Jump to content

User talk:PackMecEng/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

Enforcement

Dear PackMecEng (talk) I am the subject of an enforcement proceeding based on my edits to the Ocasio-Cortez article, specifically about my insertions of statements that Rev. Rodriguez observed different conditions at the detention facilities than observed by AOC, and in particular my edits including a statement that Democrat Socialists of America have a long-term goal of the elimination of capitalism. Snooganssnoogans has accused me of unsubstantiated smears and falsehoods regarding these edits, which is absurd, as the edits were true and substantiated. But he is pushing for me to be banned from editing the AOC article. If you could write something on my behalf in the enforcement page, about the fact that what I inserted was true and substantiated, like what you stated in the AOC article talk page, I would really appreciate it. The link is below:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#JohnTopShelf — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnTopShelf (talk • contribs) 21:01, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Please don't clutter survey sections with extended threaded replies

Re [1] My edit summary made it quite clear what I was doing. The RfC has separate sections for survey and threaded discussion, and you are abusing it with no fewer than 6 separate threaded replies in the "survey" section. It's not a hard and fast rule, but I'll enforce it when I see RfCs going off the rails. Survey sections aren't for accusing people of making "baseless attacks" and suggesting that they "revise" their "attitude". You're welcome to remove your comment or move it to the discussion section, otherwise I'll remove it, move it, collapse it, or whatever seems most appropriate. ~Awilley (talk) 20:42, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

@Awilley: While I appreciate your attempt to keep the survey section neat. Your curation is not necessary and in that instance a clear violation of WP:TPO as I pointed out in my edit summary. You say It's not a hard and fast rule which is 100% correct and your "enforcement" of it is disruptive and again a violation of actual policy. I will ask you to please follow policy and keep your disruption to a minimum. PackMecEng (talk) 01:20, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) PacMecEng, you appear to be a great believer in yourself never, ever, possibly being in the wrong over anything, small or large, and in offering condescension to any admins/users who take you to task, however politely, ([2], [3]). Therefore I expected nothing less than your asking Awilley to 'keep their disruption to a minimum'. As Drmies told you a while back, your patronizing tone is unbecoming.[4] This gave you an opportunity for yet more condescension towards Drmies: "I do have hope for you to improve," etc. I don't know if you keep a stock of such phrases for use, or if they simply come naturally to you and you don't care what impression they make. I'm looking forward to seeing what kind of disdain you will now offer me. Bishonen | talk 03:27, 20 July 2019 (UTC).
Yes Awilley, keep your disruption to a minimum. It's not like you're an admin, having been given that position of trust by your peers, or like you know what you're talking about. Bishonen, maybe you shouldn't have alerted me to yet another instance of this editor showing how little they appreciate being part of a collaborative editing effort. Srsly, do we still do enforce civility? Drmies (talk) 12:28, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Ooohhh you two. PackMecEng (talk) 14:01, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Hey you!!

Send me some taters, Idaho!! 🥔🥔🥔 Atsme Talk 📧 00:04, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

@Atsme: Ha! I mean they do have good ones here. But it seems like everyone is over the potato thing. Also apparently they get uppity if you accidentally say Iowa. It is gorgeous here though. Plus I get to be about 30 miles from the boarder of Washington, Montana, and Canaderp. PackMecEng (talk) 03:33, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
The natural beauty is awe-inspiring! This time last year I stayed in Idaho near the west entrance of Yellowstone National Park. Parts are in WY and MT. I'll leave you with a few souvenirs to adorn your UTP. :-) Atsme Talk 📧 12:00, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
Yellowstone River
Yellowstone River, MT
Canyon wall near Rustic Falls
Canyon wall near Rustic Falls, WY portion
Travertine Terrace
Travertine Terrace, Mammoth Hot Springs, MT
Liberty Cap
Liberty Cap, Mammoth Hot Springs
Northern Potato
@Atsme: Me and my husband rode out this morning for a hike and took this in the foothills a few miles down a old fire road. PackMecEng (talk) 17:42, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
That's a purty picture, there Pack!! You'll never get tired with that kind of scenery all around you. Atsme Talk 📧 18:40, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Pack

I read about this story at Buzzfeed newws and have been following it for a month online. Your vote recently at WP:FRAM talk left me angry. Sorry but you are wrong about the admins who quit on BN. Obviously Floquenbeam and WJB should have to go through a new rfa to get their tools back but the other admins who resigned in protest over this (like Boing, DoRD, Beestra, Spartaz) should be given the tools right back when they apply at BN and they will. Nearly every person who opposed Floquenbeams current rfa would easily support Spartaz, Boing , dord, Beestra getting their tools back. Only a few bad apples who hate our community would vote against those 4 getting their tools back. I can assure you that when those 4 ask for their tools back at BN in the near future, no one will object and they will be resyopped in a New york minute. The WMF has no right to stop them from getting their tools back. Jaerry2302 (talk) 18:53, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

@Jaerry2302: I am not sure which of my posts this is in relation to, I can imagine it might be a few of them. I want to clarify, if an admin resigned in protest but took no admin actions that might be controversial I actually agree they should be able to get their bit back just by asking. The ones I have issue with are like Floq and WJB who, in my view, abused their positions to make a point. There are others that probably should of lost their bits as a result of what they did as well, but that is a story for another time. PackMecEng (talk) 23:38, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Korean reference needing attention

Hello there, I was reviewing an edit request and the user pointed to a reference written in Korean. I noticed you have a ko-4 userbox so I am seeing if you could address the query. See Talk:Rising Sun Flag#Semi-protected edit request on 3 August 2019. No worries if you can't or don't want to. Regards, Willbb234 (talk) 10:43, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

@Willbb234: Sorry for the long delay, I have been away. I answered the request on the page. Have a good one! PackMecEng (talk) 16:10, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Thank you! Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 19:53, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Incorrectly claiming something is a long-standing version

The content you restored to the lede here[5] is not long-standing content - it was added four days ago, despite clear objections on the talk page over this precise language. You should self-revert or remove the text in its entirety. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:05, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

@Snooganssnoogans: I see that now, I thought it was longer ago. Must of flubbed on the search since it was in the body for a long time. I see where it was added here, though it does appear to have support on talk. PackMecEng (talk) 02:19, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

WP:1RR violation on Antifa (United States)

Looking at the timestamps, you reverted within 24 hours of your previous revert on that page (only barely, but the fact that you were hewing so close to 24 hours to begin with was already a problem); given the active objections to your addition on talk from multiple editors, I suggest you self-revert and talk it over before trying to add the disputed material again. --Aquillion (talk) 15:50, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Yup looking back at it I should of waited. I will be more careful in the future, thanks for the note. PackMecEng (talk) 15:11, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
I've come to appreciate Aquillion as a good collaborator, despite our occasional disagreements. I'm even more convinced now. 😊 Atsme Talk 📧 15:17, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

A survey to improve the community consultation outreach process

Hello!

The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.

Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.

The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.

Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:20, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

It’s that time of year!

Christmas tree worm, (Spirobranchus gigantic)

Atsme Talk 📧 16:38, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Time To Spread A Little
HappyHolidayCheer!!
I decorated a special kind of Christmas tree
in the spirit of the season.

 What's especially nice about
this digitized version:
*it doesn't need water
*won't catch fire
*and batteries aren't required.
Have a very Merry Christmas – Happy Hanukkah‼️

and a prosperous New Year!!

🍸🎁 🎉

Happy Holidays

Thank you for continuing to make Wikipedia the greatest project in the world. I hope you have an excellent holiday season. Lightburst (talk) 23:47, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

3RR

Please be mindful of WP:3RR on James O'Keefe. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:38, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

@Nomoskedasticity: First one was vandalism and does not count. Also please be mindful of our BLP and sourcing polices. Thank you. PackMecEng (talk) 16:39, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
Since you seem determined to remove any accurate description of O'Keefe's activities, what accurate term would you suggest, because "activism" is a very tame description for his much more notable "fraud" and "fake news". What other terms will you allow? -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:50, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
@Nomoskedasticity: I would suggest starting a discussion on the talk page. Last I can find conversation about it was here. PackMecEng (talk) 16:53, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
Sorry Nomoskedasticity, I did not mean to ping you. I meant to ping BullRangifer. PackMecEng (talk) 16:55, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Something funny happened today

Do you understand irony? CassiantoTalk 07:24, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

@Cassianto: No, please explain. PackMecEng (talk) 08:01, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
I thought as much, let me explain: "Irony is a style of writing in which there is a noticeable, often humorous, difference between what is said and the intended meaning." Let me think of a scenario...hmmm... ok, I have one: For example, describing someone as childish and then placing yourself on a morally superior pedestal as an adult, indirectly makes you look like a child and the other person look like the adult who's simply on the receiving end of a childish comment. See? Hilarious, isn't it? CassiantoTalk 08:19, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
@Cassianto: Fascinating! Thank you for your thoughts and support kiddo. PackMecEng (talk) 08:22, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
No problem. Bear it in mind for the future, because any more of this will see you at ANI. Have a great day forming collegial relationships, won't you. CassiantoTalk 08:31, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
@Cassianto: Thanks for the tip Cassy! I appreciate you stopping by and I hope you have a wonderful day! PackMecEng (talk) 08:36, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

DS alert refresh: AP

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.

Here's your friendly annual DS alert refresh for the AP2 topic area, about 4 months overdue. Enjoy! ―Mandruss ☎ 23:10, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

ANI headers

Hi, I reverted you here. The discussion you cite had the opposite consensus than what you’re claiming in my reading. Given, I opposed the idea, but still the consensus seems fairly clear to me. WP:TPO applies here, and we shouldn’t be editing other people’s comments, especially when the idea has already been proposed and essentially rejected by the community. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:27, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: I read the consensus there that yes headings should be neutralized but they should not be standardized. While keeping in mind that you can have neutral and descriptive headings. Which is covered by WP:TALKNEW. We have also regularly changed headings with "this fucking guy" kind of stuff, this is no different. That kind of stuff was brough up by Bus stop, Levivich, Phil Bridger, the IP editor, Amaury, Wugapodes, and SharabSalam. I suspect the consensus you are seeing is against standard headings vs against civil headings. Please self revert. PackMecEng (talk) 22:37, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
No. The consensus was clear and a side discussion about neutrality after people had already commented rejecting the idea does not amount to consensus to implement the idea already rejected. If you look at what you were restoring, it was the exact header format the community had already explicitly rejected. TALKNEW has also never been enforced in such a way at ANI, and I can think it circumstances where non-neutral headings are actually desirable. There was nothing vastly inappropriate about that header and it didn’t need to be changed against consensus. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:43, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
@TonyBallioni: There is clear consensus in that discussion to actually enforce policy. While I understand that it has been selectively enforced in the past that is no reason not to now. Especially with all those people reaching consensus to do so. So again you are talking about consensus for a different issue. I can also appreciate that you do not find anything wrong with with calling editors incompetent in headings, but it is obviously inappropriate and is a toxic practice that needs to end. Be part of the solution, not the problem. PackMecEng (talk) 22:48, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Practice is policy. If a policy or guideline doesn’t conform with what we do, we ignore the guideline. In terms of problems: I consider clerking of others’ behaviour against consensus to be more of a problem than non-neutral headers. It makes people angry and creates more heat than light. It also has all the issues people like Jorm, Ponyo and myself raised. Anyway, it’s been raised on the talk page. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:57, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
@TonyBallioni: Practice is policy. If a policy or guideline doesn’t conform with what we do, we ignore the guideline. Sorry that is just plain bullshit. Policy is policy, if you do not want to do it or do not like it then you get it changed. Period, full stop. But you are right, the talk page is the more appropriate place. PackMecEng (talk) 23:02, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Speaking more generally: Our policies and guidelines are descriptive pages describing what we do and what the existing community consensus is, either through simple editing to document accepted practice or via a formal RfC. When the policy conflicts with the way we behave as a whole, the policy either needs to be updated (again can be via editing) or there’s a specific set of norms in a unique situation where we allow a deviation. In the case of noticeboards, it’s the latter because their nature makes them fairly unique places compared to the rest of the project. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:08, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: ANI and boards like it are not special and exempt from policy. If everyone jumped off a cliff would you do it too? That is not the kind of argument that should be used here. We have policy for a reason and as I said you are welcome to try and change it if you disagree with it. I think the recent desysopping are a good indicator where Wikipedia is headed in regard to civility. While those decisions had vocal critics, the community put people in place that ran on doing just that. I think it is fair to say the community as a whole has had enough with the "while this is how we have always done it" argument that has no basis in policy. PackMecEng (talk) 23:14, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

The basis in policy and guidelines for “this is how we’ve always done it” are WP:DE, WP:CONSENSUS, and WP:IAR. Disruptive editing is essentially not behaving in accords with our norms even if a policy doesn’t exist. IAR and CONSENSUS are the ultimate policies of Wikipedia: understood properly they mean that we are a self-governing community that is free to set its own norms for what is appropriate and inappropriate and that these norms aren’t always documented because they don’t foresee every situation and that we are free to adapt the documented norms to given situations without changing the documentation. If people behave the same way over and over, that’s consensus. Iridescent can likely give you a better explanation of how this impacts our general philosophy of governance, including sanctions and the like so I’ll ping him if you want another experienced user to weigh in on the policy vs. practice issue. I’m not really trying to apply this to the current case at this point, but I think this actually is a really important discussion to have. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:25, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
@TonyBallioni: No what you are talking about is WP:SILENCE. While a forum of consensus it is the weakest form and obviously cannot over ride policy as you suggest here. Yes our policy and guidelines are derived from practices that then formed consensus. Where is the consensus for what you say happens at ANI? I have shown the policy, and thereby consensus for what I did, while you have not. Also for something like this, if you have to rely on IAR you have already lost. What is the IAR argument for uncivil section headings? I find it hard to see a way that it is improving the encyclopedia to do so. That is even ignoring the fact that just because it is not civil does not actually mean it is descriptive, something which appears to be largely ignored. At this point in the encyclopedia if it is not covered by policy is basically does not happen. As is the situation here, it is clearly covered by policy and even occasionally enforced on those grounds. Why fight for that kind of encyclopedia? PackMecEng (talk) 23:33, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
First, you’re talking about a guideline, not a policy. Second, I’m talking about consensus through editing, which is the normal form of consensus. The onus is on those wanting to change something to achieve it. I don’t need to show consensus for “we don’t change the headers at ANI unless they are particularly egregious” since the behavioural norms are we don’t edit others comments. The onus is on you to show there’s consensus that such headers are disruptive and that people should actively be changing them. No such consensus existed. Someone objected to Levivich’s action. You objected to their objection. I then reverted you again. That’s not a consensus to change something. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:42, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
@TonyBallioni: The guideline has wide community consensus with no reason for an exceptions. You are saying it does not apply on ANI because sometimes people do not enforce it. I am afraid the onus is on you to get consensus to go against the guideline, not on me when I enforce it. Consensus though editing is not stronger than a guideline. Also if you want something stronger you could always go with the Civility pillar, which this would also be under. I suspect if your only argument is "well this is how we have always done it" you do not have a leg to stand on. You are welcome to purpose it at a place like village pump if you like though. PackMecEng (talk) 23:49, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
"The onus is on you to show there’s consensus that such headers are disruptive and that people should actively be changing them." I would not argue that the headers are "disruptive". The problem, in my opinion, of certain headers, is that they predispose participants to reach a particular conclusion. Headers should bear only a minimum relationship to the complaint that follows. Bus stop (talk) 04:03, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
That sounds reasonable to me as well. I think the header in question is a good example of that. PackMecEng (talk) 20:09, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for restoring that.

FWIW, though, I rather doubt that the estimable SN54129 deliberately nuked anything. Qwirkle (talk) 19:15, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

@Qwirkle: I have no doubt it was a honest mistake. Just something I noticed and I had to give him a little rub is all. PackMecEng (talk) 19:17, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

LOL

Your poor little +1 agree keeps getting moved down. You might want to move it back up to where it belongs. Atsme Talk 📧 16:58, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I think you linked to the wrong reassessment there! But yeah I keep seeing it migrate on down. PackMecEng (talk) 18:11, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Fixed...I am such a dork. I keep getting distracted by phone calls from the US regarding my livelihood, so just turned-off the phone so I can focus on more important things...like Wikipedia!!! ^_^ Atsme Talk 📧 19:07, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

May 2020

Stop icon You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory or otherwise controversial content into an article or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Peter Strzok. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:06, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

@NorthBySouthBaranof: Seriously? No, that is not a BLP vio. Not even a little bit. PackMecEng (talk) 21:11, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Please enlighten your (talk page watcher) as to what constituted a BLP vio? Atsme Talk 📧 21:21, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Talk:Peter_Strzok#New_Documents this apparently. PackMecEng (talk) 21:23, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Arbitration Enforcement request

There is an arbitration enforcement request regarding your behavior at Talk:Peter Strzok at WP:AE#PackMecEng. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:24, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello

I just wanted to drop you a note to let you know that you are banned from posting comments on my talk page, unless, of course, you are required to by Wikipedia policy. If you are required to post a notice on my talk page, please clearly indicate in the edit summary what policy you are doing so under. Any other posted comments will be deleted without being read.

Please note that this ban also applies to pinging me. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:15, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

If you say so, I will avoid posting on your talk page unless out of necessity. You are always welcome here though. I have yet to ban anyone from this page nor do I have any issue with you. PackMecEng (talk) 05:19, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

All I ask

Re the AE thing, I plan to close it with no action, since I'm apparently the only admin who thought it needed more than a trout. But if somebody says that you are misrepresenting a source, could you please take a minute to double check yourself? Please? ~Awilley (talk) 22:10, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. I have said my piece at AE. PackMecEng (talk) 00:22, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Talk page

It's mostly Grawp, but the last couple of years--and most CUs and SPI clerks can confirm this, I think--it's been sort of a free-for-all all over Wikipedia between the "usual" LTAs who are now also impersonating each other, including Willie on Wheels and that Bling person and...oh I forgot all their names, the ones that have been here for years and years. Who was that idiot living in his mom's basement in California... And I'm not the only one, of course--apparently I'm a trannie and at least one of these clowns regularly publicizes my home address and my employer, and threatens my children. It's pretty disgusting. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 00:34, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

I was only half joking. I do see a lot of the crap admins have to go though here and I have to say I am not a huge fan. Some of it is down right scary, like the examples you mention. Though I am sure if I went though a RFC it would at least be entertaining. PackMecEng (talk) 01:14, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Trump hat

I have generally high regard for you as an editor, so I'm lost as to why you keep siding with this person. First, they think "We should do x" is an actual argument, and any editor with their experience should know better. When challenged to say "why" we should do x, they say our first paragraph is "sloppy". Sloppy! Really? Does it look "sloppy" to you? After I spent a good 15 minutes of my volunteer time on a clear explanation of why we in fact have a consensus in the latest discussion, the best they could do is say that "we obviously disagree on this matter"! They are persistently evasive, unaffected by logic and reason, and unable to construct any articulate argument, all strong indicators that they haven't much leg to stand on. That certainly does not warrant hatting my comment because it contained the word "you", and I think I've shown remarkable restraint with this editor. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:15, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

@Mandruss: I am not siding with anyone. I have not voiced any opinion in the discussions and probably won't in the end. I do have an issue with how you are acting in that discussion though. Things like Are you sure you're at the right article?[7] and No one can force you to respond to reason.[8] do nothing but inflame the situation. Questioning the competency of another editor instead of focusing on countering their claims is never the way forward. Also judging by the votes so far it looks like it will go your way anyhow, so why keep pushing it? PackMecEng (talk) 15:21, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Quit badgering people that disagree with you shows your failure to understand the situation. This is a lot more than disagreeing with me, and if I badgered people for merely disagreeing with me I'd spend most of my time badgering. I think you know that I do not. it looks like it will go your way anyhow, so why keep pushing it? That's perfectly logical if my only objective is to WP:WIN on the content issue. It neither is nor should be. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:51, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Then what is your goal? Because if it is to show them the error of their ways I can say you catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar. PackMecEng (talk) 15:59, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Rest assured I would prefer to be a purveyor of honey. It's a bit late for a personality transplant. When the rare experienced editor brings such lame tactics to a discussion, it seems the best I can do is to call them out in the hopes they will improve or retire, in that order of preference, for the sake of the project. I can think of only one other who I address in that manner. And there are some "flies" who don't respond to honey, I think you'll agree. I'm only one of a large contingent who don't think it serves the project to be nice all the time.
I wish we had a discussion moderation system where we weren't required to moderate the very people we're expected to collaborate with, but I'm a lonely voice in the wilderness on that issue. We're pretty much on our own except when there is serious misbehavior. I play the cards I'm dealt. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:38, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
I will say I was surprised by their edit count and length of time here. I also get that it can be a pain in the ass to deal with stuff like that, goodness knows I am not always the nicest person around either. But I do try to be and have gone back and revised what I said if I felt I was being to harsh or mean. PackMecEng (talk) 17:07, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Me too. But I don't feel I was too "harsh or mean", so I didn't go back and revise anything. As I suggested, if anything I pulled my punches to try to keep my response proportionate to the offense (i.e. I reserve both-barrels responses for worse than that).
It occurs to me that, if honey advocates like yourself would employ honey more often in such situations, vinegar advocates like us would have less need for vinegar. Instead, you criticized me – twice – when you know I was objectively in the right. Not one solitary word of honey to the other editor, there or on their UTP, as far as I know. Sorry but I think you have your priorities backwards. I also recognize that neither of us is likely to change their mind-set in these matters. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:26, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
I did not go to their talk page or comment on what they were saying because they did not personalize their comments. They appear to be incorrect sure, but they also did not call you incompetent as far as I could see. That is the difference in my eyes. If I were to go off on everyone wrong on the internet it would really kill my free time for walks or going on rides. PackMecEng (talk) 16:09, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
That's fine, that's your choice and the choice of other silent honey advocates. But plural-you leave vinegar as the only remedy, and it would help if plural-you understood that.
By the way, I did not call the editor generally incompetent, I'm sure there are areas where they are competent. This wasn't one of them, and there is no rule or even widely-accepted principle that we should not call out narrow, case-specific incompetence when we see it. The object is not to avoid hurting people's feelings, in my view, although it's nice when we can. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:13, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I can see what you mean, I should of been nicer with my comments. We both should of. Also I'll plural-you you! Sorry I just have not heard that phrase before so kind of surprised me. Could just be a semi-ESL thing. PackMecEng (talk) 23:04, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I just made it up as the concisest way to clarify that "you" did not refer only to the editor known as PackMecEng, but rather to a large group of editors. I felt that clarification was important, and I knew you could figure out what it meant. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:11, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Steve Carell on All My Children

I've sourced that Steve Carell actual scene from All My Children is on YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=McdaePeD4BA

And we him actually credited on the show https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SFU6T3w5SDo go 39:41 to see him credited as Steven J. Carell

If you want to still be in denial that he was on All My Children, be my guest — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.48.73.84 (talk) 00:46, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

No, you are correct. He was certainly in that one episode #1.6729 back in 1996 as "Squidhead". The problem is without a reliable source we cannot add it to the article. Youtube videos are not sufficent for that and create copyright issues. Neither are sites like IMDb which is user generated content. I did some digging and could not come up with anything, I will continue to take a look later though. PackMecEng (talk) 03:39, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

May 2020

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.

_ SchroCat (talk) 17:45, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Stop icon You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Whataboutism. CrazyBoy826 16:03, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Information icon Hello, I'm CrazyBoy826. I noticed that you recently removed content from Whataboutism without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. CrazyBoy826 16:10, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:PackMecEng/Archive_3&oldid=1145927346"