Jump to content

User talk:PackMecEng/Archive 1

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

Welcome

A belated welcome to Wikipedia! Now that you're an official Registered User, here's a coupe of items for your user page if you like. You can find other User Boxes to chose from here. Once again, welcome. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:41, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

This user is a
Registered Editor
and is entitled to display this Service Badge.
This editor is a Signator and is entitled to display this Scroll of Signatures.
Thanks! Still doing my best reading though all the best practices and formatting. So many articles but looks like good info! PackMecEng (talk) 03:16, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Glad I can help. I took the liberty of putting these items on your User page, (this is your Talk page) along with a userbox that says you're interested in history, assuming you are of course -- naturally you can add and remove whatever you like.
Also, you might want to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Manual of Style if you haven't already. This is where you'll find all of Wikipedias policcies and guidelines. Don't be overwhelmed. Virtually no one knows all the rules by heart, but at least you know where to look if and when issues come up. See you around! -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:43, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

pied piper

I had never run across that alleged strategy. Thanks much for posting the politico link,[1] it is a goldmine of factoids. Most of them belong over in USPE, 2016 rather than in Donald Trump of course (or in the campaign-specific spinoff articles), but it does have a lot of explanatory power. Not only was the polling bad -- politico's conclusion-paragraph on November 7th about the ups and downs of the Clinton'16 campaign which ended on a clear confident victory-note sounds ironic in the present timeframe with the benefit of hindsight -- but the switcheroo from the various estab-backed candidates to an unexpected anti-estab candidate redrew the swingstate-map, and at a time when Clinton'16 was tied up fighting off Sanders'16 on their left... making them unable to properly reposition their stances aka run to the middle, because not only were they fighting a rear-guard action against the liberal wing of the party they were no longer running to the same middle they had always planned on! I would be interested in seeing if the messaging and spending patterns of the DNC, and also of the Clinton'16 campaign and affiliated PACs, with respect to the various potential repub nom contenders, justifies the idea of the alleged Pied Piper strategy. It would be WP:OR just digging for the raw numbers as wikipedians, but if we can find an analysis-piece that was performed by a third-party journalist or political scientist or somesuch, that would count as WP:RS. In any case, appreciate you finding that URL, made my day  :-) 47.222.203.135 (talk) 00:33, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! I was looking a bit while at work and didn't see anything jump out at me. I had planned on looking a bit more. If I find anything worthwhile I will certainly let you know though. Feels rather ironic considering how things eventually turned out though. PackMecEng (talk) 03:05, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Well, whether ironic is the word for it or not, there was definitely a long confluence of things that led up to the final outcome. Estab-repubs did not fight Trump because they did not take him seriously, estab-dems (allegedly) did not fight Trump because they wanted him to take out the estab-repubs, the media (allegedly) wanted Clinton to win and gave Trump double the free coverage that they gave to all other candidates combined, yet once Trump became the nominee the media *still* could not tear their eyes away thus continued to give him more airtime than Clinton, the media and the pollsters and the pundits all predicted he would lose, PrioritiesUSA believed the estab-media-pollsters who said Trump would lose PA by five points and pulled their millions (diverting from the potus-race to the usSen-races), Clinton too believed the estab-media-pollsters and wasted time and money campaigning in AZ/GA/TX/OH and neglecting MN/MI/WI... meanwhile, back at the ranch, the anti-establishment repub has mended fences with Priebus and the RNC establishment, and combines his unruly mass rallies with their disciplined groundgame, then by capitalizing on free media (no news is bad news) just eeks out one of the most astounding general election upsets in decades, maybe ever. This was a wild election cycle, with irony piled on surprise piled on seeming-self-satire by both major parties... what a crazy year. And I fully expect that history is just getting started on showing us how topsy-turvy the world can become, once the moorings break lose it is hard to halt the shift... see also realignment election, which is predicted every cycle, but this may *actually* have been one, if the EU is any indicator. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 17:18, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
What I find kind of interesting these days is the populism wave in Europe. Does not get a lot of coverage here in the USA, but seems to be spreading all over the world. You mentioned EU and to me that really seemed to be the start with Brexit. Now the governments in Germany, France, Austria, the Netherlands, UK, and Italy are all fielding fairly strong populist candidates. Even parts of Asia, mainly with China, but also with the Philippines Duterte are peeking into the game. Not sure what will happen in South Korea, but that's going to be a sight with the turmoil over Park. They seem to be fed up in general with "government elites" which is a large drive again with China and South Korea. What kind of surprised me was Japan with all that, Abe being fairly popular but his main base being content about the present but pessimistic about the future. The next few years will be a heck of a ride, with no one really sure how it will end up. PackMecEng (talk) 04:24, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, correct, although 'populism' usually is translated straight to 'racism' by the WP:RS, there is only the most tenuous linkage; example, Trump managed to win more African-American voters and more Hispanic/Latino voters than Romney, especially low-income folks, because he was anti-establishment AND pro-populist-economics. The old saw about it's-the-economy-stupid holds true nowadays also; plenty of coal-miners in WV/etc that would usually be expected to be dems, have now 'permanently' been turned into repubs, not because they are "anti-science" but because they are pro-self-interest and perceived Obama and Clinton were not going to preserve the coal industry, which ended up being a dealbreaker. The political spectrum of the EU is *very* shifted compared to the USA, so the examples over there are far more abundant, and the risk of a massive terrain-altering shift considerably higher.
On a reasonably-multinational basis, though, we are simultaneously seeing a resurgence of nationalist sentiment (my-country-first-anti-globalism which is only about opposing immigration and using the military against foreign nations in a very weak correlative sense), plus a much more prevalent-in-terms-of-press-coverage resurgence of populist sentiment (which is tautologically defined as that-which-is-popular but more precisely is defined as that-which-earns-the-allegiance-of-lots-of-low-information-voters). 1890s was a big surge of populism, "raise less corn and raise more hell" for instance, but it was housed almost entirely within the William Jennings Bryan party -- at the time the repubs were the establishment, and ran the urban centers. The dems never 'won' their populist battle, but the *repubs* aka estab ended up splitting in twain, with the progressives 1930s-type T.R. repubs fighting the corporatist 1880s-type repubs for control. Now a hundred years later, the post-WWII establishment has been progressive aka Rockefeller repubs collaborating in reach-across-the-aisle fashion with corporatist aka centrist dems, weirdly enough: pro-military-interventionist abroad in their votes (if not always their rhetoric), pro-wall-street domestically in their votes (if rarely in their rhetoric), and tending to want centralized economic control by the federal government (despite rhetoric to the contrary on both sides).
That is all shifting now: my-country-first is replacing internationalism militarily and altering globalism economically, and populist economics is pivoting the centralized economic control from being pro-wall-street to being the vastly-more-expensive pro-everyLowInformationVoter strategy (but still centralized control). Such shifts put the major-party coalitions (and the across-the-aisle cooperation which 'worked' until roughly 2010 or so) at risk of reconstitution into a qualitatively new form. This stuff is just WP:OR so take it with a pound of salt, obviously. But methinks you are distinctly correct when you say no one knows the future with any certainty: the shifts I'm describing could happen, but weakly, or could happen with a vengeance, or could appear to start happening... and then result in a massive reactionary backlash. Trump's win and Brexit and such might end up being like the Bull Moose Party, important and altered history but weren't the *key* historical lynchpins to a pivot-point... or they might end up being Archduke-Ferdinand-type canary in the coalmine indicators.
Whether or not those specific events were the tipping-point lynchpins, we are fairly clearly *at* a tipping point, where the unpredictability is inherent in the times: the establishment political structure is being altered, and there is enough of a groundswell of people demanding change (including ~3m people that voted for Obama's version of change and then 'switched' sides to vote for Trump's version of change... but in a more pertinent sense stuck firm to demanding change consistently), such that plenty of possibilities are possible in the coming decade-or-less, that would have been 'impossible' just a couple-few years ago.
I had not really considered the anti-elite anti-corruption stuff in Asia to be related, but you might be correct, that they are railing against the same sort of establishment power-centers as the "populist" millions of disaffected voters in the EU... will look into that, thank you. Japan on the other hand, would really shock me if they have a recognizably-populist movement of any sort... the culture there is so stringently homogenizing, there is room for a 'Japan-First' sort of politics (which in pre-WWII was a *military* sort of pro-Japan sentiment and in post-WWII altered to be an *economic* sort of Japan-First sentiment) but I would be interested/terrified/fascinated to see if there is a politically-powerful equivalent of 'non-urbanized blue-collar lower-middle-class' demographic in Japan. Will look at that too! Any more homework you need to assign me, please drop me a note, but for the moment I will flee your talkpage in fear of my brain hitting the 'full' marker and spilling out my ear canals  :-) 47.222.203.135 (talk) 12:16, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Standard Manufacturing DP-12

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Standard Manufacturing DP-12 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kel-Tec_KSG. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:56, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

You are on fire!

Nice job with the vandalism fighting. Good luck. You can also put the {{Vandalism Information}} template on your user page to see the Vandalism Information. Happy Editing, DoABarrelRoll.dev(Constable of the WikiPolice) 02:56, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Kind of new to it, but really enjoying it. PackMecEng (talk) 02:57, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
No Problem!DoABarrelRoll.dev(Constable of the WikiPolice) 00:55, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Please help

This Robert person is trying to delete this article but it's valid. It was a competition I won and no one has updated it with the correct information could you help me link it to the guitar superstar with trey alexander musician no the soccer player Treyalexander (talk) 03:22, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Looking at the article Trey Alexander (musician) which I think you are refering to. You need to give references to the claims made. I left a message on your Talk Page to help you in that. Basically look online for Reliable Sources and cite those in the article you wish to create. PackMecEng (talk) 03:28, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Rollback granted

Hi PackMecEng. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

  • Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
  • Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
  • Rollback should never be used to edit war.
  • If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
  • Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! – Juliancolton | Talk 13:15, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much! PackMecEng (talk) 13:23, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi

Hi Georgeclooney101 (talk) 02:38, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi 

Georgeclooney101 (talk) 02:39, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello. How can I help you? PackMecEng (talk) 02:39, 28 June 2017 (UTC)/Archive %(counter)d


Please stop

Please stop putting the focus on me personally. I do admit a recent case of actual stalking and harassment was troubling to me. I'd appreciate it if we all keep the focus on content and not on individual contributors, thanks. Thanks for respecting my wishes and my personal space. Sagecandor (talk) 02:56, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

@Sagecandor: Fair enough, take care and thanks for the reply. PackMecEng (talk) 02:57, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
I hope you can understand how this [2] was a bit of a troubling experience to go through and to be subject to. Thanks for your kind thoughts about me. Sagecandor (talk) 03:01, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

Ks0stm (T•C•G•E)  If you reply here, please ping me by using {{re|Ks0stm}} in your reply.  00:10, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! I shall review to the best of my ability! PackMecEng (talk) 00:12, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, PackMecEng. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ANI Experiences survey

The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (led by the Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) is conducting a survey for en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.

Please be aware this survey will close Friday, Dec. 8 at 23:00 UTC.

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 21:14, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

The Rebel Media

Hi, I didn't want to bring this up in the argument because it doesn't affect the points being made, but the correct spelling is Maclean's. And I was thinking about WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV too. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:00, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank's silly typos like that always get the best of me. I appreciate letting me know though. PackMecEng (talk) 17:08, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Opportunity to self-revert

Please self-revert. This material was challenge (more than once) and it does not have consensus for inclusion. You \r edit violates the page editing restriction.- MrX 🖋 15:24, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

@MrX: I was unaware it was under concensus required. Where was that posted since it is not listed on the talk page? PackMecEng (talk) 15:32, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Linked above. Someone moved the page without requesting that the edit notice be moved to the new title. I have requested that the edit notice be moved. No harm; no foul.- MrX 🖋 15:35, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
@MrX: Actually looking at the talk and article it is not currently in effect. [3] I will leave it out and start an RFC later today on the subject though. I also contacted El C for clarification. PackMecEng (talk) 15:52, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
NeilN fixed the edit notice. You may have to purge the cache to see it. I don't think it's required, or even useful, to have it on the talk page. Thanks for self-reverting.- MrX 🖋 15:57, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
@MrX: Just for clarification "Enforcing administrators must add an editnotice to restricted pages" per DS. Also I cleared my cache on that page and consensus required is still not listed. PackMecEng (talk) 16:08, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

@MrX: Just a heads up, after talking to El C here and the conversation on NeilN's talk page here. It is not in effect yet to let the article develop. Just for our clarification there, have a great night! PackMecEng (talk) 01:55, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

OK. I knew I shouldn't have taken NeilN's talk page off my watch list after I posted there. In any case, I do agree that it's preferable not to have editing restrictions at this point.- MrX 🖋 02:16, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Meme

There's nothing in the text that calls Carlson "racist". Please don't use misleading edit summaries.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:52, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek:No your right, it does not say Carlson is a racist. It says Carlson promoted this thing (he didn't) and this thing is like super racist... PackMecEng (talk) 15:04, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Which he did. So what's the problem? Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:07, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
@Volunteer Marek:You don't see why that is a problem? Also the ADL source used is trash and should not be used for such statements against a BLP. PackMecEng (talk) 16:09, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Nonsense. ADL is quite reliable.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:11, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
And no, I don't see why following reliable source is a problem. What is the problem? Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:12, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
@Volunteer Marek:ADL is reliable yes, ADL blog post is not reliable. Big difference. The problem is the inference we are making combing the two sources to make a statement neither one individually made. PackMecEng (talk) 17:06, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Just for clarification this is the ADL blog post I was refering to that was used in the article. PackMecEng (talk) 17:09, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Colt AR-15

I won't hold your inexperience against you, but you completely misunderstood the point here. The edit requests on the talk page are about adding a section called "uses", and that's not what I was doing. Thank you! Drmies (talk) 02:22, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

@Drmies: No worries, but you should read the opposes above your post. They all indicate opposition to any mass shooting information. PackMecEng (talk) 02:24, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Well, that's Soviet-style dogmatism then, isn't it? What an odd kind of whitewashing--surely readers of Wikipedia who hear on the radio or on TV about the AR-15 will be educated by our article, and will actually come looking for that kind of information. Odd. Didn't think that such editors would support censorship. Drmies (talk) 02:26, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
@Drmies: While I understand your feels on the subject, perhaps making your case and getting consensus would be the least disruptive route given the edit warring the past few days on the article. Clams of censorship and whitewashing is not the best way to get your point across nor give you the right to act against obvious consensus. PackMecEng (talk) 02:30, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
"Feels"? Sorry, I'm 49. "Feelings"? I am not sure you understand my feelings, which are irrelevant at any rate. There is no consensus against explaining the nomenclatural confusion regarding the term "AR-15". Surely you saw that 350,000 people visited the article after the massacre committed by someone with one of those guns. Sorry to sound old, but I don't need to be patronized by someone with 1/75th the number of article edits on this project--sorry. Drmies (talk) 02:42, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
@Drmies: Regardless I have started a discussion on the talk page and it can go from there. I saw you already commented there so that's a good start have a great night! PackMecEng (talk) 02:46, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
I saw that--thanks! Drmies (talk) 02:51, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Trump poll

Hi thanks for tending to this. I think it's still not clear to newcomers. I suggest copying both versions of the language and doing an A / B or something similar. By the time we have a dozen contributors !votes, these polls keep going off track. SPECIFICO talk 15:01, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: You are a pain in the butt, you know that? But it is a good suggestion and I will update the poll. Thanks PackMecEng (talk) 15:05, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Cool. It's American Politics that is our nemesis. Thanks for your contributions! SPECIFICO talk 16:07, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: Uh-oh are they going to start another request move? Those are painful =/ PackMecEng (talk) 21:36, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions for pages regarding gun control

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.  Bishonen | talk 17:04, 15 March 2018 (UTC).
I was wondering when I would get my very own notice, I was starting to feel a little left out! DS are duly noted PackMecEng (talk) 17:31, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
You think it's amusing. That's fine. See warning below. Bishonen | talk 18:00, 15 March 2018 (UTC).
Yeah I was making light of the areas I generally edit and how everyone at some point got their mandatory notice but I had not gotten one yet. Lighten up, nothing directed at you or assholerly intended. PackMecEng (talk) 14:02, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi PackMecEng! Questions about the above “Alert”? I wrote a quick & dirty FAQ—check it out here. If you have any questions about policies or editing or anything else just ask me on my talk page :-) – Lionel(talk) 07:35, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
@Lionelt: Looks like a useful write up, thanks for the link. I should be good though, I have been editing in DS articles for a while now (mostly ARBAP2). Thanks for stopping by! PackMecEng (talk) 12:51, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Warning

Hi, PackMecEng. I don't understand why you removed this sentence, calling it "misleading and poorly written". I can see your explanations on the talkpage, but I still don't understand it, because they're feeble explanations.

For the sentence being misleading, you offer, in preference to the impressive array of secondary sources (CNN, CBS News, Wired magazine, U.S. News & World Report, USA Today, The New York Times, ABC News, and The Guardian) that the sentence was sourced to, one primary source, a statistics page detailing the type of weapons used in mass shootings between 1982 and 2017 — yes, really, during the past 35 years, with no information per year at all, no definition of how "mass shooting" was defined in the 20th century, and interpreted, by you, to mean that "the vast majority of mass shootings are done with handguns of some type over any rifle or shotgun". Please read our policy against Original research and note especially the sentence "Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." Or just use common sense and figure out that what the media are discussing today are the recent mass shootings. Very little to do with the 1980s.

For calling the sentence badly written, you refer to the part of the sentence referencing the sources as "just a mash of jumbled links and names that do not add meaning besides trying to wp:overcite to give false validity to and misleading opinion". You seem to consider citing many reliable sources a bad idea. Maybe a few could indeed be left out, but the number of them hardly invalidates the text. The list of sources presumably becomes a "mash" or "jumble" in your view by virtue of being listed by year (2016, 2017, and 2018), because without the years it's just a list, which could by no stretch of the imagination be called a mash. These are very feeble complaints. If you find the sentence too information-packed to be easily read ("jumbled"), feel free to improve it. I'm warning you against further WP:tendentious editing in gun control related articles. You may be topic banned from the area, or otherwise sanctioned, if you don't follow our neutrality policy. Bishonen | talk 18:00, 15 March 2018 (UTC).

@Bishonen: There is a discussion right now on the talk page about this very subject. We can head over there and talk it out, but here is not the appropriate venue for content issues. PackMecEng (talk) 18:13, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
As I just told you, at some length, I've seen your posts on the talkpage. But do continue discussing there, by all means. For my part I don't edit these articles, nor discuss or 'talk things out' on their talkpages — I'm an uninvolved admin in the gun control area, and what I do is warn/sanction people when I find it necessary. And when I do that, I explain why I've done it. That's what you see above. If you want to challenge my warning, right here, feel free. Bishonen | talk 18:27, 15 March 2018 (UTC).
@Bishonen:Then I misunderstood, I thought you were talking about a content issue. My mistake, if it is just a be careful I will try to follow that advice. It is a rough subject on all ends and sometimes hard to see the forest for the trees. PackMecEng (talk) 18:35, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Content dispute taken to article talk page PackMecEng (talk) 13:52, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
PackMecEng, will you now, as a show of good faith, restore that content? Pinging Bishonen -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 22:57, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
@BullRangifer: I am happy to discuss the issues with the text on the talk page. But please note the conversation on this topic previously listed on the page and the concerns me and another editor have with the text. Also for future reference it would be polite to inform the people you report to AE that you brought them up there. PackMecEng (talk) 23:07, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
The explanation above should be good enough to convince you to move forward with a restoration (including possible improvement). Just do the right thing. Deletion is not a legitimate option.
Let's face it, any RfCs, essays, and local consensus among the usual editors there which say otherwise are against policies and should be ignored. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 23:50, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
@BullRangifer: I think we are done here. I have stated multiple times now that I am happy to work this out on the article talk page, still am by the way, which I will note you still have not replied to any of the concerns raised there by me or others. PackMecEng (talk) 00:05, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm at work, so in-depth replies are difficult on my cell. There are no legitimate concerns raised there. This should be a no brainer. Just follow policy. It's really that simple. Your deletion is textbook tendentious editing, so correct that error. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 00:15, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

DS

@BullRangifer: Just moving this off his talk page since it is not really related there. So with the whole DS thing and difference depending if it is AP2 or Gun control or the like all stem from various arbitration committee rulings on the subjects. Gun control here and Post 1932 American politics here. Those two cases basically layout why DS were imposed on those subject areas and what remedies it allows under their discussion. Both generally boil down to any uninvolved admin can at their discretion impose the remedies laid out in those cases as well as any extra restrictions applied to specific articles in that topic area, provided that WP:ACDS#Awareness and alerts has been meet, generally topic bans or blocks. Administrators may impose extra restrictions on pages that have common problems, for example Donald Trump in addition to the standard DS stuff has Consensus required, 1RR, and Civility restriction which are logged here and WP:AEL. If extra restrictions are applied to a specific page, generally a template like that is made or a more generic one is used that has the desired restrictions.

So in the end it's a cluster you know what that even experienced editors unknowingly fall afoul of all the time. Take my recent run in with the terrible and powerful Bishonen. She could of easily blocked or topic banned me from the article after she added that notice to my page, even without the formal warning. I would of had to take it to ANI or AE to try and get it appealed, which is always a pain. Which is why I generally try stay far and clear from the bright line that is DS on most article and try to figure out exactly what is in place on that article before I make changes to it. Which can be difficult since they are not always logged or logged correctly, if you look in my archives here you will see a situation where I almost did violate DS but it was not logged correctly and was actually suspended at the time of my edit. I ended up having to get admins involved to fix and clarify the issue. PackMecEng (talk) 02:26, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

It really is a jungle, so thanks for the info. It's much appreciated. If I'm in danger, let me know. I wouldn't want to do anything wrong....or get in trouble. I'd rather edit in a collegial atmosphere. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 02:54, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

NRA Article

Edits like this are a problem. [4]. Don't revert good material and misrepresent the sources in your edit summary. Legacypac (talk) 02:33, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

@Legacypac: Opened section on talk page with the reasoning, please actually check the sources not just the URL. PackMecEng (talk) 02:36, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
@Legacypac: I also opened a RSN section on this subject here, you are welcome to comment there as well. PackMecEng (talk) 03:51, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Adding here, since my question was lost amid multiple replies: That the language of "...improving school security in an effort to help prevent national tragedies..." is perceived as "non-controversial" is surprising to me. Do you find this phrasing appropriate? I would appreciate a response. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:18, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
@K.e.coffman: It's hard to say, the main saving grace is that it is a quote. But should be attributed to the NRA saying specifically. The non-controversial part is that the program does exist with those stated goals, not that it is necessarily said the best way. PackMecEng (talk) 01:22, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree. The articles are supposed to be based on independent, secondary sources, not act as a publishing platform for org's publicity materials. The fact that we are discussing this edit makes it controversial. I occasionally edit articles on organisations and it's a fairly common tactic to fill articles to the brim with self-cited, laudatory material. See for example this series of edits on Hillel International. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:34, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
@K.e.coffman:Understandable, and I don't want to say I prefer self cited works vs secondary sources. I have been meaning to get off my butt (or is it get back on my butt?) and take a look for some, just have not yet. As I have cited in the article the Southern Poverty Law Center or the NAACP are full of similar instances I would rather not be self cited as well similar to this and the Hillel International articles. As to the controversial part, at this point any change to the article could be considered controversial. Recently the NRA has not been portrayed in the most positive light and become a very polarized topic, with defenders and detractors going bananas. Been thinking I'll head back to Trump related article for some less controversial talks. PackMecEng (talk) 01:43, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

AR-15 style rifle

Can you please explain to me what your substantive objections are to my proposed edit? I don't want to revert you or get into an edit war, but we have a consensus and it seems to me you are preventing it from being implemented. Maybe we can work out a compromise here. Thanks. Waleswatcher (talk) 01:09, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

@Waleswatcher: I already covered my main objects at the articles talk page. Right now I am trying to put together some wording on a RFC, either a which wording or do we include style. I started a bit of a discussion on the talk page for it and would certainly welcome input on wording for it. PackMecEng (talk) 02:16, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello

Pleasure to make your acquaintance. I am guessing you are a right wing American politics editor and supporter of blocked user who I warned about the username policy just now. Andrevan@ 20:36, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

@Andrevan: Pleased to meet you as well . I am neither a wing or supporter of just about anyone. But FCAYS has been around a while and it seemed like a spurious accusation, to while they are blocked, template them in that manner. Also I would warn you against casting aspersions on another editors beliefs or motivations. PackMecEng (talk) 20:41, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Well, this escalated quickly, didn't it? FCAYS has been around for a while, but so have I, and I only saw him recently in the context of some very disruptive and problematic behavior. I have not interacted with him directly prior to the username notice. I've never had any interaction with FCAYS except to comment on a proposal to block him recently on the admin noticeboard. I have been enforcing Wikipedia's username policy for 10 years. Templating the regulars is a bit gauche, I'll admit, but it seems that you yourself were templated above by bishonen Perhaps you should think twice about your battleground mentality. Andrevan@ 20:53, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
@Andrevan: Well I appreciate the advice, but I do not see any battleground here. Maybe take it down a notch. PackMecEng (talk) 21:24, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
You have just hatted my comments on a talk page. You can feel free to respond to the comments, but clearly you also are WP:INVOLVED and have a political axe to grind here. Andrevan@ 00:27, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
@Andrevan: My hatting was a good point that you should pay attention to. Comments about editors are disruptive and far from helpful to building an encyclopedia, especially on a DS article with civility restrictions. If you have an issue with an editor or group of editors take it to WP:AN, WP:ANI, or WP:AE the article talk page is the wrong place for that. PackMecEng (talk) 00:30, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
My comments aren't ad hominem comments about an editor, but a specific comment about a pattern of editing and context as pertaining to a specific set of language. Your hatting erases the discussion. Not appropriate. Andrevan@ 00:36, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
@Andrevan: You are completely mistaken on article talk page conduct. As I said if you have an issue with an editor or editors you know where the appropriate boards are. PackMecEng (talk) 00:46, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
I personally don't always take the same side vis-a-vis Trump, but many editors do and the community does not consider that in itself to be POV-pushing. That requires you to demonstrate, not just allege, a persistent pattern of tendentious editing over a period of time, and that is not something you can do practically on an article talk page. Furthermore, you need the focused attention of multiple admins to have any beneficial effect, and admin presence in article talk is too random and sporadic for that purpose. This is why there are separate venues for that. Trying to address that sort of thing in article talk accomplishes nothing except to inflame the situation and distract from the business at hand. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:30, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
@Andrevan:Thanks, I will take a look and comment. PackMecEng (talk) 03:35, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Nah, PackMecEng definitely has an axe to grind. They were pulling antics on The Rebel Media page as well. 2607:FEA8:955F:F959:51BB:B4E7:F38F:80DE (talk) 22:45, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
For sure! PackMecEng (talk) 22:46, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Middleby Corporation

Thisis so different from your previous interests, that perhaps it might be relevant that I should remind you that it is necessary to declare conflict of interest acording to WP:COI. DGG ( talk ) 02:21, 6 June 2018 (UTC)`

@DGG: Nothing to declare here, I am not affiliated with Middleby. I do work in the packaging industry, is part of my handle here, but my company doesn't even compete with them. I just read in a trade magazine about the acquisition and decided to add it to their article. As far as I know that does not qualify as a COI, unless I am mistaken? PackMecEng (talk) 02:26, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Or wait does this have to do with me being a paid Russian spy? PackMecEng (talk) 02:55, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Perfectly good explanation; we need more articles on non-consumer oriented firms from people who know the industry but have no coi. DGG ( talk ) 06:13, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
@Pack: I almost fell out of my chair when I read that last reply of yours. – Lionel(talk) 06:44, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Rubles for you!

Rubles for you!
Several members of the Russian Editing Team have complained about slow payments. @MONGO: is even facing eviction! Vlad asked me to forward you some spending money until your regular salary resumes. He thinks it's a snafu with the new direct deposit system. – Lionel(talk) 06:43, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Ha, thanks for the advance! PackMecEng (talk) 18:54, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Re: topic ban

Indeed I am, not all American politics articles. Andrevan@ 01:09, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

@Andrevan: Not all American politics, but the article in question Freedom Caucus is closely related to Trump with several mentions of him. Also the content you restored was a The Atlantic article specifically about Trump here. PackMecEng (talk) 01:39, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:PackMecEng/Archive_1&oldid=1048377729"