| Revision as of 02:06, 22 October 2015 editScjessey (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers29,029 edits Undid revision 686886722 by Amaury (talk) - inappropriate warning. I didn't make the comment this user claimed I made.← Previous edit | Revision as of 02:07, 22 October 2015 edit undoScjessey (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers29,029 edits Old stuffNext edit → | ||
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
| For the Arbitration Committee, ] (]) 12:52, 17 November 2011 (UTC)<br> | For the Arbitration Committee, ] (]) 12:52, 17 November 2011 (UTC)<br> | ||
| :''']''' | :''']''' | ||
| == May 2015 == | |||
| ] There is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic ]. <!--Template:ANI-notice--> Thank you. | |||
| == Cool down == | |||
| Dude, is not cool. Just cool down. Take some ]. Don't escalate things further. This is not worth loosing your cool over. Relax. Ok? --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</sub> 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. -- ] (]) 22:31, 14 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Soapbox comments == | |||
| Please be mindful of ] when commenting on articles such as ]. There is nothing wrong with injecting personal opinion into discussion on how to improve an article, as you did ], but political rants that serve no editorial purpose, such as ], are not acceptable. I understand that people can be pretty passionate about politics, but please remember that ] a soapbox or a forum. Thanks. –''''']''''' (] / ]) 19:03, 27 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Yeah, I really don't need a lecture. -- ] (]) 13:19, 28 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Clearly you do since you were seemingly unaware of these guidelines and policies. –''''']''''' (] / ]) 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). -- ] (]) 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 ]. –''''']''''' (] / ]) 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. -- ] (]) 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" == | |||
| {{ping|User:Scjessey}} With regard to your edit summary when reverting another editor in the ] article on 2015-08-19 (revision 676818520), wherein you wrote with respect to a '']'' 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 Misplaced Pages articles. (I'll put you down as a "maybe" on whether you think it constitutes a valid source for use in Misplaced Pages.) 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 Misplaced Pages sources? --- ] (]) 12:30, 19 August 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Barack Obama == | |||
| Those edits were a mistake, I was using the ''general formatting'' tool in my sidebar to fix any whitespaces, etc., and apparently that happened. I'll remember to check again next time; sorry for any inconvenience. Thank-you. ] (]) 09:05, 7 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion == | |||
| ] | |||
| Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at ] regarding a possible violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on ]. <!--Template:An3-notice--> Thank you. ] (]) 23:27, 21 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 02:07, 22 October 2015
|
Please sign your comments using four tildes ( |
Please respect etiquette and assume good faith. Also be nice and remain civil. |
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)