User talk:Scjessey

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

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

May 2015[edit]

Information icon 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.

Cool down[edit]

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)

Soapbox comments[edit]

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)

Yeah, I really don't need a lecture. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:19, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Clearly you do since you were seemingly unaware of these guidelines and policies. –Chase (talk / contribs) 21:02, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
I've been a Wikipedian for a long time. I'm fully aware of all policies and guidelines and I don't need a lecture. You did not read my comment correctly, which addressed the issue being discussed (albeit with a little bit of opinion thrown in). -- Scjessey (talk) 01:11, 29 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)
I know what comment you were referring to, I don't agree with you, and I don't want to hear any more from you on the matter. Hopefully I have made myself clear. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:42, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Your labeling of "The Washington Times" as a: "non-neutral right-wing rag, replete with disgraceful anti-Muslim racist commentary"[edit]

@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)