Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:35, 12 April 2013

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)

Greetings

Hi Scjessey. Just wanted to drop a quick line and say that in my estimation, the overall tenor of your editing shows that you are (a) a lot more experienced in the Ways of Misplaced Pages than I am, and (b) an editor who cares deeply on a personal level about Truth and Building a Better Encyclopedia. Cheers. Wookian (talk) 23:20, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. The thread is "Public opinion on health care reform in the United States, United States National Health Care Act". Thank you! EarwigBot 15:01, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Mother Jones

Hi, I made those edits with the co-founder of Mother Jones, as I work for him. The citation I did leave, didn't seem to work. What you removed is information about who founded the magazine, so now the article is incorrect. Kristina Mastro (talk) 19:22, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Followup RFC to WP:RFC/AAT now in community feedback phase

Hello. As a participant in Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Abortion article titles, you may wish to register an opinion on its followup RFC, Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Abortion advocacy movement coverage, which is now in its community feedback phase. Please note that WP:RFC/AAMC is not simply a repeat of WP:RFC/AAT, and is attempting to achieve better results by asking a more narrowly-focused, policy-based question of the community. Assumptions based on the previous RFC should be discarded before participation, particularly the assumption that Misplaced Pages has or inherently needs to have articles covering generalized perspective on each side of abortion advocacy, and that what we are trying to do is come up with labels for that. Thanks! —chaos5023 20:32, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Mentioned

You have been mentioned in this AfD Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/You_didn't_build_that. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:47, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	In particular for the ongoing discussion on Star Trek into Darkness regarding a pesky little I. At the end of the day, it may not have been resolved but we all did work together to try and get it sorted, even if we did feel at times we were banging our heads on our desks and calling our computer screens idiots. MisterShiney ✉ 14:33, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Obama not notable for being a Gun Control advocate?

How is he not notable for being a gun control advocate? He voted for a handgun ban in IL, he has for years stated on the white house site that he wants to "make the assault weapons ban permanent". He stated he wanted an assault weapons ban in the 2nd debate, and also appointed Joe Biden as the head of a gun control committee. What does this man have to do to be considered a "gun control advocate"? IronKnuckle (talk) 15:57, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

When it comes to categorization, you put a person in categories for which they are chiefly notable. When you think of President Obama, you don't automatically think "gun control advocate", do you? -- Scjessey (talk) 18:13, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually I do. IronKnuckle (talk) 23:49, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

LOL. Then you have some personal issues that you need to deal with. Most people think "first black POTUS" or "healthcare" or "voting against the Iraq war". Your view is basically a fringe view. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:43, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually it's not a fringe issue. He's been extremely pro gun control for years. He's not the first black POTUS, he's the first mulatto POTUS. We dont think of healthcare, we think of Obamacare. And the Iraq War is irrelevant to what we are discussing now. He has said he is making gun control a major issue in his 2nd term. IronKnuckle (talk) 08:22, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

IronKnuckle. Be. Very. Careful. Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Obama article probation --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:51, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I am being careful...Believe me.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-takes-gun-control-push-to-law-enforcement-american-people/2013/02/04/a317d57e-6ef3-11e2-8b8d-e0b59a1b8e2a_story.html

I guess the Washington Post must have personal issues that they need to deal with huh?

And if that isnt enough, just type Obama gun control into google news. I really think he should be added to that category of "American gun control advocate". IronKnuckle (talk) 15:39, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

You evidently don't understand the concept of "chiefly known for". He is not "Gun Control Advocate Obama", he is "President Obama" (formerly "Senator Obama"). By way of example, you will find there are almost as many hits for "Obama basketball" on Google News as there are for "Obama gun control". -- Scjessey (talk) 15:46, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

That is completely untrue what you just said, I just searched "Obama Basketball", all where unrelated articles, however when I searched "Obama gun control", all were related to his gun control agenda. But here's a compromise idea. How about a new category of "gun control supporters" or "American gun control supporters"? That would be more accurate for Obama huh? IronKnuckle (talk) 17:43, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

No. Like I said, he should only be placed in categories for which he is chiefly notable. This is covered under WP:COP#N. Obama is known to favor some limited gun control, but he is far more well known as a president, a senator and a writer (for example). He is certainly not a notable figure of gun control advocacy. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:43, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

• Note: IronKnuckle is now indef blocked.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:08, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Quick note

Hi, just writing to let you know I've reverted Wee's strange edit. I'm sure it was a mistake related to WP:TW so I just went ahead and did it. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 01:17, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Xkcdreader / Talk:Star Trek Into Darkness

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:06, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I think by disrupting the Administrator's Noticeboard he didn't do himself any favours. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:22, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Reply

It's cute that you think that of me, but i have the article on my watchlist and happened to notice the edit. I didn't revert to spite you, I just don't want another Into/into issue over something so minor. RAP (talk) 18:32 19 February 2013 (UTC)

We'll wait until the consensus is solidified. RAP (talk) 18:46 19 February 2013 (UTC)

On diplomatic silence

Hi Scjessey, I'm writing here because I don't want to further disrupt the discussion over at DRN. We are very close to an agreement which has taken a full month to achieve and I wouldn't want to see that go away by starting a new discussion on how the section should look from scratch.
We obviously disagree on the meaning of "diplomatic silence". To you it means a clear support for the status quo and to me it means a neutral stance on the issue. Either interpretation would need reliable sourcing to back it up and I would be more than willing to continue this discussion with you after this issue is solved. Also keep in mind that given Wee and Kahastok's insistence that the section be as short as possible, I'm not sure a listing of pretty much every country out there would suit them.
Right now the only thing blocking the addition of your last version to the article is Wee and Kahastok unwillingness to either compromise about not mentioning the Commonwealth or to at least provide one secondary source to back its inclusion. I've compromised on the inclusion of China (which I still believe should be included) so I think I'm being pretty reasonable here. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 18:46, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Aurora Awards

Hi Simon,

Thank you for contacting me on this issue. I moved the Canadian science fiction awards article to Prix Aurora Awards partially because that is its full name but mostly in order to distinguish it from the international film and video awards, also known as the Aurora Awards. There is no other name for the international film and video awards than "Aurora Awards", so I thought it cleanest for both articles to go by their official titles. You are welcome to initiate a move discussion if you so desire. Please let me know if you do so.

Neelix (talk) 17:10, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Falklands

Hi Scjessey, I wanted to make a quick comment on Wee and Kahastok's behavior at the Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute article. They are both still opposing the inclusion of the nearly consensual version even after I accepted pretty much all of their demands. Wee has now moved the goalposts suggesting yet another version (the largest one so far, even though he and Kahastok were the ones asking for a minimal version) with substantial changes made. He knows this version will not be accepted which gives him and Kahastok another excuse to push the addition of the section even further.
As Kahastok made very clear at the DRN ticket, he assumes the last consensus is having no section at all which is completely not true. I warned about this happening at the ANI opened after Wee and Kahastok removed the old section with no consensus where I said "the lack of this section can be used by those two editors to prevent the addition of a new version of it based on no consensus to alter the status-quo". I explained the same thing to user Irondome in his talk page where I said "they will base all new attempts at introducing the re-factored section on "no consensus" given that the status-quo of the article is to have no section at all.". Exactly what I said would happen is happening right now. Wee keeps moving the goalposts even after I accommodated all of his requests, knowing this will hinder any consensus from ever forming and Kahastok has openly said that if no consensus is reached then we should not include any section at all.
It's getting harder with every comment they make not to assume they are attempting to game the system. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 14:11, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Frankly your comments were nonsense

You won't find any comment from me that were about other editors, so how you reached the conclusion the personal rhetoric was down to me is a mystery. I'm going to simply remind you of your previous comments about children fighting over a cuddly toy. My suggested text, is just that, a suggestion and its based on what I proposed at WP:DRN, which the mediator there suggested was a good compromise. Comment on content not editors. Your disappointment that I disagree with the "compromise" YOU agreed with another editor is not justification for escalating matters when agreement could be rather close. I disagree but the differences are very minor. Was it worth making matters worse when it could easily be solved in a matter of hours by discussing content not other editors? Wee Curry Monster talk 16:03, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry but I have to call bullshit on that comment, , , both comment on me not the edit and yes when your comments are unfounded it really does put your back up. Talk about rubbing salt in, when in a hole stop digging. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:38, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with your analysis. Furthermore, I think you are having trouble with the concept of compromise. The proposal that I put forward was based on your work, and I simplified modified it a little to try to draw both "sides" together. Your new proposal wanders off into new territory and so we're essentially starting from scratch again. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:54, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Well if you disagree, then back up your comments by pointing to a diff where I engaged in personal rhetoric before Gaba p. We were close to working something out, your ill-chosen remarks are as responsible for derailing discussions as anything else. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:14, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

BTW did you not notice I did in fact compromise already and struck out part of my proposal for later discussion. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:17, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I can't help notice you chose neither to provide a diff or comment on unfounded allegations by Gaba p of racism. Thanks. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:47, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I didn't even read all that bollocks. I just created a new section and pretended all that childish bullshit didn't exist. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:58, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Can I have a diff please? Yes/No? Wee Curry Monster talk 22:07, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't even know what you are referring to. Are you talking about Gaba's characterization of your comments about Chavez? If so, I agree with you. Chavez is a certifiable nutcase. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:05, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Muslim Brotherhood Conspiracy Theories

Hi, thanks for the message. I do not understand what my edit has to do with any political opinions. My edit is based off an obvious assumption that sending money to the ruling party would surely qualify for that section. Again, I simply would like to know why you disagree with my edit. Under what circumstances would you consider this to no longer be a "conspiracy theory"? What other form of sending money would qualify? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.240.235.162 (talk) 23:22, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Muslim Brotherhood Conspiracy Theories

I'm sorry but your description of the reversion shows that it is you who is inserting opinion. What does lawfully-elected have to do with it, it it is THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD that is lawfully elected. That being the case, I guess nobody aided the Nazis, they just aided the lawfully-elected German government. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.240.235.162 (talk) 21:28, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Also, look at the article as it is currently written. Even you could agree it is incorrect. I quote "The US government gives Egypt over $1.3 billion in military aid to Egypt annually and the US Agency for International Development (USAID) has provided over $28 billion in economic and development aid to Egypt since 1975, but it is not likely that any US aid goes to the Muslim Brotherhood or affiliate organizations which oppose US policies" At this point, the Ikhwan being the government, isn't it highly likely that some aid goes to the Ikhwan? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.240.235.162 (talk) 21:34, 12 April 2013 (UTC)