User talk:Parsley Man/Archive 2

Your criticism "Trivial info, incriminating" is an error, as a reason to remove: Abdeslam was designated a terrorist by the U.S. Department of State during April 5. ^[1]

I'd like to re-add this information.

Salah has stated (one instance of evidence of his being involved in terrorist activities) he intended to detonate a device as a suicide bomb at the Stade de France, which as we both know indicates he is involved in terrorist activities, because he didn't isn't an indication of his innocence. The source is evidence which allows the addition of the link to Terrorism in France. 6cb49af5c4 (talk) 21:42, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

6cb49af5c4 (talk) 21:42, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Please familiarize yourself with WP:BLPCRIME. Parsley Man (talk) 22:56, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

I looked at BLPCRIME, the US Dept of State information isn't a statement of a position by wikipedia, you know? It is to show a position of a authority which indicates something significant with respect to a forth-coming trial, which is indicated in the heading "legal proceedings". It indicates a legal stance. Do you suppose the moral principle upheld by wikipedia "innocent till proven guilty" is or isn't superceded by the moral understanding demonstrated by the US Dept? To show the legal stance held by the US Dept is only a statement of fact, not an accusation by wikipedia.6cb49af5c4 (talk) 19:36, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Does BLPCRIME say anything about exempting statements of legal stances made by an authority? I don't think so. Parsley Man (talk) 00:12, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/apr/21/paris-attacks-suspect-salah-abdeslam-charged-over-brussels-shootout#img-1

The image isn't a static camera image, and apparantely video footage. A legal authority (police) were able to retrieve footage from the day, taken by someone else, or Salah was already under police surveillance.6cb49af5c4 (talk) 19:58, 21 April 2016 (UTC) 6cb49af5c4 (talk) 19:58, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

And...what are you trying to say from this?... Parsley Man (talk) 00:12, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

A person might interpret the guidance of BLPCRIME to represent a real world state of affairs where it is necessary to respect innocent until proven guilty, therefore, wikipedia must do the same, but in the case of Abdeslam, he has already confessed to being involved, and by the definition of terrorism, which the U.S. Dept recognises, because , as a governmental authority, it is the definition which is the actual definition which the courts acknowledge, it is possible to just take the fact of the US Dept stance to represent, coupled with Abdeslam's admission of guilt, sufficient proof of him being a terrorist.He is already linked to te Molenbeek adress containing weaponary and a text of Salafism . It isn't really necessary to feel some injustice or unfairness is being done to him to recognise he is designated now a terrorist.His defence in the forthcoming court case has shown no indication of intending to contest him being involved in terrorist activities, why would you therefore think it necessary to respect a reality which apparently doesn't exist, this being his innocence. 6cb49af5c4 (talk) 19:46, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

None of that means anything. It could all just be purely coincidental, and he could be just confessing because he wants the attention. BLPCRIME mandates that a person really is responsible of all the facts given if he is convicted in a court of law. His trial hasn't even started yet. So thus, we must assume he is innocent. Parsley Man (talk) 19:48, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

His own defence has established his guilt; by intending to attempt to have his sentence reduced on the grounds of him acting as an informant.6cb49af5c4 (talk) 20:16, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Sigh. That can be presumptive too. Parsley Man (talk) 20:17, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Mary doesn't know how to represent his client?6cb49af5c4 (talk) 20:20, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Huh? Parsley Man (talk) 21:00, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

It is unnecessary to remove spaces between section headings and text. Removing spaces does not improve an article in any technical or functional way. The spaces actually enhance readability for editors who are working on articles. Please respect WP:BRD. Regards, Bede735 (talk) 21:59, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

What do you mean by readability? Parsley Man (talk) 22:00, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Readability for the editor, meaning it is easier for the editor to distinguish the start of text from headings, images, block quotes, etc. if these elements are separated by a single space. Bede735 (talk) 22:06, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

...What? Those are not that hard to see... Parsley Man (talk) 22:08, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

So, Ammon Bundy's list of charges has at least 3 counts link. Why do you keep reverting that wording? Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 22:04, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I learned a while ago that I suck at filling out the references in that byzantine form and I gave up :( Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 11:52, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

The spacing is not about blindness, whatever that slur means, it's about spacing. Bots will come and supply that spacing if you leave it as is and User:Cacycle/wikEd, which is the editing enhancement I used to apply the change, does it by default. The fact that you removed it initially without explaining why, most likely because you don't understand why the spacing is there in the first place, is only further reason to leave it alone. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:11, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

By blindness, I am using it in literal terms. Those section titles are seriously not that hard to see, and if not, then use glasses. Parsley Man (talk) 03:04, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Also, I would like to know why some articles have that spacing while others (recent ones, I must add) don't. Parsley Man (talk) 03:07, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I see. You think I'm the same editor as the one above. Yes. There are only two of us who follow the spacing guidelines on Wikipedia.

Did you not bother to read what I wrote? I can't answer why you think that blindness is an issue or why you used, and defended the use of the insensitive slur.

Please do the following experiment. Click on the "Add topic" link at the top of this, or any, talk page. Provide a section title. Provide a bit of copy. Save the section. Go and edit it. Is there spacing between the heading tags and your section title? Is there a space after the section heading and the copy you provided? When wizards follow the editing guideline, and when bots come and provide the spacing guideline, but where editors are allowed to do what they want when editing, I can only assume that the editors do whatever they want. I suspect that they don't follow the guideline or they don't know it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:06, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Parsley Man. Are you stalking my edits? You are following me around undoing a portion of my edits on every page I touch. Please stop. Please consider this to be a formal request in lieu of a stock templated notice. Thank you. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 05:35, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Then I would like to know why most articles do not have spaces between the headers while the articles you work on have those spaces. Parsley Man (talk) 05:38, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Also, I was not stalking you. What are you talking about? Parsley Man (talk) 05:41, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Please do not edit article solely to make changes that do not affect reader output. You are doing nothing to benefit our readers. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 05:44, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

You did not answer my question. Parsley Man (talk) 15:30, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I meant to thank you for your most recent edit on the Malheur occupation and hit the adjacent button, that reverted. I undid, then tried to thank you once again and repeated my error. I should wait 3 minutes before waking up to make an edit! You've done a lot of hard work on this article! :-) Activist (talk) 18:31, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Why are you reversing the changes? It IS an important plot point. Amanmohd2105 (talk) 21:50, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

To whom are you addressing your question? Activist (talk) 01:21, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I've been trying to do better with references by using the Wikipedia "Cite" button in the editing window, but you keep changing the date format that it inserts. Just wondered why that is? Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 14:37, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Because US dates need to be used for articles concerning US topics (i.e. "March 26, 2016") and not international dates (i.e. "26 March 2016"). Parsley Man (talk) 18:25, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Well please don't blame me. Blame whoever on Wikipedia coded the form to insert citations... Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 18:41, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Who said I was blaming you? Parsley Man (talk) 18:45, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Would you like to help me start an article about John Monson, 3rd Baron Monson?Zigzig20s (talk) 18:38, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but no thanks. Parsley Man (talk) 19:04, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

• Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

You've been following me around for months, was it really necessary to delete this? Could you have googled first? Or, like, trusted me to be reading the victim's name in breaking news int the Star Tribune as I edited live?E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:04, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, I reneged on that and put it back in when I realized it was a thing, didn't I? Parsley Man (talk) 20:07, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

• Yes. You pick your battles. Nevertheless your WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude and incessant hounding makes editing a wearying and unpleasant task for me. Which is, I presume, the point.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:32, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 1980 Antwerp summer camp attack, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Britain. 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) 10:24, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Your insertion of a new section title, "revisit" in the Brock Turner article is a welcome improvement of my text. Activist (talk) 22:10, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome. I noticed the material was developed enough to support its own subsection, so I made the edit. :) Parsley Man (talk) 22:12, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Right. I worked to gather and edit the material as I felt it put the judge's decision into an important, broader perspective. Ironically, I first found mention of it in a Guardian article. Activist (talk) 22:25, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm an idiot. Feel free to trout me. 🖖ATS / Talk 21:59, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Don't know how to, nor am I willing to. It's okay. Parsley Man (talk) 22:00, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Anyone willing to be "trouted" will have a trout icon in the upper right-hand corner of their user page or user talk page. You click it, fill in the reason and then save it. It's all in good fun. 🖖ATS / Talk 22:04, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Welp, I did it. Have fun with that. :P Parsley Man (talk) 22:06, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Your recent editing history 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. --Pete (talk) 22:38, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Following discussion on the article talk page, I've filed a report. You should probably direct any further comments there. Thanks. --Pete (talk) 23:00, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Parsley Man. Your edit now throws a CS1 error again in green letters in the reference section. Do you want me to fix it again? Check it out. Search the page for CS1. Ping me back. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 22:21, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't see how that caused that kind of error, but I rearranged some things in an attempt to avoid it. Did that fix things? Parsley Man (talk) 22:25, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Parsley Man. I am really good at fixing ref errors, so when I do, please leave them intact. No, you did not fix them. If you follow the category link I gave you above it tells you how to setup up a JavaScript so you can see the hidden error codes that are being thrown. They are tedious to fix on a page that is so active. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 23:09, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Parsley Man, I just wanted you to know that I reverted your edit on List of rampage shooters. Feel free to revert me again but only after you have given a reasonable and more explanatory edit summary on why you did so. Thank you. smileguy91^{talk - contribs} 23:47, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Parsley Man. Please read MOS:US carefully. Pick your battles. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 00:32, 13 June 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. --Pete (talk) 23:00, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Note you should be editing 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting very carefully. I strongly suggest getting feedback for any reverts you want to make before making them. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:56, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

In one of your reference consolidation edits, you undid a change I'd made to disambiguate a link to The Telegraph, you'll see that's a disambiguation page--I'd disambiguated to The Telegraph. Was that reintroduction of a link to a disambiguation page intentional? If you could fix it, let me know I can fix it, or let me know why my change was inappropriate, I'd be appreciative, either way it's cool. Thanks in advance, and thank you for your work on the article, it's much appreciate. Best, --joe decker^talk 02:05, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from 2015 San Bernardino attack into Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 21:05, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Please be a little more careful about ignoring edit conflicts, as you just did at 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting. Thanks. -- Kendrick7^talk 00:00, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

It's kind of hard to do that when a lot of people are editing at once and I make sure to be as careful as possible in my edits. Parsley Man (talk) 00:01, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Your recent editing history 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. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:43, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

How is the reaction of the governor of Alaska irrelevant to a section entitled, "political parties and presidential candidates". If the section just had the title, "Presidential candidates", I would see your point. But this sections title goes well beyond that. I know you acted in good faith, but please read the sections title before being so quick on the (revert) trigger. Thanks. Juneau Mike (talk) 06:59, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

@Michaelh2001: I agree with Parsley's revert. Please see the articles talk page and the various discussions about the reactions section. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 07:02, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. If the Bill Walker response does not belong in this section, then the section needs to be renamed, removing the "political parties" section.Juneau Mike (talk) 07:07, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Please see the talk page. There's a discussion going on if we should even include all of these reactions. Parsley Man (talk) 07:08, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at WP:ANI regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Unsourced content. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Distelfinck (talk • contribs) 02:26, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Omar Mateen 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. NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:43, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring, as you did at Omar Mateen. 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.  NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:00, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

As your talk page is littered with edit warring warnings, and you have been blocked for edit warring before, this block is for 72 hours. Continued edit warring will result in longer blocks. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:03, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Parsley Man. When you get back from your block in a couple of days I would like to invite you to start editing on an article I have launched here. Does this topic interest you? I have left the juicy stuff for you to do. I will follow your lead. Thank you. Ping me back. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 02:28, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Xerox Alto page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:30, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on User:Whiskeymouth requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Patient'''Zero ^talk 17:32, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Can you also delete my user page too? It was created by someone other than me. Parsley Man (talk) 17:35, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Done. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:22, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

The graceful thing to do now would be to reverse your opinion. And perhaps send a donation to a hospital in Medina, Tel Aviv, Dhaka, Orlando or Istanbul.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:57, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Where is the source for this edit? Thank you.- MrX 16:19, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

...and this one?- MrX 16:20, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

• Never mind. I found it.- MrX 16:40, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

I noticed that you've been editing 2016 shooting of Dallas police officers a lot, including several reverts, possibly in violation of the three-revert rule, which applies even if the reverts are different content, as long as they're on the same article. You shouldn't revert the article more. If there's an issue with an edit, you should mention it on the talk page. KSFT^C 07:13, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

@KSFT: One current event articles, it seems fairly common to suspend 3RR to some extent (per WP:IAR?) If Parsley Man being disruptive or edit warring over specific content? That would something concerning, but when it comes to a rapidly changing article like this, crossing 3RR is almost inevitable. Just my 2 cents on the matter. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:24, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Awesome job recognizing that sockpuppet.

EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:24, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I still remembered my talk page interactions with Redzemp and recognized the writing style right away. :) Parsley Man (talk) 04:30, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

I wish I had that ability. I can't recognize editing styles for crap. Some people can recognize English variations, slang usage, etc. Not I. But it was clear when you posted the diffs. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:41, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

I guess the skill comes from me being the writing type... Parsley Man (talk) 04:45, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

		The Current Events Barnstar
		For all your work in actively participating in the talk page, editing, correcting, and adding new information to current event articles (in this instance the 2016 shooting of Dallas police officers), I am awarding you The Current Events Barnstar! Happy editing! :D Adog104 Talk to me 02:47, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Damn it Adog104 I was Petaluma planning on giving this barn star later this week! EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:20, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

So sorry EvergreenFir! Lol. I guess I, unintentionally, beat you to it. Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 05:23, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

You reverted multiple of myedits without explanation. This came within a few edits of mine, so I know you must have seen my rationales. The revert of the WP:NOTBROKEN edits is especially alarming, considering that my edits were clearly supported by guideline and your revert has no p&g support at all. Could you explain how your action is not disruptive editing? ―Mandruss ☎ 16:27, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Perfection is key. Parsley Man (talk) 23:27, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea what that is supposed to mean. You are obviously uninterested in responding to my inquiry per Wikipedia best practices, so I'll reinstate my edits. Thanks for wasting my time. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:42, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Nothing's ever broken for you, isn't it? What about Dallas? It doesn't have broken links and you didn't do anything about it! Parsley Man (talk) 00:05, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Likewise, an edit summary for this revert at Alton Sterling would have been helpful.—Bagumba (talk) 18:33, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

The article looks screwed up at the moment with template messages. You know how to fix it? 31.52.165.204 (talk) 20:48, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

The translation template had just been nominated for deletion. There's no quick way to get rid of it. The only option is to vote for either keeping the template or deleting it. That's all I can say. Parsley Man (talk) 20:49, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Looks like it's sorted now anyway. 31.52.165.204 (talk) 20:51, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

You and I differ in our assessment of the notability of shooting, stabbing and car ramming attack, However, your proclivity to rush articles on events of this sort to AFD is a sort of disruptive editing that can be interpreted as an attempt on your part to discourage editors form creating such events on breaking news events. An example is the enormous amount of editorial time squandered at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 UCLA shooting, a point made by several editors on that page. Please consider WP:RAPID and attempt to remind yourself to wait a couple of weeks to let the dust settle, before rushing new articles to AFD.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:10, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, excuse me, but HOW THE FUCK was I supposed to know the plot was going to thicken in the case of 2016 UCLA shooting? I'm not God! Let me repeat what had been said at that AfD by James Allison:

I see many editors condemning User:Parsley Man's nomination as a rush to judgment. Assuming arguendo that notability was established once more details about the incident were revealed, there is still nothing objectionable about the nomination. At the time the nom was made, it was reasonable to have a good-faith belief, based on current news coverage, that this was a flash-in-the-pan murder-suicide. Even if the article had been deleted, it could have been easily recreated once notability is established. Additionally, I must oppose the position that this discussion should be speedily closed. Once more information came out, many editors reassessed their positions on the issue. This would not have been possible if the discussion had been prematurely closed, as has been suggested by some above.

I admit my judgment in that AfD was rushed, but James Allison was right in that regard. Until the Minnesota murder was revealed (right after the AfD was created too), it really looked like something non-notable and I had every reason to believe it would stay that way at the time. I had seen my fair share of articles being created on non-notable subjects and were ultimately deleted because of it, and I'm not just talking about the ones tagged by me for AfD.

Would you mind giving me another example on how I'm being disruptive by AfD? Because otherwise, I would say you're being disruptive by failing to assuming good faith and accusing me of being disruptive. Parsley Man (talk) 23:35, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Nah, you were being disruptive. Take your medicine and learn from it so that your future behavior will be more productive. 68.19.2.236 (talk) 21:53, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Would you mind telling me how so? Parsley Man (talk) 22:08, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

order in shocking events

Thank you for thoughtful management of the unclear 2016 Munich shooting and other current events, keeping only confirmed news, for gnomish updates and page moves, for organizing a wildlife refuge, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:27, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome. :) Parsley Man (talk) 07:28, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Careful of 3RR on the Munich page. Just a friendly reminder. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:22, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, what am I supposed to do? The IP seems to be pretty assertive in having that edit stay. Parsley Man (talk) 01:23, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Let others take care of it. There are plenty of folks watching the page. :) EvergreenFir (talk) 01:26, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Okay... Parsley Man (talk) 01:26, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

What do you mean by this? I added the category based on this: "Der Spiegel reports that according to a fellow video game player, Sonboly posted "Turkey=ISIS" in a message and that he admired Germany's hard-right AfD party.[60]" --Z 17:40, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Oh. I thought the category was in reference to the onlooker yelling anti-Turkish abuse at the gunman, which would be the "unrelated incident". My bad. Parsley Man (talk) 17:44, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't care about the content dispute of the movie. I never watched that movie. Did you check the edits of the user. The user is blocked. Next time be careful with warnings, as you are more experienced here in Wikipedia. This has nothing to do with content dispute. Check his edits again. Rainbow Archer (talk) 06:00, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

In general, wp:red links are desired if they note topics that can become articles. I see a removal of a red link I added here. Are you sure an article on the subject is not warranted? Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 20:25, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

• Mauricelm-Lei Millere is very probably merits an article, a very quick google turned this: up on the first page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:54, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't really see the point in leaving a red link if an article isn't going to be created soon. Parsley Man (talk) 23:38, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

I regularly do so when editing, reason is: that way when someone does create an article, it automatically links to the new article. In fact, when I stumble upon a redlink, I am sometimes sufficiently intrigued to look the topic/person up, and it not infrequently causes me to create an article - often only a stub - using the material I find.E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:03, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Well then, if you can, please create an article. Red-links are honestly an eyesore for me. Parsley Man (talk) 02:04, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I do wonder, with your username, if you're being intentionally or unintentionally ironic. =) Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 23:19, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Unintentionally, actually... Parsley Man (talk) 23:29, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Redlinks are generally useful, as they either indicate an article that needs creation, or something we could usefully ignore as non-notable. In any case, they get more eyes on a topic, and that's always good. --Pete (talk) 00:04, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Oh, good point, User:Skyring, for example, I find it very telling when I'mm looking at an unfamiliar topic and a cited "expert" is redlinked, indicating probably non-notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:01, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Here: you changed qamis to qamis. Er, why?E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:06, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Oh crap, I thought it was something that could be addressed as singular! My bad! Parsley Man (talk) 15:26, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents related to your editing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:03, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Okay...where is that discussion? The only thing about me at ANI is that Wikihouding subsection about your ANI discussion. Parsley Man (talk) 15:30, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

It would seem that in the last day or so edits to articles Citizens for Constitutional Freedom (mine) and Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge (yours) are not being seen by the wider public. I only see our recent edits while logged in. Alan G. Archer (talk) 15:14, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not sure what's going on there. It seems like the other users have moved on and forgotten about this event. Parsley Man (talk) 17:02, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Just check again and all of our recent edits are now displaying properly. It could have been some server issue. Alan G. Archer (talk) 19:06, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Parsley Man (talk) 22:56, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi there,

Just a quick note regarding WP:DATERET and this edit. Just went to add a new date to Khizr and Ghazala Khan and saw that someone had changed everything from dmy to mdy. :) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:22, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

So after I left this message and restored the original format, you did it again?? Please fix this. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:46, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

I see that you have continued to edit the article without responding or fixing this. This will be my last message here. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:45, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

• this: .E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:42, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Why? What about that edit? Parsley Man (talk) 22:09, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Hey Parsley,

I've noticed that you still don't have a userpage. It's a good idea to get rid of the red link when you sign stuff.

TJH2018talk 02:10, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Why? Is there any actual problem posed by the red link? Or is it because it's just an eyesore? Parsley Man (talk) 02:11, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Must be fun ignoring policies and having innocent people banned on false claims, you shitty waste of oxygen? Bullies like you are scum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.120.33 (talk) 01:58, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Uhhhhh...okay... And you are? Parsley Man (talk) 02:35, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Your recent editing history 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. Cassianto^Talk 16:20, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Please respect other editors and stop reverting sourced content with edit summaries which are not accurate. Assume AGF if possible. Thanks.  :-) 166.70.213.246 (talk) 20:28, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

No, seriously, I have not seen any sources supporting anything you or the other IP user have added, hence the edit summary of "unsourced". Parsley Man (talk) 20:31, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, seriously, it was sourced. Go read it again. Just keep going like you have been the problem will soon take care of itself. AGF.166.70.213.246 (talk) 20:32, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I just did. I found nothing supporting what you added in either of them. For the record, these are the sources I read ( ). If these weren't it, please link the actual source to me and I'll read it. Parsley Man (talk) 20:40, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Judging by your current failure to answer my question, I assume you have nothing... Parsley Man (talk) 08:00, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Parsley Man, your sources didn't support your edits. -- Dane2007 ^talk 18:37, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

• This , is what you were specifically warned at ANI not to follow me around and do.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:52, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Sigh. This is what I was talking about when I said I can never edit on any article you're editing. And you said I was trying to force you off Wikipedia? Parsley Man (talk) 19:33, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Nonsense. Obviously, you and I both edit pages about terrorism. But this has nothing to do with terrorism. It is an exceedingly minor article, with few edits, that your followed me to when I created it ~ a month ago. And now have followed me there again. It is precisely what you were instructed by consensus not to do.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:19, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

It's still a shooting in the United States, a topic I also edit on devotedly. Let alone one that might have been motivated by Islamophobia. I would definitely feel obligated to edit that article. And don't you use the same words you used against MSJapan; I've seen that discussion. Parsley Man (talk) 00:05, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

No similarity between MSJapan's behavior and yours. Please read carefully before making unsupported assertions. You might start by rereading the instruction at the end of the ANI discussion, and do recall that it was you who dragged me to ANI. Your sneaky, aggressive POV-pushing, persistent WP:HOUNDING and tenacious WP:BATTLEGROUND attitudes make you a deeply problematic editor.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:26, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Ha ha ha... Like I said there, so paranoid. Parsley Man (talk) 15:09, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

@E.M.Gregory: It could very well be that Parsley Man has the article on his watchlist and noticed changes to it, which would explain the activity following yours. It is important that you assume good faith with other editors and if this has been a prior issue, definitely use the correct venues to address it. But the behavior of modifying after you alone is not wiki stalking unless you have multiple diffs showing that that he has continued to follow your edits after the ANI. -- Dane2007 ^talk 18:46, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

No, this isn't the first time I would follow him to articles and edit them. The issue had been brought to ANI and the admins somehow believed him even though my edits were harmless. Parsley Man (talk) 18:50, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Here I'll link you to several sources saying main stream media approval rating at 6%...

http://www.activistpost.com/2016/04/death-of-mainstream-media-6-percent-trust.html

https://www.rt.com/usa/340124-americans-trust-media-plummets/

http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2016/04/18/poll-just-6-percent-people-say-trust-media/

http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/only-6-trust-media-but-it-should-be-less/

http://patriotupdate.com/media-approval-rate-single-digits/

--Kellyzzz05 (talk) 00:45, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I will admit that I, personally, barely trust mainstream media as it is already. But remember what I also said: "[I]t doesn't matter what the approval rating is; if Wikipedia considers something a reliable source, then it's a reliable source, no matter if it's mainstream." Please keep that in mind before you make another reckless revert (which by the way would be in violation of WP:3RR). Parsley Man (talk) 00:51, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to look at bit more closely at the race section later tonight. I think there is a stronger DUE argument if we only use sources directly about the riots. TimothyJosephWood 20:37, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Alright, gotcha. ;) Parsley Man (talk) 20:37, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Having said that, there is nothing saying that racism on the part of the protesters isn't due either. Look at pretty much every ethnic conflict in history and things tend to pan out that way. TimothyJosephWood 21:38, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Except most of the sources supporting that are unreliable. Parsley Man (talk) 22:08, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I meant in principle. TimothyJosephWood 23:03, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, yes, definitely in principle. Parsley Man (talk) 00:28, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Pro tip: if your comment ends in a !, then you should probably revise it so it doesn't need to. TimothyJosephWood 00:31, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Nope. I'm getting tired of being called "biased" when it was just a case of overdoing things. Parsley Man (talk) 00:32, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Young grasshopper. Check out the pages of NPA at Talk:Same-sex marriage. TimothyJosephWood 01:19, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Your point? Parsley Man (talk) 01:24, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

It's kindof a Jesus thing I guess. Or Buddha or whatever. You have to keep your cool and let the other person flip out, otherwise it gets spun as a personal issue when it's reviewed by people who are uninvolved, especially if it ends up at a noticeboard. If you want to edit in controversial subjects, noticeboards are kindof an occasional inevitable byproduct. So keeping your cool is a natural adaptation. TimothyJosephWood 01:32, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

The funny thing is, if I had an authoritative thing to say in the manner, I would've let all of that controversial material stay unopposed. In other words, I agree with those users. But I know what Wikipedia is. I know that that kind of material would be kicked out if they don't have the proper sourcing and guideline policies in mind. But I nevertheless agree with the standpoint. I once made it clear to a new user (who was causing some trouble in that same article) that I otherwise agree. And yet these people have the nerve to call me biased? I actually find it more laughable than irritating now. Parsley Man (talk) 01:39, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, you know, Wikipedia is a tool of the devil to corrupt our children and turn them into hippies. TimothyJosephWood 10:10, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Not sure if you're being sarcastic or serious... Parsley Man (talk) 17:51, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Oh wow. I was really surprised to find the state of the 1967 Milwaukee riot. This article needs some love. TimothyJosephWood 12:43, 19 August 2016 (UTC)