![]() | 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 | Archive 6 |
You recently accepted a pending change on February 26 that did not include an inline source. We've discussed this before. Please don't do that. Toddst1 ( talk) 14:00, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
it is not necessary for you to ensure compliance with the content policies on neutral point of view, verifiability and original research before accepting, but of course you are free to uphold them as you would normally with any edit you happen to notice. For example, in case of additions for which you can find no reference in the article but estimate unlikely to be vandalism, treat them as you would treat any such edit: do nothing, tag as needing citation, provide an appropriate citation, or revert – depending on the situation at hand. I hope this clears up for what you pending change reviewing actually is and what it is not. I see that you are a member of the pending change group for some reason, perhaps that is something you might want to reconsider. Thanks again for stopping by, I hope this helps you understand things better!
"I would also strongly suggest you read up on what review pending changes actually is"and
"You might want to pay attention to the general criteria". Gee wiz, what a good idea!
"Please note that when reviewing days of the year pages, all new additions require a direct citation per WP:DOYCITE."QED. Toddst1 ( talk) 01:48, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being
blocked from editing—especially if you violate the
three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three
reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
As the page states at the top, "Any substantive edit to this page should reflect consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page."
Toddst1 (
talk)
15:03, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
This is your only warning; if you make
personal attacks on others again, as you did at
User talk:PackMecEng, you may be
blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please refrain from name-calling or creating derogatory nicknames for other editors - especially in a dispute.
[2]
Toddst1 (
talk)
16:32, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
![]() |
The Teamwork Barnstar |
I really appreciate how we were able to discuss and cooperate to produce the RFC on DOY & PCR. Even though we have opposing views on the question, it was a civil and collegial effort, and I enjoyed working with you on it. Schazjmd (talk) 15:46, 13 June 2020 (UTC) |
Nahh, that’s Kipling’s amendment, innit? Qwirkle ( talk) 16:50, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Uh oh...I thought the quote on your user page was a fat-finger mistake, so I corrected it. Are you saying "if" is what you intended? Atsme Talk 📧 19:44, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for the information. I had not encountered them as a sensitive topic before. -- MerielGJones ( talk) 17:33, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
I fixed it for you - hope that's ok. Happy 4th!!! Don't drink too much!! It's too late to advise me. Atsme Talk 📧 21:31, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Probably Jimbo's page is a place where people can be fairly spontaneous, but to post a completely toxic and at the same time completely vague attack on another user, such as this, is beyond the pale even there. This is a personal attack warning. Bishonen | tålk 17:52, 7 July 2020 (UTC).
You don't get to express your contempt for users here. Just do it inside your head, not on a Wikipedia page. I warned you about the way you try to needle MastCell just a few days ago,
[4] and here we are again.
[5]
"Friendly" banter, was it? You don't get away with attacks against somebody you are obviously not on friendly terms with just by using that silly template. You have been blocked from editing for 24 hours for personal attacks or harassment. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may
appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.
Bishonen |
tålk
19:54, 10 July 2020 (UTC).
PackMecEng ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Given that several others disagreed that it was a personal attack above and on the talk page and that the second comment you link is not one either I am quite puzzled by your block. Even going over all the comments on Jimbo's talk page I do not know why I would be singled out. Especially when I was being called an enabler and racist in that same discussion. [6] So with that and the fact that you have kicked me off your talk page I find this rather disturbing. [7] I feel this block is inappropriate. PackMecEng ( talk) 20:13, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You were warned about personal attacks not three days prior to your block, and while I might have issue with the context of Bishonen's warning, I cannot argue that the comment which you were blocked for was a clear personal attack. You will not be excused from consequences because your derogatory comment was "just a joke". Bishonen's block is appropriate given the situation. In addition, your request blames everyone else but does not address your own misconduct. Declined. Ivanvector ( Talk/ Edits) 21:58, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
(a) taunting or baiting: deliberately pushing others to the point of breaching civility even if not seeming to commit such a breach themselves. All editors are responsible for their own actions in cases of baiting; a user who is baited is not excused by that if they attack in response, and a user who baits is not excused from their actions by the fact that the bait may be taken.In fact, your pattern of using "take a break", "you're out of your depth" and "quit while you're ahead" as means of gaslighting is way too transparent. -- qedk ( t 愛 c) 20:25, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Civility advice coming from the admin who told a completely calm user to "fuck off" on AN/I a while ago. And now heated arguing on Jimbotalk is blockable? That is just... I'm sorry that you are being treated like this, PackMecEng.-- Pudeo ( talk) 20:54, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
hard ... to ignorebut when the same is presented with evidence in case of PME, it becomes invisible and/or irrelevant. To be perfectly clear, Bish's block fell well under the purview of an WP:UNINVOLVED block per the appropriate policy. Everything else is irrelevant. :) -- qedk ( t 愛 c) 06:18, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
@ Ivanvector: I still disagree with the assessment that the second one was a person attack on Mast. I do not have a problem with Soibangla, we joke with each other often. Honestly I disagree that the first one was harassment or a personal attack either. The reasons stated in my unblock request are more targeted at the general inappropriateness of the block in general. I think it is reasonable for people to disagree that the two comments do not constitute a personal attack or harassment. Which is why I explained the situation and gave diffs for the issues as I saw it to comply with the guide to appealing blocks. It was not my intent to pull a NOTTHEM. PackMecEng ( talk) 22:17, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
PackMecEng and @ Sir Joseph: your constant repetition of the false claim that MastCell called anyone a racist is a serious PA, and repeating it doesn't make it true. Stop it and AGF. Asking for clarification of a statement was not calling anyone a racist, and no one else was called a racist. It was asking for clarification, which may or may not have revealed a possible blind spot. A simple reply and explanation would have prevented a lot of drama and we wouldn't be here. Anyone who keeps repeating that false claim about MastCell deserves a block, so be careful, Sir Joseph. The first occasion is a PA, and repetition is harassment. Pinging QEDK. -- Valjean ( talk) 00:11, 11 July 2020 (UTC) Also pinging Ivanvector. -- Valjean ( talk) 00:12, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
PackMecEng, as a matter of principle, your refusal inability to recognize the problem should result in automatic maintenance of the block until such recognition becomes evident. The idea of the block is to give you time to think about the matter and change your mind, IOW lead to great self-insight. In fact, any discussion by you that continues to dispute the matter should end up resulting in the loss of talk page access, so reserve any comments for demonstrating that you understand what you've done wrong. This isn't a one-time thing for you. It's a long-time pattern, and it needs to stop. --
Valjean (
talk)
00:55, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
As for the rest, I'm comfortable with what I've said. I'd feel worse if I saw this kind of thing and didn't speak up about it.[13] PackMecEng ( talk) 03:32, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
![]() |
You are the recipient of a WTF Block |
Remember how much fun you had playing with blocks as a kid? Now that you're a mature adult, you can collect blocks with adult letters, and they're not only stackable, they're collectable.
|
![]() |
This user has been blocked, and isn't embarrassed about it - (admire my block log here!). |
I pretty much stole the whole thing from EEng's glorious page but I think it looks nice. PackMecEng ( talk) 15:31, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This user has been blocked, and isn't embarrassed about it - (admire my block log here!). |
Please do not stalk me and indiscriminately revert me, as you did here [15]. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 04:32, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for editing this page, honestly. It has made me think that to help with the confusion between British Psychological Society (study of people - which has a Wikipedia page) and British Phycological Society (study of algae - which does not have a page), I could start a page on the latter, which I imagine would be considered notable ( https://brphycsoc.org/). Not tonight, though, but later this week. Do you have any advice?-- MerielGJones ( talk) 21:49, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Steele's debunked hoax dossier. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 2#Steele's debunked hoax dossier until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. --
Valjean (
talk)
00:09, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
In a long discussion on Talk:Steele Dossier of whether or not the first line in the article should say "also known as the Trump–Russia dossier" (the former name of the article), Valjean jestingly suggested the article name Steele's debunked hoax dossier would find approval with some. As I read it, this was a rhetorical point not intended to hint that it would find approval with you. However, you went ahead and created it as a redirect, now being discussed at Redirects for discussion (the top entry). This after accusing Valjean of tendentiousness, among many other accusations. Creating that redirect actually is tendentious, also a violation of WP:POINT, also an egregious waste of other people's time. This, again, is a warning from an administrator. If you do something so tendentious and time-wasting again, I will block you. And if you continue to bludgeon discussions the way you did at Talk:Steele Dossier, you are likely to be topic banned from American politics. I see you say above that you intend to request G7 deletion of the redirect. That's good, even though it hasn't happened yet. The redirect has been up for several days, and you've had to be coaxed into (putatively) requesting deletion. A poor show. Bishonen | tålk 09:25, 3 August 2020 (UTC).
ask for or try to obtain (something) from someone.I have never told someone what they can and cannot do on my talk page. You get to be the lucky first. Do no solicit BLP violating porno on my talk page. I do not care the reason, it is wildly inappropriate. PackMecEng ( talk) 02:55, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
A big apology to everyone!
Something I lost track of in all of the above was a lack of sensitivity on my part. I got defensive and failed miserably. Tact has never been my strong point, and emotional intelligence is practically nonexistent in my family, where Asperger syndrome affects certain members, including my son, and I suspect myself to some degree. My wife's family is much worse off in that regard. In my family, we rarely spoke of emotions. I still have a hard time discussing them. They were suppressed to avoid punishment, and I was spanked until I could exercise enough self-control to stop crying. That first happened when I was about nine years old, so daily spankings were my lot in life from the time I was about three years old and possibly earlier, as my mother believed in spanking babies. My mother spanking me is one of my earliest memories. She always carried a rubber hose (about 1/2" x 8") in her purse. After getting spanked at school, I would then get spanked at home. I'm damaged goods in many ways. I'm a preacher's kid and do not recommend a strong, conservative, religious upbringing. These are possible reasons, but not excuses.
I want to apologize to everyone, not just the females here. I forgot that being kind is more important than being right. I am not exempt from the common failing that "a man is right in his own eyes." (Proverbs 21:2 NIV) Right or wrong, I should have been more sensitive. Please forgive me. -- Valjean ( talk) 00:01, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
Man is invited to a long running dinner party by a friend and accepts. Sitting at the dinner table, a few sheets of paper are distributed. It contains numbered jokes. Someone says #14, and everyone laughs. Someone says #23, and everyone laughs. Man whispers to his friend – what’s going on? Friend explains that you pick a joke that you like and state the number. So, he says: “number 8”. No one laughs. Asks his friend what happened. Friend says: “It’s not what you said; it’s how you said it”.
That wasn't a forum post. It was directly related to every recent discussion on the Tucker Carlson talk page, including some that have already been archived. What do you need, references that cite those discussions? Try not to censor legitimate talk page subjects. JimKaatFan ( talk) 19:18, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Every day above ground is a good day! PackMecEng ( talk) 22:23, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
You made two reverts [17] [18] with the summary "not this again" on content that is under active discussion. Please provide a valid rationale and join the discussion when reverting. – dlthewave ☎ 12:42, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
( talk page stalker)Where exactly is this “under active discussion?” I see little beyond edit summaries before recently, and only a slight expansion of those edit summaries on the subject. I have seen extensive past discussion that suggests that PME’s edit summary is fairly accurate; this is an old chestnut. Qwirkle ( talk) 15:03, 3 September 2020 (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 governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues. 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.
Just a reminder since I don't see that you've been made aware in the past year. – dlthewave ☎ 16:06, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Per WP:VANISH, Please consider avoiding talking about the vanished users by the old or new name. I don't know of any policy that says we have to do this, but if someone has quit Wikipedia, requested vanishing, and scrambled their password, the polite thing to do is to let them go without further comment. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 22:46, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
User talk pages are usually not deleted, the TLDR header says
normally does not include the deletion of user talk pages, and then there is a whole section basically saying that there needs to be a rare exception to do it. PackMecEng ( talk) 23:48, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Please remember that slow motion edit war, such as those that happened on Andy Ngo are still edit wars and can still result in sanctions even if you are respecting the 1RR -- Guerillero | Parlez Moi 02:13, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Hello, PackMecEng,
I've noticed over the past month, you've been involved in talk page discussions where you have been very provocative and you've made thinly-veiled accusations to long-time editors, admins & even Jimbo. I'm not sure why you are choosing to take the role of devil's advocate in discussions, but I recommend taking a less adversarial position, especially with editors who have been working to improve Wikipedia for years, if not decades.
You didn't indulge in personal attacks but I don't see anything positive to be gained in challenging other editors about ideological positions that have nothing to do with improving article content. Why be antagonistic instead of collaborative? We might have different perspectives on politics or social issues but we should all be working together to improve content. That is easier done when you are cordial with other editors even when you disagree. On Wikipedia, it's better to make allies than opponents. Good luck with your editing. Liz Read! Talk! 05:32, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Please don't follow me around Wikipedia reverting my edits, as you did here; doing so violates our policy on WP:HOUNDING.
This isn't your first time with this behavior—you have previously hounded me, as described partway through this talkpage thread, where you combed my contribution history and followed me to a relatively obscure article to revert my edits. To make matters worse, you used a panoply of false claims as an excuse for your hounding (as elaborated by an uninvolved admin here).
Before you present the inevitable excuses this time around, let's be clear—this is an article you haven't touched in nearly 4 months and many intervening edits, but within 3 minutes of me editing the article you arrived to revert me. There are a ton of articles on Wikipedia, and plenty of ways of finding good ones to edit without going through my contributions and following me around. I'm asking you for the second time to stop doing this. MastCell Talk 20:40, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
you ignored it for 4 months, through dozens of editsThat page has a low volume of edits. Most people that have it on their watch page do have not edited it in a while. That is meaningless.
but managed to pop up within 3 minutes of me editing the pageYes it poped up on my watchlist as I said already. You notice I didn't touch your other edits to that page or elsewhere? Know why? Because I don't actually follow you around and when I do see edits that are fine I leave them, because you know, they are fine. What do you think? I just sit on your contribution page waiting? WTF? This might shock you but I do not actually care about you. If someone else made the same bad edit I would revert the same way.
"You notice I didn't touch your other edits to that page or elsewhere? Know why?"
"What do you think? I just sit on your contribution page waiting?"
"Also if you want to bring up stuff from over 2 years ago why not the note from the same admin asking you to cool it?"
"Now, do you see the problem with what you are doing here?"
( The sources for the material in question were quite detailed and nuanced, and it took me a good long while to review them and to conclude that they were being misused. I was a bit surprised that you were able to review them all, and to confirm that they were accurately reflected in the removed text, in less than 3 minutes. That's one reason I thought that you might have simply reflexively reverted me without actually investigating the merits of my edit). MastCell Talk 18:47, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
What policy justifies such a demand from you? This feels more like aggressive harassment and a failure to AGF in my intentions, even after my civil explanations. I hope I'm wrong. My contribution and comments did not violate FORUM and were on-topic. Unlike your persistent reactions, XOR'easter acted properly and collaboratively. Kudos to them. -- Valjean ( talk) 06:09, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
![]() |
treats -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 22:49, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
![]() |
Sorry about the revert, I have no idea how that came to happen! Theroadislong ( talk) 15:31, 3 November 2020 (UTC) |
Doesn't matter now. I've been blocked (48 hrs) from the Trump page. Just wish yas would apply what yas are pushing for to at least all the American political office articles. As for myself & Mandruss? We haven't been seeing eye-to-eye, these last few weeks. For this round of disputes, he gets his own way. GoodDay ( talk) 21:07, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
You need to stop the harassment and baiting (we have history...), or I'll have to seek an interaction ban. Stop (1) following me around and (2) inevitably defending fringe (defined as ideas not from RS) narratives and dubious sources. Aquillion had some good advice for you. Try following it. -- Valjean ( talk) 06:43, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
It is not your responsibility to point out every flaw in everyone's comments. If their opinion is so obviously flawed, give other readers the benefit of the doubt in figuring that out on their own.That is from WP:BLUDGEON. As far as I can tell, you have personally replied to every single source that anyone has presented arguing that Newsmax requires depreciation, which is textbook bludgeoning and isn't really a helpful way to contribute to discussions." Aquillion [22]
consistent defenses of fringe sources and narratives? I am not the one using Twitter as a source or other hyper partisan sources to make claims about BLP subjects. These unsupported WP:ASPERSIONS are part of the issue I describe above. That kind of WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior is what makes the AP2 environment so toxic and needs to end. I am not the enemy here, I have no skin in the game so to speak. Dude, people just need to stop using Wikipedia like it is Facebook or Twitter which you were recently warned about on your own talk page. [23] PackMecEng ( talk) 17:47, 12 November 2020 (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 | Archive 6 |
You recently accepted a pending change on February 26 that did not include an inline source. We've discussed this before. Please don't do that. Toddst1 ( talk) 14:00, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
it is not necessary for you to ensure compliance with the content policies on neutral point of view, verifiability and original research before accepting, but of course you are free to uphold them as you would normally with any edit you happen to notice. For example, in case of additions for which you can find no reference in the article but estimate unlikely to be vandalism, treat them as you would treat any such edit: do nothing, tag as needing citation, provide an appropriate citation, or revert – depending on the situation at hand. I hope this clears up for what you pending change reviewing actually is and what it is not. I see that you are a member of the pending change group for some reason, perhaps that is something you might want to reconsider. Thanks again for stopping by, I hope this helps you understand things better!
"I would also strongly suggest you read up on what review pending changes actually is"and
"You might want to pay attention to the general criteria". Gee wiz, what a good idea!
"Please note that when reviewing days of the year pages, all new additions require a direct citation per WP:DOYCITE."QED. Toddst1 ( talk) 01:48, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being
blocked from editing—especially if you violate the
three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three
reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
As the page states at the top, "Any substantive edit to this page should reflect consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page."
Toddst1 (
talk)
15:03, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
This is your only warning; if you make
personal attacks on others again, as you did at
User talk:PackMecEng, you may be
blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please refrain from name-calling or creating derogatory nicknames for other editors - especially in a dispute.
[2]
Toddst1 (
talk)
16:32, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
![]() |
The Teamwork Barnstar |
I really appreciate how we were able to discuss and cooperate to produce the RFC on DOY & PCR. Even though we have opposing views on the question, it was a civil and collegial effort, and I enjoyed working with you on it. Schazjmd (talk) 15:46, 13 June 2020 (UTC) |
Nahh, that’s Kipling’s amendment, innit? Qwirkle ( talk) 16:50, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Uh oh...I thought the quote on your user page was a fat-finger mistake, so I corrected it. Are you saying "if" is what you intended? Atsme Talk 📧 19:44, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for the information. I had not encountered them as a sensitive topic before. -- MerielGJones ( talk) 17:33, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
I fixed it for you - hope that's ok. Happy 4th!!! Don't drink too much!! It's too late to advise me. Atsme Talk 📧 21:31, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Probably Jimbo's page is a place where people can be fairly spontaneous, but to post a completely toxic and at the same time completely vague attack on another user, such as this, is beyond the pale even there. This is a personal attack warning. Bishonen | tålk 17:52, 7 July 2020 (UTC).
You don't get to express your contempt for users here. Just do it inside your head, not on a Wikipedia page. I warned you about the way you try to needle MastCell just a few days ago,
[4] and here we are again.
[5]
"Friendly" banter, was it? You don't get away with attacks against somebody you are obviously not on friendly terms with just by using that silly template. You have been blocked from editing for 24 hours for personal attacks or harassment. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may
appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.
Bishonen |
tålk
19:54, 10 July 2020 (UTC).
PackMecEng ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Given that several others disagreed that it was a personal attack above and on the talk page and that the second comment you link is not one either I am quite puzzled by your block. Even going over all the comments on Jimbo's talk page I do not know why I would be singled out. Especially when I was being called an enabler and racist in that same discussion. [6] So with that and the fact that you have kicked me off your talk page I find this rather disturbing. [7] I feel this block is inappropriate. PackMecEng ( talk) 20:13, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You were warned about personal attacks not three days prior to your block, and while I might have issue with the context of Bishonen's warning, I cannot argue that the comment which you were blocked for was a clear personal attack. You will not be excused from consequences because your derogatory comment was "just a joke". Bishonen's block is appropriate given the situation. In addition, your request blames everyone else but does not address your own misconduct. Declined. Ivanvector ( Talk/ Edits) 21:58, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
(a) taunting or baiting: deliberately pushing others to the point of breaching civility even if not seeming to commit such a breach themselves. All editors are responsible for their own actions in cases of baiting; a user who is baited is not excused by that if they attack in response, and a user who baits is not excused from their actions by the fact that the bait may be taken.In fact, your pattern of using "take a break", "you're out of your depth" and "quit while you're ahead" as means of gaslighting is way too transparent. -- qedk ( t 愛 c) 20:25, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Civility advice coming from the admin who told a completely calm user to "fuck off" on AN/I a while ago. And now heated arguing on Jimbotalk is blockable? That is just... I'm sorry that you are being treated like this, PackMecEng.-- Pudeo ( talk) 20:54, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
hard ... to ignorebut when the same is presented with evidence in case of PME, it becomes invisible and/or irrelevant. To be perfectly clear, Bish's block fell well under the purview of an WP:UNINVOLVED block per the appropriate policy. Everything else is irrelevant. :) -- qedk ( t 愛 c) 06:18, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
@ Ivanvector: I still disagree with the assessment that the second one was a person attack on Mast. I do not have a problem with Soibangla, we joke with each other often. Honestly I disagree that the first one was harassment or a personal attack either. The reasons stated in my unblock request are more targeted at the general inappropriateness of the block in general. I think it is reasonable for people to disagree that the two comments do not constitute a personal attack or harassment. Which is why I explained the situation and gave diffs for the issues as I saw it to comply with the guide to appealing blocks. It was not my intent to pull a NOTTHEM. PackMecEng ( talk) 22:17, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
PackMecEng and @ Sir Joseph: your constant repetition of the false claim that MastCell called anyone a racist is a serious PA, and repeating it doesn't make it true. Stop it and AGF. Asking for clarification of a statement was not calling anyone a racist, and no one else was called a racist. It was asking for clarification, which may or may not have revealed a possible blind spot. A simple reply and explanation would have prevented a lot of drama and we wouldn't be here. Anyone who keeps repeating that false claim about MastCell deserves a block, so be careful, Sir Joseph. The first occasion is a PA, and repetition is harassment. Pinging QEDK. -- Valjean ( talk) 00:11, 11 July 2020 (UTC) Also pinging Ivanvector. -- Valjean ( talk) 00:12, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
PackMecEng, as a matter of principle, your refusal inability to recognize the problem should result in automatic maintenance of the block until such recognition becomes evident. The idea of the block is to give you time to think about the matter and change your mind, IOW lead to great self-insight. In fact, any discussion by you that continues to dispute the matter should end up resulting in the loss of talk page access, so reserve any comments for demonstrating that you understand what you've done wrong. This isn't a one-time thing for you. It's a long-time pattern, and it needs to stop. --
Valjean (
talk)
00:55, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
As for the rest, I'm comfortable with what I've said. I'd feel worse if I saw this kind of thing and didn't speak up about it.[13] PackMecEng ( talk) 03:32, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
![]() |
You are the recipient of a WTF Block |
Remember how much fun you had playing with blocks as a kid? Now that you're a mature adult, you can collect blocks with adult letters, and they're not only stackable, they're collectable.
|
![]() |
This user has been blocked, and isn't embarrassed about it - (admire my block log here!). |
I pretty much stole the whole thing from EEng's glorious page but I think it looks nice. PackMecEng ( talk) 15:31, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This user has been blocked, and isn't embarrassed about it - (admire my block log here!). |
Please do not stalk me and indiscriminately revert me, as you did here [15]. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 04:32, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for editing this page, honestly. It has made me think that to help with the confusion between British Psychological Society (study of people - which has a Wikipedia page) and British Phycological Society (study of algae - which does not have a page), I could start a page on the latter, which I imagine would be considered notable ( https://brphycsoc.org/). Not tonight, though, but later this week. Do you have any advice?-- MerielGJones ( talk) 21:49, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Steele's debunked hoax dossier. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 2#Steele's debunked hoax dossier until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. --
Valjean (
talk)
00:09, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
In a long discussion on Talk:Steele Dossier of whether or not the first line in the article should say "also known as the Trump–Russia dossier" (the former name of the article), Valjean jestingly suggested the article name Steele's debunked hoax dossier would find approval with some. As I read it, this was a rhetorical point not intended to hint that it would find approval with you. However, you went ahead and created it as a redirect, now being discussed at Redirects for discussion (the top entry). This after accusing Valjean of tendentiousness, among many other accusations. Creating that redirect actually is tendentious, also a violation of WP:POINT, also an egregious waste of other people's time. This, again, is a warning from an administrator. If you do something so tendentious and time-wasting again, I will block you. And if you continue to bludgeon discussions the way you did at Talk:Steele Dossier, you are likely to be topic banned from American politics. I see you say above that you intend to request G7 deletion of the redirect. That's good, even though it hasn't happened yet. The redirect has been up for several days, and you've had to be coaxed into (putatively) requesting deletion. A poor show. Bishonen | tålk 09:25, 3 August 2020 (UTC).
ask for or try to obtain (something) from someone.I have never told someone what they can and cannot do on my talk page. You get to be the lucky first. Do no solicit BLP violating porno on my talk page. I do not care the reason, it is wildly inappropriate. PackMecEng ( talk) 02:55, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
A big apology to everyone!
Something I lost track of in all of the above was a lack of sensitivity on my part. I got defensive and failed miserably. Tact has never been my strong point, and emotional intelligence is practically nonexistent in my family, where Asperger syndrome affects certain members, including my son, and I suspect myself to some degree. My wife's family is much worse off in that regard. In my family, we rarely spoke of emotions. I still have a hard time discussing them. They were suppressed to avoid punishment, and I was spanked until I could exercise enough self-control to stop crying. That first happened when I was about nine years old, so daily spankings were my lot in life from the time I was about three years old and possibly earlier, as my mother believed in spanking babies. My mother spanking me is one of my earliest memories. She always carried a rubber hose (about 1/2" x 8") in her purse. After getting spanked at school, I would then get spanked at home. I'm damaged goods in many ways. I'm a preacher's kid and do not recommend a strong, conservative, religious upbringing. These are possible reasons, but not excuses.
I want to apologize to everyone, not just the females here. I forgot that being kind is more important than being right. I am not exempt from the common failing that "a man is right in his own eyes." (Proverbs 21:2 NIV) Right or wrong, I should have been more sensitive. Please forgive me. -- Valjean ( talk) 00:01, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
Man is invited to a long running dinner party by a friend and accepts. Sitting at the dinner table, a few sheets of paper are distributed. It contains numbered jokes. Someone says #14, and everyone laughs. Someone says #23, and everyone laughs. Man whispers to his friend – what’s going on? Friend explains that you pick a joke that you like and state the number. So, he says: “number 8”. No one laughs. Asks his friend what happened. Friend says: “It’s not what you said; it’s how you said it”.
That wasn't a forum post. It was directly related to every recent discussion on the Tucker Carlson talk page, including some that have already been archived. What do you need, references that cite those discussions? Try not to censor legitimate talk page subjects. JimKaatFan ( talk) 19:18, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Every day above ground is a good day! PackMecEng ( talk) 22:23, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
You made two reverts [17] [18] with the summary "not this again" on content that is under active discussion. Please provide a valid rationale and join the discussion when reverting. – dlthewave ☎ 12:42, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
( talk page stalker)Where exactly is this “under active discussion?” I see little beyond edit summaries before recently, and only a slight expansion of those edit summaries on the subject. I have seen extensive past discussion that suggests that PME’s edit summary is fairly accurate; this is an old chestnut. Qwirkle ( talk) 15:03, 3 September 2020 (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 governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues. 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.
Just a reminder since I don't see that you've been made aware in the past year. – dlthewave ☎ 16:06, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Per WP:VANISH, Please consider avoiding talking about the vanished users by the old or new name. I don't know of any policy that says we have to do this, but if someone has quit Wikipedia, requested vanishing, and scrambled their password, the polite thing to do is to let them go without further comment. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 22:46, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
User talk pages are usually not deleted, the TLDR header says
normally does not include the deletion of user talk pages, and then there is a whole section basically saying that there needs to be a rare exception to do it. PackMecEng ( talk) 23:48, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Please remember that slow motion edit war, such as those that happened on Andy Ngo are still edit wars and can still result in sanctions even if you are respecting the 1RR -- Guerillero | Parlez Moi 02:13, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Hello, PackMecEng,
I've noticed over the past month, you've been involved in talk page discussions where you have been very provocative and you've made thinly-veiled accusations to long-time editors, admins & even Jimbo. I'm not sure why you are choosing to take the role of devil's advocate in discussions, but I recommend taking a less adversarial position, especially with editors who have been working to improve Wikipedia for years, if not decades.
You didn't indulge in personal attacks but I don't see anything positive to be gained in challenging other editors about ideological positions that have nothing to do with improving article content. Why be antagonistic instead of collaborative? We might have different perspectives on politics or social issues but we should all be working together to improve content. That is easier done when you are cordial with other editors even when you disagree. On Wikipedia, it's better to make allies than opponents. Good luck with your editing. Liz Read! Talk! 05:32, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Please don't follow me around Wikipedia reverting my edits, as you did here; doing so violates our policy on WP:HOUNDING.
This isn't your first time with this behavior—you have previously hounded me, as described partway through this talkpage thread, where you combed my contribution history and followed me to a relatively obscure article to revert my edits. To make matters worse, you used a panoply of false claims as an excuse for your hounding (as elaborated by an uninvolved admin here).
Before you present the inevitable excuses this time around, let's be clear—this is an article you haven't touched in nearly 4 months and many intervening edits, but within 3 minutes of me editing the article you arrived to revert me. There are a ton of articles on Wikipedia, and plenty of ways of finding good ones to edit without going through my contributions and following me around. I'm asking you for the second time to stop doing this. MastCell Talk 20:40, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
you ignored it for 4 months, through dozens of editsThat page has a low volume of edits. Most people that have it on their watch page do have not edited it in a while. That is meaningless.
but managed to pop up within 3 minutes of me editing the pageYes it poped up on my watchlist as I said already. You notice I didn't touch your other edits to that page or elsewhere? Know why? Because I don't actually follow you around and when I do see edits that are fine I leave them, because you know, they are fine. What do you think? I just sit on your contribution page waiting? WTF? This might shock you but I do not actually care about you. If someone else made the same bad edit I would revert the same way.
"You notice I didn't touch your other edits to that page or elsewhere? Know why?"
"What do you think? I just sit on your contribution page waiting?"
"Also if you want to bring up stuff from over 2 years ago why not the note from the same admin asking you to cool it?"
"Now, do you see the problem with what you are doing here?"
( The sources for the material in question were quite detailed and nuanced, and it took me a good long while to review them and to conclude that they were being misused. I was a bit surprised that you were able to review them all, and to confirm that they were accurately reflected in the removed text, in less than 3 minutes. That's one reason I thought that you might have simply reflexively reverted me without actually investigating the merits of my edit). MastCell Talk 18:47, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
What policy justifies such a demand from you? This feels more like aggressive harassment and a failure to AGF in my intentions, even after my civil explanations. I hope I'm wrong. My contribution and comments did not violate FORUM and were on-topic. Unlike your persistent reactions, XOR'easter acted properly and collaboratively. Kudos to them. -- Valjean ( talk) 06:09, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
![]() |
treats -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 22:49, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
![]() |
Sorry about the revert, I have no idea how that came to happen! Theroadislong ( talk) 15:31, 3 November 2020 (UTC) |
Doesn't matter now. I've been blocked (48 hrs) from the Trump page. Just wish yas would apply what yas are pushing for to at least all the American political office articles. As for myself & Mandruss? We haven't been seeing eye-to-eye, these last few weeks. For this round of disputes, he gets his own way. GoodDay ( talk) 21:07, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
You need to stop the harassment and baiting (we have history...), or I'll have to seek an interaction ban. Stop (1) following me around and (2) inevitably defending fringe (defined as ideas not from RS) narratives and dubious sources. Aquillion had some good advice for you. Try following it. -- Valjean ( talk) 06:43, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
It is not your responsibility to point out every flaw in everyone's comments. If their opinion is so obviously flawed, give other readers the benefit of the doubt in figuring that out on their own.That is from WP:BLUDGEON. As far as I can tell, you have personally replied to every single source that anyone has presented arguing that Newsmax requires depreciation, which is textbook bludgeoning and isn't really a helpful way to contribute to discussions." Aquillion [22]
consistent defenses of fringe sources and narratives? I am not the one using Twitter as a source or other hyper partisan sources to make claims about BLP subjects. These unsupported WP:ASPERSIONS are part of the issue I describe above. That kind of WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior is what makes the AP2 environment so toxic and needs to end. I am not the enemy here, I have no skin in the game so to speak. Dude, people just need to stop using Wikipedia like it is Facebook or Twitter which you were recently warned about on your own talk page. [23] PackMecEng ( talk) 17:47, 12 November 2020 (UTC)