. You may not be aware of this but I've gotten some flak under the stay-away injunction for filing requests, so by that logic you too should probably avoid any interaction with prohibited editors, or on the subject, unless it is an issue that directly concerns your current editing activities. Once the topic bans wear off and the dust settles we can ask Arbcom where that leaves things. I miss having you around those articles and look forward to your return. Hope that helps, - Wikidemon (talk) 21:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

why

why was the template wrong?--Otterathome (talk) 18:30, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When you remove a warning given to a user for not responding, then you do the exact same thing, it looks pretty bad.--Otterathome (talk) 19:21, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome

Not a problem at all; just trying to keep things tidy. I will probably be converting that list to prose within the next few days, just so you're aware. It's getting a bit lengthy for that portion of the article. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:48, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Boland

hi, just got your message. I almost never get any feedback on External Linkings. Out of hundreds I've contributed to. Be it, I to the best of my ability try to make it concise and user friendly from an educational standpoint. In this particular case there hasn't been any External Link contributions, at least by me, in over a year or at least in a year. Much of the text to her article is by me as well. Hope you like it. As famous as she was, information is scant on her. I can only thank the Daniel Blums' of the world who documented the likes of Mary and others when they were alive. I'd like to see books written about Mary Boland, Laura Hope Crews, Jane Cowl, Lucile Watson etc. and many other character actresses whom are ignored. Go to the library and there are rows of books written on Marilyn Monroe or Elvis Presley. So bare with me as information on these people becomes available and we can make their articles as informative and accurate(WP:Accuracy) as possible. Koplimek (talk) 22:34, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just got my message? That was almost exactly a YEAR ago LOL. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:40, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

pissing contest

It doesn't matter if they get the last word, the point has been made; if the article isn't deleted, we'll DRV it. Any further discussion is counterproductive.- Wolfkeeper 19:15, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not in it for the "last word". I'm just having a hard time understanding why this isn't so obviously wrong. I am stunned when normally intelligent people do seemingly illogical and unintelligent things. All the "keeps" seem to come from a group who frequently collaborate, so obviously it is no longer about what is right or wrong. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:20, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would caution not to make disparaging remarks about other editors or their motivations. That someone does not agree with you does not make them "illogical" or "unintelligent". It could just mean that you're wrong. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:01, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you fucking kidding me? How can you have the gall to criticize me for remarking about the motivations of others when you basically accused me of !voting for deletion based on who first created the article? Respectfully suggest you stay off my talk page if you are going to engage in hypocritical shit stirring. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:05, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm not "fucking kidding you". I'm simply pointing out to you that civility is required of all editors, including you. I'm sorry if you're either unable or unwilling to accept that, but it's the way it is nevertheless. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Look, both of you - the contact on the AFD, whether initially inadvertent or not, could credibly be overlooked despite the arbitration case restriction. If both of you keep this up on each others' talk pages, that can't be. Knock it off.
(posted to both Scjessey and Malleus' talk pages)
Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CIVIL

If this policy means anything to you, then please read it. Because the thread above shows anything but a practice of civilty.--The Legendary Sky Attacker (talk) 20:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, one of the best policies is WP:POOR. Maybe have a look at that page too.--The Legendary Sky Attacker (talk) 20:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll keep this general because I am under the same interaction restriction as you, Jessey. Assuming the best faith of everyone here, you inadvertently participated in a deletion discussion not aware that the article was written by someone you were not supposed to interact with. I know you've tried to stay well clear of violating Arbcom restrictions in the past, and surely you must know that commenting on the merits of an article written by someone you're not supposed to interact with (even without voting yes or no), and about the motivations of others who are voting to keep or delete the article, is too close for comfort. During and after the Arbcom case various parties voiced concerns that they might unwittingly violate some restriction without intending to do so. This looks like that kind of situation. Some people seem to accuse you of doing that on purpose and your reaction seems indignant. I don't think anyone would mind, and you would look good and avoid any needless trouble, if you simply acknowledged having overlooked the question of who created the article, and asked to retract your comments from the deletion discussion. Surely you don't want to get into a tiff now over something so minor as this. The encyclopedia can survive without your input on this particular article, and there are plenty of other editors commenting there. More than once I've deleted comments I made when they felt too close to the Arbcom case. There is no shame in that. In the past you've been praised (not sure if you noticed, or read it) as a model of how to comply with Arbcom restrictions. My suggestion is to keep that up by going even farther than necessary to stay clean. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:29, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, chaps. Not really giving a shit what you're saying though. Best not to come to my talk page and lecture me about responding to other people's bullshit. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:00, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you okay? That seems unusually cross. Just trying to be helpful, but I'm equally fine to go away if that's unwelcome. Have a happy Friday, or Monday, or whenever day it is in your part of the world... - Wikidemon (talk) 01:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, no. I am absolutely sick and tired of bad faith assumptions. I can't do anything on Wikipedia without someone coming out and saying that I have some sort of sinister ulterior motive. And then I get comments from random editors (whom I almost always later discover that they are part of what I now like to call "The King's Court") telling me what to do and how to behave. I didn't initially realize that CoM had started that article, but so what? It's not CoM's article, it's Wikipedia's article. Once it's out there, the creator cannot claim ownership of it. I was told to recuse myself from the AfD because CoM had created the article. What the fuck is that all about? That's not how Wikipedia is supposed to work, and I'll be damned if I'm going to let the King and his Court dictate how I conduct myself within the project. I did not interact with CoM, and as soon as he popped up on the AfD I specifically went out of my way to note that I could not interact with him even if I wanted to. But that wasn't good enough for one of his Court, evidently. The way I see it, I participated in the AfD long before CoM did; therefore, if an "interaction restriction" also means "stay away from each other" (and I don't believe that it does), it means CoM should not have participated in the AfD once he saw that I was doing so. Instead, I essentially got forced out of it by the subjects of his little kingdom. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:04, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Scjessey&oldid=324468241"