User talk:PackMecEng/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions with User:PackMecEng. 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.

I reported BMK's edit-warring here, if you'd care to comment. Skyerise (talk) 21:09, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

You've got your 24 hours, use it wisely. Skyerise (talk) 21:18, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi PackMecEng, hope you're doing well. I'm not sure if you know or remember, but Biden-Ukraine conspiracy theory has a consensus required restriction. Your partial revert violated the provision. Could you please self-revert? Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 03:37, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers Sure, thanks for letting me know. PackMecEng (talk) 03:39, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

You deleted my exact copying of some text which has been long-standing content in the article (you may not have realized that) to another part of the article where it could serve as a "lead" for the section. Your edit summary: "contains original research sourced to a tweet. Also the article is under DS BRD "If an edit you make is reverted you must discuss on the talk page and wait 24 hours before reinstating your edit. "Which you are violating reinstating your edit."

First, I want to thank you for catching and reverting my 1rr error there. I was careless and was (impulsively and mistakenly) treating the situation as I would a case of vandalism (where 3rr does not apply) where the editor didn't seem to perform due diligence when they removed my addition. In this case, Tachypaedia seemed to prefer a barefaced and false conspiracy theory from the primary source (a tweet from Trump) from the most notorious liar in recent American political history, instead of an opinion/analysis from a secondary RS, which is what we prefer to use. We should always frame our presentaton of errors/lies/conspiracy theories found in primary sources in the light of how RS analyze and interpret them. Tachypaedia's deletion was so out of whack with our policies that I just reacted from the gut without remembering the 1rr restriction, so thanks.

Second, I have addressed your OR concerns by eliminating the "first accusation" language (even though factual) and simply stating what myriad RS have said about the May 17 tweet, IOW how it immediately followed McCarthy's appearance on Fox & Friends, and how Trump quoted him in that tweet.^[1] I have used only one of those RS, the WaPo source.

Mind you, I am not saying that McCarthy was the originator of the whole "spy within the campaign" idea. It started with an innocent WaPo article on May 8, 2018, about a "top-secret intelligence source" (nothing about within the campaign or political spying). That story then got twisted by the right-wing-media ecosystem and some of its prime conspiracy theorists into a full-blown conspiracy theory about a "spy inside the Trump campaign". The guilty parties were: Kimberley Strassel at The Wall Street Journal, Sara Carter, Sean Hannity, Fox News, The Gateway Pundit, Pete Hegseth and Ainsley Earhardt at Fox & Friends, Rush Limbaugh, Andrew McCarthy at National Review, Zero Hedge, Tucker Carlson, and Dan Bongino. There may be others, but these are confirmed by RS as involved in the development of the conspiracy theory. We should tell that story. They are ALL red flags.

Then McCarthy appeared on Fox & Friends, and Trump really loves that show! (While in the WH, he watched TV up to eight hours every day and got his "information" from right-wing sources there.) Trump immediately tweeted what he saw, quoting from the show. He often did that. It all ended up being about Halper, who was trying to get information from three campaign staffers as part of the FBI's investigation into Russian election interference and attempts to infiltrate and influence the Trump campaign. There was never any political spying or attempt to get "into" or "infiltrate the campaign. It was always about national security.

I hope my edit addressed your OR concerns and resolved the problem. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:09, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

...her talk page was bare. Hey, Pack!! How goes it? If you find yourself with a little extra time on your hands, could you help expand Pak Tongjin? I got the redirects tended to thanks to Primefac. Really could use his DOB - DOD but those sources are likely to be written in Korean. There is also a single sentence article for Pak Tongjin (musician) that could probably use your help as well. Best wishes always ~ Atsme 💬 📧 12:56, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

@Atsme Hey you! Sure I would be happy to take a look when I get some free time! PackMecEng (talk) 23:02, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:33, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

How is it going with your Triumph Trident? I did eventually get the Speed Twin (the 1200) soon after our conversation. In fact, I started a YouTube Channel that features it. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:20, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Its been pretty great actually! Though wondering if I wouldn't mind getting a cruiser sister to go with it. It is hard to have just one sometimes. I will have to check out your channel more, always loved the look of the Speed Twins. =) PackMecEng (talk) 01:06, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

I have been considering getting a Triumph Tiger Sport 660, which is like a touring version of your Trident. The Speed Twin isn't really comfortable enough for all-day riding, and I've had to pass up on a few group rides where having a more comfortable tourer would've been handy. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:56, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Kind of the same thing I have run into! I am just not sure what I would really want to get. I am to short for an adventure bike and not really looking for a classic bagger. I like the Harley Sportster S but I am not sure how that would do on real long distance. PackMecEng (talk) 01:08, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Hmm. If you are looking for a lower height but with more long-distance comfort, I'd probably recommend a Honda Rebel 500; however, you would have to rely on panniers and a tank bag if you wanted to tour extensively. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:59, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

I did look at the Rebel 500 and 1100! They seem like a really good value for money and hard to go wrong with Honda. One of my friends had a Rebel 250 long ago and was thinking of getting back into riding, I am steering her towards the 500 as well. PackMecEng (talk) 22:59, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

They are basically bulletproof, so definitely a solid choice if you want that low seat. They have a pretty good range of aftermarket accessories too. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:27, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello PackMecEng.

Would you please further explain your revert here. “Not needed just yet, please see the recent afd”.

What is your interest in this essay, or User:Adoring nanny?

What is your criteria for “needed”? If not “just yet”, then when? Do you know the difference between mfd and afd? You did not participate in the mfd, so why the interest now and not during the mfd?

- SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:31, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

@SmokeyJoe: I admit that I did participate in the MFD discussion[1], but I experienced a momentary lapse in recalling the meaning of the three-letter acronyms involved. However, upon reflection, I failed to perceive a clear consensus to blank the page during that MFD, nor did I personally find significant value in doing so. The notion of blanking the page struck me as akin to engaging in grave dancing, which left me with reservations about supporting such an action. It's important to carefully consider the implications and potential ramifications before making decisions that involve altering or removing content, particularly when it comes to topics that hold significance or have historical context. PackMecEng (talk) 23:39, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I don’t claim a clear consensus that it should be blanked. Instead, it is my judgement as a single editor that it is better blanked. A single edit is not a dance. Taking it to MfD for a formal community discussion would be a dance. I believe that I sufficiently considered implications and ramifications, and my judgement is that all are lessened by the content being blanked without ceremony. If the user becomes unblocked, without a topic ban on the topic, they would be free to unblank. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:50, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I know User:Abecedare commented at the discussion, but I think it should be on the record here. I'm referring to Special:Diff/1165991959 where you say to Bishonen "*:Ha, did you stick out your tongue at the end as well?". Doug Weller talk 15:57, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

@Doug Weller Thanks for stopping by! I think everything that needs to be said about it has been said at the admin review board. I understand you do not like the answers there and that is okay. It was not trolling but expressing dismay at the admin action, as others have mentioned. Now I get it, you, BMK, and Abecedare are good friends of Bish, but it was simply not trolling, neither was my comment at the review board. Was the unblock within admin discursion? Sure, no one is questioning that. Was it smart and was the rational lacking? I, and others think so. Lets all move on with lesions learned here. Have a good one! PackMecEng (talk) 16:05, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

I suppose your comments directed at Bishonen had nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that she blocked you a few years back, your very first block (at least under this account name). Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:17, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken Correct! Also nice aspersion. PackMecEng (talk) 18:26, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Not an aspersion, just bringing a fact to light for those who hadn't yet checked your (very modest) block log. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:29, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken The aspersion is you accusing me of being a sock. PackMecEng (talk) 18:31, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

I accused you of nothing. I simply don't know the history of your editing -- and there are numerous legitimate reasons why an editor might have moved from one account to another. I suggest that you stop looking for ulterior motives and simply take what I write at face value, that would help reduce any misunderstandings between us. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:50, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken No, that is a classic aspersion. Please stop. kthxbye! PackMecEng (talk) 18:54, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Whatever. Toodle-loo, Captain Q. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:32, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia (u t c m l ) 🔒 ALL IN 🧿 18:50, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

we disagree soibangla (talk) 20:15, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree with that assessment. PackMecEng (talk) 20:20, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:48, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to other languages.

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:09, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

You can read what I've already written on that page to see what debunks your misunderstandings. (It would be really nice if you used policy-based reasoning.) Then read Help:Userspace draft. (There is no rule that forbids an editor from choosing (nearly) any title/URL they want for their userspace draft as long as it's in their userspace. This is not a draft in draftspace, so different rules apply.) Also read WP:GNG. (This topic obviously passes GNG.) Also read this good essay Wikipedia:I just don't like it.

Look in the mirror and ask yourself:

1. Would I be doing this if the topic did not involve Trump, Russia, or kompromat?
2. Would I be short-circuiting/sabotaging an official process used by myriad editors to create articles, including controversial ones, if the topic did not involve Trump?
3. Would I be doing this if it was about a super well-known dog breed that was barely mentioned here? Literally everyone recognizes its name, and it is described in myriad RS, books, articles, genetic research, government investigations, legal documents, and court cases, but no one has yet written an article about it here. Would you sabotage the creation of such an article?

I implore you to try to be a wikipedian for once and not a partisan warrior who tries to impede whatever you don't like. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:51, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Can you please provide a diff of a closing statement documenting agreement re your edit summary here? VQuakr (talk) 04:13, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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) 00:34, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't want to start an edit war since you seem like an experienced editor who should be familiar with WP policy. Regarding this revert, MOS:ALLEGED says "alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined, such as with people awaiting or undergoing a criminal trial". This is definitely the case for Ryan Routh, who is awaiting trial on Sept. 8, 2025 and has been charged with attempted assassination, though so far he has pleaded not guilty. If and when he gets convicted then "alleged" should be removed from the article. If you have more thoughts on this feel free to contribute to the discussion on article's talk page. ^Falling_Gravity 05:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

@FallingGravity The issue is we are not saying that he is guilty, we are saying the event itself is widely characterized by RS as an assassination attempt. Yes some RS put alleged in front, but most do not and that is the problem. Now given the snow close of the RM it feels pretty back door to go into the article right after and pepper alleged in when most sources do not support it. That is why I linked MOS:ALLEGED, because it's casting doubt where there really isn't any. PackMecEng (talk) 13:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Which RS exactly don't frame it as an allegation or accusation? So far you've provided exactly zero sources. It's funny, UPI has a headline which was used to oppose the title move, while in the actual article it says Routh "allegedly waited for Trump nearly 12 hours" which actually supports the "alleged assassination attempt" description. If you have some hidden trove of sources that say otherwise then I'm willing to consider them. ^Falling_Gravity 05:44, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

@FallingGravity I think you are mistaking the person for the event. Ryan Wesley Routh, is the man who allegedly tried to assassinate Trump, while the article Attempted assassination of Donald Trump in Florida talks about the acknowledged assassination attempt. The issue is the event happened, the alleged part is if Ryan did the thing. Also the UPI sources should not be used because, as you note, headlines are not reliable and we must be sourced to the body of the article. It was not presented or supported by me so not sure the relevance here.

NPR, attempting to assassinate former President Donald Trump

AP, in an apparent assassination attempt

PBS, The man accused in the apparent assassination attempt of Donald Trump

ABC, into the second apparent assassination attempt

CNN, Sunday’s apparent assassination attempt against Trump

BBC, following an apparent assassination attempt

There are half a dozen high quality sources not using alleged when describing the assassination attempt. PackMecEng (talk) 14:47, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, I mentioned UPI because it's a source used to justify the snow close you mentioned, while looking deeper it's not as certain. I haven't supported including "apparent assassination attempt" because those sources predate the filing of charges and it's a much weaker descriptor according to my understanding of MOS:ALLEGED. I guess for now I'll just continue to monitor what the RS say leading up to the trial. ^Falling_Gravity 17:44, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello, PackMecEng. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Thank you so much for your time! Have a great week! Phoebezz22 (talk) 15:27, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

story · music · places

Thank you for your support for the composer! - My story today: Jörg Streli, an architect to whom you can listen (in German, though) and the Jahrhundertring, nominated for GA (both hidden on the main page). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:00, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt Oh thank you very much! PackMecEng (talk) 00:08, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Regarding your inflammatory wording in your close....

To be sure I understand you correctly, if you were the victim of personal attacks, and you vaguely, without naming anyone, mentioned that editors should comment on content not the contributor, citing Wikipedia:No personal attacks#CONCON., you should be judged guilty of making a personal attack because you even mentioned the problem? Right?

Note that one of the parties graciously apologized to me.

I had to provide a BACKGROUND section with sourcing to bring a few people up to speed with what I was talking about! They really were ignorant of current events, so I provided sources. It would have been better if I had started with it in the first place, but I mistakenly assumed that editors there, of all places, would know what I was talking about. The reactions of some proved I was wrong. They really were ignorant of what had been happening. Now they can read the sources I provided.

I suggest you revise your wording to something less inflammatory and not itself a personal attack, as it is now. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:42, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Integrity
		As a rule I don't give Barnstars, but noting your activity including here, I made an exception as you're obviously a woman of integrity, honor, and a stand-up person. Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 00:15, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

@Quaerens-veritatem Aww thank you so much! PackMecEng (talk) 13:07, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi PackMecEng, I'm not sure if you were aware that there is active arbitration remedies in place for the article. Notably that:

• Changes challenged by reversion may not be reinstated without affirmative consensus on the talk page

I was going to ignore you reinstating the challenged change, given your edit summary. However, Dlthewave has started a discussion at Talk:Andy_Ngo#SPLC Hatewatch "blog" in which they state that Hatewatch is no longer described as a blog. Please self revert the edit you made at Special:Diff/1291400413 and discuss on the talk page. TarnishedPath^talk 08:13, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Ah didnt see it, thanks. PackMecEng (talk) 11:18, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

No worries. TarnishedPath^talk 11:41, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Viriditas (talk) 01:25, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Closed as a content dispute with no action required.[2] PackMecEng (talk) 17:01, 22 May 2025 (UTC)