Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:51, 14 August 2012

Like the motto

I really like that motto of yours, "If in doubt, leave it out. Consensus before contentious. — Simon Jessey." I hope you don't mind if I use it from time to time. :D danielkueh (talk) 22:49, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

Thank you for your effective mediation on the Eurovision Song Contest 2012 article. CT Cooper · talk 19:25, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change

Resolved by motion at Misplaced Pages: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

Have a beer

Thanks for jointly taking on Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/13 November 2011/Usage share of operating systems! Having an experienced mediator there is going to be a big help. Have a virtual beer on me :) — Mr. Stradivarius 14:52, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Have a packet of crisps with that

Thanks for your contributions to the dispute I raised on Billy Fox. The result isn't everything I'd want, but the other editors haven't reverted it and I think your help contributed to a compromise. Thanks. --Flexdream (talk) 16:22, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Your fan club

...is holding meetings on my talk page. I hope they will bring something to eat, I'm hungry. Viriditas (talk) 08:29, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Faithful sockuppet reporting for duty! I forget, are you the sock and I'm the puppet, or are you the puppet and I'm the muppet? - Wikidemon (talk) 08:39, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm totally confused. I'm not sure I can even remember my name today. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:49, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

You're number 6. Viriditas (talk) 23:22, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I am not a number, I am a free man! -- Scjessey (talk) 23:36, 21 June 2012 (UTC) Don't tell my wife I said that. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:39, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

You think I am your sock, but consider yourself pwned, you are my sock. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:43, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

That's bullshit. I know for a fact that you wear sandals. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:47, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Requesting that you re-delete the judicial nominations quote.

As a computer scientist, I'm sure you understand that the way the quote used statistics was misleading. Please self-revert. Such action will help me to AGF. Thank you. William Jockusch (talk) 00:51, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks.William Jockusch (talk) 05:02, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Barack Obama

My edit on the article is correct on the Supreme Court's decision in National Federation of Independent Business v Sebelius. Please read the slip opinion here: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf. The PPACA is ruled constitutional in part (the individual mandate provision) and unconstitutional in part (the Medicaid expansion provision). These two provisions are the only provisions of the PPACA on which that the Court has issued a ruling. Difu Wu (talk) 13:21, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Changes to DRN

Hello there. I have recently made a proposal to change the way that disputes are handled and filed at DRN. As you've listed yourself as a volunteer at DRN, I would appreciate your input. You can find the thread here. Regards, Steven Zhang 02:49, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Opinion

Could you opine on this matter. Regards AdabowtheSecond (talk) 19:09, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but I cannot bring myself to even look at a matter concerning One Direction. I might throw up in my mouth. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:19, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Could you AGF a little?

Good lord, man. The main point of my Obama edit re Supreme Court was that the commerce cause thing should be included. I inadvertently changed the tax / penalty part in the process. Two issues:

1) Could you AGF a little? POV pushing is an unfair response to such an isolated edit.

2) Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. If you have a problem with my inadvertent tax/penalty change, fix that. But don't also revert the commerce clause portion.William Jockusch (talk) 21:29, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Reverting on the Obama article

This was, in my opinion, quite a serious mistake. I have tagged the section and raised the matter in talk. In the meantime, please reconsider your action. --John (talk) 22:08, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Making it personal

I noticed this edit, which contains quite a serious allegation against me which I believe to be mistaken. I wonder if you could either substantiate the accusation you made (Diffs would be the usual way to do this, and you may do it here), or else strike out the allegation and apologise. Thanks in advance for your consideration. --John (talk) 18:01, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

You twice restored a tag removed by other editors who were in clear disagreement without discussing it on the talk page. I see that is edit warring, especially when the article is under a 1RR restriction. It's in the edit history of the article, if you want to check. I must say that from reading the discussion above, I think you need to take a step back. You're lighting an awful lot of fires for someone who boasted about being an administrator. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:07, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Added once, restored twice, removed once; that adds up to one revert. That isn't edit warring by any stretch of the imagination. And counting up to one isn't all that hard, surely? Talking of edit histories, do you see any discussion from me at Talk:Barack Obama, or would you stick to your "without discussing it on the talk page"? Think hard, please. --John (talk) 18:16, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Not quite sure why you removed my previous comment from here, since it referred to the discussion above, but it's your talk page. As to your most recent comment, I saw that you self reverted your unwarranted tag but you also restored the disputed content at the same time, which counts as a revert of an earlier edit. You did not discuss your reverts on the talk page. So please stop telling everyone how to count and how hard to think, "lest to make a fool of yourself." -- Scjessey (talk) 18:27, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I see you do not know what a revert is. Let me help you. On Misplaced Pages, reverting means undoing the effects of one or more edits, which normally results in the page being restored to a version that existed previously. My second edit was not a revert as it added sources as discussed in talk. The edit summary made this clear. Far from not discussing, I added my references for discussion here, here and here. Please be more careful in the future; falsely accusing others of misconduct is likely to discredit any substantive point you may have, and may of course also lead to restrictions of your editing rights if you persist. Anyone can make a mistake; it takes a big man to apologise. Are you big enough to say sorry and strike your error? --John (talk) 18:39, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I see that you have chosen to embarrass yourself. Not content with edit warring (yes, I do know what a "revert" is), you've used WP:BATTLEGROUND tactics by engaging with several editors who've disagreed with your proposed text and edit warring behavior, you've insulted Wikidemon, William and me on our talk pages, and now you are suggesting you will engage in an abuse of your administrator privileges as an involved admin. Your behavior is a disgrace, and if you continue down this path you will find yourself the subject of an WP:ANI thread. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:52, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

That's very, very disappointing. I see no point in continuing this discussion here; it seems you aren't capable of learning from your mistakes. Of course, if you wish to make an even bigger arse of yourself by taking this to AN/I, please be my guest. You may find it preferable to have a cup of tea instead, and think about what I have said, as there is potential for you to learn if you wish. Entirely up to you of course. And you may have the last word, if it makes you feel better. --John (talk) 19:00, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution IRC office hours.

Hello there. As you expressed interest in hearing updates to my research in the dispute resolution survey that was done a few months ago, I just wanted to let you know that I am hosting an IRC office hours session this coming Saturday, 28th July at 19:00 UTC (approximately 12 hours from now). This will be located in the #wikimedia-office IRC channel - if you have not participated in an IRC discussion before you can connect to IRC here.

Regards, User:Szhang (WMF) (talk) 07:05, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Sowell edit

I reverted it for the time being but why would it be in error? The only problem I can see with it is might lead to edit warring. CartoonDiablo (talk) 19:03, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Barack Obama on Twitter DRV

Per your contribution rank here, please consider adding your thoughts to the Barack Obama on Twitter DRV if you haven't already done so. Thanks. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 17:13, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Cro-Magnon

Hi Thank you for your message. My edit contained two parts:

1. Adding that the word Cro-Magnon is a historical term.

2. That Early European... is the term used now.

Part 2 was not introducing anything new to the article I simply moved a sentence from the etymology to the lede. There are plenty of references in the article backing that up, I didn't attach those references to the statement which is a fair complaint.

1. Follows from part2 by definition. A term that is no longer used is a historical term, I don't think you would want me to include a reference that supports a definition.

The reason I made the edits was that the lede was misleading suggesting Cro-magnon is some special species or subspecies where as it is simple an early name for European humans.

Now since you deleted my edit I will not reinstate it I would courteously ask you to please confirm for yourself that the statement is supported by the references already in the article and if you find that this is indeed the case please reinstate my edit, as the objection would be resolved.60.241.171.231 (talk) 22:55, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Also note google's second result for Cro-Magnon written by an archaeologist is TITLED "Why Don't We Call Them Cro-Magnon Anymore?" yet the wikipedia article has the most important aspect of Cro-Magnon (that it is a historic word) tucked away in the etymology, I think the case I am making is strong and will increase in strength the more you look into it. I really hope I have convinced you so I don't have to "take up a cause" as it were. Thank you.60.241.171.231 (talk) 23:08, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok So I think you are not particularly involved in the Cro-Magnon article, and your revert was a kind of drive-by affair (my edit certainly looked like OR in lieu of reading through the references)(Sorry you've caught me in my morning coffee argumentative mood) :D 60.241.171.231 (talk) 23:37, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Could you tone in down a bit on Sowell?

Your pigeon analogy is not terribly near the line on civility. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:20, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi! Thank you for adding a reference...but...

A recent addition of a reference is a good contribution, however the editor that added it was correct, it need not be cited (although the excuse that there are enough is not the reason). It is an undisputable fact, one which is well known enough that an inline citation for the fact alone is not required(it is douptful that it would be disputed). Dating and any specific peice of information might require such just for varifiabilty, but just stating that Ryan is the presumptive pick by Romney is not controversial. Additional information would require further referencing if more detail is used. Thanks! Always to sides to any discussion!--Amadscientist (talk) 21:06, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

attacks

I request you redact your attacks on me which violate WP:NPA on their face. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:51, 14 August 2012 (UTC)