User talk:PackMecEng/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

You mislept TRVTH

...and failed to capitalize it. For shame, for shame. Qwirkle (talk) 16:54, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Okay that part was me having a little fun with Biden misspeaking not long ago.[1] PackMecEng (talk) 16:57, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

In fairness to Mr. Biden, Those Who Bloviate for a Living are required to talk a lit more than normal humans, and the odds of mispeaking go up with the amount of the speaking. That also looks like something written for him by a member of Generation Snowflake, who are naturally better at intoning the scare quotes around “facts” that the delivery required. Qwirkle (talk) 21:23, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Do I detect WP:GRAMMARGOOFS in the section title? Atsme 💬 📧 19:54, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Nahh, a tribute to a better place, now largely moribund, where certain misleppings were used as shiboleths. (The fact that that is red-linked is a testimony to Wiki’s narcissism and screwed-priotities.) Qwirkle (talk) 21:23, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I get it. My spellchecker is my worst enema. Atsme 💬 📧 21:47, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Just Stopping By

Hi! I'm Le Panini, a Teahouse host. You've come to my attention because apparently somebody was complaining about your "wrongdoings" over at the Teahouse. It was a weird request, but I would like to make this point after taking a look at your talk page: Assume good faith. ^(mostly)Everyone here is trying to make Wikipedia better, so it'd be good to take some of these users with a nicer tone. They have the same goal as you do. Happy editing! Le Panini ^Talk 16:51, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Le Panini, Hey thanks for letting me know. I just saw some of the pings from the thread over there. I do not really recall interacting with them before. Kind of a strange situation. Thanks for the tip. PackMecEng (talk) 16:55, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:52, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Slow as Christmas!!

🔔🎁⛄️🎅🏻 Atsme 💬 📧 04:55, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

• Yay, thank you! Marry Christmas & happy new year to you as well! PackMecEng (talk) 05:07, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Was putting a D/S Alert on my talk page really necessary? Here's one for you, just saying

I don't understand where you think you have the high ground on this issue. You are acting like a bully.

Based only upon you opining, you are taking umbrage with the direct quote, "Donald Trump has been a prodigious spreader of misinformation". Are you a Trump apologist? When pressed, you find a "rule" in the Manual of Style that supports your position, sort of. Your rule is "first you do not start an article with a quote from an opinion section, partly because it is not in the body."

Seriously, "first you do not start an article with a quote from an opinion section." You made that up, that piece of guidance is not in the WP:MOSLEAD.

You think the following supports your argument: "if you look Morning Mix describes itself as "The Washington Post's Morning Mix blog covers stories from all over the nation and world." OK, it does that. What exactly is your point? What part of the "Morning Mix" is the problem?

Somehow you doubt the referenced article is from a reliable source. Are you telling me that the Washington Post is not a reliable source? What part of the article about Trump's lying is not reliable?

You object because the article included as part of the "Morning Mix" which for some reason or other the Washington Post calls it a "blog", but it isn't a blog. The article is a Washington Post article that is included in the "blog" section. The article isn't written as a blog, it is reporting, it provides fact after fact after fact. It is not an opinion piece or editorial. Go read it.

Here is the article, check it out:

• Elfrink, Tim (August 14, 2020). "'Do you regret at all, all the lying you've done?': A reporter's blunt question to Trump goes unanswered". The Washington Post. Retrieved December 31, 2020.

Your opinion, as I have pointed out before, is not sufficient to merit authority to undo my edit. It is doubtful that the statement, "Donald Trump has been a prodigious spreader of misinformation" is an opinion. It is a substantiated fact. The man lies and he lies about his lies. His lies have been tracked and counted. Trump is averaging more than 50 false or misleading claims a day. As of October 22, 2020, he had made 26,548 false or misleading claims. By today, it is pretty close to 30,000 false or misleading claims. 30,000 "falsehoods" seems like a pretty prodigious effort are spreading misinformation. (And I pause here thinking of the 344,0000 unnecessary COV-19 related deaths that were mainly due to Donald Trump lying to America.)

And since you wanted me to read the MoS, how about this "rule": "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable." Clearly, the sentence "Donald Trump has been a prodigious spreader of misinformation" satisfies these requirements.

And you continue, "partly because it is not in the body." That is a pretty weak reason. Don't you realize that the entire article is about Donald Trump's serial mendaciousness? Everything that is written in the article is about Trump's propensity for being a liar and spreading misinformation? I think you are missing the obvious here.

It is annoying that to support your tenuous position you go full-bureaucrat and roll out a D/S Alertr on my Talk Page and with a condescending attitude, you tell me "Finally please read up on WP:TRUTH & WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS." Gee, you left out WP:TENDENTIOUS.

And about "tendentious editing", it is defined as "a manner of editing that is partisan, biased, or skewed taken as a whole?" What in the single sentence about Trump spreading misinformation, "is a manner of editing that is partisan, biased, or skewed taken as a whole?" It is a simple statement of truth.

About WP:TRUTH, a "rule" is "material added to Wikipedia must have been published previously by a reliable source." I submit, as I have discussed, the article is from a reliable source.

About WP:TRUTH, the "rule" is "the absolute minimum standard for including information in Wikipedia is verifiability." It is pretty clear that the sentence "Donald Trump has been a prodigious spreader of misinformation" is pregnant with its verifiability.

About WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Somehow I don't see any support for your argument here. Please explain what relationship the sentence "Donald Trump has been a prodigious spreader of misinformation" has to the righting of great wrongs? What "wrong" is this sentence "righting". I think you are just throwing merde against the wall to see if some of it will stick.

About WP:TRUTH, the "rule" is "Editors may not add their own views to articles simply because they believe them to be correct, and may not remove sources' views from articles simply because they disagree with them." I will repeat, "editors. . .may may not remove sources' views from articles simply because they disagree with them." You have removed my edit only because for some obscure reason you disagree. You are unable to support your disagreement and can only cite generally WP:MOSLEAD, WP:TRUTH & WP:RGW. The irony is what you are doing is in general violation of these pieces of Wikipedia guidance.

I would appreciate your response to my parsing of your disagreement. I think you were wrong when you made [undo of my edit].

Do you really think arbitration for this one sentence is necessary?

PS For the record I will put this on the Veracity of statements by Donald Trump talk page

Osomite ^hablemos 07:59, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Not saying anything is wrong, just a standard awareness note for WP:ACDS topic areas. Osomite ^hablemos 07:59, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) I was really looking forward to all of us enjoying a fresh start on day 1 of the new year, and stopped by to spread a bit of WikiLove and well wishes when I couldn't help but notice the rather dyspeptic screed above, and the wrongful issuance of a DS alert by Osomite. My first thought was that it was a newbie editor, which is incorrect. Osomite is a 13 yr. veteran editor who should have known better than to violate DS alert policy which clearly states: Editors issuing alerts are expected to ensure that no editor receives more than one alert per area of conflict per year. Any editor who issues alerts disruptively may be sanctioned.

Osomite, your edit summary speaks volumes relative to your intent: Was putting a D/S Alert on my talk page really necessary? Here's one for you, just saying */ . You obviously issued the alert to get even, which is a violation of ArbCom's DS alert procedures. Had you done what is expected of all editors prior to issuing a DS alert, you would have known that PME had already received an alert within the past 12 months, and that she is also well aware of the DS process in the AP2 topic area as evidenced by (1) the alert on her UTP, (2) her issuance of a DS alert on your UTP, and (3) her participation at AE. You not only failed to do what was expected of you relative to issuing a DS alert, you laid the groundwork for further disruption with your WP:PAs against PME above. Encouraging colleagial discourse would have been a much better approach than the behavior you've demonstrated above, and I do hope that you will heed my friendly advice and amend your behavior when approaching editors you consider opposition. I also invite you to read/participate in the open discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#NPOV-problems on Wikipedia. WP does have a NPOV problem, particularly in the AP2 topic area that many of us are/have been trying to resolve. A good start for 2021 would be to approach our differences in a more collegial manner. Happy editing in 2021!! Atsme 💬 📧 11:45, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

@Atsme:, Happy New Year to you.

I am curious, what brings you into this issue? (other than being a talk page watcher)

A dyspeptic screed? Isn't that a bit judgemental? By any chance did you read the edit summaries for the edit and undo for the article in question? Did I violate Wikipedia guidance on how long and detailed a talk page comment should be?

It seems you did not like my dyspepsia. Perhaps you missed the point that I am quite offended by PackMecEng's behavior.

My long tedious piece of irritated writing was intended to reply to @PackMecEng:'s arrogant comments in the edit summary when making the undo of my edit. I took care to address the several issues involved with PackMecEng's bureaucratic Wikipedian barrage of links that basically accused me of violation. My objective was to clearly explain to PackMecEng, that in the context of the undo activity, PackMecEng's opinion was just an opinion and was not adequate to justify/support the undo. Clearly, PackMecEng was unwilling to acknowledge the point. It seemed that getting these points on the record was appropriate. Or do you object?

Your concern about a "wrongful DS Alert" and that I should have known that PackMecEng had already received an alert seems to assume that I have an in-depth knowledge of "DS Alert" ritual. I had never even heard of a DS Alert before it showed up on my talk page. The Wikipedia rule of only one DS Alert in a 12 month period is obscure to me, and the way in which I would have ascertained that fact is completely obscure to me.

You accuse me of WP:BAITING. I don't think you are correct in this judgment. PackMecEng put a DS Alert on my talk page clearly as an unnecessary offensive (operative word here is offensive) move because PackMecEng disagreed with my edit on the article Veracity of statements by Donald Trump involving one sentence: "Donald Trump has been a prodigious spreader of misinformation". Consider this situation, PackMecEng was WP:BAITING. Check the record, I make the edit done in good faith, PackMecEng undoes my edit with no comment. I revert with comment. . .well, go read the record. I commented in the edit summary to attempt to communicate with PackMecEng, but PackMecEng was not particularly interested in anything but PackMecEng's opinion--basically saying you are wrong and I, and only I, am right.

So how do you get an obtuse editor to collaboratively interact? Hence the DS Alert--seemed like a way to get the obtuse editor's attention. But maybe it will not, so what to do, what to do?

About "WP does have an NPOV problem". Yes, it does. However, it is not clear to me why you bring NPOV up in the context of this issue. Is stating the fact that "Donald Trump has been a prodigious spreader of misinformation" a violation of NPOV? Donald Trump is an invertebrate liar. The entire article Veracity of statements by Donald Trump addresses his serial mendacity. It seems that it is a fact to anyone who is not a kool-aide drinking true believer of the Donald Trump personality cult (sorry if I have offended anyone saying that).

About your "friendly advice" that I should amend my "behavior when approaching editors you consider opposition". Two thoughts here.

One, I do not have a pattern of this "behavior" when approaching editors I consider obtuse. You accuse thinking I do this all of the time--I do not.

Two, you seem to be taking PackMecEng's side on this issue. If you are trying to be an honest broker in an attempt to resolve an issue, where is your fairness?

Osomite ^hablemos 20:13, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

@Atsme:, your comments were all about process. Could you give some thoughts about the edit/undo in question? I would appreciate your view.

Thanks Osomite ^hablemos 20:33, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Osomite & Atsme! I hope you both had a lovely new years. I appreciate you two stopping by. Apologies Osomite if the message I left on your talk page was a little harsh sounding, that was not the intention. DS topic areas can be tricky and have a lot of little procedures that need to be navigated around at times. Also just a note on the templates themselves. You can check if someone had gotten one by looking at the edit filter logs on their talk page history. For examples this is the log for your page and here is mine. Filter 602 is triggered when the templates are placed. The templates are not meant to imply anything you did was wrong nor was it meant as a threat or warning. Just background on the DS system in place on certain articles.

Now onto the edit in question. I plan on explaining more about the substance of the edit at the talk page itself a little later today when I get some more free time. Best, PackMecEng (talk) 21:54, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Hendrik

That's a fine picture of Hendrik with his laptop en plein air = well ahead of his time ! Qexigator (talk) 18:48, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Qexigator, Thanks, those are always fun and a nice distraction from the day to day silliness. PackMecEng (talk) 19:34, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

ha!

ahaha! soibangla (talk) 23:40, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

AH HA! PackMecEng (talk) 23:41, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

AN Comment

BMK never once mentioned banning people from the talkpage. I do believe that the blanket talkpage ban is an important point in this case - but you're the one that brought that up, not BMK. If you have issues with BMK's behavior, it may be better to raise a new thread about it, or utilize dispute resolution. I think Floquenbeam did the right thing in hatting that section - as it isn't really related to the unblock request in question. It comes off as you just taking swipes at BMK to me (and I think others) - which you may not have intended. SQL^{Query me!} 23:27, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

SQL, Thanks for stopping by. I truly am interested in his thoughts, which I do think are relevant to the situation. I have nothing against BMK which is why I have no intentions of opening a thread against him. I don't think he has done anything wrong. Now Floq on the other hand was being a bit of an ass with his troll comment, then with his close. I really do not understand what he has against me, and do I appreciate his constant badgering like that. I try to ignore him most of the time because it seems like he is only trying for attention. Anyhow, nothing against BMK nor did I mean for it to look like that. PackMecEng (talk) 23:43, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I get what you mean - and the point you're trying to make here is for sure understood w/r/t BMK banning people from his talkpage. I think that would have been a pretty good point to bring up (and pretty hypocritical as well, if they've banned tons of people - I don't really follow that talkpage), had BMK mentioned the blanket talkpage ban in any way.

I do think that the 'trolling' comment was bad form. I haven't been following either of you, so I'm not aware of the history there. The usual avenues (talk to them -> AN -> Arbcom) would be the best venues there, if you believe that they're badgering / harassing you. SQL^{Query me!} 23:52, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Happy 20th anniversary!

	Celebration~!
	Wikipedia will only ever turn 20 once! Hope you are doing well and have a prosperous onwiki experience in the future. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 01:58, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

• @MJL: Aww, thank you very much! I hope you have a great time as well and look forward to seeing you around. PackMecEng (talk) 03:36, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Warning

Stop assuming bad faith of and attacking MastCell, as you did here, after my previous post, or you will be blocked for personal attacks. You are welcome to remove this warning. What you cannot do, however, is prevent an admin from posting warnings on this page. Bishonen | tålk 08:06, 14 February 2021 (UTC). (Adding:) Please let me know if, another time, you would prefer to be blocked without warning. That would be fine by me; I don't post on your page because I enjoy it. Bishonen | tålk 08:13, 14 February 2021 (UTC).

Trollzilla in effect. Fun stuff. Arkon (talk) 08:42, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

@Bishonen: Get over it. It was not an attack or bad faith. Also I thought I asked you to stop trolling here. This is the third time? Get a clue. PackMecEng (talk) 12:08, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

@Bishonen:Gzz now your fucking with my section headings? Listen Bish, I get it. MastCell is your friend and you feel the need to defend him from the big bad scary little Korean lady. But you are over reacting, no attacks have even taken place. It appears I have a bit more faith in him than you do, I am fairly confident that he can take care of himself. There is no need to embarrass yourself like this. PackMecEng (talk) 14:09, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Bish didn't fuck with your section heading, you did, changing her section heading "Warning" to "Whining". That's not funny, it's pathetic. In any case, I'm guessing that if Bish does ever block you now it will be without warning. And I've given you mine. You could have handled this very differently, but you chose to be confrontational. Doug Weller talk 15:19, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Doug Weller, Yeah I changed the heading to what it was, and she reverted it. No one is questioning that? The crux of the matter at hand is this bullshit warning for something that is not a personal attack to protect her friend. THAT is pathetic and every message here has been threats of baseless blocks. THAT is confrontational. I have told her repeatedly to stop trolling here and it is not welcome yet here she is again. It's rather greasy to pull crap like that. I look forward to the next time she does it. PackMecEng (talk) 15:26, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

FTR, changing section headings like that is what got Wander in trouble awhile back. Some people don't like it because it makes it seem like they were the ones saying that. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:27, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

MJL, Fair point, I just assumed people would know that she did not write that she was whining. But I could be wrong I suppose. PackMecEng (talk) 16:32, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Probably better to not address Mastcell at all anymore. If he misuses one of your past diffs to malign you let me know.--MONGO (talk) 17:01, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't seek to interact with them but in this case they were replying to a comment I made that had nothing to do with them.[2] Which of course was full of contempt for myself and several other named users, as well as completely toxic. It seems like they seek to interact with me for some bizarre reason. PackMecEng (talk) 17:10, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree that their comment was inappropriate, but apparently they have some highly partisan admins that wish to defend them even if they are out of line, so best to ignore them.--MONGO (talk) 17:19, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, more sad than anything really. But you are probably right. PackMecEng (talk) 18:32, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Its ethically and morally bankrupt.--MONGO (talk) 19:33, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Question

Tell me, how does this comment, made six months after the last desperate effort to overturn an established consensus, about a former editor who has no ability of reply as they have clearly left the project, do any good for building an encyclopaedia and forming collaborative relationships? 2A04:4A43:47FE:D633:911E:9719:5489:CCA0 (talk) 20:58, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

With this response coming two hours after the comment, it seems no one's ability to reply has been curtailed by their abandonment of an account. Levivich ^harass/_hound 21:07, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

How are your hobbies coming along, Levivich? Here's a few more: How about Newsraiding? This consists of people appearing as bystanders in the background of various television shows, and then comparing notes with other avid "newsraiders", usually in the corner of a library over a Capri Sun and a Farleys Rusk, in order to compete for the converted prize of the "Newsraider of the Year cup of cups. Finally, and I do recommend this one...Extreme Ironing: This is a competitive sport and consists of people ironing clothing in different, usually wacky situations, like kayaking in the village pond, riding a Penny-farthing, backwards, or scuba diving off the Australian south coast whilst dressed as Elvis. Do let me know how you get on! Best regards :) 2A04:4A43:47FE:D633:911E:9719:5489:CCA0 (talk) 23:59, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Hey SchroCat, how have you been? Or is this Cassianto? I have a hard time telling at times. PackMecEng (talk) 00:15, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

re striking on Talk:Ben Shapiro

Ah, my bad. I mistakenly read the sentence Removing or striking through comments made by blocked sock puppets of users editing in violation of a block or ban in WP:TALKO as Removing or striking through comments made by blocked sock puppets or users editing in violation of a block or ban. Srey Sros^talk 18:07, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

SreySros, No worries. To be honest I had to check myself because I thought I remembered it your way at first as well. PackMecEng (talk) 18:08, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

390 Duke

My little Thumper

Debresser

Hello PackMecEng,

Are you aware that this editor has been blocked 17 times previously, and that their most recent block was also for two weeks? I have made it clear that I would like the editor to return and make productive contributions. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:02, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Cullen328, Ah I think I see the issue. You are misunderstanding escalating blocks. You don't escalate for any block, only for blocks in that category. For example if they have two blocks for edit warring, one at 24 and 48 hours, you don't goto a week for a block on a unrelated topic. Hope that helps! PackMecEng (talk) 12:16, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

All of the blocks are for various forms of disruption in the same broad topic area, and the years of disruptive behavior culminated in a topic ban. So, I disagree. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:39, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

You inspired me...

...to turn back the sandy hands of time and revisit "our song". It's still as guiltily pleasant as I remember, still not sure how I feel about any of this. That part on "the HIGHest powers", though, that's still metal to me! InedibleHulk (talk) 03:11, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Also, sorry for collapsing part of that underlying conversation. It was intended as a compromise with someone who wanted to collapse even more, nothing personal against your singing. But if the line must be drawn between work and banter, that seemed like the place, eh? InedibleHulk (talk) 07:20, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

InedibleHulk, Yeah hearing that again took me back! It seems so long ago and much more simple times. Anyhow I have no issue with the hat, I was mostly just being silly anyhow. PackMecEng (talk) 13:48, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

You were being silly and accurately reciting things you've heard in mainstream media that are still relevant today about a given subject, that's the important thing. Less importantly, I shuffled through an "All Out '90s" Spotify playlist later. I used to give so much of that shit so much shit in high school, but as far as bubblegum goes, the composition, production and mixing makes today's bleepbloop sound like modern bleepbloop! InedibleHulk (talk) 00:34, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

^{( Buttinsky)} - that's one of my favorite songs of all time!!! Atsme 💬 📧 17:24, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

@Atsme 👍 CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:21, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Also (and not that there's anything wrong with alternative), I was somewhat less shocked and rocked by the collapsibly indecent proposal upon a friendly robot notifying me that PackMecEng mentioned me on her talk page. But yeah, still. Let's just be friends! InedibleHulk (talk) 00:42, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

I did always wonder where the bots use that variable. Since it is generally not obvious. Neat! PackMecEng (talk) 14:06, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Please self-revert

Please self-revert this edit which is being discussed. That is very well-established and long-standing content and should not be removed until a solid consensus is reached. That is the policy-based way to handle such content, and you know that. There is no consensus based on policy to remove that content, just the personal "I don't like it" objections of an editor who seems to ignore policies and practices. He does that a lot. -- Valjean (talk) 18:31, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

"He does that a lot" such aspersions aren't helpful. My edits have been supported by the emerging consensus and rewrites. It needed improvement, which is what happens with our collaborative editing model. You do not own that page. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:21, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Ernie, what does this have to do with you?? SPECIFICO talk 17:46, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, It is fairly clear that Erine is who Val is referring to. I would assume that is why Erine mentioned it. PackMecEng (talk) 22:04, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Oh. I took it to mean he was referring to a generic type of disruptive editor. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 22:07, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Antifa Dispute.

Hey to stop the back and forth I created a dispute resolution here. [3] 3Kingdoms (talk) 19:28, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

May 2021

You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard) for a period of 1 week for disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  – bradv🍁 00:23, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

@Bradv: Ha! why so uppity? Just trying to make sure Acroterion does not make an ass of themselves? PackMecEng (talk) 00:25, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm trying to prevent you from making an ass of yourself. Disrupting a noticeboard thread that isn't even about you isn't a very elegant thing to do. – bradv🍁 00:26, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Bradv, Well since neither you or them seem to have a handle of the situation and I know I was not planning on having involved tool use your comment is absurd. I mean seriously, I call out your ignorance of the situation and you call that disruptive? Get a clue buddy. PackMecEng (talk) 00:28, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Bradv Actually what was the disruption? Heck the last thing I did in that thread was hat off topic discussion. PackMecEng (talk) 00:34, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Bradv Do you plan on explaining your block and what was disruptive or not? This is getting into WP:ADMINACCT territory. PackMecEng (talk) 03:26, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Do you seriously not understand why I blocked you? Okay, let's review:

(Personal attack removed)

(Personal attack removed), even while Acroterion and I were explaining it to you, isn't going to help your case. But if you would like another admin to review the facts, the instructions for appealing this block are posted above. I stand by my decision. – bradv🍁 03:43, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Bradv, Yeah I am just not seeing it buddy. I think you completely misread the situation on the page and my contribution. First they were bullshit and also BLP violations near that end, not sure why you are supporting those but not a good look to take ownership of that. What two were irrelevant to the matter at hand? Were they the ones asking Acroterion to stop being disruptive and going off track? You really need to back up ridiculous claims with diffs or just don't make them. 2 were edit warring? How does one revert make two diffs of edit warring? That kind of boggles the mind, again diffs would be helpful here. The last 7 were explained above. So again I have to ask, what is this based on? If you are unwilling or probably more accurately unable to justify your actions that is pretty telling. PackMecEng (talk) 03:50, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Your block was based on your active work to derail productive resolution at AN, and to actively try to discourage anybody else from getting it back on the rails. You certainly weren't helping out Storms598, if that was what you were trying to do - you were leading them farther into the woods. I endorse Bradv's block. Feel free to ask for review. Acroterion (talk) 04:06, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Acroterion, Wait wait wait... The guy that threatened an involved block because I called them on their own disruption endorses the block... Well I'll be darned. PackMecEng (talk) 04:08, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Arguing with an administrator doesn't make them involved. AVOIDBLOCK is not policy. – bradv🍁 04:31, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Bradv, See there you go again misrepresenting what happened. They threatened a block because I politely explained why they were wrong and not helping the situation. They then threw a tantrum, completely with a do you know who I am BS, and threatened a block. It was a nice thing of you to do it for them though so they don't make a fool of themselves though. I'm still waiting for some diffs on your stories above. I really want to know more about the 2 diffs of edit waring with only one revert. You know, making unsupported accusations like that without diffs is just plain old casting WP:ASPERSIONS. I mean what I am asking is not terribly hard here, or it shouldn't be. Do you plan on supporting your accusations and block or not? PackMecEng (talk) 04:37, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Its just that the back and forth was at the noticeboard. Had the same been at a user talk page it would have likely been a nonissue.--MONGO (talk) 06:11, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

MONGO, Yeah pretty much. I even tried to go the agree to disagree route but I think I hurt Acroterion's feelings because they just doubled down on the whining and threats after that. No idea what Bradv's issue with providing diffs to back up their claim is though. I am beginning to think they don't know how or just cant because it's BS. PackMecEng (talk) 11:50, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm not Bradv, but I can answer the diff question. Bradv doesn't need to provide the 14 diffs you requested because they aren't necessary. He already indicated what the offending edits were in a way that anybody can find them (by noting the time and location). And Bradv isn't required to convince the blocked editor (in this case you) that the block is correct in order for it to be valid. That's an impossibly high bar in most situations. If you think the block is not needed, all you need to do is convince a second admin of that. ~Awilley (talk) 15:08, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Awilley, Yeah not so much. They specifically misrepresented at least the edit warring accusation as I laid out above. If you think it is an impossibly high bar to present diffs to back up what you say you have another thing coming. Awilley, I like ya, really I do, but in this case you are just flat wrong. PackMecEng (talk) 15:12, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

As MONGO says, the venue matters. If you want to debate political science in userspace, that's up to you. Participation is voluntary. If you and BMK and Storms and Viriditas want to set up a debating society, have at it, just not at AN. You don't have to make the rest of us watch you take potshots at each pother. Derailing noticeboard discussions is another matter - and hijacking threads as you did is disruptive. Disruptive editors try the "you're involved now, go away" game all the time. It doesn't work, and it can't work, otherwise editors would find ways to immunize themselves by doing as you did, placing a chip on their shoulder and daring anyone to knock it off. AN is explicitly not a place for editors to debate tangential subjects, which is what you and two or three other editors were doing. The only one who demanded that that continue was you. Acroterion (talk) 15:05, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Acroterion, Oh wow that is quite the rant and strawman. If you read the conversation I offered to go our separate ways but you were not having it. Just doubling down on the same disruptive behavior. I don't know what the monkey on your back is, but let it go. You will be much happier in life. PackMecEng (talk) 15:14, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

I was startled to find that a reasonable attempt to draw the conversation at AN back to the point was met with derision. I continue to be startled by your attitude. Acroterion (talk) 15:19, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Acroterion, Do people that don't buy the crap your selling often startle you? What a bizarre thing to say. PackMecEng (talk) 15:24, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

• Bradv So yet again I ask for diffs of your WP:ASPERSIONS and basis of block. I don't think it is a good look to weasel out of your responsibility here. It is not to much to ask, as Awilley suggests, to provide diffs for your actions. The least you could do is get your counts and accusations correct. If you failed to do so I will have to strike your personal attacks above. Thanks! PackMecEng (talk) 16:08, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

  Are you able to expand on how this is a personal attack? ^{!ɘM γɿɘυϘ}⅃ϘƧ 11:53, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

  Sure it is just textbook WP:ASPERSIONS. When repeatedly pressed to justify their outburst and present diffs they were unwilling or unable too. PackMecEng (talk) 12:44, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

  With all due respect - at a glance the edits in question appear to be available here. I'm unclear on how ASPERSIONS applies in this case. ^{!ɘM γɿɘυϘ}⅃ϘƧ 14:57, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

  You can't just say look at the contributions and it's self evident lol. But yeah the issue and why I was asking for diffs is because their counts and accusations did not add up. For instance they mentioned two instances of edit warring but I only made one revert. PackMecEng (talk) 15:49, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

  I actually can, and I did. I read those twelve edits. It wasn't an unreasonable burden. The diffs are easily found, and I even narrowed it down to a very small subset above.

  Additionally, if you look carefully at Awilley's comments here, I think that you might find that they suggest something other what you appear to think that they suggest above. The big hint for me was the link to WP:SHRUBBERY.

  I'm not going to wikilawyer the point with you - if the original edit, plus the edit reverted to both constitute edits as a part of an edit war.

  It continues to be my belief your use of {{RPA}} was likely not appropriate in this case, and I ask that you reverse your action.

  This is the last you'll hear from me on this issue. ^{!ɘM γɿɘυϘ}⅃ϘƧ 13:00, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

  Let's try your logic with a quick example. You are a so and so that has been edit warring repeatedly 3 times. While being disruptive 6 times. The diffs are here! Yeah no, lol not how that works my friend. I'm kind of glad it's the last I will hear because nonsense gets old fast. PackMecEng (talk) 13:20, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

June 2021

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Veracity of statements by Donald Trump. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:40, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, You must be new here huh? PackMecEng (talk) 23:41, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Trump

it was a 24-BRD violation by Spy-cicle. SPECIFICO talk 02:47, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, I started a discussion on the talk page. It was not a BRD vio by Spy-cicle that I can see. If anything you violated it when you reinstated without discussion after you were reverted. Also out of the five people involved no one started a dang discussion! So it is now at status quo and a discussion is happening on the talk page. PackMecEng (talk) 11:30, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes it was, which was why I fixed it. Yes, you might call my fix a violation, but IMO it's a better move than reporting a newbie for an easily fixed violation. The larger problem with that editor is his insistence on "negotiations" relating to North Korea when as several have pointed out on talk, the term negotiations is not in the article text on the subject and is quite dubious if one examines recent RS accounts of the events. SPECIFICO talk 15:34, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Siebert and King

There's an ongoing Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Mass_killings_under_communist_regimes and I would love you to take part in it. Cloud200 (talk) 06:46, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

In what way am I hypocritical?

You specifically accused me of being hypocritical in my general explanation of principles. That's a pretty strong PA, but unworthy of comment there. We often focus on the bias of sources, but the bias (in my case hypocrisy) of editors is just as important as it relates to NPOV editing, and you see me as hypocritical. I'm surprised you would say such a thing as we both have our biases and both live in glass houses in that regard. It was a cheap ad hominem shot at me, as if you have no biases. Your bias was very clear in your explanation of why we should trash a highly-respected source. Biased sources can still be factual. We do not exclude sources because of their bias, only when their bias is so strong that it affects their accuracy.

At some times in history that deviation from facts will mostly affect left-wing sources, but at this point in history most RS, researchers, and fact-checkers agree that it is affecting mostly right-wing sources. C'est la vie. Lying to your enemies is one thing, but lying to your base is very self-destructive. That's what happens when TFG's supporters follow him down his rabbit hole of deception and misinformation, a fact that many Republican leaders are bemoaning. They are worried for their party. It has lost its way. I find it sad and worrying because I grew up in social circles without a single Democrat. We were all staunch Republicans, and I voted for several Republican presidents and governors. There wasn't a single drop of leftist milk in either of my mommy's breasts.

I'd appreciate your POV about my hypocrisy because I can't see myself as others see me. I'd love to improve. In what ways am I hypocritical? I have no doubt that I am guilty in some regards, and I'll thank you for any constructive criticism in that regard.

BTW, welcome back. I was concerned by your absence and wondered if you were okay. Atsme, who is a very caring and wonderful lady, wasn't able to help me with any info about you. -- Valjean (talk) 17:22, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in discussions about infoboxes and to edits adding, deleting, collapsing, or removing verifiable information from infoboxes. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Sorry for the notice, but I can't play favorites. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:20, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:47, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Request for consensus

User:Beyond My Ken is insisting that the category "Category:Far-right politics in the United States" is required, even though that definition is too narrow and contradicts the definitions provided by the quoted sources. The only justification given is that he wants a pendant to "moonbat". Not every term has a perfect opposite pendant, though, and just because that term has a specific and narrow usage does not mean that the same should be applied to "wingnut". Please provide your opinion here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wingnut_(politics)#Request_for_consensus