Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Edit war about personal attack. Thank you.
Dude, this is not cool. Just cool down. Take some WP:TEA. Don't escalate things further. This is not worth loosing your cool over. Relax. Ok? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:45, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- I agree. It was rude, and totally deserved. Debresser escalated, not me. Look at the editing history and you will see I had stepped away from the article only to be poked with reversions and posturing comments. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:31, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Please be mindful of talk page guidelines when commenting on articles such as Hillary Clinton email system. There is nothing wrong with injecting personal opinion into discussion on how to improve an article, as you did here, but political rants that serve no editorial purpose, such as this, are not acceptable. I understand that people can be pretty passionate about politics, but please remember that Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a forum. Thanks. –Chase (talk / contribs) 19:03, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
- Going on a political rant that has nothing to do with the improvement of the article and everything to do with your opinion of Republicans is in violation of that policy. Just a reminder that I was referring to this comment. –Chase (talk / contribs) 03:12, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Your labeling of "The Washington Times" as a: "non-neutral right-wing rag, replete with disgraceful anti-Muslim racist commentary"
@Scjessey: With regard to your edit summary when reverting another editor in the Hillary Clinton email controversy article on 2015-08-19 (revision 676818520), wherein you wrote with respect to a Washington Times reference citation: "opinion piece from non-neutral right-wing rag, replete with disgraceful anti-Muslim racist commentary" --- Wow! Do you really consider that statement a non-POV assessment of The Washington Times? Some might disagree, and in fact that publication is cited as a valid source in numerous Wikipedia articles. (I'll put you down as a "maybe" on whether you think it constitutes a valid source for use in Wikipedia.) I think it behooves us to exercise some degree of caution before making such inflammatory, and potentially libelous statements about a major U.S. news organization. I'm curious though, seriously, what sources exactly would you consider suitable for use as valid Wikipedia sources? --- Professor JR (talk) 12:30, 19 August 2015 (UTC)