User talk:PackMecEng

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

It's obvious that cleanup is needed. Removing tags under those circumstances don't look good to put it mildly. --Hipal (talk) 18:08, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You're not making it look any better. [1][2] [3] [4]--Hipal (talk) 18:18, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes those are my 3 reverts and the message about your 4 reverts on the same page.[5][6][7][8] It looks like you are edit warring to me, I would self revert if I were you before we head to WP:AN3. PackMecEng (talk) 18:25, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Next time, read the editing header on my talk page. All you had to do was ask. --Hipal (talk) 18:43, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It was in the message I put on your page, did you read that? PackMecEng (talk) 18:45, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Are you being serious? --Hipal (talk) 18:49, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I am missing something, what header are you referring to? I don't see any that would be relevant to this. PackMecEng (talk) 19:41, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

On the top of my talk page and on the top of the editing page for my talk page, it says I am usually open to holding myself to one revert if you think it will help a situation. Just let me know. --Hipal (talk) 20:14, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

And I did let you know here, which said at the bottom You are at 4RR, I would sugguest you self revert before it goes to WP:AN3 with the heading of the section being the article in question, before you used rollback to get rid of the message. Also in the edit summaries I let you know as well, also on the article talk page I mentioned it. It is not my job to make sure you are aware of how many times you are reverting people on articles. I was doing you a favor by saying it in 4 places your talk page, my talk, the article talk page, and the article history edit summaries. So yes, I am being serious, and have been nothing but. PackMecEng (talk) 20:21, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the explanation. --Hipal (talk) 20:45, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Are you using an ai in your editing? Some of what you are doing and writing doesn't make much sense, similar to what I usually find is the result of using an ai. --Hipal (talk) 20:30, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

no PackMecEng (talk) 20:34, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Do you understand why it looks like you do? --Hipal (talk) 20:36, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

also no PackMecEng (talk) 20:38, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It could be just that you're rushed, but I wanted to let you know what it looks like. --Hipal (talk) 20:41, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, there is nothing wrong with it from what I can see. Perhaps you are thinking of someone else. Judging by the other comment here you have the wrong person PackMecEng (talk) 20:42, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

nothing wrong with it Perfect example. You're assuming that you know the specifics that haven't been identified, then relying on other information on this page to determine that this line of discussion is all in error. --Hipal (talk) 20:47, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

ok PackMecEng (talk) 20:49, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding to my comments. I had hoped they might be helpful. Apologies if they were a waste of time or worse. --Hipal (talk) 20:56, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be rude but are you ESL by chance? PackMecEng (talk) 01:08, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Worse than rude. --Hipal (talk) 16:02, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

How so? PackMecEng (talk) 16:06, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I consider this harassment. Please drop it. Refactoring would be appropriate as well. --Hipal (talk) 16:15, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Its not harassment, I am genuinely confused. ESL is not an insult or slur, heck my first language is Korean. Please assume good faith. PackMecEng (talk) 16:17, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I have to agree here. The comment was not at all meant in an offensive way. – LuniZunie_(talk) 16:24, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's harassment.

I am genuinely confused That I believe. Rather than asking if something might be rude, being told that it is rude, and then continuing on about it, stop yourself. Don't ask for the other person to agf. You left that point when you were told that yes, you were being rude.

my first language is Korean I'm surprised. Your English writing is very good. Your responses to situations, what I've been concerned about when I asked if you are using ai, might be explained by that though. --Hipal (talk) 16:27, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I did ask is asking if something might be rude and you replied with I consider this harassment. Again, it was not a rude comment but I see you took it that way. Lets lower the temperature here a bit shall we? PackMecEng (talk) 17:05, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You appear unable to do so. Maybe apologize or refactor? --Hipal (talk) 18:24, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What are you saying I am unable to do? PackMecEng (talk) 18:50, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing. Don't misrepresent what I wrote. If you are unclear what someone has said, ask questions that assume good faith. --Hipal (talk) 19:00, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am asking questions, but you are not answering. I feel like they are pretty straightforward and kind. Why are you so upset? PackMecEng (talk) 19:02, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Stop misrepresenting my comments. --Hipal (talk) 19:13, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, what did I get wrong? PackMecEng (talk) 19:20, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Just in the last comment, you are not answering is a misrepresentation.

Stating and kind ignores the main point of the recent comments.

Why are you so upset? is rude and disruptive to a fruitful conversation. --Hipal (talk) 19:46, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

ok PackMecEng (talk) 19:48, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(The comments below are in response to [9] --Hipal (talk) 16:27, 14 March 2026 (UTC))[reply]

It's the other editor who used ai. – LuniZunie_(talk) 20:36, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Very likely --Hipal (talk) 20:41, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. --Hipal (talk) 16:42, 16 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

[10] --Hipal (talk) 16:45, 16 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

lol, oh gzz, so you threaten to get admins involved to block but get like this when your actions are brought up about it? Very hypocritical. PackMecEng (talk) 16:45, 16 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently made edits related to living or recently deceased subjects of biographical content on Wikipedia articles. This is a standard message to inform you that living or recently deceased subjects of biographical content on Wikipedia articles is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. Contentious topics are the successor to the former discretionary sanctions system, which you may be aware of. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. For a summary of differences between the former and new systems, see WP:CTVSDS. Hipal (talk) 16:07, 16 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]