User talk:Parsley Man/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. 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.

Hi there! I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. Recently, you reverted my fix to 2014 Isla Vista killings.

If you did this because the references should be removed from the article, you have misunderstood the situation. Most likely, the article originally contained both <ref name="foo">...</ref> and one or more <ref name="foo"/> referring to it. Someone then removed the <ref name="foo">...</ref> but left the <ref name="foo"/>, which results in a big red error in the article. I replaced one of the remaining <ref name="foo"/> with a copy of the <ref name="foo">...</ref>; I did not re-insert the reference to where it was deleted, I just replaced one of the remaining instances. What you need to do to fix it is to make sure you remove all instances of the named reference so as to not leave any big red error.

If you reverted because I made an actual mistake, please be sure to also correct any reference errors in the page so I won't come back and make the same mistake again. Also, please post an error report at User talk:AnomieBOT so my operator can fix me! If the error is so urgent that I need to be stopped, also post a message at User:AnomieBOT/shutoff/OrphanReferenceFixer. Thanks! AnomieBOT⚡ 02:16, 3 January 2016 (UTC) If you do not wish to receive this message in the future, add {{bots|optout=AnomieBOT-OrphanReferenceFixer}} to your talk page.

<!-He is, but no need to mention it here I suppose..--> Thank you! Super48paul (talk) 07:53, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi there! 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:

I noticed your recent edit to Qantas Flight 32 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:

• User contributions
• Recent changes
• Watchlists
• Revision differences
• IRC channels
• Related changes
• New pages list and
• Article editing history

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks! Jetstreamer ^Talk 02:20, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

thanks. I was looking for one, and couldn't locate it. Which is really the only reason I decided to create one. I couldn't find anything specifically on this, on Wikipedia yet. But there is one already, made a little before I started mine. So it's fine. Thank you. Redzemp (talk) 01:33, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

keep it up, and you'll get reported. For edit-warring and violation of WP:Civil. You gave no rationale for your removal of sourced edit, and modifications. Just blatant rude undoing and removing. I warned you already. What's with you? You don't communicate. You're just trolling and warring it seems, against WP policy. You're skating on thin ice. You'll be on ANI, with links showing what you're doing. Regards. Redzemp (talk) 01:35, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I have been giving rationale. What're you talking about? Parsley Man (talk) 01:37, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Not really. I didn't see any explanation given for your deleting of the "amazing he survived" quote (that was right in the cited source) of the police commissioner. Also, you gave no reason for the other things. The perp did NOT say "I pledge allegiance to the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant", but simply "I pledge allegiance to ISIS". And also, no one really says "police department officer" but simply "police officer". Can't have things sounding too wordy, awkward, and unnecessary, especially in the lede. I see that you have done some good work on the article, but you tend to get a bit into ownership tendencies, and suppressing of sourced material sometimes for various reasons. We gotta be careful with that. Regards. Redzemp (talk) 01:48, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

It's not we have to exactly quote it word for word from the source, otherwise that's plagiarizing if it lacks the quotation marks. If you've noticed, I've also tried to leave the abbreviation in. Parsley Man (talk) 01:51, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Ok, Parsley Man, but you still didn't answer why you initially removed the "amazing he survived" from the Commissioner, that was in the cited source, with no explanation given. (Later it's there modified, ok, but at first you REMOVED it completely, with no rationale or reason given.) Was just curious as to why you deleted that at first. What problem exactly did you have with that edit that you removed that in one swoop along with everything else? Redzemp (talk) 22:22, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

What name/s did you edit under before your recent appearance as Parsley Man? E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:47, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Why? Parsley Man (talk) 00:57, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

• WP:Multiple accounts.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:18, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Then I don't have any, I guess. I'm using a bit of an old computer, just so you know. Parsley Man (talk) 01:59, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I think six or seven is enough for columns, what's your standard? MB298 (talk) 00:14, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Around 10-15. Parsley Man (talk) 02:00, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi, we both posted at the same time, creating an edit conflict. I have no interest or desire to edit war, and generally complain at ANI/AE when others show that they do. Suppose we talk about the different versions of the lead at article talk page insetad, with eye toward WP:NPOV [{WP:VERIFICATION]] and WP:WEIGHT? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:47, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you 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.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:53, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello! If you don't know, the above scary message is just an FYI and does not imply you've done anything wrong. Before I sent this to you, I sent it to myself! And I plan to send it to editors at the Occupation article going forward. I don't mean to get off on the wrong foot with anyone. Quite the opposite. This is all about keeping things on an even keel. Feel free to tell me what you think of my leaving this here on my talk page, or talk about anything else for that matter. Cheers NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:00, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blaine Cooper. Thanks. Reinoutr (talk) 07:10, 15 January 2016 (UTC) --07:10, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Ward (sheriff). Thanks. Reinoutr (talk) 17:58, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Hey Parsley Man, obviously since we are both editing articles in relation to the standoff I've been looking at a bunch of your diffs. I like a lot of them. However, I would ask that you please try and make fewer purely cosmetic edits. Those of us with expanded watchlists (showing more than simply the most recent edit for each article) get pretty annoyed when pointless edits clog up the screen.

Some recent examples from Malheur National Wildlife Refuge include this and this. Neither of these edits affected visual output or software behavior in any way whatsoever. (Double spaces between sentences are a pet peeve of mine too, but thankfully, the MediaWiki software automatically strips them when rendering a page. There could be 200 spaces there, and it wouldn't matter. Bots are actually forbidden from changing things like that in the absence of more substantive edits.)

This most recent edit not only does not affect output in any way, but removing spaces between parameters actually makes the editing screen more difficult to use for some people (i.e., me, as it now renders in the editor with many jagged line breaks caused by long urls + parameters with no spaces. If you have a high-resolution monitor, you probably don't notice this, but some of us still cling to our crappy old computers.).

Just to leave this on a positive note, I love edits like what you did with the first line you edited here, it's a real skill to copyedit for concision. Thanks for all you do, but please at least pause to wonder if some of the backend stuff is actually needed. Take care - Antepenultimate (talk) 04:43, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

You may want to participate in Talk:Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge#"Occupiers" vs "Militants" (if you haven't already), as I have noticed you have changed some of the terms used in the article. MB298 (talk) 05:17, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited January 2016 Iraq attacks, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Diyala. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm sure multiple editors have informed you about this before. But if you have a problem with an article's content use the talk page to discuss it rather than continuously reverting and using edit summaries to state your claim. Numerous editors have engaged in discussion on the talk page at Talk:2016 Ouagadougou attacks, but you've never engaged with the rest of us. Jolly Ω Janner 01:33, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Category:Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. --Another Believer _(Talk) 21:42, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for filling in the data as I've added citations at Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, I know I'm terrible at trying to get those citation templates filled out with all the details because I can never remember what tags go in what order.

But with that, I'm quitting dealing with that article, it's quite obvious that "NewsAndEventsGuy" has a goal of just running me off of it and I see no point in dealing with his and Bondezegou's shenanigans any further. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 15:34, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Believe this or not, Prostetnic, I don't want you to go. It would help, though, if you take a day or two to study the behavioral stuff about consensus, dispute resolution, assuming good faith, and so on. I love vigorous logic based debate, but this place only really works if we adhere to the standards required for cooperation. Up to you, but I'd love to see you stick around. My drafting of the formal complaint was not intended to drive you off, it was intended to help all of us collectively be more effective. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:05, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

And I don't believe you. Nobody starts writing up a hit piece trying to get someone blocked for any other reason than to threaten them. So screw you. You win, NewsAndEventsguy. I quit the article. You get your desire, you ran someone else off. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 16:45, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

No. I'm not willing to be threatened by people who aren't interested in working with others, just demanding their way or the highway without even a discussion. And I'm not willing to take "instructions" from such clearly incivil individuals. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 02:16, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

FYI 1, 2, 3. Your mileage may vary. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 03:22, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi while I agree and appreciate with your edits, you're probably way past WP:3RR. Since the other ed is anew account I left the standard template and a much longer custom DONTBITE explanation at their user talkNewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 08:42, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Do not move or rename a page by copying/pasting its content, because doing so fragments the edit history. Wikipedia's copyright license requires acknowledgement of all contributors, and editors continue to hold copyright on their contributions unless they specifically give up this right. Hence it is required that edit histories be preserved for all major contributions until the normal copyright expires. MB298 (talk) 20:00, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. But I was unable to redirect the page to the original title because it wouldn't let me, for whatever reason, and the title is not very appropriate considering the subject. Parsley Man (talk) 20:04, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Just wanted to point out that a edit summary like this one is just unnecessary and in the end it is just an AfD for ONE article. Please think one more time before pressing Save page next time. Regards,--BabbaQ (talk) 18:18, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

It's called a dummy edit, and undoing them is genereally frowned on. The extra spaces do not show up in the generated articles. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:04, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

A lack of understanding is not a reason to revert, but, to explain: the existing citations to court documents (briefs and a transcript) did a poor job of describing them. I fixed them and gave them proper names while I was at it (COURT2 is hardly a meaningful name). Hopefully this clears the matter up. Oh—I see you reverted my changes even when I explained them in the edit summary. What you call "chang[ing] the titles" is what most of us would call improving accuracy, and, moreover, if all I did was "just change[] the titles," what is your objection?

I must say you're coming across as extremely surly and difficult here, and, looking at the recent comments on your talk page, I see that I'm not the only one who feels your editing style is unhelpful.

—  Rebbing  talk  03:28, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

:'( Parsley Man (talk) 03:30, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you're mocking me or apologizing, but no matter: another editor has reinstated my citation changes. Do you plan to leave them alone? If not, please do me the courtesy of saying so (and reverting them) now, so I can go ahead and take this to the article talk page while it's fresh on my mind. Thank you! —  Rebbing  talk  03:45, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Parsley_Man reported by User:Rebbing (Result: ). Thank you. —  Rebbing  talk  17:59, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

You are invited to respond at respond at the complaint. At first sight it appears you have broken WP:3RR, so you are risking a block. Your response could make a difference. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 20:53, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Parsley Man, you've been annoying other editors on a high-traffic article because you are pretending to be immune from 3RR enforcement. Please take the time to respond at the noticeboard. You've received several warnings during January. If there is no other way to get your attention an admin might be tempted to block your account. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 05:13, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I've got no problem with your edits, Parsley, just chiming in to say Ed is giving good advice. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 06:52, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Parsley,

Two min after I reverted the youtube vid's use as a RS for article text (with ed sum citing WP:Original research) you re-reverted with (with ed sum ("some fixes") without any discussion. I assume this was inadvertent. Please self revert and start a talk thread to discuss whether the vid's use in that context is allowed under our rules. Certainly its ok as an ext link and I think as a graphic, but we shouldn't be relying on the vid to satisfy WP:Verification because that's the definition of WP:OR or so it seems to me. But I digress... this debat should be at article talk so others can agree/disagree as well. can you remove the link please and start the thread if you really really want to use it that way? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:59, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, that was an accident. I don't even know how that happened; I was not aiming to make any changes to the video. Parsley Man (talk) 20:14, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

That's what I thought, thanks for pouncing on the fix. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:32, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello Mr. Parsley Man. I'm letting this revert stand, but have some comments about it.

• I don't see what's wrong with "fatally" instead of "to death" there. They seem to work equally well, and the former uses half as many words.
• When you revert something besides clear vandalism, which this clearly was not, please say something in your edit summary.
• I know it was a lowly IP with no history. But that doesn't make them deserving of the usual vandal treatment.

Have a great day. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:06, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi there! 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:

I noticed your recent edit to Cliven Bundy does not have an edit summary. Please provide edit summaries, especially when removing content from articles.

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! MB298 (talk) 19:36, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Please see WP:COMMONNAME. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 22:08, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Why? What's wrong? Parsley Man (talk) 22:09, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

This rename: [1] Spirit Ethanol (talk) 22:14, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I see. Parsley Man (talk) 22:14, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

parsley, following me around and making edits like this [2] on random AFD discussions where I am participating is disruptive. You give noevidence that you have familiarized yourself with the issues in the particular deletion discussion, or explored the topics notability. The effect is disruptive, since editors may be misled into thinking that you have case a considered and researched iVote. It is mere Wikipedia:Disruptive editing which, as we both know, is a mere part of your WP:WIKIHOUNDING me. Editors who work hard at AFD do not need your disruptive intrusion there. I get that you came back to Wikipedia under a new name after you were apparantely blocked for some cause or othter. Please make an attempt to be collegial, constructive, and to stop casting uninformed and unconsidered iVotes just to annoy me. the other editors working at those discussion have done nothing to deserve this. Their time is valuable, and you're wasting it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:32, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I was not following you out of spite. I just wanted access to AfD votes and I didn't know how to find them. Since you're an active participant, I just used your history to get into them. Yes, my votes are poor, but I've seen such votes casted before in some places and I thought it'd be appropriate. Also, what makes you think I came back under a new name after being blocked? This is my first account. Parsley Man (talk) 01:14, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

The style and tone of your early edits, and your familiarity with wikipedia rules and lingo. Your defensiveness when asked about former accounts.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:08, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Of course one of those rules is WP:AGF. I've always viewed vague expressions of suspicion as being unhelpful to a constructive atmosphere. That said, if there is sufficient evidence of sockpuppetry to overcome the initial AGF then the place to talk about it is WP:SPI. The main issue in the opening post is a claim of wikihounding. Is that still the main issue, or is the main issue something else? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:48, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, this style, tone, and familiarity is because I've been examining Wikipedia's overall writing style closely. And who says I'm being defensive? Parsley Man (talk) 23:25, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

The issue, User:NewsAndEventsGuy, is wikihounding. His hounding is clever; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/January 2016 Paris police station attack (2nd nomination), where the day after I began this discussion on this page, he voted in agreement with me after weeks of following me to many AFDs to vote "per nom" opposite to however I had iVoted. Parsely and I have very different perspectives on terrorist attacks, but it is hard to imagine his interest in, for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phil Waldrep, as anything other than targeted hounding of me . In addition to small annoyances, such as the fact that like many editors I prefer notes reflist|2 for easier scanning, and he regularly switches pages I'm working on back to "em" (see:Rafik Yousef), Parsley, for example, recently started a pointless AFD at an article, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rafik Yousef, that I created months ago. The only editor who seconded Parsely was AusLondoner, another wikilawyer who stays withing the bounds of Wikipedia rules while he (Auslander) conducts a jihad to cleanse Wikipedia of as much material on Islamist terrorism as he can manage, in part by making editing so unpleasant for editors who disagree with him that they will leave. I find editing fun and interesting on many topics, but on terrorism, editing feels like being in London during the Blitz.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:56, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Focus on the main issue is good. I hope you two can work it out. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:29, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

If I can recall, only one person seconded your vote too and the AfD was closed before anyone else could participate, so it wasn't exactly as pointless as much as it somehow didn't have enough time. Also, I'm not allowed to edit on any article and vote however I see fit? What in the world? Look, I'm sorry I made you feel harassed because I used your search history to access random articles to edit, but that seriously wasn't the intention. I do it with a few others too occasionally. Parsley Man (talk) 19:57, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

In fact, it was closed by a highly experienced editor after the usual 7-day period during which it drew an ordinary amount of attention for a well-sourced article on a prima facie notable event (a well-documented assassination attempt on a Prime Minister).E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:37, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

There's a usual seven-day period? I'm pretty sure these AfDs take longer than that... Parsley Man (talk) 02:52, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

If you want random, I can think of a lot of better ways that avoid even the appearance of hounding. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:56, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Please, do enlighten me. Parsley Man (talk) 22:38, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Click "Random article" on the left, or press Alt-Shift-X. Or join the Wikipedia:Random page patrol. Or place cursor in search box. Hit a random key, maybe hit another, scan list of possible hits, pick one. Or go to the list of wikipedia projects, open a project, scan the articles, pick one. Or start at one article, click a random see also and from there click "what links here" and open one of those. Then roll some dice. Repeat sequence that many times. Edit wherever you end up. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:04, 18 February 2016 (UTC) PS Or keep working on the Occupy article, where I appreciate your effort! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:05, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

All right, thank you for the pointers! I'll be sure to do just that! :D Parsley Man (talk) 02:50, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

FYI, read WP:Before. Good fundamental insight into the WP:PROD process. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 00:25, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on 2015 San Bernardino attack. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
Please use references when making changes to any article. TJH2018 (talk) 22:22, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

With respect to your note, I contacted a source within the FBI yesterday and before quickly getting a response had found a Guardian citation for and the name of the first defendant who was charged in the indictment but not named, and posted his name, age and the details of the arrest. I had found those details in the Portland paper. Then I heard back from the FBI with the info that Travis Cox had not yet been arrested but his name on the indictment was no longer redacted. That's why I don't have a citation. Since he has not been arrested, there is no story about that I could locate despite a diligent search. I posted that info because the section title is "arrests" so it would lead readers to think he had been arrested when he hadn't been. My info about the non-arrest is solid, but it's a primary source, not an RSS. Do you want a URL for the unredacted indictment? It's on PACER as well. Activist (talk) 08:15, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

The Malheur Occupation Barnstar

---

For tireless work on the Malheur article from day one. MB298 (talk) 21:41, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited LaVoy Finicum, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Shrapnel. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:18, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours 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.  -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 02:32, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi,

why did you revert my modification? Here in France, many media reported that he is only French. This is very important in the current debate, because here in France, counter-terrorism laws focused on binationals, so media made a point on being accurate on this. Barraki (talk) 21:29, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I couldn't understand the citation. Parsley Man (talk) 21:34, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi there! 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:

I noticed your recent edit to 2016 Brussels bombings‎ 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! Spirit Ethanol (talk) 20:22, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

What happened here? --John (talk) 21:06, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

You seem to have undone some stuff that was not needed in the infobox. Parsley Man (talk) 21:07, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

You seem to have made a revert rather than a partial revert which is what was needed. --John (talk) 21:09, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry; lots of people were editing at once and I was kind of in a rush at the moment so I just did it the quicker way so everything would get through without causing an edit conflict. Parsley Man (talk) 21:11, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Please read this notification carefully, it contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

A community decision has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to the Syrian Civil War and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, such as 2016 Brussels bombings, which you have recently edited. The details of these sanctions are described here. All pages that are broadly related to these topics are subject to a one revert per twenty-four hours restriction, as described here.

General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions. RGloucester — ☎ 22:01, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Do NOT remove references and facts. If you don't like the headers, you may try to edit them out but do not remove references and facts. Do you dispute that 81 people were injured? Ensign Hapuna of the Royal Hawaiian Navy (talk) 23:22, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

No, I'm not disputing that, but there was no need for that many paragraphs. Parsley Man (talk) 23:26, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that some edits performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. They are as follows:

• On the 2015 San Bernardino attack page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)
• On the FBI–Apple encryption dispute page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check these pages and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:32, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello. America is a huge player on the world stage, whether you (or I) like that fact or not. Wholesale removal of section with lame front excuses but really for "I DON'T LIKE" reasons is against Wikipedia policy. Also was gonna put in Vice President Biden response, NOT JUST "presidential candidates", before unwarranted "I don't like" removal (disrespectfully done twice now), but never got the chance. Put it in now with ref....restored... Remove again, be reverted. Or bring to Talk page. (You're already on thin ice regarding the main article, with other editors, so please don't edit-war here. Thanks.) Regards. Redzemp (talk) 21:19, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Read my edit summary for the second reversion. Parsley Man (talk) 21:21, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

A user is allowed to remove anything he wants from HIS OWN TALK PAGE. Parsley, seriously, don't do that again, and refrain from me as much as possible... Bother me again with your rude nonsense like that, you'll be reported (as other editors will do with you too). As far as your I don't like removals, with no real valid WP rationale, I go by WP policy, notability, 3RR, and/or consensus. If consensus (even if wrong) is strongly against the section being there, I abide by it. But nothing has been determined, on Talk or anywhere. Remove again, without proper or fair discussion, you'll be reverted. Within 3RR. Again, though, don't be silly in restoring stuff on my own talk page... Read up on the Wikipedia policy on that. A person's own talk page is not a regular article talk page. A contributor has the right to remove or put in anything he or she wants. Not sure how you don't know that, at this point. Regards. Redzemp (talk) 21:38, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Parsley Man reported by User:Firebrace (Result: ). Thank you. Firebrace (talk) 22:26, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

User Page I've been reading your helpful edits for months but only noticed tonight that you don't have a USER page, so your handle is always shown in red. I must admit I was confused, since there was a TALK page link that was working. Do you think it would be helpful if you created a brief USER page for yourself? It's your call, of course. My USER page is just a one-liner. Thanks. Activist (talk) 06:37, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Your Sandbox I tried to access your Sandbox, as you requested, and can't "see" listed in the header, so can't figure out how to do so. I've never tried to look at anyone's USER page, so this might not be possible, except for the page owner. It may have something to do with your lack of a USER page. Could you paste what you have so far to your USER page? Thanks! Activist (talk) 08:42, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

By header, you mean the stuff that's at the top right corner of the Wikipedia screen, right? The one that also has "Contributions" and "Log Out"? Parsley Man (talk) 17:29, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Yup. That stuff.' The one that also, etc. Going that route, I can see my sandbox, but without your password, since yours isn't linked there, I can't see yours. And, I don't want your password, of course. I've just figured out a way to look at your changes, though not at the current, intact page. At 3:01 UTC, on 3/21, you changed the section name from "Arson..." to "Early conflicts." I can see all those sections as they existed before and immediately afterward of your making that change. The existing text started with "Background...Location," and the last section, "Resentencing." Is that the text you wanted other editors to review and comment upon? The previous text was:

In 1999, Steven Hammond started a fire with the intent of burning off juniper trees and sagebrush, but the fire escaped onto BLM land. The agency reminded Hammond of the required burn permit and that if the fires continued, there would be legal consequences.^[1]

− −

Fires for which the Hammonds were convicted

− −

In June 1994, the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge manager notified Dwight Hammond that his permit to graze his cattle and grow hay on the refuge was revoked. Two months later, Hammond and his son Steven obstructed the completion of a fence on the refuge boundary to keep their cattle out of the refuge's marsh and wetland, prompting their arrest by federal agents. According to federal officials, the fence was needed to stop the Hammonds' cattle from moving onto the refuge after the ranchers had repeatedly violated the terms of their special permit, which limited when they could move their cattle across refuge property.^[2][3] Officials also reported that Dwight Hammond had made death threats against refuge managers in 1986, 1988, 1991, and 1994.^[2][4] Following their release from jail on recognizance, a rally attended by 500 other cattle ranchers was held in support of the Hammonds in Burns, and then-U.S. Representative Robert Freeman Smith from Oregon wrote a letter of protest to the United States Secretary of the Interior, Bruce Babbitt.^[2] Charges against the Hammonds were later dropped.^[4]

You retained the last two preexisting sentences following, starting with "In 1999..." Activist (talk) 23:17, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that's it. Parsley Man (talk) 23:26, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, would you please review the editorial choices of 96.40.114.242 with regards to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Salah_Abdeslam#supposed_homosexuality_of_Abdeslam

there is no conclusive evidence, and the editor insists on pushing a conclusion without the support from sources, as far as I am able to discern. 6cb49af5c4 (talk) 22:03, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I really don't know what's going on with that info, so I'm afraid I'm in no position to have any insight on it. Parsley Man (talk) 22:35, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Fine... would you please explain / give reasons why you thought to make this edit 22:33, 25 March 2016‎, because I see it is mistaken to have the article as you intend here, please feel free to correct me if you think I have made an error, although I know I haven't. Obviously we need to agree on this issue. 6cb49af5c4 (talk) 22:51, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

please pay attention to: "... source:John Lichfield isn't related to source:Lorne Cook (20 March 2016), the Lichfield info concerns the Paris attacks...", thanks again. 6cb49af5c4 (talk) 22:55, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

It needs to be simplified, the English is bad, and there is no need for yet another section when "Detention" perfectly covers what happens during his imprisonment. Parsley Man (talk) 22:56, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

(try) take a few deep breaths before carrying on please, if you will.

source:John Lichfield isn't related to source:Lorne Cook

On 20 March, Abdeslam confessed to planning new operations in Brussels and having access to several heavy weapons.^[1] He later stated that his brother Brahim had asked him to become involved in the Paris attacks.^[2]

these two sources don't make any sense together.

I see you are currently involved in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Parsley_Man_reported_by_User:Firebrace_.28Result:_.29, and I'm presuming stress has interfered with your judgement here (which is understandable, if it is the case that is), because your edit is an error, really, look into the sources. It is obvious in any case....20 March, "Abdeslam confessed to planning new operations in Brussels" (is after the Paris attacks), "his brother Brahim had asked him to become involved in the Paris attacks" Brahim was dead already, so he couldn't have asked him to be involved in the Brussels attacks, plus Salah states he had no prior knowledge of the Brussels attacks, plus the second source states "Paris attacks" the first source is on the subject of "plans for new operations in Brussels". (try) take a few deep breaths before carrying on please, if you will. 6cb49af5c4 (talk) 23:02, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I had to add the heading "Questioning" because of limitations of the scope of the computer I was using at the time, which wouldn't allow me rthe necessary access to the article to make the edit to include content, other than by making a sub-heading, so, I didn't strictly need to add the sub-heading at the time I added it, I only added it in order to include other material. Which means you weren't in error to remove the heading, but you made an error in moving the content. 6cb49af5c4 (talk) 23:17, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Just consider this, is a comment on my behaviour any reflection of the quality of the article? (vis-a-vis "trying to hard"), and is there any reason, because YOU decided to, to proceed to remove content? Why remove the content? the sources and authors who wrote the articles had their work published on the net, why then see it correct to remove this information from wikipedia? who are you to pass comment on how hard or how hard I may not try in any area of this? 6cb49af5c4 (talk) 20:30, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

My opinion is this, follow the opinion of those who know before you follow your own uninformed (or informed, I don't know which) opinion., and if you make a reversion I'll proceed to ANI and they will resolve it, what-ever they decide. There is no argument or comment to make. 6cb49af5c4 (talk) 20:34, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

See how ANI responds if you prefer, or just check around wikipedia. Any fool sees, would see, if a person is making something for anyone to understand (for instance....a wikipedia article), making less information available doesn't make more information available for people to understand. I think I can't explain it any more transparently....Making less information available...makes less available information, when people might want to see the information. Less information is less information, not more information. Information doesn't have a monetary value, each discipline of human understanding values information differently, your understanding of the value of any one piece of information can't take into account the value someone in a different discipline of thought would place on the same information. 6cb49af5c4 (talk) 21:08, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Salah Abdeslam, you will be blocked from editing. Quis separabit? 00:30, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi;

"Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content, in a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia

" editors are encouraged to warn and educate vandals"

I don't think you're vandalizing the article actually, and I think Quis separabit? has Mislabelled your good-faith edits. Quis separabit? is though attempting to indicate there is something erroneous about your choice.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism#How_not_to_respond_to_vandalism - Avoid the word "vandal". In particular, this word should not be used to refer to any contributor in good standing,

From my experience of your effort on Salah Abdeslam I would say you are a good editor, at least in my own experience, at least certainly not a vandal.

Though the issue of why you've proceeded to remove content again leads me to think you have an agenda which in your own mind seems justified and reasonable, but for me and maybe others seems to be in conflict with the goals of Wikipedia. As I already indicated I would just notify ANI of the issue; which now is with regards to:

00:12, 30 March 2016, 00:33, 30 March 2016

at least because the reason is you haven't given any reason for the content removal, so no other editor knows why you think it is necessary to remove the content. Actually I'm maybe being too sympathetic towards you since the actual issue is, there isn't really any need to remove the content...but I think it is now for ANI to decide. 6cb49af5c4 (talk) 10:09, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 6cb49af5c4 (talk) 10:36, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Where did you copy this from? If it came from an article, you need to provide a wikilink in the edit summary as a way to attribute the authors in edit history. Thanks, Jolly Ω Janner 03:29, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh, that came from the 2016 Brussels bombings article. I then deleted the original content. Parsley Man (talk) 05:31, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I made a dummy edit summary to attribute it. Jolly Ω Janner 05:35, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Ah, okay. Parsley Man (talk) 05:42, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

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. Jolly Ω Janner 23:04, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:36, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Re: [3] and [4]. That is two reverts within a 24-hour period on a page you know is under 1RR. You have also been notified about the general sanctions, and you have recently been blocked for edit warring, so please self-revert, or you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. Erlbaeko (talk) 05:39, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

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. Erlbaeko (talk) 06:41, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Parsley Man, really no need to fret I'm attempting unecessary criticism here (sure you wouldn't) but why would you have thought it necessary to delete the See also section plus the link > Terrorism in France, on April 8. I'm sure it is unecessary to formulate a reply to my question (would save us both time in this short life if we didn't need to discuss something unecessarily, in which case I'll just take no response as a communication of agreement the link will stay on the article) because it seems obvious to me this link would be necessary. I'm interested to know if you know why the link shouldn't be there. In either situation i hope this message finds you in good health. Thanks 6cb49af5c4 (talk) 21:40, 15 April 2016 (UTC) 6cb49af5c4 (talk) 21:40, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Abdeslam was not yet convicted, and we must assume he is innocent until proven guilty. Therefore, putting a link associating him with terrorism is unethical. Parsley Man (talk) 21:41, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

What is his entire article about if he should not be associated with terrorism? His notability completely revolves around the fact he was involved (or allegedly involved, if you so prefer) in the terrorist attacks. There's even e.g. a navigation template and a category of the terrorist attacks on the article. A "see also" link is pretty minor in comparison. SPQRobin (talk) 22:00, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Here's my two cents. While I don't find the see also link particularly damning to a person, I find that Terrorism in France does little in the way of furthering the reader's understanding of Abdeslam. The November 2015 Paris attacks are the only one linked to ISIL and Abdeslam on that page. Jolly Ω Janner 22:06, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Here's my two cents. Erlbaeko (talk) 06:46, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, screw you, trying to rub it in my face. WP:BATTLEGROUND, much? Parsley Man (talk) 17:59, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Erlbaeko, there's nothing on that edit warring noticeboard that relates to the content of this article. Also, Parsley, do not take the bait. Jolly Ω Janner 22:37, 16 April 2016 (UTC)