Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:32, 14 July 2020

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

• @Toddst1: Just a follow up, the Village Pump RFC has closed in favor of exclude. While it may not seem like it, I do appreciate working with you on this. PackMecEng (talk) 18:54, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

All good. The community has spoken. Toddst1 (talk) 19:01, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

June 2020

Your recent editing history at Misplaced Pages: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. Toddst1 (talk) 16:32, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Get over yourself. Who is acting WP:POINTily now? 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? _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. _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 _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).

Bishonen - whoa! You need to scroll a few comments further up in that discussion. I've asked MastCell to stop trying to make that discussion personal and he refuses while continuing to make unfounded accusations that imply editors are racist. He is an involved admin who is pursuing editors - possibly falling under WP:HOUNDING - over their oppose votes at an RfC he is involved in. He may also have violated WP:CANVASSING as an involved administrator, and has created a chilling effect in that discussion. If anybody needs a warning for PAs, it's MastCell. All PME was doing was trying defuse the situation and her comment was a long way from being a PA in that discussion. _Talk 📧 13:15, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, the only editor making PAs in that entire thread is the admin who is calling everybody a racist because they disagree with him in a content dispute about including a Reagan quote. Really, friends of this admin should intervene to stop him before it spirals further out of control. Levivich  14:34, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

There's a certain irony in using the phrase "beyond the pale" in the context of a discussion on racism. ——Serial 15:02, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I was told we didn’t talk about impalement on this BBS... Qwirkle (talk) 16:03, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Okay, that made me snort. Thank you! PackMecEng (talk) 18:58, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

You don't get to do that here. Blocked.

You don't get to express your contempt for users here. Just do it inside your head, not on a Misplaced Pages page. I warned you about the way you try to needle MastCell just a few days ago, and here we are again. "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. So with that and the fact that you have kicked me off your talk page I find this rather disturbing. 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 (/_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.

In case you are not aware, the point of WP:CIVIL you violated, (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)

I think given their interactions on Jimbo's page it was warranted. When things are getting that heated with accusations of racism being thrown around a break isn't a bad idea for anyone. Even me, which is why I left that discussion not long after that comment. PackMecEng (talk) 20:30, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Wait wait wait, is this because I disagreed with you implying Atsme is racist in that RSN Fox news discussion with that lynching comment?! Followed up by a non-apology when myself and others called you on it? Because other than that I do not think I have really interacted with you before. PackMecEng (talk) 20:41, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

I have zero interest in re-litigating the past, this is about your block and the pattern, quit the whataboutism. --qedk (t 愛 c) 21:05, 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)

To be honest I am rather shocked with how this went, but mostly disappointed. Thank you Pudeo. PackMecEng (talk) 20:57, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Civility advice coming from the person who was warned by a clerk for using personal attacks in a case statement a while ago. And now heated arguing on this talk page? That is just... I'm sorry that you are being treated like this, Pudeo. --qedk (t 愛 c) 21:05, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Be careful, people get blocked for using the FBDB template like that! PackMecEng (talk) 21:12, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

@QEDK: Never been warned by a clerk, you're probably mistaking me for Slugger O'Toole. No big deal though. --Pudeo (talk) 21:19, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

@Pudeo: I'm not sure if a message left at your talk page is apparently a message for someone else, I'm sure Dreamy Jazz would be kind enough to make me aware. --qedk (t 愛 c) 06:18, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

QEDK, it was a personal reminder for Pudeo. Dreamy Jazz 07:41, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

@QEDK: Whether you like it or not, the inconsistency between Bish's NPA block here and their own incivility a short while ago is hard to for some of us to ignore. If you're going to take on a job that involves policing the behavior of other editors, you need to make sure your own hands are clean. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 01:30, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Pretty much, but it is okay. Given the situation as a whole I do no mind. Could I have been more polite about calling him out on that completely toxic and at the same time completely vague attack on another user? Sure, I probably could of. That really is not the point though. PackMecEng (talk) 03:45, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

@Lepricavark: I am not surprised that you find Bish's alleged incivility as hard ... to ignore but 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)

@QEDK:, your suggestion that all that matters is the letter of the policy is tone-deaf. Sure, the rules say that Bish can block PME for being uncivil, but the rules also prohibit Bish from being uncivil. It should be obvious that there's a problem when an admin chooses to enforce a rule that they have failed to follow. And I never said that PME's incivility was invisible or irrelevant. Please do not put words in my mouth. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 16:33, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Please don't post teasing hints about me without evidence, User:Lepricavark. What was " own incivility a short while ago"? Diffs please. And PackMecEng, do you even realise how trollish it is to riff off another person's words ("completely toxic and at the same time completely vague attack on another user" in my own warning above) and twist them for the opposite purpose? Is it another instance of your idea of "friendly banter"? Bishonen | tålk 10:13, 11 July 2020 (UTC).

@Bishonen: I suspect Lepricavark was referring to the material previously cited by Pudeo, via . All the best, ——Serial 10:24, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

You mean the comment I got all the thanks for? Hard to believe Lepricavark would be quite that context-less, compare the edit summary on my "fuck" edit, but I suppose it's possible since Pudeo managed it. Well, Pudeo managed this obliviousness as well, so no surprise there, I suppose. Anyway, I'm done on this page, or rabbithole. Bishonen | tålk 10:48, 11 July 2020 (UTC).

Yes, I had skipped the ArbCom clerk message as I thought it was an automatic one like the 20 last ones. It had a standard thread title, did not address by username and there was no edit summary. Context does matter, if you are a long-time admin who has 25 IRC friends backing you for your totally cool 'go fuck yourself 😎' serve it's fine, but if you're a pleb, you're in trouble for some Jimbotalk arguing and banter. Remember, you don't own Misplaced Pages. You have no right prevent someone from editing by enforcing the civility policy in a biased manner. --Pudeo (talk) 11:11, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

So if a bunch of editors were to thank PackMecEng for his comment, would you lift the block? I didn't think so. Incivility is incivility. I don't care how many people thanked you for it. It's clear that we have two different sets of rules for admins being uncivil to non-admins versus non-admins being uncivil to admins. If you wish to enforce civility, keep your own hands clean. It's really that simple. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 16:33, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Let's be real here, civility was not the issue. What is funny though, MastCell was talking about people of color being excluded from the project, so what happens? The only person blocked in the whole kerfuffle is a female person of color that was blocked for calling out the exact kind of behavior her friend was doing, thereby undermining MastCell's own argument. You cannot make this shit up. PackMecEng (talk) 17:40, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Ever read the Orwell essay in which he suggested that the whole point of goose-stepping was that it looked ridiculous, but the watcher dared not say so? Qwirkle (talk) 18:55, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

You have always been really good with just the right words for every situation. I wish I was like that sometimes. PackMecEng (talk) 20:04, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Hmmm, I'm kinda on the same page as Lepricavark, Pudeo, Springee, Qwirkle and you, Pack. You had a clean block log until yesterday, and you've been contributing for how long? For grins, I wonder if there's any updating being done over at Gender Desk? Somebody pointed me to that site last year. Anyway, glad your back. Wish I was smart enough to figure out what Qwirkle said about that essay. Feel free to provide a link. _Talk 📧 21:32, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

England Your England Theres a link to the full text at the bottom. Qwirkle (talk) 01:17, 12 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)

Yes, that is obvious from the full context of the discussion. Soibangla even replied with a "LOL". This is very tone-deaf. 24 hours is not too bad, but absurd enforcement of WP:CIVILITY is not acceptable.--Pudeo (talk) 22:29, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Never argue with an admin or insult an admin (I did and got blocked for it a while back, which would never happen for a mortal). First rule of Misplaced Pages, even if the admin has violated WP:PA, which Mastcell has, multiple times, and yet hasn't been blocked. One can argue that being called a racist, is baiting by Mastcell. The block was disgraceful and the denial of the unblock is shameful. The way CIVILITY is enforced and ignored all other times is a disgrace. Sir Joseph 22:58, 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)

I disagree with much of what you said here. PackMecEng (talk) 00:28, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Of course. This just shows that there is significant disagreement about the course of events, and since none of you have provided clear evidence of such claims by MastCell, you should really be careful. Many experienced editors disagree with you, and when there is disagreement about an alleged PA, you really need to have all your evidence lined up, and there should be ZERO disagreement from anybody about what it says. When in doubt, don't be negative. AGF. -- Valjean (talk) 00:45, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I disagree with much of what you said here. PackMecEng (talk) 01:07, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Valjean, I don't think your ping of Ivanvector will work; it needs to be on a new line per Help:Fixing failed pings. I've pinged him for you now. As long as I'm here, I'll also register agreement that Sir Joseph's accusations about MastCell are false. A couple of diffs for the statement that MastCell 'has violated WP:PA multiple times' would have helped. Assuming such diffs exist — for myself, I haven't found any. Bishonen | tålk 00:32, 11 July 2020 (UTC).

The ping hadn't worked (you have to sign the edit where the ping appears) but PackMecEng had pinged me earlier and I saw it anyway. Thanks for re-pinging anyway. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 00:36, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I thought that making it as a completely separate, signed, edit was good enough. -- Valjean (talk) 00:46, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Exactly my thinking. 🤷 In any case, I've said all that I had to say, so rest y'all. --qedk (t 愛 c) 06:25, 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)

I disagree with much of what you said here. But in the great words of MastCell 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. PackMecEng (talk) 03:32, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Very, very disturbing. Valjean why are you here agitating someone who has been blocked? PME, don't even respond. This is all logged now, so just take a little break, and enjoy your weekend. _Talk 📧 03:57, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

No worries, I am not surprised to be honest. When I can edit my user page again I think I will get one of those nifty "This user has been blocked, and isn't embarrassed about it - (admire my block log here!)." userboxes! It's what all the cool kids have. Seriously though, I appreciate the support. Thank you. PackMecEng (talk) 04:20, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

• Talk page stalker here: @Ivanvector and Bishonen:, I'm not sure of the full history but I think this was a bad block. Here is my thinking. Soibangla appears to be saying that they have proof they were found in the right at the drama board. Their proof is a statement by MC. However, that statement is MC's personal view, not the consensus of the discussion. PME pointed that out. I don't see how this would be seen as dismissing or needling MC personally vs just showing that Soibangla's self defense was flawed. Springee (talk) 12:19, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

  @Springee: I disagree with much of what you said here. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 12:33, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

  Two uninvolved admins (apart from the one who blocked) have already stated that the block is fine, if PME truly intended for the block to be repealed, they should have followed the instructions in WP:GAB and committed to improving their civility. I don't really care about the outcome here but no administrator would unblock an editor who refuses to understand their own mistakes but none of that is happening here, hence there is literally no cause for unblocking at this point of time. --qedk (t 愛 c) 12:46, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I disagree. PME’s comment that it was just MC’s POV is relevant in context of the discussion. I felt the same way about how MC’s quote was being presented as a consensus vs one editor’s opinion. Perhaps I’m missing the larger context but this looks very ambiguous to me. Most of the time insults/needles are obvious but the question is if they rise to a level where action is required. When I first read this material I didn’t detect any hint of negativity directed at MC themselves. Perhaps I wasn’t looking but at this point if one has to search to find the fault then we have a problem. Springee (talk) 12:59, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Eh I am not to worried about it. Yeah it is a bad block but she helpfully linked the diffs showing that in the block log so that everyone will know. Don't mind QEDK, they are just upset that I called them on using racially charged language to describe another editors actions as I linked above. QEDK my unblock request did not focus on civility because civility was not a problem. The block itself was bad and that is why I focused on that. What, you would rather I lie in my unblock request? PackMecEng (talk) 14:38, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I couldn't care less about your or anyone else's purposeful misinterpretation of comments. 🥱 You're still in your WP:NOTTHEM phase, I see - so I'll bid you farewell. Good luck! --qedk (t 愛 c) 16:02, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, take care! PackMecEng (talk) 16:07, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Yep, you've been blocked

	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. Talk 📧 04:26, 11 July 2020 (UTC) Disclaimer: Intended as humor. Pure pun-ishment.

• Ha! I have never seen that one before. I shall cherish this! PackMecEng (talk) 04:36, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

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)

• How dare you mention your puny bock log in the same breath as mine? But seriously, you've gotta watch it with the {FBDB}. Its function is to alert others that there's prior relationship between editors within which teasing would be acceptable; but that has to not only be actually true, but also apparent to a third party without digging. Not sure what happened here but obviously it misfired. EEng 16:03, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Ha, yeah no kidding. PackMecEng (talk) 16:07, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

• @EEng: If you like I created a template for that message with a variable for the user.

This user has been blocked, and isn't embarrassed about it - (admire my block log here!).

I don't know. This probably isn't an attitude we should be encouraging other editors to adopt. I mean, if life gives you blocks you should make, um... blockade I guess, but we don't want people seeking them out like dueling scars. EEng 05:01, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I can attest that scars are attractive on guys, not that I would recommend trying to acquire them. Also if someone wants to seek them out I am sure they will find them without needing to be tempted by an admittedly bad ass Misplaced Pages userbox. But if it happens most of the time it is not and should not be a big deal. Perhaps that is just me, always look on the bright side of life. PackMecEng (talk) 05:10, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Stalking at Tyson Foods

Please do not stalk me and indiscriminately revert me, as you did here. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 04:32, 14 July 2020 (UTC)