User talk:Scjessey/Archive 1

RfC Notice
There is a Request for Comment posted at Talk:New York Daily News. You are being notified as one of every registered editor who has edited that article in that past year. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:58, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

December 2016
This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Barack Obama, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. William Avery (talk) 13:34, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * This was not me. I think my account was compromised. I have changed my password. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:43, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I see you have blocked me because of a compromised account. I have changed my password. Do I need to do anything else to get my editing privileges back? -- Scjessey (talk) 13:49, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Change your email. Marvellous Spider-Man  13:52, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Since we don't know whether the account is still compromised, and must assume it is at this time, some convincing off-site verification will be necessary, preferably using a pre-established non-compromised identity. -- zzuuzz (talk) 13:55, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The email account associated with my Wikipedia account? I'm not sure what purpose that would serve. My original Wikipedia password (now changed) was not used for anything else. It would be awesome if two-factor authentication was a fully rolled out feature on Wikipedia. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:56, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Erm... okay. Any suggestions? -- Scjessey (talk) 13:58, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note - I have a meeting I need to go to for about four hours, so I will be away from Wikipedia. If anyone has any good ideas about how I can get unblocked in the meantime, I would greatly appreciate it. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:01, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry about this, Simon, but you'll need to find some way of proving that you're the real Scjessey. Are there admins or well-known editors you know in real life or you've contacted off-wiki that you can contact to verify who you are? HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  14:02, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I suggest a selfie photo taken holding today's newspaper. That could be compared to the photo on his user page.- MrX 14:10, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd be satisfied with that. Thanks, MrX. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  14:24, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't get a newspaper, but I can take a selfie with this talk page in the picture (functionally equivalent) and then upload it to my personal website. If that doesn't prove I'm me, I don't know what does. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:20, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've done it. Please don't laugh when you click on this proof it is me. You may need to copy/paste the URL directly into your browser because of the way my server is setup. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:27, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I've had to do a modified version of your idea. Not getting any responses though. Any chance you could mention my plight to a passing admin for me? -- Scjessey (talk) 18:35, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I get a "forbidden" error there. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  18:38, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You should be able to just go to the link directly in your browser. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:42, 30 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Works with a copy/paste. It's him (with a sad look) :)) --TMCk (talk) 18:44, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * That's a relief. I was going to do a Google Photos link, but Google uses a URL shortener that Wikipedia apparently blocks. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:47, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Well... I'm bummed about being blocked. With that said, I can appreciate the humor of the situation as well as the inconvenience of it. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:49, 30 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I definitely can see your frustration in the pic. The little ordeal should be over shortly, tho. Cheers, --TMCk (talk) 18:54, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Seriously though. Wikipedia needs 2FA more than ever. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:49, 30 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Unblocked. Hello there, Scjessey, welcome back. Me, I don't use 2FA (too inconvenient with all my socks, cough), but I have a strong-ass password. Bishonen &#124; talk 18:56, 30 December 2016 (UTC).
 * Bless you, Bishonen. Sorry for all the trouble everyone. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:57, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I can see it now. Was unblocking but Bish beat me to the button (she moves fast for a dinosaur!). I trust you have a strong password now? One that you don't use anywhere else (and FYI, MediaWiki supports absurdly long passwords)? Best, HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  19:01, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you, User:HJ Mitchell. My password is much stronger now. Fortunately, I never use the same password on different accounts. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:03, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Any idea how his happened then? Reuse of passwords between websites was thought to be the cause of the last incident like this. Might be worth an email to the WMF. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  19:09, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I have absolutely no idea. The only thing I can think of is that I've had the same password for years and never really given it much thought. I will change it on a regular basis from now on. And now I think of it, I have a global Wikimedia login setup. I'd better check to see if anything else has been messed with. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:18, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

FYI: A password manager like Lastpass can come in very handy to prevent password reuse. Twitbookspacetube (talk) 03:09, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * As I indicated earlier, password reuse wasn't the issue because I don't reuse passwords. The problem is more likely related to the fact I've not changed the password for many years and it wasn't nearly strong enough. I was just lazy about it. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:46, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

December 2017
To enforce an arbitration decision and for violating the sanctions already in place, specifically you did not get the required consensus before restoring challenged material (with this edit) on the page Presidency of Donald Trump, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page:. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. &mdash; Coffee //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 19:06, 23 December 2017 (UTC)  Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."
 * Thank you for the absurdly aggressive enforcement detailed above, which was enacted more than 24 hours after the original edit took place, and which I did not interpret as a sanction violation anyway. I recognize that Arbitration Enforcement is a thankless job that few editors want to perform, and I thank you for stepping up to the plate and doing this important task, but I think even a cursory glance at my editing record would lead most people to think a knee-jerk block for a single edit I had made with a satisfactory explanatory edit summary was just a bit harsh. Anyway, I respect your authority and this will be my only complaint about the matter. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:13, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't request anyone respect authority, just the process; your cordiality and understanding, however, are noted and appreciated (not seen often while doing this). I prefer that blocks not be punitive, only preventative. If you can give me your word that you will not repeat such behavior, I will gladly lift the sanction. As is always my standard policy with first time offenses. &mdash; Coffee //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 16:56, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * In all honesty, I did not believe I had violated discretionary sanctions (I would never knowingly do so), but I concede that my interpretation may have been in error. I think the block has expired now anyway, but I thank you for the offer. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:19, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Not helpful
I don't care if it was meant to be humorous. Please strike. ~Awilley (talk) 20:41, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Trump
Hey, please put the Reese's down, or better yet, just shut the laptop. I am sure I don't need to give you notification templates for BLPs and American Politics, that you are aware of how inappropriate the comment was. , I'm sure Scjessey wants to thank you for kindly removing that remark, as do I. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:29, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Quite right. I have thanked Awilley for reverting it. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:17, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Scjessey. My weak spot is KitKats, by the way. Drmies (talk) 14:41, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Trump
Hi Scjessey. I've posted a revised version of the lead bit on the impeachment. I believe you posted in agreement with MelanieN on a point she's now stricken (no foreign interference allegation by the whistleblower) so you might want to review the recent discussion if you have any comments. I think that the version I just posted is brief and omits detail that really doesn't need to go in the lead. See what you think.  SPECIFICO talk 22:35, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Throwing out babies with bathwater
Firstly, in a "storyline", "scripted feud" or "hair match", there are winners and losers. They are the characters, one of which was Trump. It's not rocket science, and anybody who might take Trump and Lashley "winning" to mean the scripted pro wrestling feud suddenly became a legit sporting contest mid-sentence just can't read at a level required for Wikipedia. You're not clarifying anything by omitting the conclusion of a fake-but-profitable-and-sourced bout. You're just making the section about his wrestling career less consistent with the way wrestling career sections work around here.

That aside, you restored some wordiness and inaccuracy in your "minor edit" without explaining why. Did you actually prefer that shit, or was it just easier to roll back? If the latter, and you undo again, leave a decent summary, alright? In reality and fiction, WWE has nothing to do with the "Fake News" Twitter beef. And 27 fewer bytes is an improvement when not losing relevant info.

Anyway, just be careful with restoring collateral damage and at least ponder whether anybody on Earth needs to be reminded about pro wrestling's defining feature almost a century after it became obvious and thirty years after the cat officially left the bag. If anything might still need "exposing" on TV, it's The Apprentice winners and losers (but I doubt it). InedibleHulk (talk) 10:19, December 2, 2019 (UTC)


 * Started a discussion at the Talk, up to you if you want in. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:16, December 2, 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi. Would you be willing to take a second look at Articles for deletion/Robert Stearns?  Reason is, it was a new and poorly supported page when you assessed it, and has undergone significant revision and sourcing.  Thank you. NotButtigieg (talk) 20:31, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Looks like I don't need to. It has been closed as a keep. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:09, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Page move
I have requested that Homie (disambiguation) be moved to Homie, and the article currently there moved to Homie (real estate). You are welcome to comment on this request at Talk:Homie. Happy editing, Cnilep (talk) 07:25, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I cannot honestly recall ever editing either of these pages, but certainly I'll weigh in on the proposed move. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:44, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Tables and prose
Thought it better to respond to your comments here than on the 2020 talk page so as not to distract from the discussion.

If you think Formula 1 tables are bad, you should visit a WRC article some time. They have: The whole thing is a mess. It's not written for a general audience, but rather for people who already follow the sport. I want to completely overhaul things, but as soon as I try to, someone reverts it and insists that all articles have to be presented the same way (even though there is no policy on this). They revert them before you can change all of them so you can never satisfy the condition of making them the same. On top of that, some editors from Formula 1 articles have migrated to the WRC articles and have started making WRC articles more like Formula 1 articles, even when it is impractical to do so. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 20:35, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Multiple entry lists with no clear criteria for inclusion. Rallies frequently attract dozens of individual entries, so notability has to be taken into account.
 * Limited prose to explain the various complicated rules throughout the years.
 * Inconsistencies where drivers who score points in multiple events do not appear in entry lists, but gentlemen drivers who make one start and score no points do appear in the entry lists.
 * A bizarre system where you have to cross-reference various results tables just to understand them, and some of them are misleading.

Civility
You are shouting and writing expletives on Talk:Donald Trump. Please calm down. I think we can agree that discussions in the topic area are unpleasant as it is without an escalation on the language used. --Pudeo (talk) 20:16, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with anything I wrote, but thanks anyway. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:47, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

To be fair you are only British. I'm not sure that counts as foreign. PackMecEng (talk) 21:35, 21 March 2020 (UTC)