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)

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)

WB74

Re: [1]

WB74 should have the ability to contribute to discussions on the page (at least until decision is made on the SSP case). No idea why he's using a cellphone to contribute, but the limitations of that technology and the rapidity of responses on the Rezko discussion pretty much require him to have to use the sub-sections in order to prevent having to retype in his comments over and over until he gets the comment in. Perhaps a better option than telling him to stop making new sub-sections would be to ask him to remove the sections once he has added his comment. It's not overly clean way of doing it, but it's less confusing and will certainly cut down on the number of sections in the discussion.--Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:38, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I understand where you are coming from, but creating the sub-sections is how he is getting around his technological limitations. If you want to suggest a different way for him to get around his technological limitations or request that he find a different way, you can do that, but it really is not up to you to tell him to stop creating the subsections entirely. This is particularly true since it would mean he is unable to contribute to the discussions on that page. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Your lack of seriousness combined with your omnipresence on the page is an insult

I have looked into this up and down, reading reliable, neutral sources. You very, very obviously have not. You have carpeted the talk page with your comments, asserting this and asserting that without having become knowledgeable on the subject. You have wasted my time and everybody elses time by throwing out misinformation. We have been discussing this for well over a week, and you still haven't done the basic reading? If I don't scold you on this, you'll simply do it again. Do I really need to waste my time finding yet more quotes and links that yet again prove you yet again have completely misinterpreted things in a way that just happens to protect Obama even when what you say is contradicted by what he himself says? He himself, Scjessey, has said Rezko was the actor. Wives put their names on deeds all the time for tax purposes. You know, I wouldn't mind ignorance if it weren't so obvious that it's due to your spending so much time typing and so little time reading the sources. You're doing something terribly wrong and you need to be told that. I haven't insulted you in any way. I've told you bluntly where you're being a burden on everybody else who is trying to decide things on that page. The purpose of that talk page is not to opinionate it's to bring up facts and logically figure out how to put them in the article in the right way. It isn't to defend Obama or bring him down, and it isn't to try to come up with any reason at all to do what you want to do. It's to get at the truth, as close as we can. By spreading misinformation with irresponsible conjectures you are an impediment to that. And impeding the process for no good reason is an insult to the rest of us. Noroton (talk) 22:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

New request for your comment(?)

Would you consider weighing in with your experience and thoughtful opinions here: Wikipedia talk:Etiquette#A gamesmanship of inoculation? Thanks. — Justmeherenow (   ) 18:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC) This would especially be with regard any clarifications, refinements, or suggestions that come to your mind as to wording. — Justmeherenow (   ) 19:02, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Most read?

Apart from articles like Main page, this is by far the most popular article on Wikipedia.

I'm curious how you judged this. It seems plausible, but do you know of a resource that gives (even approximately) the number of viewers of various WP articles? Obviously, the actual DB admin would have access to that, but I'd be interested if that's exposed to general editors/readers. LotLE×talk 23:53, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

See User:Henrik's tool: http://stats.grok.se/en/top Shem^(talk) 03:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Kossack's potential comment / an apology

Isn't that something close to what you did, coming back before you said you would? If he's got a reasonable, constructive comment, I think I probably should pass it on, although if you have a good reason why I shouldn't, I'm listening. I don't see anything wrong with you then making the statement you mentioned on my talk page.

Also, my last message on your talk page and some of my comments on the Obama talk page about you were not as polite as they should have been. I apologize for that. I did and do have sincere and what I think are legitimate criticisms of some of your actions, but I should have been more polite.

I don't know whether you're angry enough at me now that you won't be interested, but this is something that we all might learn from. I saw a little bit of myself in some of the things that editor is accused of and a little bit of some of the behaviors a lot of us have, especially in heated discussions. (The Arbitration Committee made some missteps in the case and the whole thing is under review, and the editor, OrangeMarlin, hasn't presented his defense, but my point is that this is the attitude much of the Arbitration Committee is taking to that kind of behavior and that page shows why they think it is wrong.) It was reading that that caused me to look over some of the behavior guidelines again and think about my interactions with you and then apologize. Noroton (talk) 13:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. You have reached the 3RR limit on George Stephanopoulos. A $200 donation to a political campaign qualifies as "support," and qualifies the donor as a "supporter." This is not a BLP violation, and continuing to pretend that it is would be unproductive. Your next revert on that page will be reported as 3RR violation and you will be blocked. WorkerBee74 (talk) 22:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC)