| Revision as of 22:57, 15 March 2018 editValjean (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, IP block exemptions, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers95,361 edits →Warning: The right thing to doTags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 15:27, 13 January 2025 edit undoPhoebezz22 (talk | contribs)140 edits →hello: new sectionTag: New topic | ||
| (876 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Archive basics | {{Archive basics | ||
| |archive = User talk:PackMecEng/Archive %(counter)d | |archive = User talk:PackMecEng/Archive %(counter)d | ||
| |counter = |
|counter = 6 | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| {{archive box|auto=yes}} | {{archive box|auto=yes}} | ||
| == Invitation to participate in a research == | |||
| ⚫ | == |
||
| Hello, | |||
| There's nothing in the text that calls Carlson "racist". Please don't use misleading edit summaries.] (]) 14:52, 12 February 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :{{Reply to|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... ] (]) 15:04, 12 February 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::Which he did. So what's the problem? ] (]) 16:07, 12 February 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{Reply to|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. ] (]) 16:09, 12 February 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Nonsense. ADL is quite reliable.] (]) 16:11, 12 February 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::::And no, I don't see why following reliable source is a problem. What is the problem? ] (]) 16:12, 12 February 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :::::{{Reply to|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. ] (]) 17:06, 12 February 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Just for clarification is the ADL blog post I was refering to that was used in the article. ] (]) 17:09, 12 February 2018 (UTC) | |||
| The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Misplaced Pages, 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 ''''''. | |||
| ==Colt AR-15== | |||
| I won't hold your inexperience against you, but you completely misunderstood the point . The edit requests on the talk page are about adding a section called "uses", and that's not what I was doing. Thank you! ] (]) 02:22, 18 February 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :{{Reply to|Drmies}} No worries, but you should read the opposes above your post. They all indicate opposition to '''any''' mass shooting information. ] (]) 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 Misplaced Pages 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. ] (]) 02:26, 18 February 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{Reply to|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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 02:42, 18 February 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :::::{{Reply to|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! ] (]) 02:46, 18 February 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I saw that--thanks! ] (]) 02:51, 18 February 2018 (UTC) | |||
| You do not have to be an Administrator to participate. | |||
| == Trump poll == | |||
| The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its ] and view its ] . | |||
| 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. ]] 15:01, 6 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :{{Reply to|SPECIFICO}} You are a pain in the butt, you know that? But it is a good suggestion and I will update the poll. Thanks {{wink}} ] (]) 15:05, 6 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::Cool. It's American Politics that is our nemesis. Thanks for your contributions! ]] 16:07, 6 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | |||
| Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns. | |||
| ==Discretionary sanctions for pages regarding gun control== | |||
| {{Ivm|2=''This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Misplaced Pages. It does '''not''' imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.'' | |||
| Kind Regards, | |||
| '''Please carefully read this information:''' | |||
| ] | |||
| The ] has authorised ] 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 ]. | |||
| <bdi lang="en" dir="ltr">] (]) 19:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC) </bdi> | |||
| Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means ] administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the ], our ], or relevant ]. Administrators may impose sanctions such as ], ], or ]. 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. ] | ] 17:04, 15 March 2018 (UTC). | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:UOzurumba (WMF)@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/search/?title=UOzurumba_(WMF)/sandbox_Research_announcement_list_for_enwiki_Potential_Admins&oldid=27650229 --> | |||
| }}{{Z33}}<!-- Derived from Template:Ds/alert --> | |||
| :I was wondering when I would get my very own notice, I was starting to feel a little left out! DS are duly noted {{(:}} ] (]) 17:31, 15 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| == ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message == | |||
| ::You think it's amusing. That's fine. See warning below. ] | ] 18:00, 15 March 2018 (UTC). | |||
| <div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; background-color: #fdf2d5; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; "> | |||
| ==Warning== | |||
| <div class="ivmbox-image noresize" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;">]</div> | |||
| <div class="ivmbox-text"> | |||
| Hello! Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2024|end}}-1 day}}. All ''']''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. | |||
| The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. 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 ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. | |||
| Hi, PackMecEng. I don't understand why you removed , 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. | |||
| If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>] (]) 00:34, 19 November 2024 (UTC)</small> | |||
| 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 '''', 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 ] 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. | |||
| </div> | |||
| 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 ] 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 ] in gun control related articles. You may be ] from the area, or otherwise sanctioned, if you don't follow ]. ] | ] 18:00, 15 March 2018 (UTC). | |||
| </div> | |||
| :{{ping|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. ] (]) 18:13, 15 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2024/Coordination/MM/05&oldid=1258243594 --> | |||
| ::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. ] | ] 18:27, 15 March 2018 (UTC). | |||
| :::{{ping|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. ] (]) 18:35, 15 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| == 'Alleged assassination attempt' revert == | |||
| :::: PackMecEng, will you now, as a show of good faith, restore that content? Pinging ] -- ] (]) <u><small>'''''PingMe'''''</small></u> 22:57, 15 March 2018 (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 , ] says "{{tq|''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 ], 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. <em><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></em> 05:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :@] 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 ], because it's casting doubt where there really isn't any. ] (]) 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, has a ] which was used to oppose the title move, while in the actual article it says Routh "{{tq|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. <em><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></em> 05:44, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::@] I think you are mistaking the person for the event. ], is the man who allegedly tried to assassinate Trump, while the article ] 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. | |||
| :::, {{tq|attempting to assassinate former President Donald Trump}} | |||
| :::, {{tq|in an apparent assassination attempt}} | |||
| :::, {{tq|The man accused in the apparent assassination attempt of Donald Trump}} | |||
| :::, {{tq|into the second apparent assassination attempt}} | |||
| :::, {{tq|Sunday’s apparent assassination attempt against Trump}} | |||
| :::, {{tq|following an apparent assassination attempt}} | |||
| ⚫ | :::There are half a dozen high quality sources not using alleged when describing the assassination attempt. ] (]) 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. <em><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></em> 17:44, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | == hello == | ||
| {{You've got mail}} | |||
| Thank you so much for your time! Have a great week! ] (]) 15:27, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 15:27, 13 January 2025
 Archives |
Invitation to participate in a research
Hello,
The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Misplaced Pages, 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,
BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message
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 Misplaced Pages 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)
'Alleged assassination attempt' revert
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. 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. 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. Gravity 17:44, 11 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 "
hello
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)