User talk:PackMecEng

Pending change patrolling WP:DOY pages

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)

@Toddst1: The revision I accepted there in early April was this one about an eclipse on a list article. Which does appear to be supported by the main article. Also again it is a list article, you generally do not use inline sources. PackMecEng (talk) 14:38, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

You're not getting it. Let me explain:

The Days of Years (DOTY) pages were becoming a complete mess with incorrect and unverifiable info so things have changed so that all new entries require a direct source.

The DOTY project had exempted themselves from verifiability. As a result, almost none of the pages had any sources to back things up, based on the naive (and against Wikipedia policy) belief that all entries would be backed by reliable sources in the linked article. It turns out that was not the case and the DOTY pages were filled with incorrect info and even worse, other places started believing the info there and publishing the incorrect info in newspapers, for example on "Today's date in history" type listings.

So about two years ago the DOTY project took the bold step of requiring that all new entries be backed by direct reliable sources. Several of us have gone through and started cleaning things up. May 11 is an example of where we want to be. For details see the content guideline, the WikiProject Days of the Year style guide or the edit notice on any DOY page.

We could use your help in:

1. Preventing new entries that don't include direct sources and when they occur, either supplement them with a reliable source or reverting them.
2. Helping us clean up articles. The project members have asked all participants to go through their birthday and clean the entries up by adding reliable sources to each entry, or removing entries where reliable sources aren't readily available.

I hope this helps. Toddst1 (talk) 20:16, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

@Toddst1: No I get it. I just do not agree with it and do no plan on going with it. Again that is not how list articles work and selective enforcement is never a good idea. Thanks for stopping by. PackMecEng (talk) 20:38, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Ok. Feel free to make up your own rules. However, let me be clear. If you continue to accept these types of entries, it will be considered disruptive and I will seek to have your pending changes privilege removed. Toddst1 (talk) 20:44, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

@Toddst1: No I prefer going by larger policy and not a small local consensus. I would also strongly suggest you read up on what review pending changes actually is before you make baseless threats though. This information can be found at WP:RPC. You might want to pay attention to the general criteria and acceptable edits sections. For example the general criteria is you should not accept a new revision if it conflicts with BLP, is vandalism, obvious copyright violations, or legal threats/personal attacks/libel. Obviously none of those apply here. On the acceptable edits side of things you should check out 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! PackMecEng (talk) 22:06, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

You said "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!

From that exact section, WP:RPC#General_criteria: "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)

@Toddst1: Dang I did not notice that recent addition. I have removed it since it had no consensus and was against the rest of the page. Thanks for letting me know! PackMecEng (talk) 02:32, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

June 2020

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)

Ha, okay mister rollback. You keep that in mind as well. PackMecEng (talk) 16:06, 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.[1] Toddst1 (talk) 16:32, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Get over yourself. Who is acting WP:POINTily now?[2] PackMecEng (talk) 16:33, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I believe someone is about to experience the Streisand Effect. Qwirkle (talk) 16:38, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

We can only hope! PackMecEng (talk) 16:51, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	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)

@Schazjmd: Agreed! It was a pleasure. Thank you and no matter which way it turns out I appreciate it. PackMecEng (talk) 15:48, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

"Brevity if the soul of wit." - William Shakespeare, Hamlet

Nahh, that’s Kipling’s amendment, innit? Qwirkle (talk) 16:50, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

@Qwirkle: I thought it was act 2 scene 2.

"My liege, and madam, to expostulate

What majesty should be, what duty is,

What day is day, night night, and time is time,

Were nothing but to waste night, day, and time;

Therefore, since brevity is the soul of wit,

And tediousness the limbs and outward flourishes,

I will be brief. Your noble son is mad "

I am not familiar with Kipling's amendment. What is that? PackMecEng (talk) 16:58, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

If— Qwirkle (talk) 17:11, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

@Qwirkle: Ha, I must be slow today I did not even notice. Nice, thank you! PackMecEng (talk) 18:14, 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)

Yeah it was a fat finger, then it just made me smirk. Thanks for correcting it though! PackMecEng (talk) 20:15, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Infoboxes

Thank you for the information. I had not encountered them as a sensitive topic before. --MerielGJones (talk) 17:33, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

@MerielGJones: Me either until I ended up in a similar situation to you. It can be rough. PackMecEng (talk) 18:21, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Your comment knocked out of line

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)

Thanks! I wasn't sure the best way to do it when I saw it. Looks pretty good now. PackMecEng (talk) 21:54, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Hey - WP:Pack's law ^Atsme _Talk 📧 17:29, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Ha! That is so awesome! Looks like a good and funny read too. PackMecEng (talk) 18:45, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

This is a personal attack warning

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).