User talk:Scjessey

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

So if I take your words said to someone else and apply them to you, that's uncivil. hmm. My comment to you was intended to show that I, an outsider who has contributed nothing to the article or the argument, found your comments to be biased. Reading through the talk section, seeing your collective comments led me to wonder whether you're an arms length. You're picking and choosing which news articles have merit seemingly based on what they say and your comments to people commenting and with regard to the publication you want to omit are not civil.... and now you leave a nasty note for me saying my comment was uncivil. Wow!!!!! I came to the Wikipedia site because I read an article (one slice, if you will) and I wanted to see the whole scandal/controversy in one place, link to the sources and reach my own understanding without sway and what I found was a whole lot of sway by you. So I don't know who you are and what you're trying to gain from all this, but I stand by my observation and feel someone needs to call you out on it, but you go ahead and leave your uncivil comments in and omit or erase anyone who challenges you. You're a bully, congratulations!

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.

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change[edit]

Resolved by motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment that: The Climate change case is supplemented as follows:

The editing restriction described in remedy 16.1 ("Scjessey's voluntary editing restriction") of the Climate change decision is terminated, effective on the passage of this motion.

For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 12:52, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Discuss this


Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Jeppiz (talk) 13:31, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

You have a long history here and know that personal attacks are not acceptable. You have not had a personal attack block since 2009, please stop engaging in personal attacks or it will happen again. HighInBC 13:46, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Roger that. I have already expressed my outrage and got it out of my system. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:51, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton email controversy is covered by discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBAP2[edit]

Commons-emblem-notice.svg This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Alerting you of the sanctions in view of a complaint about your edits at WP:AN3 (permanent link). Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:32, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)


Hi, thank you for your feedback. But the edits made were sourced to even the same article that sources already allowed. If Ars Technica can not be a source, then it can not be a source, its ok. but Ars Technica is a source for what I post too. I think you should be balanced. Not allowing public relations from Liberty Media to own page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:44, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

AN/I discussion[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an editor for whom you left a talk page caution.[1][2][3] The thread is Professor JR on political articles. Thank you. - Wikidemon (talk) 10:36, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Rotor wing[edit]

There is a discussion at Talk:Rotor wing about the article title. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:33, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

January 6 2016[edit]

Hi, I am bringing to your attention an arbitration case that I have raised against you.--Mouse001 (talk) 02:17, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Some sort of link would be nice. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:26, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

HRC email controversy lead[edit]

Since you were able to come to a compromise position for the HRC section regarding the classified info, would you be so kind as to weigh in on the child article lead discussion? Currently there is no matching information in the lead of the child article at all that classified information. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:57, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I note that there is no compromise on the Hillary Clinton article. The statement there last time I checked about the email controversy is inappropriate. Now the same editors are trying to shoehorn that summary into the lede of the email controversy article. I'm waiting until the socking problem is solved before we can resume discussion. We may also have to figure out which if any of the real editor accounts is operating the sock. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:06, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Check again.Gaijin42 (talk) 19:12, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

ICat Master SPA tag[edit]

Might I suggest, as a compromise of sorts, putting the tag on the line below (as User:Shawn in Montreal did with his tag below my signature)? At least then it will not come across as a modification of the editor's signature. I would note, by the way, that although ICat Master does appear to be an SPA as to Hillary Clinton as a subject, he has not edited the specific article at issue in this discussion. Cheers! bd2412 T 17:33, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

@BD2412: No. WP:SPA says where to place the tag, so I placed it there. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:14, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I accidentally reverted your edit[edit]

I accidentally reverted your edit. Also please see this RfC.VictoriaGraysonTalk 20:10, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

@VictoriaGrayson: I saw your reversion and self-revert earlier, and I assumed it was just a mistake. No problem. Also, I weighed in right of the beginning of that RfC saying it wasn't appropriate. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:14, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

knowledge of hacking[edit]

Regardless of the article content,and ignoring Clinton completely, I am seriously confused by your position. You don't think that those 3 guys know what the capabilities of foreign governments are? What their own agencies capabilities are? The general difficulty of gaining access to government servers vs difficulty of gaining access to private servers? The CIA, and DIA are certainly involved in hacking the computers of private individuals (and foreign governments) all over the world (and probably within the US).

I agree they are not l33t hackers themselves. But when they talk to their underlings and say "please hack X's server" they know what the likelihood of success is, particularly when that server is running software with known vulnerabilities.

They may or may not know the specifics of clinton's server. They certainly probably know more about it than we do. But even what we know is that it was not hardened at all. Neutral sources describe this as "amateur hour vulnerabilities".

  • Set up by a guy with no security qualifications
  • Remote desktop exposed directly to the internet (which govt warned is vulnerable to even low skilled attackers)
  • Multiple services with ports open.
  • Incorrectly configured SSL certificates.
  • Not running intrusion detection software
  • Apparently not running virus scanners on incoming email (Clinton received the malware PDFS but claims she didn't click on them)

You are absolutely right, none of this is proof of successful hacking. We are not saying proof of successful hacking. We are saying that 3 sources, who regularly order hackers to hack, and know the capabilities of foreign governments, have said they think this server was easily hackable. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:10, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I told you I am not interested in debating this further. I disagree with the inclusion of this questionable material for a number of different reasons, chiefly WP:WEIGHT, but I no longer care. The POV pushers outnumber the neutral editors, as far as I'm concerned. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:06, 25 February 2016 (UTC)


I would appreciate if you waited for a few minutes or hours before you overzealously revert other people's edits. I am not done yet. And there are plenty of Wikipedia articles and sections which are US or whatever centric. This is not a good argument for reversion. It also helps to be a bit more constructive instead of just deleting stuff. Thanks! -- Peteruetz (talk) 16:08, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


If it wasn't clear last time, stay off my talk page. You are not welcome there. - theWOLFchild 16:12, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild: If a warning or notice is required, I will comment where I please. Wikipedia is a public project, not your personal playground. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:15, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Locus Awards for Best Novel and Best Science Fiction Novel[edit]

Hello Scjessey, I'm responding to your undoing of my edits to Locus Award for Best Science Fiction Novel and Locus Award for Best Novel. I'm sorry I didn't comment my edits. I don't edit wikipedia very much and sometimes forget to comment. In regards to my edits :

Thanks , Jjohnstz (talk) 04:01, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

@Jjohnstz: My bad. I have self reverted my edits. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:36, 9 March 2016 (UTC)


Regarding your last edit on Talk:Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016: you have been told before to remain civil and avoid personal attacks. I'm asking you to refactor or strike your remark, and to remember the the civility policy going forward. Jonathunder (talk) 20:54, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL does not prohibit profanity as long it is not directed specifically at another editor. "For fuck's sake" is an exclamation that can be likened to "Oh my God". So no, I will not be refactoring my comment. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:46, 11 March 2016 (UTC)


You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Scjessey. - MrX 20:15, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Scjessey, while I do not support sanctions in the case brought against you, I do believe that you are making things harder on yourself than they should be with the way you interact with other editors. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 14:10, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
    • Message received and understood. Thank you, Drmies. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:59, 15 March 2016 (UTC)


About this summary[4], well your edit was correct since a user made a good faith change without any consensus, and it is also the case that Wikipedia uses "email", however, the usage e-mail is anything but outdated, it is still very widely used - in fact so widely used that in cases where "email" is preferred you'll find that they have a tendency to drop most hyphens anyway. Whilst debate continues to exist on punctuation, and questions over where hyphens should stay or not, its position in "e-mail" is actually one of the strongest arguments for retaining it and many writers actually consider its removal vulgar. So "outdated" it is not. The 321 kiddo (talk) 04:19, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

@The 321 kiddo: I completely disagree. "E-mail" is indeed outdated usage, insofar as the fact that most of the English-speaking world has dropped the hyphen, regardless of whether or not it is considered vulgar. Use of "e-mail" is generally limited to a few US-centric English language conservative publications and a few old gentlemen who still capitalize the first letter of internet. Sources: Grammarist, The Washington Post, Business Writing, Associated Press Stylebook,, The Wire (referring to The New York Times style guide). -- Scjessey (talk) 14:47, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
You've proven yourself wrong then. Outdated = archaic. Today or To-day? Tomorrow or To-morrow? That list you gave entire of itself is in fact a very respectable corpus to show that the hyphen is not only alive but going strong. Maybe you don't realise this but the "few old gentlemen" do actually command a lot of respect and many youngsters aspire to emulate the older with regards language. And many foreigners learning English generally welcome the concept of rules and conservatism. Naturally a prescriptive teacher will insist on using the hyphen, but the descriptive teacher however is far from being in a position to declare the hyphen dead, and would be doing wrong if he ever encouraged, "don't use it". Descriptive linguists are not well placed to consider anything incorrect, but if they had to (ie. say "I am American" and not "I American am"), then this cannot be on an issue that has some life in it. Historically it is seen that things go out of fashion for a long time, and are on the verge of extinction and then suddenly they achieve new life. The question of the hyphen is precarious, there are indeed those that would wish to see it go, but then this attitude goes back centuries. Some refuse to use it full stop regardless of whether it causes confusion, but even where it is felt it does not belong in some places, its status in e-mail remains compelling, and strong, even if it is in a minority. But as it happens, the hyphen is not restricted to your examples, it is wider used than that; and the reason it is not likely to get smaller is because this maxim has a logical basis unlike many which exist just for the sake of tradition. The 321 kiddo (talk) 19:17, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Whatever. As long as nobody changes the article title again, I really don't care about your opinion. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:08, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Curiously I don't actually have an opinion, I presented you with a pile of facts which I could source. The reason I am writing this is to tell you that I will unsparingly use "e-mail" on every citation where I edit. Obviously this site is on your side and you are welcome to follow me and make changes, however if you believe I am doing something wrong, feel free to report my usage of the hyphen to WP:AE. Thanks. The 321 kiddo (talk) 23:33, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Well since Wikipedia prefers "email", the most common form used in style guides and dictionaries by far, stubbornly using "e-mail" everywhere you edit is a mild example of disruption of the project to make a point. I'm not going to stop you from doing it on articles not on my watchlist, but if I were you I would reconsider such a tactic, lest people would think me something of an asshat. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:09, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice. Maybe you assume I mean bad faith but I don't. Firstly I am not on a crusade and would not enter the word "e-mail" unless I had reason to. As things stand I know of not a single example where I might need to do this. The hyphenated term is already scattered throughout the website (example, [5]) so it is not an offence, or disruptive to the project to have it on display. But I cannot as a person of my own values bring myself to write ebooks/email (sic), which is why I say, anybody wishing to clean up is welcome but I truly believe any contribution I make is for the good of the project. The 321 kiddo (talk) 18:39, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
But going around changing "e-mail" to "email" would absolutely be disruptive. As long as you don't do that, we're good. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:41, 16 April 2016 (UTC)


Did you mean formally or formerly here? Just curious, as the terms are often conflated. General Ization Talk 15:42, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

@General Ization: Formally, as in "officially". I can understand the confusion though, because of the "has" in my sentence. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:47, 28 April 2016 (UTC)


If you could stick to a single interpretation of RS, that would be great.

  • "Any other interpretation of that, regardless of the source, is inaccurate, and it would be wrong to say she broke rules, laws, regulations or anything like that"[6]
  • "What is published in reliable sources trumps anything put out by the DNC, even if we know that to be somewhat misleading"[7]

Gaijin42 (talk) 13:56, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

@Gaijin42: There's no comparison. In the first case, there are a ton of reliable sources making the same point I did about wrongdoing, including that well-known liberal-leaning Forbes that I referred to earlier in that discussion. In the second case, the mainstream media is unanimous in saying the "presumptive nominee" is the person who gets a majority of all delegates, regardless of whether or not they are pledged or supers. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:55, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
1) A ton, yet a minority. 2) Yes, they are unanimous in saying the nominee is the one who gets the majority of all delegates. They were unanimous in that analysis for the past decade or so. But they are not unanimous in counting the pledged but not yet voted votes of the SDs. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:59, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
1) Barely a minority. 2) By unanimous, I mean by a factor of about 500 to 1. Anyway, is this you just trying to make a point or are you going to say something useful? -- Scjessey (talk) 16:01, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

AGF and POV accusations[edit]

I've been somewhat active at Hillary Clinton for months, although I try to stay within my competence level and have not contributed heavily to content. During that time, how many times have I been accused of POV-pushing at that article? Oh, you don't know? How many times in 3 years have I been accused of POV-pushing at any article? You don't know that either? Seems there is a lot you don't know about me, and yet you have no problem accusing me (and others) of that in a discussion. Your "evidence" of my POV editing is the fact that I oppose deletion of that article. Man, that is some very wild reasoning. The answer to the first question, should you care, is: 0. The answer to the second question is 1, and that IP editor got no support for their accusations. I again ask you to observe AGF in discussions. AGF places the burden of clear evidence squarely in your court, not mine. Thank you. ―Mandruss  03:32, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

@Mandruss: I honestly don't know what you are talking about. Please provide a diff of where you say I accused you. I looked back in my contribs and couldn't find it. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:14, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Fair enough. I read your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Hillary Clinton controversies as challenging the motives of both me and Anythingyouwant. If they weren't, I misread them.
But even then you're clearly accusing the creators of the article in question and, per the comments in my !vote, AGF says we must omit such suspicions from discussions. They are both counterproductive and unnecessary. Note Gaijin42's !vote for example. He always focuses entirely on policy and leaves motives out of it. That's what I aspire to, although I'm still working on mastering all the relevant policy; thus my !vote was heavy on extra-policy reasoning, while at least remaining AGF-compliant. ―Mandruss  23:31, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
I have never had cause to question your motives. As far as I can tell, you are a valued contributor to the project who has edited with a neutral and steady hand; however, one could rightly imply I questioned the motivations of Anythingyouwant, who has apparently set about to misuse Wikipedia to further an agenda. One can only tolerate such behavior up to a point. That said, Anythingyouwant is not the worst offender by any stretch of the imagination. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:22, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
If you're right about them, they can be defeated on content-policy grounds alone, which is the point of AGF. ―Mandruss  01:49, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton[edit]

You were saying that "it IS supported by reliable sources in the body..." I may have missed them on my first read. Can you point them out to me? --Dervorguilla (talk) 22:49, 24 July 2016 (UTC)