![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
So that not to get the TP discussion off-topic, I'm responding here. Saying that rounding up American citizens based solely on race with no accompanying crime or charge and held indefinably is the same as holding unaccompanied minors whose parents are charged with a crime...) sounds a lot like F&F:
And these are not, like it or not, these aren’t our kids — show them compassion. But it’s not like he’s doing this to the people of Idaho or uh, or uh, or uh Texas. These are people from another country...
Source: ‘Fox & Friends’ host on family separation: ‘These aren’t our kids’. -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 00:40, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Pack - the whole affair has been sensationalized by media - great clickbait - our local news has assured us that the kids are fine, and living under the best of conditions. Our American children who are homeless wish they had it so good. The hook audio of babies crying is done with a purpose, specifically to persuade the midterms - it’s not working because most people know that kids cry when a mom leaves them with a babysitter, or drops them off at daycare, etc. - that’s what little kids do so attempts to use that as a hook to appeal to softies is just wrong. Pragmatists and good writers of encyclopedic material should be writing these articles and remove all the emotion from the equation - DISPASSIONATE TONE - and hopefully they will not fall for the sensationalism (propaganda). I certainly don’t recall all this hoopla during past adminstrations - and it did occur - but then, the media was still publishing news on paper and journalists liked the respective presidents. Anyway, not why I came here originally, so rather than add yet another section, I’ll just mention that I get what you were saying about how high profile people will be remembered. It’s human nature and why our encyclopedia should steer clear of it. Look at the lead in Bill Clinton - the Lewinsky scandal itself was whisked away by focusing on his impeachment. Notice how the section Sexual misconduct was written, (I just removed allegations because it was proven misconduct, but the main article uses allegations so I’m going to request a move). Atsme 📞 📧 14:37, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
![]() |
Hello! Lionelt has given you a delicious Chick-Fil-A sammie for finding the EPA report at Presidency of Donald Trump. You see, these things promote WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a delicious Chick-Fil-A sammie! Enjoy! – Lionel( talk) 06:37, 27 June 2018 (UTC) |
Neat! Thank you, though I must admit I have never actually been to a Chick-Fil-A. PackMecEng ( talk) 12:35, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Please see "Segue or Segway?" This is in reference to "The original question was about the grandchildren, he mentions that and segways into his daughter." If you catch any errors I make please feel free to point them out to me as I recognize my limitations and my ignorance. Bus stop ( talk) 00:17, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
About as helpful as expected PackMecEng ( talk) 23:56, 25 July 2018 (UTC)) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
PackMec, would you please consider reverting your uncalled-for dig at soibangla here? -- MelanieN ( talk) 18:10, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
@ MelanieN: Was worth a shot I suppose. Should I just hat it? PackMecEng ( talk) 01:58, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
|
Hey just wanted to let you know I made this removal per policy on BLP violations on talk pages, but removing the vio meant also removing your eminently sensible reply as well--just wanted to be sure to let you know it most definitely was not about you! Innisfree987 ( talk) 00:38, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Hello, I have brought the unfruitful Sarah Jeong discussion to dispute resolution and am notifying you because you have commented on the Talk page since August 3. You can find a link here: Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Sarah_Jeong. All the best, Ikjbagl ( talk) 12:04, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
You know what I'm talking about. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 12:29, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
I see you recently accepted a pending change to February 16 and there was no source provided to support it. I looked for a source for this date of birth in the Mitchel Musso article that I could add to the DOY page and it was unsupported by any source there either.
You're probably not aware of this change, but Days of the Year pages are no longer exempt from WP:V and direct sources are required for additions. For details see the WikiProject Days of the Year style guide. I've gone ahead and un-accepted this edit and backed it out.
Please do not accept additions to day of year pages where no direct source has been provided on that day of year page. The burden to provide sources for additions to these pages is on the editor who adds or restores material to these pages. Thank you. Toddst1 ( talk) 21:11, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi PackMecEng. Sorry I do not communicate by email, but I intend to pursue the subject. Feel free to contribute. — JFG talk 18:49, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
Please don't replace entire last name field with a URL, as you did, here [1].
You removed the first and last name of the journalist that wrote the article. Sagecandor ( talk) 20:02, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
My apologies, not trying to do anything other than be civil and do research.
Can you do the same?
Can you please use MDY dates?
Can you please allow me some time to do research?
Please?
Sagecandor ( talk) 20:36, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Or not, I am supremely disappointed in you. [2] PackMecEng ( talk) 00:53, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes, that's the ANI thread. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 22:42, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
I know what I'm doing; it's definitely not standard operating procedure but hopefully the BLP issues (which justify striking the entire article history to date) will be resolved. A sea of acronyms won't help you in unsteady tides. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 22:51, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
Really? Asking why Donald Trump's (Yes, the *removed BLP vio*) wiki article is edit protected is considered "vandalizing"? Rightttttt — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.57.173.53 ( talk) 12:50, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
Agreed. -- BullRangifer ( talk) PingMe 20:20, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose.I think you're confusing intent and effect. Vandalism is about intent. ― Mandruss ☎ 23:43, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
you just do not like it being called vandalism?Correct. ― Mandruss ☎ 23:50, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
![]() |
Little Badger |
For your work on
Chiappa Little Badger.
![]() |
I was looking into the little edit war you and Snooganssnoogans were involved in on the Laura Ingraham page. [3] Snooganssnoogans was saying that the source described Ingraham as being "anti-immigration" while you said it described her as being "anti-illegal immigration". I took the liberty of opening the source myself and doing a Ctrl-F for "immigration". I got 3 hits in 2 paragraphs, and all of them seem to best support Snooganssnoogans's position. Is there something else in that source that I missed that characterizes her as being "anti-illegal immigration" and not just "anti-immigration"? ~ Awilley ( talk) 17:32, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
mainstream media story about an immigrant as an "illegal immigration sob story."and
such as calling the children of immigrants in the country illegally. You should also take note on the talk page that I requested a stronger source for it and if that was given I would be fine with the original wording. Mostly because the Washington Post article was from their style/opinion section.
Great, lets get a good source for that past commentary and add it. Otherwise the source used is not good enough. All good? PackMecEng ( talk) 17:42, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
Art, culture, and commentary from Style writers, commentary from Style writers sounds like opinion to me. At best it could be labeled as WP:RSOPINION, but again do you feel that would be a strong enough source for a statement of fact about a BLP? PackMecEng ( talk) 18:27, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
@ Awilley: 1 - Yes the source states that opinion, as well as the others I mentioned. 2 - Yup sources says that as you are quoting it, which is depicting their thoughts on what Ingraham things. Which is targeted at illegal immigrants. 3 - I never said only and my actions on the talk page reflect that as you know. So yes I disagree with your assertion that I was saying the "source only supports". 4 - As I explained here with examples from the article yes it does frame her views as illegal immigration in that article, with the authors giving disagreeing. On the source being an opinion we can agree to disagree, though it sounds like we agree that it is not the best source. Others on the talk page have mentioned the source issue now as well, with it being updated. PackMecEng ( talk) 19:28, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
@ Awilley: Those are not threats, apologies if it came off that way. Those are the next steps in resolving this dispute since it seems we are at an impasse here. I am trying to help you be a better admin, as you are trying to help me be a better editor. At this point you have not shown this to be anything past different interpretations of a source. The only way it is something else is if you are suggesting I had a different view because of malice or ignorance. Do you think there is really more to discuss here? PackMecEng ( talk) 13:10, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
@ Awilley: Eh, close enough to right. BTW my change was a revert, not me specifically changing it to illegal immigration. PackMecEng ( talk) 15:23, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
obviously against the lawstuck in your head, even though everyone else has disagreed with you up to this point on that. Yeah you need to let that go. Everyone on the article talk page understood(which is how the content was corrected), as well as the other two users that commented here. The only ones that do not seem to understand that are you and Snoogans(You know that one that has an indef sanction for POV pushing at tons of articles). [10] Okay it is all more clear now. I politely request you carefully re-evaluate your position here and perhaps drop the WP:STICK. Also keep in mind the law of holes. PackMecEng ( talk) 16:20, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
It appears that you have not yet received a formal notification about the existence of AP2 sanctions. I will remedy that. I'll leave you with a warning: please be aware that if you do something like this again (misrepresenting sources, etc.) you will receive a sanction. ~ Awilley ( talk) 18:29, 19 October 2018 (UTC) Lastly, a minor request, could you please stop linking my username in every reply? I already told you that I've watchlisted this page, and you have pinged me no fewer than 20 times in the past 24 hours. ~ Awilley ( talk) 18:33, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
(
talk page watcher)
Awilley, you wrote, "I got 3 hits in 2 paragraphs, and all of them seem to best support Snooganssnoogans's position"
This kind of viewpoint is what's killing Wikipedia as an encyclopedia: focus on what editors think, how well they Wikilawyer their "position", and what we can quickly find on the internet, rather than everyone having the proper focus on what's the truth (yeah, yeah, I know "verifiability over truth" - meh), what's encyclopedic, what's real, what's beneficial to the reader, what properly informs the reader about the article subject in an encyclopedic manner. What you've written here is about who won the argument (in your opinion) not what best serves the original Wikipedia purpose. I long for the day editors get back to the basics and realities of what writing an encyclopedia is about/how it's done instead of focusing on the editors and their opinions on the subject of an article. You used to be an editor who knew the difference and stuck to the purpose. Now? I think your statement I quoted above (and all of your following comments) shows something very different.
-- ψλ ●
✉
✓ 13:48, 19 October 2018 (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 recently 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 any 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.
![]() |
Happy
Hanukkah, happy
Yule, happy
Boxing Day, happy
Cavalcade of Magi, happy
Christmas, happy
Christmas Sunday, happy
Epiphany, happy
Saint Stephen's Day, happy
Solemnity of Mary, Mother of God, happy
Sunday within the Octave of Christmas, happy
Twelfth Night, happy
World Day of Peace, happy
Day of Reconciliation and happy
Waitangi Day! If you don't celebrate some of these, it's your own fault
![]() ![]() ![]() |
I don't know if you're interested or not, but a while back, your leveled and useful approach on the dispute on the BAMN article really helped cool some of the hotter responses. Well it seems some of the same is bubbling up again over there, and if you have the time (and the patience) I'd love to get your input. Either way, thanks. CordialGreenery ( talk) 19:52, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Dear Fellow Wikipedian
I would like to invite you to my RFC request on the page One America News Networks. I am reaching out to you to include your expert opinion and your solution to this problem in the RFC request. Please also invite more editors so that we can have a fair discussion that will improve the page.
Kind Regards
Saad Ahmed2983 ( talk) 11:25, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
PackMecEng, somewhat against my will I roped myself into writing a response to a Signpost proposed article here [ [16]] (link to article [ [17]]). My draft reply is here [ [18]]. Primarily I would like to know if the logic comes across as sound but I'm also open to any and all suggestions. There is quite a reasonable chance I have some grammar or copy edit errors in the thing. Thanks! Springee ( talk) 02:57, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Black Hebrew Israelites; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that 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:
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. — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 03:17, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
@ PackMecEng Thank you for your undo revision. I verified the citation incorrectly. A plugin was blocking the loading mechanism of the Washington Post website. When I went to search the website (via Ctrl-F browser search) it came up blank on my searches, meanwhile I was unaware the website had not correctly loaded. Thanks to your detailed comment, I have fixed the browser error and will be more careful in the future. Atchison clark ( talk) 19:25, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi, PME - Jeongan doesn't have any citations, and I've hit a brick wall trying to find any using Google. I'm thinking there may be some history books out there in a different language (possibly Chinese) and was wondering, if you get a chance, will you see what you can find?
Would be worth a read. nableezy - 18:17, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
Got an edit conflict of an edit conflict and I guess my attempt to reload and repaste my comment back messed things up. I probably took too long rereading the various related pages as I commented. Thanks for fixing things back up. PaleAqua ( talk) 02:43, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
re-litigation of a discussion, that was already resolved the community, a month ago. Consensus can change but not so soon. ∯WBG converse 15:10, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
So that not to get the TP discussion off-topic, I'm responding here. Saying that rounding up American citizens based solely on race with no accompanying crime or charge and held indefinably is the same as holding unaccompanied minors whose parents are charged with a crime...) sounds a lot like F&F:
And these are not, like it or not, these aren’t our kids — show them compassion. But it’s not like he’s doing this to the people of Idaho or uh, or uh, or uh Texas. These are people from another country...
Source: ‘Fox & Friends’ host on family separation: ‘These aren’t our kids’. -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 00:40, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Pack - the whole affair has been sensationalized by media - great clickbait - our local news has assured us that the kids are fine, and living under the best of conditions. Our American children who are homeless wish they had it so good. The hook audio of babies crying is done with a purpose, specifically to persuade the midterms - it’s not working because most people know that kids cry when a mom leaves them with a babysitter, or drops them off at daycare, etc. - that’s what little kids do so attempts to use that as a hook to appeal to softies is just wrong. Pragmatists and good writers of encyclopedic material should be writing these articles and remove all the emotion from the equation - DISPASSIONATE TONE - and hopefully they will not fall for the sensationalism (propaganda). I certainly don’t recall all this hoopla during past adminstrations - and it did occur - but then, the media was still publishing news on paper and journalists liked the respective presidents. Anyway, not why I came here originally, so rather than add yet another section, I’ll just mention that I get what you were saying about how high profile people will be remembered. It’s human nature and why our encyclopedia should steer clear of it. Look at the lead in Bill Clinton - the Lewinsky scandal itself was whisked away by focusing on his impeachment. Notice how the section Sexual misconduct was written, (I just removed allegations because it was proven misconduct, but the main article uses allegations so I’m going to request a move). Atsme 📞 📧 14:37, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
![]() |
Hello! Lionelt has given you a delicious Chick-Fil-A sammie for finding the EPA report at Presidency of Donald Trump. You see, these things promote WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a delicious Chick-Fil-A sammie! Enjoy! – Lionel( talk) 06:37, 27 June 2018 (UTC) |
Neat! Thank you, though I must admit I have never actually been to a Chick-Fil-A. PackMecEng ( talk) 12:35, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Please see "Segue or Segway?" This is in reference to "The original question was about the grandchildren, he mentions that and segways into his daughter." If you catch any errors I make please feel free to point them out to me as I recognize my limitations and my ignorance. Bus stop ( talk) 00:17, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
About as helpful as expected PackMecEng ( talk) 23:56, 25 July 2018 (UTC)) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
PackMec, would you please consider reverting your uncalled-for dig at soibangla here? -- MelanieN ( talk) 18:10, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
@ MelanieN: Was worth a shot I suppose. Should I just hat it? PackMecEng ( talk) 01:58, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
|
Hey just wanted to let you know I made this removal per policy on BLP violations on talk pages, but removing the vio meant also removing your eminently sensible reply as well--just wanted to be sure to let you know it most definitely was not about you! Innisfree987 ( talk) 00:38, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Hello, I have brought the unfruitful Sarah Jeong discussion to dispute resolution and am notifying you because you have commented on the Talk page since August 3. You can find a link here: Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Sarah_Jeong. All the best, Ikjbagl ( talk) 12:04, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
You know what I'm talking about. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 12:29, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
I see you recently accepted a pending change to February 16 and there was no source provided to support it. I looked for a source for this date of birth in the Mitchel Musso article that I could add to the DOY page and it was unsupported by any source there either.
You're probably not aware of this change, but Days of the Year pages are no longer exempt from WP:V and direct sources are required for additions. For details see the WikiProject Days of the Year style guide. I've gone ahead and un-accepted this edit and backed it out.
Please do not accept additions to day of year pages where no direct source has been provided on that day of year page. The burden to provide sources for additions to these pages is on the editor who adds or restores material to these pages. Thank you. Toddst1 ( talk) 21:11, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi PackMecEng. Sorry I do not communicate by email, but I intend to pursue the subject. Feel free to contribute. — JFG talk 18:49, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
Please don't replace entire last name field with a URL, as you did, here [1].
You removed the first and last name of the journalist that wrote the article. Sagecandor ( talk) 20:02, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
My apologies, not trying to do anything other than be civil and do research.
Can you do the same?
Can you please use MDY dates?
Can you please allow me some time to do research?
Please?
Sagecandor ( talk) 20:36, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Or not, I am supremely disappointed in you. [2] PackMecEng ( talk) 00:53, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes, that's the ANI thread. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 22:42, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
I know what I'm doing; it's definitely not standard operating procedure but hopefully the BLP issues (which justify striking the entire article history to date) will be resolved. A sea of acronyms won't help you in unsteady tides. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 22:51, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
Really? Asking why Donald Trump's (Yes, the *removed BLP vio*) wiki article is edit protected is considered "vandalizing"? Rightttttt — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.57.173.53 ( talk) 12:50, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
Agreed. -- BullRangifer ( talk) PingMe 20:20, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose.I think you're confusing intent and effect. Vandalism is about intent. ― Mandruss ☎ 23:43, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
you just do not like it being called vandalism?Correct. ― Mandruss ☎ 23:50, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
![]() |
Little Badger |
For your work on
Chiappa Little Badger.
![]() |
I was looking into the little edit war you and Snooganssnoogans were involved in on the Laura Ingraham page. [3] Snooganssnoogans was saying that the source described Ingraham as being "anti-immigration" while you said it described her as being "anti-illegal immigration". I took the liberty of opening the source myself and doing a Ctrl-F for "immigration". I got 3 hits in 2 paragraphs, and all of them seem to best support Snooganssnoogans's position. Is there something else in that source that I missed that characterizes her as being "anti-illegal immigration" and not just "anti-immigration"? ~ Awilley ( talk) 17:32, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
mainstream media story about an immigrant as an "illegal immigration sob story."and
such as calling the children of immigrants in the country illegally. You should also take note on the talk page that I requested a stronger source for it and if that was given I would be fine with the original wording. Mostly because the Washington Post article was from their style/opinion section.
Great, lets get a good source for that past commentary and add it. Otherwise the source used is not good enough. All good? PackMecEng ( talk) 17:42, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
Art, culture, and commentary from Style writers, commentary from Style writers sounds like opinion to me. At best it could be labeled as WP:RSOPINION, but again do you feel that would be a strong enough source for a statement of fact about a BLP? PackMecEng ( talk) 18:27, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
@ Awilley: 1 - Yes the source states that opinion, as well as the others I mentioned. 2 - Yup sources says that as you are quoting it, which is depicting their thoughts on what Ingraham things. Which is targeted at illegal immigrants. 3 - I never said only and my actions on the talk page reflect that as you know. So yes I disagree with your assertion that I was saying the "source only supports". 4 - As I explained here with examples from the article yes it does frame her views as illegal immigration in that article, with the authors giving disagreeing. On the source being an opinion we can agree to disagree, though it sounds like we agree that it is not the best source. Others on the talk page have mentioned the source issue now as well, with it being updated. PackMecEng ( talk) 19:28, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
@ Awilley: Those are not threats, apologies if it came off that way. Those are the next steps in resolving this dispute since it seems we are at an impasse here. I am trying to help you be a better admin, as you are trying to help me be a better editor. At this point you have not shown this to be anything past different interpretations of a source. The only way it is something else is if you are suggesting I had a different view because of malice or ignorance. Do you think there is really more to discuss here? PackMecEng ( talk) 13:10, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
@ Awilley: Eh, close enough to right. BTW my change was a revert, not me specifically changing it to illegal immigration. PackMecEng ( talk) 15:23, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
obviously against the lawstuck in your head, even though everyone else has disagreed with you up to this point on that. Yeah you need to let that go. Everyone on the article talk page understood(which is how the content was corrected), as well as the other two users that commented here. The only ones that do not seem to understand that are you and Snoogans(You know that one that has an indef sanction for POV pushing at tons of articles). [10] Okay it is all more clear now. I politely request you carefully re-evaluate your position here and perhaps drop the WP:STICK. Also keep in mind the law of holes. PackMecEng ( talk) 16:20, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
It appears that you have not yet received a formal notification about the existence of AP2 sanctions. I will remedy that. I'll leave you with a warning: please be aware that if you do something like this again (misrepresenting sources, etc.) you will receive a sanction. ~ Awilley ( talk) 18:29, 19 October 2018 (UTC) Lastly, a minor request, could you please stop linking my username in every reply? I already told you that I've watchlisted this page, and you have pinged me no fewer than 20 times in the past 24 hours. ~ Awilley ( talk) 18:33, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
(
talk page watcher)
Awilley, you wrote, "I got 3 hits in 2 paragraphs, and all of them seem to best support Snooganssnoogans's position"
This kind of viewpoint is what's killing Wikipedia as an encyclopedia: focus on what editors think, how well they Wikilawyer their "position", and what we can quickly find on the internet, rather than everyone having the proper focus on what's the truth (yeah, yeah, I know "verifiability over truth" - meh), what's encyclopedic, what's real, what's beneficial to the reader, what properly informs the reader about the article subject in an encyclopedic manner. What you've written here is about who won the argument (in your opinion) not what best serves the original Wikipedia purpose. I long for the day editors get back to the basics and realities of what writing an encyclopedia is about/how it's done instead of focusing on the editors and their opinions on the subject of an article. You used to be an editor who knew the difference and stuck to the purpose. Now? I think your statement I quoted above (and all of your following comments) shows something very different.
-- ψλ ●
✉
✓ 13:48, 19 October 2018 (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 recently 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 any 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.
![]() |
Happy
Hanukkah, happy
Yule, happy
Boxing Day, happy
Cavalcade of Magi, happy
Christmas, happy
Christmas Sunday, happy
Epiphany, happy
Saint Stephen's Day, happy
Solemnity of Mary, Mother of God, happy
Sunday within the Octave of Christmas, happy
Twelfth Night, happy
World Day of Peace, happy
Day of Reconciliation and happy
Waitangi Day! If you don't celebrate some of these, it's your own fault
![]() ![]() ![]() |
I don't know if you're interested or not, but a while back, your leveled and useful approach on the dispute on the BAMN article really helped cool some of the hotter responses. Well it seems some of the same is bubbling up again over there, and if you have the time (and the patience) I'd love to get your input. Either way, thanks. CordialGreenery ( talk) 19:52, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Dear Fellow Wikipedian
I would like to invite you to my RFC request on the page One America News Networks. I am reaching out to you to include your expert opinion and your solution to this problem in the RFC request. Please also invite more editors so that we can have a fair discussion that will improve the page.
Kind Regards
Saad Ahmed2983 ( talk) 11:25, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
PackMecEng, somewhat against my will I roped myself into writing a response to a Signpost proposed article here [ [16]] (link to article [ [17]]). My draft reply is here [ [18]]. Primarily I would like to know if the logic comes across as sound but I'm also open to any and all suggestions. There is quite a reasonable chance I have some grammar or copy edit errors in the thing. Thanks! Springee ( talk) 02:57, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Black Hebrew Israelites; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that 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:
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. — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 03:17, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
@ PackMecEng Thank you for your undo revision. I verified the citation incorrectly. A plugin was blocking the loading mechanism of the Washington Post website. When I went to search the website (via Ctrl-F browser search) it came up blank on my searches, meanwhile I was unaware the website had not correctly loaded. Thanks to your detailed comment, I have fixed the browser error and will be more careful in the future. Atchison clark ( talk) 19:25, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi, PME - Jeongan doesn't have any citations, and I've hit a brick wall trying to find any using Google. I'm thinking there may be some history books out there in a different language (possibly Chinese) and was wondering, if you get a chance, will you see what you can find?
Would be worth a read. nableezy - 18:17, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
Got an edit conflict of an edit conflict and I guess my attempt to reload and repaste my comment back messed things up. I probably took too long rereading the various related pages as I commented. Thanks for fixing things back up. PaleAqua ( talk) 02:43, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
re-litigation of a discussion, that was already resolved the community, a month ago. Consensus can change but not so soon. ∯WBG converse 15:10, 27 June 2019 (UTC)