User talk:Parsley Man/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Parsley Man. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

reflist vs. reflist|30em

Parsley Man, why are you going around fixing something that isn't broken? "reflist|30em" is Pareto superior to "reflist". If your monitor and font size can only handle one column, "reflist|30em" will accommodate it. If your monitor and font size are such that you can handle two columns, "reflist|30em" will accommodate that too, with the result that the citations take up less room in the vertical dimension, and so require less scrolling through. Acad Ronin (talk) 17:35, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

August 2016

Hello, I'm ATS. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Christina Grimmie, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. —ATS 🖖 Talk 19:14, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Parsley Man, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:09, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. TonyBallioni (talk) 07:18, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

PM, if you have accidentally voted on an AfD while logged out, you need to either strike the vote or indicate that it was you who voted in order to avoid confusion. TimothyJosephWood 12:40, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

It was my own AfD, though... Parsley Man (talk) 17:46, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

My block

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:13, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the block, everyone. Seriously, I mean it. I will admit that I have some anger management problems and that my actions were started by an WP:IDONTLIKEIT behavior in regards to a couple of articles. The block should be enough time for me to cool off, take a break, and think about what I have done. Hopefully I come back a better editor. Parsley Man (talk) 18:02, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Struck Vote at AfD: 2014 Pennsylvania State Police Barracks attack

Hey Parsley Man....just came across this when I jumped online this evening. I'm glad you recognized the error and I look forward to your return to the community as you have always had great contributions. I chalk this up to a misjudgment that shouldn't be held against you once that block expires. I did want to let you know that I have struck the IP vote from the AfD since it violated the AfD/Sock policies. I did this in good faith to ensure the integrity of the vote/discussion by whoever closes the AfD. See you again in the near future :). -- Dane2007 ^talk 07:09, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. :) Parsley Man (talk) 18:24, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

A Big Thanks

Thank you so much for Investigating User: RolandSupreme's so called Mistakes. It means alot to Me. ZeEnergizer (talk) 19:02, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome. I always check out anyone who causes problems to an article I'm on just in case, because I've had experiences with disruptive users in the past and I'd rather be safe than sorry. Parsley Man (talk) 19:11, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Cancer

Just a tip, one I sometimes myself forget to abide by: it's usually best to use every tool at your disposal ever, to say away from ANI. That place is cancer. TimothyJosephWood 22:05, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Terrorism

You have repeatedly reverted my edits while not participating in the discussions I have created stating my reasons. You finally replied today, yet your reply was not at all in the context of my argument. See my arguments here, here, and here. Other users have also raised concerns similar to mines. There is a specific reason why I have added these incidents, and you must read my arguments to find out why I am doing this. Also, since my discussion on the List of terrorist incidents in July 2016 talk page had not been replied to for a week, I assumed with one yes that it would be alright to include the incidents, because I doubt that it is getting any more replies on a mostly inactive article. Thanks, Beejsterb (talk) 02:49, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Reply: WP:VPP is something I have never used before and really do not know how to use, but I could maybe give it a shot. The major problem have with you reverting these edits is that you are only reverting the right-winged terrorism incidents that do not meet your criteria. There are a lot of Islamic incidents that do not meet your criteria because they are also under investigation with an unconfirmed motive, yet you only remove the non-Islamic incidents, thus making the article biased and violating WP:NPOV. I also have been editing terrorism articles for quite some time and am experienced in the area. On the List of Terrorist Incidents, we decided a couple months ago that we would include suspected terrorist incidents and incidents that are highly probable to have been committed by terrorists. This is simply because these incidents and the motive take a very long time to determine, therefore making the article extremely inconvenient to edit as the motive is also often never released to the public. If you want to us terrorism editors to re-discuss what to include, your edits must first be reverted in order to maintain neutrality. Beejsterb (talk) 01:40, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

You see, the thing is, the topic sentences on what to include were decided by us as a group. We had discussions a while ago on whether or not to include suspected terror incidents. We decided yes. This is because literally 95% of all terrorist attacks are only suspected terrorist incidents. Terrorism is defined as a politically motivated attack. If an attacker shows strong signs of having a political motivation, or if the attacks takes place in an area that is prone to daily terror attacks, then the incident is added. Almost every terrorist incident takes a very long time to investigate, therefore we add suspected incidents, it states so in the criteria of the main page, and it was decided that we would include the "unknown motive" piece in the sub-pages for a brief clarification. The problem is, you are not following the criteria. You are reverting any incident which does not fit your own criteria. If you want to change it, then you should be the one to create the discussion at WP:VPP. You cannot just revert edits that actually fit the criteria. Even if you do change it to only include confirmed terrorist incidents, almost every incident will be deleted on this year's pages, so there is no point. You need to stop reverting edits that fit the criteria on the List of terrorist incidents, 2016 and create a discussion instead. Incidents are often deleted if investigators confirm that it is not terrorism.

On the European terror page, all of the recent incidents are also suspected, yet you are only letting the Islamic suspected incidents be included and deleting all others. If you want the article to maintain neutrality, then you must either get rid of a whole bunch of suspected Islamic incidents, or add the suspected right-winged incidents. Heck, the Jo Cox assassinator even stated his intent. For now, I am adding a neutrality flair as I know you will just edit war with me if I try to keep the neutrality of the article. Beejsterb (talk) 23:47, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Please read my response on your talk page, and do assume good faith. Parsley Man (talk) 23:54, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Lavoy

Hi Parsley, looks like you edited the article 6 hrs ago and haven't added to the thread about disputed lead text. Does that mean you're not going to reply because if not, then I'll consider our current BRD cycle completed and will try another bold edit to reflect the various comments that have been made so far. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:59, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I didn't know there was such a discussion going on. I will get to it right away. Parsley Man (talk) 20:12, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll look for your thoughts there.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:16, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Eric Frein merger discussion

Just wanted to see if you would be fine with closing the merger discussion for Eric Frein with keeping the two articles distinct. There hasn't been much conversation in over a week, and the little that we did seem to be having there tended towards the separate article side. I wanted to check with you here before closing myself. Hope all is well! TonyBallioni (talk) 01:02, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

You were warned

Explicitely, at ANI, to stop following me around and hounding me, and yet you just cnanged the title of 2016 New Jersey bombing to 2016 New Jersey explosion without explanation or justification? Are you asking to be blocked?E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:39, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello? How did I follow you there? I noticed there was a link to the New Jersey bombing via 2016 Manhattan explosion (which I've been editing on since day one) and was surprised there was actually an article about it, but chose to edit it. How was I supposed to know you were editing on that article as well? This is exactly what I meant when I claimed you're trying to force me off Wikipedia. Also, is "per 2016 Manhattan explosion" not enough of an explanation for you? We don't know much of the circumstances behind the explosion, and to say it was an intentional bombing is equivalent to jumping to conclusions too early. Parsley Man (talk) 00:44, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. XavierGreen (talk) 00:37, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring, as you did at List of terrorist incidents in September 2016. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:13, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Parsley Man (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I highly apologize for edit-warring yet again. I will admit that I have completely no understanding on what to do in a content dispute and that I have no awareness of any rules or regulations in such scenarios. If you could point those out to me, I promise I will review them and make a better effort not to edit-war yet again. Parsley Man (talk) 18:30, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You can review WP:EDITWAR to start with; it will lead to you WP:Dispute resolution; when you've studied these, you can consider what sort of assurances we will need that you will not simply start edit warring again -- this is, after all, your third block for it. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 19:39, 20 September 2016 (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.

Orlando

Hi, there. You and I have edited other articles about current news before and I can't recall we've ever had much divergence of opinion. I'm thinking in particular about the Malheur occupation. However the problems that drove the FL DOA's fine were quite specific. It is an entity that is not given to levying substantial or even small fines, so this is notable for being the biggest ever. The contention of G4S that it somehow repeated the same "clerical error" about a critical function for ten years seems ludicrous. The psychologist who claimed to have evaluated tests for the corporation apparently never saw a single individual, but simply rubber stamped the hires. My guess is that G4S really didn't care if its employees were wacko or not, but rather it was trying to manufacture and maintain the appearance of legitimate screenings without making any effort to determine if its applicants were actually suitable for the positions for which they were hired or not. It seems they were trying to do this as inexpensively as possible without regard for public safety. Legitimate screening in both the public and the reputable private sector culls a great many applicants. G4S probably wasn't paying enough to hire sufficient appropriate applicants, so it seems to have contented itself with finding warm bodies. This corporate culture isn't confined to Florida or the U.S. as quick review of their history would make clear. Their colossal failure at the 2012 London Olympics is no doubt the worst. The British government had to go into emergency mode to bring in thousands of troops to provide the necessary security for which it had contracted. G4S was unable to screen, hire, train and retain close to having anywhere near the employees it needed for the job. Similarly, its claims that it took the shooter's word for the reason for his departure from the FL DOC can't be taken seriously. He claimed he was fired because he got sick and went home without telling them. In fact, he was escorted off the premises and banned from returning for good reason. I've done lots of hiring for decades, and there had to be red flags all over this guy's presentation that were ignored. One of the basic things one does in HR is to ask prior employers about the potential hire. They are often not willing to be candid, for fear of litigation. However, if there are any questions at all, the question that can be asked and answered without fear of legal proceedings is, "Would you hire this person back?" If the response to that is a simple, "No," that should the end of the process, unless the applicant has disclosed mitigating circumstances for their departure. The other issue was his retention. Other corporate employees had serious complaints about his behavior which were ignored by this employer. When the Sheriff asked that he be removed from the courthouse security, G4S simply moved to him to another position. The text I wrote reflected the sole issue regarding the faking of a decade of critical examination of job suitability, with a solid source. The second reason I'm uncomfortable with the new text and source is that Yahoo is not a news organization. There is no editorial oversight. Someone merely rewrites stories generated by other outlets. I don't think they keep them on line for a terribly long duration, either, so the result of using them as a source is likely to be a proliferation of dead links. I didn't want to simply undo your edit, because I'm sure you had a good reason for deleting my text, but I thought I'd bring it solely to your attention to see if we can get this resolved. I look forward to hearing your thoughts on it. Activist (talk) 09:50, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)@Activist: I'm not following that article and have no opinion on the revert issue you raise. Just chiming in to say it sounds like you are trying to work through a content dispute at a user's talk page. Generally, these discussions belong at the article talk page so other eds can also participate. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:35, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

No, I was trying to avoid an edit war and wanted Parsley Man's feedback. I could have just pushed "Undo," and had it out on the talk page. I respect this editor's opinion, so wanted to see if there was some way we could work it out. Activist (talk) 13:05, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Much thanks for trying to DISCUSS to avoid EW, but I don't think you quite get it... you can ask for another eds feedback at article talk by including {{ping|otherEdtior}}, or by posting your article talk page thread and then at the other user's talk page make a new thread using a pinpoint HELP:DIFF that says something "FYI, I have started a thread that you may be interested in at [[User talk:Parsley_Man#Orlando]]. Either of those options serves your goal of inviting the other editor, while still following the WP:Talk page guidelines "the purpose of article talk pages is to discuss the content of articles". NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:31, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Jesus Christ. I'm sorry, but I'm not even going to attempt to read this if this is just one huge wall of eyesore text. Please separate this into paragraphs so I can read it better. Parsley Man (talk) 20:54, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Are you serious man? You undid my edit for that it "did not appear constructive"? You are a very bias man towards the left And to make things worse for you. HE WAS A TERRORIST!!! Get it through your thick skull, genius. --Zgrillo2004 (talk) 20:32, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

September 2016 - 1RR rule for all Islamic-State related pages

Your recent editing history at 2015 San Bernardino attack shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 article's 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 BRD 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 your 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.
Hello, you have twice summarily deleted new material (direct quotes) from the Los Angeles Times not previously present in the article, each time for different rationales, in less than 18 hours. Unfortunately, as a "bright line" policy, this will have to be advised to moderators. XavierItzm (talk) 20:15, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

September 2016

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

I noticed your recent edit to Malaysia Airlines destinations does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks! Jetstreamer ^Talk 10:11, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Red links

Hi, please don't remove red links to plausible articles. Red links help Wikipedia grow by pointing to the gaps. See Wikipedia:Red link. Thanks. Fences&Windows 10:30, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

If they're plausible articles, I support this too. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:49, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring at 2015 San Bernardino attack

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

1RR violation on a page subject to WP:GS/SCW. The full report is at the edit warring noticeboard. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:37, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Black Lives Matter attack

An incident was added to the terrorist incidents list in which a black person set two white people on fire after a 'heaten argument' on the 29th of September. It doesn't seem like terrorism to me but could you look at it? JBergsma1 (talk) 13:14, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

No. Unless sources called it one. EvergreenFir (talk) 07:14, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

could you please be more careful...

Could you please be more careful? In this edit you unnecessarily rewrote a reference, eroding the utility of the diff mechanism.

In this edit you added a {{cn}} tag to the sentence "Scholars at Lawfare interpreted Monaco's comment as a sign that the Obama Presidency would ask the United States Congress to pass legislation enabling Guantanamo to remain open after U.S. involvement in the Afghan war ended."

While that sentence wasn't specifically referenced, the paragraph had multiple references that substantiated that sentence.

Some wikipedia contributors add multiple instances per paragraph, to the same references. But they are outliers. Most wikipedia contributors rely on a single instance per paragraph.

Now if you read those references, and dispute that the sentence in question was a fair neutral paraphrase of the Lawfare scholars, there are different tags for that. Or you could have substituted a sentence you thought was more fair, or more accurate.

Either way, I request you exercise more caution in your editing. Geo Swan (talk) 14:45, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Then that sentence should've been positioned before the reference like everything else. I don't see what exactly I did wrong... Parsley Man (talk) 19:26, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring

Ok, I can see that you want me blocked for edit warring. But remember one thing, you just returned after you were blocked yourself for two weeks for edit-warring. Please don't be a hypocrite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JBergsma1 (talk • contribs) 19:07, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Black vs. African American

I changed the link on the 2016 shooting of dallas police officers #motive section because the text said "black" and then linked to "African American" instead of "black". So I changed it to "black" The context was about the shooter's race and racial motivations for shooting, and specifying him being an African American (a black American) isn't meaningful, and it makes more sense in the context to link to "black" instead of "African American". Why would you undo something like this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.170.15.249 (talk) 13:46, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Trollhättan school attack

I found a source that supports the school attack as an 'act of terrorism'. It's from a local Swedish newspaper. http://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=2054&artikel=6288905

Can I now add the incident as it meats the criteria? JBergsma1 (talk) 16:27, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Not sure if local sources count... Parsley Man (talk) 17:21, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Shall I ping other users (like EvergreenFir) about what they think of this incident and the source supporting it?JBergsma1 (talk) 20:46, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, sure. I'm not as big of an expert on that attack so I have next to no idea on anything about it. Parsley Man (talk) 21:40, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

I thought you removed this incident from the terrorist attacks by death toll page but it was the Sagamihara stabbings that you removed. My bad... JBergsma1 (talk) 22:11, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Oh... Parsley Man (talk) 22:20, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

IP editors are allowed to remove warnings

They should not remove block notices, but any user (registered or IP) is allowed to remove warnings from their own user talk page, even if they're removing a vandalism warning. The warning can still be found in the page history, and removing a notice is taken as a sign that the user has acknowledged it. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:49, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Halloween cheer!

Happy Halloween!

Hello Parsley Man:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
– -- Dane2007 ^talk 19:19, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Des Moines shooting

I tried to remove this incident from the list of terrorist incidents, but I can see that editors keep adding it again. What is your opinion on this incident? It doesn't seem like a terrorist act to me. JBergsma1 (talk) 21:46, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

The Cenotaph (Hong Kong)

Hello, Parsley, this is anonymous IP user who was ThomasPark02, who was suspected as a sock-puppet. I was shocked when my account was blocked and some of my IP addresses were blocked. However, I think that photo that I uploaded is more necessary for the article because it is newer than current photo. Ebonelm's edits were very unnecessary and inappropriate. I think you can persuade Ebonelm to stop making unnecessary edits and make my newer photo to be in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.138.179.142 (talk) 04:55, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

November 2016

Hi.  Thank you for letting you know. This isn't counting as vandalism is it, I just thought it was, in fact, constructive because of the idea of the event that had happened. Please let me know if it's counting as vandalism so I wont make that mistake again. Thanks! JamesPhoenix3001 (talk) 14:12, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi. I request you stop edit-warring Terrorism in Europe. The LCY incident was classed as terrorism and I DID provide a suitable source, the Independent for that matter. You will be reported if you continue to delete my edits. You are not an expert on the classification of terrorism, the police and newspaper sources are, however. This is classed as a terrorism incident and it is clear your left-wing agenda is the motivation behind your needless and countless edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.30.157.48 (talk) 12:39, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi! So my contributions on the Aaron Lopez article were not "constructive"? Nice euphemism for political censorship, because originally it was removed for "vandalism", ie. specifying with documented sources the background of a person making a claim with a clear conflict of interest, since she is a Jew trying to dismiss potential crimes done by other Jews. But I'm not alone: I can see in the history that over 100 attempts at clarifying the documented occupation of this Mr. Lopez have been outright censored, even though many of them are documented even by Jewish historians, but let's ignore that and call it "irrelevant" or some other sorry excuse to make sure this platform is "properly censored", hiding "unwanted" truths. The article says that all those horrible claims documented by Jewish historians have been dismissed as false by a British historian, but I'm sure no one wants to know that this British historian is a Jew herself. I mean, what could be better when documenting what the Nazis did that Nazi sources, or what Communist Russia did than KGB sources, right? "A British historian denies any Russian wrongdoing" is much more constructive than "A KGB British historian denies any Russian wrongdoing". Adding "KGB" here would be non-constructive and clearly "vandalism", right? If the claim of this Jewish historian had nothing to do with Jews, I would have considered the addition of "Jew" irrelevant myself, if not aggressive or nasty, but she is talking about Jews, and that is called "conflict of interest", no matter how you look at it. I know the trick: if it's hard to prove, deny it; if it is clearly demonstrable, censor it with some sorry excuse abusing control over the flow of information until everyone believes it. Let's just call this FACT "non-constructive" and censor something many people would have found relevant, because whoever controls the information, controls the narrative. But never mind, because I know how terribly biased and laughably unreliable Wikipedia is. I wish you had simply written to me to tell me that you guys are in power and you don't give a straw about people who want to tell the truth. Your hypocrisy and contempt for human dignity is beyond deplorable. Your manipulation and authoritarianism disguised as fair and unbiased through this PC freak show is a testimony to your lack of morals and principles. Have a nice day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.24.100.38 (talk) 21:37, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

2016 NY & NJ bombings: Imprisonment

Hey, PM! The latest update made the Imprisonment section you added really small. You wanna take a look and see if the section can be merged? Or, to keep the section in place, maybe move the stuff that's under "Federal prosecution" about him being transferred to a different prison. Cheers! StrokeOfMidnight (talk) 03:24, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Bare URLs

You and I are going to be at odds on the Trump protest article. User:Trackinfo#Linkrot, I do not use the goofy wiki-formatting of sources. I do not believe in it. I think it is an unnecessary waste of time. Your placing of the tags, now in multiple places, will not change that. Further, a tag defaces the article, particularly at the very top of the article. I equate it with vandalism. Most of our readers don't know what it means. They just think there is a problem with the article. There is no problem with the content of the article. It is only YOUR problem relating to the way I, and many other editors, add our sources. Feel free to try to convince me of some useful or necessary function of that formatting privately. My talk page is open. No other editor has been able to come up with an argument. I clearly have provided the source for the content I add and that is what is required. Or if it bothers you so much, push the damned refill button yourself. I think it is obvious I will continue to add to the article and will keep adding sources. Other editors are behaving the same way. But do not take your complaints about my work and the work of others into the public forum. Remove the tag. Trackinfo (talk) 08:37, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

'Those charged' vs 'suspected accomplices' on Nice attack

I probably should have brought my Q. here initially, since it was genuinely an editor-to-editoe Q. I made a point of saying that I thought your version OK, so there is no question of yours not being clear, or of failing foul of any guideline that I know of. I thought my version marginally better, since it stuck to the facts (ie these people have been charged) and avoided 'suspected' anything, or the complexities of 'complicity' in Eng or Fr law.

I genuinely wanted to know what I had missed, why it needed to be changed. In my limited dealings with you, I have gained an impression of someone trying to uphold both the spirit and letter of WP, so I thought you must have had a good reason, but I still don't know what it was. It isn't worth arguing about though, yours is OK. The Nice article is on my watchlist only out of a sense of responsibility, having been involved in its early days, but I would feel happy not to feel so obliged.

One small suggestion, if 'accomplices' is kept, it should probably be 'Alleged', since charges take it far beyond mere suspicion. Pincrete (talk) 23:30, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Trump Protests

Parsley Man, I hope this is how I'm supposed to communicate with you. In regards to the edits on the Trump Protests. I thought definition would be good enough, sorry, but before I continue I'll just clear some other sources that show that the definition, combined with the news reports show how the post-election protests are aimed for a coup and although perhaps not a goal, their actions have become domestic terrorism by definition. So perhaps "goals" is the wrong place for that fact.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-donald-trump-protests-20161109-story.html

"From New England to heartland cities like Kansas City and along the West Coast, demonstrators bore flags and effigies of the president-elect, disrupting traffic and declaring that they refused to accept Trump's victory."

disrupting traffic in order to get their political way constitutes terrorism, domestic terrorism specifically.

"carrying signs that said "Impeach Trump" and "Abolish Electoral College." "

this shows their intentions of invalidating the election results

"In Oregon, dozens of people blocked traffic in downtown Portland, burned American flags and forced a delay for trains on two light-rail lines."

more domestic terrorism with the forced delay of public transit and blocking traffic. Burning the flag is technically a felony too, but rarely ever prosecuted over, so could remove that portion, where as the interference with public transit to influence politics is definitely the definition of domestic terrorism.

"chanted "hey, hey, ho, ho Donald Trump has got to go." and "Impeach Trump." "

another direct statement of their intent to change the outcome of a valid/constitutional election

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/11/donald-trump-victory-protests-161110004033819.html

"Demonstrators attacked storefront windows and set garbage and tyres ablaze late on Tuesday in the business district of Oakland, California."

Violence and destruction in order to obtain a political agenda, again, domestic terrorism by definition

http://nypost.com/2016/11/11/assassination-threats-against-trump-flood-twitter-after-election-shocker/ I don't think I need to even pick out specific points on this to demonstrate how this is considered domestic terrorism and intending to create a coup to replace the President Elect with their choice for president.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/11/10/trump-protests-intensify-as-doubts-swirl-about-spontaneity.html (I know people who are anti-trump tend to not like Fox News, but it's still considered a valid media outlet)

"demonstrators are burning flags and effigies of the president-elect while declaring that they refuse to accept Trump’s victory"

direct language of wanting a coup - refusing to accept the results of a valid election "in the city of New Orleans where protesters wound up defacing the Lee Memorial, spray painting “Die Whites Die” and “F--- Trump” and “F--- White People.”" obvious domestic terrorism using fear and the threat of violence for political purposes "Other messages scrawled on the memorial included "F--- Pence" and "We are ungovernable" next to a symbol of the letter "A" in a circle " anti-government sentiment, again, considered domestic terrorism

So... with all that, perhaps "Goals" was not the place to put the terrorism, since that's more of a tactic than a goal. Perhaps I could make a subsection on how some of the "protests" post-election are technically not protests and actually terrorism? I do believe that given those sources, the coup would be an appropriate goal to list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zionvier (talk • contribs) 06:44, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for getting my nose in here but a lot of these designations as "domestic terrorism" and other statements reminds me of the allegations that the socialist Venezuelan government makes against people that demonstrate there. This is weird hearing this argument coming in defense of the American right when it is also used by the Venezuelan left. American and Venezuelan protests are pretty similar, though Venezuelan protests have the potential to be more violent due to the crime that is prevalent in the country. Anyways, they both block streets, which is a nuisance, but "domestic terrorism"? Really? I don't think blocking traffic is violent or trying to instill fear. I don't deny that there are some fringe people out there they may try to be violent (breaking things, vandalizing, being dumb in general), but just like in Venezuela, the overall goal of protests are not "domestic terrorism", but to show that a large portion of the population is unhappy and would like to express their opinion. I think using sensational descriptions like that are dangerous as they polarize the public, much like what occurs in Venezuela. I'm sorry if I misunderstood what was said above, but we need to remain accurate on Wikipedia.--ZiaLater (talk) 08:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Re: November 2016

Hello, I assume you're referring to my edits to 2016 Nice attack. If so, it was a case of copying from my text editor into the wrong place. Please don't template the regulars in situations like that. Graham87 08:52, 17 November 2016 (UTC)s

False news reports about the protests

Hi!

I saw that you had reverted my edits, lets discuss here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Protests_against_Donald_Trump#False_news_reports_about_the_protests Victor Grigas (talk) 02:55, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

You said An edit you recently made seemed to be a test and has been removed.

But you neglected to tell me what it was and why you thought it was a test. Please specify. Thanks.Grace and peace thru the Lord Jesus (talk) 01:15, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes California

Per WP:CITEVAR, do not change established citation styles without consensus, as you've done twice without even a rationale at Yes California. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:31, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

How did you find me? Parsley Man (talk) 06:33, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Given your block log, it appears you're quite familiar with the rules on editwarring, so please stop it now. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:35, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

My block log has nothing to do with this. Parsley Man (talk) 06:37, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

Obviously you saw this coming. I can only wonder why you would do this. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:47, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

November 2016

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

I noticed your recent edit to 2015 San Bernardino attack does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks!--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:34, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

disrespect

I notice you casting doubts on my trustworthiness on a general Talk page,18Nov02:33, which I consider a personal attack. --Corriebertus (talk) 07:06, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Just please take back that p.a. from that posting of yours, or I'll have to report it. --Corriebertus (talk) 08:18, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

I take it back. Parsley Man (talk) 08:36, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your intention to take it back. In practice, 'taking back' in a situation like this, means: going back to that posting of yours and simply remove those (personal-attacking-)words from your own posting. This is fully allowed, it is even recommended by Wikipedia, somewhere, on one of their pages bearing on this type of situations. --Corriebertus (talk) 09:27, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, I'm too sleepy and irate to find that message in that wall of text and undo it, so you can do it. But that doesn't mean I'm gonna back off from my intent on blocking classification of the Nice attack as terrorism until we find something conclusive. Parsley Man (talk) 09:36, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Parsley Man. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Welcoming blocked users

Why are you doing that? :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:39, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Why? Is there a Wikipedia policy against that? Parsley Man (talk) 05:44, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Why? Because the user is blocked. We want them to see the block notice, not a block notice followed by a welcome template. That is common sense. And no, there is no policy that I know of, but there is Wikipedia:Welcoming committee#Welcoming etiquette. Anyhow, please stop. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:50, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Sorry. :( Parsley Man (talk) 06:27, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

No worries, my friend. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:35, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi

I think that there has been a misunderstanding here. WP:IDONTLIKEIT can be used as a rationale, and is not a personal attack. Next time, please bring your concerns or questions up with the user it concerns directly for a discussion on the matter. The ANI is not meant to be used to raise such concerns. When I posted my comments they were made in a AfD discussion, a discussion needs input. It might not always be that those inputs are in your favor but that does not mean they are personal attacks. Simply input on an articles AfD. Hope that settles your concerns. Regards,--BabbaQ (talk) 23:03, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I beg to differ. Those posts seriously remind me of a kid who's having a temper tantrum. Parsley Man (talk) 23:15, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

OK, I see. You are not interested in having a discussion. And I respect that. Time to move on. Regards,--BabbaQ (talk) 23:16, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Trust me, that Azusa article really isn't that notable. I fail to see what kind of impact it has in the long term. You only seem to want to keep it because, what, it's a shooting? That just happened to take place on Election Day. Please. Parsley Man (talk) 23:17, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Parsley Man, I agree with you about the notability of the topic and have supported deleting it, but please listen to the people who are telling you that your comments are inappropriate. It's not a personal attack or a temper tantrum for BabbaQ to tell you why he feels that the topic is notable, or that he doesn't believe that your arguments are based in Wikipedia policy, which is all his reference to "IDONTLIKEIT" means. If you keep lashing out, you will be the one who ends up blocked for disruption, and this is a truly lame thing over which to try to martyr yourself. ‑ Iridescent 23:23, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I understand IDONTLIKEIT is an essay and not a policy, but please, closely read the way these posts are worded. I don't understand how or why this is being overlooked. They have to be, at the very least, failures to assume good faith. Parsley Man (talk) 23:25, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Clarification of my ANI comments

The welcome message at the top of WP:ANI includes: "Before posting a grievance about a user here, please consider discussing the issue with them on their user talk page." You could have started a discussion on BabbaQ's talk page about the use of IDONTLIKEIT in AfDs instead of starting the discussion at WP:ANI. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 23:37, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

My apologies, I never knew that was there. I'll be sure to keep that in mind in the future. Parsley Man (talk) 23:40, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Trump Protests

Unless someone else steps up I am probably going to close the RfC tomorrow. It is so lopsided that I believe it will be non-controversial. Unfortunately that is only the beginning. There are a small number of diehards who will be very unhappy. I hope I am overreacting but I think we should be prepared for something akin to guerilla warfare when we start fixing this train-wreck. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:48, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

You got that right. Don't worry, I'm ready for whatever might happen when we begin the fixes. Parsley Man (talk) 04:30, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Shooting of Benjamin Marconi has been nominated for Did You Know

Hello, Parsley Man. Shooting of Benjamin Marconi, an article you either created or to which you significantly contributed,has been nominated to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page as part of Did you know. You can see the hook and the discussion here. You are welcome to participate! Thank you. APersonBot (talk!) 12:02, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

STOP IT!

Stop with your annoying welcomes, telling me to register, what are the rules. I have recieved it dozens of times in the past minth. I don't need to create an account as I do not seem to need it. I have been editing for about a year here and so far no articles have appealed snough to stay permanently and create an account. Asides from that, I learned the rules already. I know them but it's getting pretty annoying when editors keep sending me the same thing time after time. PLEASE STOP IT! 117.199.90.175 (talk) 01:02, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

...I've only sent you one welcome notice... Parsley Man (talk) 01:06, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Pardon me for interjecting but I think the IP user likely uses a floating IP and so would be welcomed every time an editor observes their edits and sees they haven't been welcomed. (I'm not sure why they've posted here as if you were solely responsible.) To the IP user, if you don't want to keep being welcomed every time you use a different IP, you will need to register a username. If you don't want to register a username, that is your choice and right, but then you will have to put up with welcome messages from users who won't realize your situation. 331dot (talk) 01:10, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes you have Parsley. You might not recognise me, highly unlikely because I don't have an account but you have. 117.199.90.175 (talk) 01:16, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, I'm sorry if I'm annoying you, but like 331dot said, if you want to avoid these welcome notices you're going to have to sign up. Especially since you appear to be using a floating IP. I just want to be friendly and cordial to any new users, both unsigned and signed. Parsley Man (talk) 01:20, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

A floating IP address means it changes periodically. Consequently we have no idea who you are. You look like a new IP editor and we do try to be friendly to newcomers. I regret the apparent irritation but as others have noted I really don't see what can be done about it since you don't want to sign up for an account. The best I can do is suggest ignoring the messages. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:28, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

right back at you.

Your recent editing history at 2016 Ohio State University attack shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 BRD 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 your 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.SWF88 (talk) 02:57, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Happy Wikibirthday and thank you for your substantial contributions to making Wikipedia a respected encyclopedia. - Mr X 20:22, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Back off

Do you really want to be dragged back to ANI? Can you truly be ignorat of the fact that The Daily Beast took over Newsweek and has real journalists, along with clickbait? I am awaiting an apology for this [1] vincictive edit. the vindictive revert of that item and a revert of your removal of the Alon Shavut link.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:12, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

@E.M.Gregory: You need to tone down too. DailyBeast is still questionable. Take it to RSN. Otherwise be patient and wait for better source. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:14, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

User:EvergreenFir. please read the particular Daily Beast article in quesiton, and you will see the substantive sourcing that I saw. I am still awaiting an apology from Parsley Man.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:45, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I remind you that you were instructed at ANI on 31 July 2016 : "Parsley Man will leave E.M.Gregory alone." Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive930 (section). I ask that you commence to do so.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:44, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
- So you're asking me to stop editing on the article? Yeah, no... Parsley Man (talk) 01:06, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Don't be disingenuous. I am warning you to back off from trivial, annoying targeting of my edits, as here [2]. And, as I and others have long requested, to slow down and think before acting.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:30, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I didn't know that was yours. I've been editing nonstop on that article and not once did you speak up until now, so I'm not sure what the problem was. Parsley Man (talk) 20:04, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Examples

There is a problem with your tendency to WP:POVRAILROAD bully me and other, less experienced editors. I give you full credit for the enormous amount of time you have spent learning all the ropes, it certainly puts ordinary mortals who edit once in a while at an enormous disadvantage.

Take, for example, your WP:POVRAILROAD attitude on the simple matter of adding 2014 Alon Shvut stabbing attack to the See Also section at 2016 Ohio State University attack. You removed it and said [3]. I explained that the 2 attacks had an unusual but identical m.o. (terrorist rams car into crowd, then jumps out and starts stabbing people). I believe that I had already explained that in my edit putting the link onto the page. You next asserted that limiting links to attacks within the U.S. was a "perfectly acceptable inclusion criteria." [4]. And kept commenting as the discussion drifted off in a different direction. Next day I returned to the topic. You shifted tactics,asserting a standard that does not, in fact exist. [5] This is precisely the sort of RAILROAD approach that enables POV editors to WP:OWN articles by intimidating less pugnacious and less experienced editors. Finally, another editor weighed in , "Why? The Alon Shvut attack was someone driving into a crowd and then stabbing people. That is a perfect "See Also" candidate." At which point you conceded the point. I have traced this single example at length, because you have been behaving this was since we first met. And I want you to repent and sin no more.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:58, 30 November 2016 (UTC)