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)

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 [1] [2] ~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.[3] 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.[4] Note that I had asked you to voluntarily undo your change due to a potential process violation,[5] 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)

A barnstar for you

		The Barnstar of Integrity
		For upholding the spirit of BRD at Talk:Donald Trump#Reversion explanation. — JFG talk 07:13, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

@JFG: Thank you :-) -- Scjessey (talk) 11:38, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

While I obviously disagree with you regarding my Trump article edits, and I believe in God, it seems we agree on a number of things. I agree that organized religion does more harm than good, whether it's Islamic terrorism or Catholic priests abusing children and covering it up. I am likewise a fiscal conservative and social liberal. I believe in a woman's right to abortion, and same-sex marriage (if you are against abortion, don't have one, and if you are against same-sex marriage don't marry someone of the same sex - but don't tell other people what to do with their lives). Everyone should have the same rights and protections - no more and no less. I believe in smaller government, but recognize that there are some issues only a strong federal government can address (e.g. environmental protection, workplace safety). I believe the Constitution has been weakened in many ways, in particular by subrogating States' rights, expansion of the commerce clause, and by Congress delegating rulemaking to executive agencies. And who doesn't like baklava? JohnTopShelf (talk) 21:09, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

@JohnTopShelf: Thank you! -- Scjessey (talk) 22:32, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Not helpful

[6] I don't care if it was meant to be humorous. Please strike. ~Awilley (talk) 20:41, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar substitute for you!

Greetings!

I have in the past offered unsolicited criticism of the nature of your participation at Talk:Donald Trump. I don't have a clear memory of what I complained about, but I do recall thinking you were flirting with topic ban. I came here to tell you that I perceived a marked improvement I guess about 6 months ago, and it has been a lasting one. I appreciate it, and I wanted to give credit where credit is due. I don't think this has much to do with the fact that you seem to side with me a lot lately; at least I hope I'm not that shallow.

I'd spend the time trying to find an appropriate barnstar, but it appears you don't save them here or on your user page.

So I arrived here and noticed the previous section, in which you received a complaint from an experienced editor (his adminship is perhaps irrelevant, I don't know), and you neither responded to the complaint nor acted on it. You just ignored the complaint, and the comment he referred to made it into the archive. So my high praise has to be tempered slightly.

Looking forward to a continued working relationship. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:07, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

@Mandruss: Your comment is much appreciated, as your unsolicited criticism has been. I've been a Wikipedian for many years, but I'm not such an "old hand" that I can't take advice from others. The topic areas I mostly involve myself with a quite, er, spirited in their nature, so it is easy for me to get emotionally caught up in things from time to time. I collect nice comments and barnstars at User:Scjessey/Awardery. And by way of penance, I collect the less nice stuff too: User talk:Scjessey/Bad boy.

With respect to the complaint you mentioned, I looked at my comment and did not think it was inappropriate at the time, and given my previous interactions with the editor who complained I did not think I would be able to respond productively. You could say the lack of response was my response. With the benefit of a historical perspective I would agree my comment doesn't look good in a vacuum; nevertheless, in the context of the inflamed passions of the discussion at the time I am still content to leave it. I hope you aren't too disappointed in me for doing so.

Please do continue to offer your unsolicited criticism in this space moving forward, as I value it greatly. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:45, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Trump

Hey, please put the Reese's down, or better yet, just shut the laptop. I am sure I don't need to give you notification templates for BLPs and American Politics, that you are aware of how inappropriate the comment was. Awilley, I'm sure Scjessey wants to thank you for kindly removing that remark, as do I. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:29, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

@Drmies: Quite right. I have thanked Awilley for reverting it. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:17, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Scjessey. My weak spot is KitKats, by the way. Drmies (talk) 14:41, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Wow! What a privilege to enjoy such treatment as receiving cutesy little messages about chocolates on your talk page after deliberately and aggressively violating BLP policy. After the...what is it now, Scjessey? Are you in the triple digits yet, you think? And only a smattering of blocks, none of them indefinite of course, in over a decade of using the project to disseminate your fanaticism to anyone who will listen. Good livin', eh MrErnie PackMecEng Sir Joseph Markbassett Atsme Winkelvi Icewhiz Masem TParis? It's helpful to pause and reflect once in a while on what you are able to get away with on the objective, non-partisan, unbiased English Wikipedia, provided that you have the correct opinions, attack the correct people, and copy-paste text from the correct media corporation. Especially true when you consider that you have militantly neutral and independent-minded "just the facts" guys like Drmies running around, doing yeoman's work in ensuring that his punishments are dealt without EVER allowing his own ideology to interfere with his duties. Anyway, carry on. 2600:1012:B055:DCE8:1A3:78D5:F353:5951 (talk) 01:18, 3 November 2019 (UTC) 2600:1012:B055:DCE8:1A3:78D5:F353:5951 (talk) 01:18, 3 November 2019 (UTC)