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.

Blocked for 3RR

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 12 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule . Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Nothing personal — consider this a short shock from the proverbial electric fence. Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quartermaster chiming in on Obama article and Rezko edits (as well as other stuff)

You come across as an exquisitely honest editor regarding the Obama article. You're a good shepherd. I will tread lightly per your suggestions. Have a barnstar.

		The Anti-Flame Barnstar
		Thanks, Mom! Quartermaster (talk) 20:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

September 2008

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

I'm not seeing edit warring at the article, and I believe this was a simple mistake after reviewing the contribution history of Scjessey and the filer of the original 3RR report. ~~Wikidemon~~ CENSEI is not completely innocent in this whole matter, and these type of reports and tenacious/gaming editing practices is becoming tiring. That said, I don't think that ceasing editing at Barack Obama is necessary, but please be aware of the sanctions that are in existence and save wholesale reverts for blatant vandalism. Cheers, seicer | talk | contribs 04:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request handled by: seicer | talk | contribs 04:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have left a note directly with the blocking editor suggesting that the block is a mistake and that the editing in question was routine, uncontroversial article patrol. The 3RR report itself is an over-the-top act of wikigaming by a problem editor. Wikidemon (talk) 00:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Scjessey, as peculiar as this is, to eliminate any possible argument for the ongoing block will you kindly signal that you will not do more than 3 reverts per day on the main page, even unrelated uncontroversial ones, until and unless we clarify per the terms of article probation that this is okay? Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 01:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been away from Wikipedia for a few hours, and this block has come as a complete surprise to me. I agree that this is a highly dubious piece of wikigaming, and this is clearly confirmed by the reporting editor's attempt to ensure the block remains - an agenda-based 3RR report, basically. Oh well. No real harm done. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re unblocked

I'm glad you got unblocked. I'm sorry you experienced problems with an autoblock. I hope that my comments, with perhaps an overly-strict interpretation of 3RR enforcement, didn't have too much adverse effect on your ability to edit freely. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 02:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Ayers

Hi Scjessey. A new section was apparently added to the article, using his blog as a source. What do you think? I'm not sure whether it a reliable source, IMO it should be supported by third party references. This is borderline OR as well. Khoikhoi 07:29, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, what are your thoughts on these two edits? I recall dealing with something similar to the first one. As far as I know, it's not a "short-form birth certificate", it's just a birth certificate. Khoikhoi 19:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I understand it better now. BTW, careful about 3RR... Khoikhoi 21:03, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talkpage

I have initiated the talkpage discussion, please take comments there from now on. Glen Twenty (talk) 20:25, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-warring

Scjessey, I am concerned by some of your recent actions, including edit-warring at Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008, and uncivil edit summaries.[1][2][3] I can sympathize with the frustration that comes from dealing with those who you feel are pushing an inappropriate POV. However, please ensure that your own behavior is clean when you are dealing with them. I know that you are normally a very good editor. However, when your own behavior is disruptive as well, it makes it more difficult for administrators to sort out who the real problem cases are. So please, stay civil, engage in talkpage discussion, and work through the normal stages of dispute resolution? Thanks, --El on ka 21:10, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have also rwemoved well-sourced facts from the lead paragraph of Peter Roskam, and removed a quality portrait photo to replace it with what appears to be an old Polaroid snapshot. You appear to be deliberately trying to provoke me. I have added the cites from the very same material that could have been found in the body of the article, had you bothered to look, and restored the quality portrait. If you feel this is inappropriate, take it to the article Talk page and explain your position. Kossack4Truth (talk) 11:05, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]