User talk:Parsley Man

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5

This page has archives. Sections older than 6 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

This user has been on Wikipedia for 8 years, 8 months and 18 days.

Welcome!

Hello, Parsley Man! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Peaceray (talk) 04:22, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page Where to: ask questions • make requests Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Simplified Manual of Style • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community (The Signpost)
Things to do
Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Sourcing

Can I just add that anti-terror police arrested the man suspected of releasing what was called a "noxious substance" at LCY and he was detained under anti-terror laws, suggesting he had in fact committed some form of terrorism act. In addition, trusty newspaper sources including the Independent and the Times confirmed this was a 'terror incident'. Please revert to my previous edit, this is clearly a terror incident.

HuH?

Hello PM. Re this. I reverted to the version that you had left that article at in your last edit. My apologies if that was in error. Cheers and have a delightful rest of your week.

November 2016

Sorry not sure how CNN and Trumps offical twitter page are not reliable sources. Can you clarify how direct quotes from a person's personal twitter account and a major news company are not reliable references?

The initial part of the edit was already included in the article and was merely moved to create a section to point out a key component of the article.

I went ahead and readded the post and removed the personal comments

Shooting of Benjamin Marconi has been nominated for Did You Know

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

Back off

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

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

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

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

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

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

Examples

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

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

STOP IT!

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

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

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

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

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

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

right back at you.

Your recent editing history at 2016 Ohio State University attack shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.SWF88 (talk) 02:57, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

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

1972 Harlem mosque incident

I'm not comfortable with the terrorism category you've added to this article. None of the sources in the article refer to this as terrorism.--v/r - T P 23:23, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I just noticed it was on a list in Terrorism in the United States and I ran with it. When I looked at the article itself, I noticed it and decided to add the category. Parsley Man (talk) 23:24, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my god that article is awful. Someone needs to take a blender to it. We need sources to label any and all of these as terrorism. We can't just go adding every time someone kills people to a terrorism list. Of the items with a source, even a lot of them don't call it terrorism. I'm going to remove the category from the Harlem article, but the terrorism in the US article needs major work.--v/r - T P 23:30, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you're going to have to do it, or get someone else to do it yourself. I'm already in a lot of heat with people who would contest with your post and I'd rather avoid anymore conflict. Parsley Man (talk) 23:34, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oakland Fire citations

Please don't revert my addition of good refs to the Oakland fire article. I can see form your page that you ahve a history of edit warring and hetting into disputes. Let's avoid that here. Please leave my good ref additions alone.104.163.154.161 (talk) 05:45, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]