User talk:LordParsifal

Welcome!

Hello, LordParsifal, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 03:52, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

October 2018

Hello, I'm Zackmann08. Thank you for your recent contributions to Stefan Batory Gymnasium and Lyceum (Warsaw, Poland). I noticed that when you added the image to the infobox, you added it as a thumbnail. In the future, please do not use thumbnails when adding images to an infobox (see WP:INFOBOXIMAGE). What does this mean? Well in the infobox, when you specify the image you wish to use, instead of doing it like this:

|image=[[File:SomeImage.jpg|thumb|Some image caption]]

Instead just supply the name of the image. So in this case you can simply do:

|image=SomeImage.jpg.

There will then be a separate parameter for the image caption such as |caption=Some image caption. Please note that this is a generic form message I am leaving on your page because you recently added a thumbnail to an infobox. The specific parameters for the image and caption may be different for the infobox you are using! Please consult the Template page for the infobox being used to see better documentation. Thanks! Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 03:52, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Einstein

Please take that ([1], [2]) to the article talk page. Thank you. - DVdm (talk) 11:43, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Albert Einstein shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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. - DVdm (talk) 16:25, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Albert Einstein; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
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 and 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. - DVdm (talk) 17:24, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

January 2020

Your recent editing history at Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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. – Sabbatino (talk) 08:18, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May 2020

Please stop add new graphics [3]. Your new image is incorrect, very controversial, original research and also file is stolen and modified. Your overall actions are destructive for Wikipedia.

This is the final warning that you will receive regarding your disruptive edits. The next time you vandalize a page, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. 84.10.242.48 (talk) 14:12, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you pretending to be an admin when you’re just a random IP? Go away troll LordParsifal (talk) 14:54, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is personal attack.

Please stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. 84.10.242.48 (talk) 15:04, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New file

"every single voivodeship"? - the map does not show voivodships.

Again: your new image is very controversial, break of two rules of the Wikipedia: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:No original research because you delete data from Silesia and Kashubia regions, where Polish is only partly used. Also this file is stolen!!!! and modified by you.

Do not change the map without discussion and consensus, please read Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle and Wikipedia:Consensus. The description of the changes is not a place for discussion, this is the place.

Also, previous map is Wikipedia:Stable version, your map must have a consensus. 84.10.242.48 (talk) 15:42, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, the previous map described were incorrect. I corrected it. Now, map description is "Polish used together with another languages". 84.10.242.48 (talk) 15:48, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again: there are no voivodships marked on the map, no relation to voivodships.

Please don't write falsehoods like "The earlier, incorrect map tries to say that Polish is spoken only by a minority of people in the area of the Upper Silesian and Pomeranian Voivodeship". In Upper Silesia and Kashubia there are another languages: Silesian, German and Kashubian, which are used in these regions. Please see map: [4]

Majority of Polish speakers

,

Polish used together with another languages

. Description of map is correct, and there is no connection to your "minority". 84.10.242.48 (talk) 19:34, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adding to collapsed discussions

Hi. Please don't do that. But for your evaluation, please see: https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/01/us/george-floyd-independent-autopsy/index.html (Experts hired by George Floyd's family and the Hennepin County Medical Examiner have concluded his death was a homicide, but they differ on what caused it.) El_C 17:18, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

LordParsifal, just to let you know—I think your point was a valid one. Bus stop (talk) 18:02, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

El_C - I suggest you check out the court autopsy. “No life-threatening injury found. Cause of death: cardiopulmonary arrest” LordParsifal (talk) 19:02, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

August 2020

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like you to assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not do on Franz Kafka. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. "Reeks of ignorance", really? Behave. And for the record, Franz Kafka is a featured article, meaning it has undergone a peer review and the substance of the current version agreed to by a consensus of editors. Per policy, you must seek consensus on the article talk page. ——Serial 15:48, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Franz Kafka; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
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 and 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. ——Serial 15:49, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Albert Einstein, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. - DVdm (talk) 14:34, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:59, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

January 2021

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. -- ferret (talk) 19:13, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request reason:

What consensus? 3 logged users in the Talk section are against it, 1 logged user is for it. Including me, that's 4 logged users against it. LordParsifal (talk) 19:26, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Doesn't address your block evasion and doesn't address your edit warring. Yamla (talk) 21:10, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

For reviewing admins: Block extended due to logged out block evasion at Special:Contributions/2A00:F41:483E:4AE8:0:0:0:0/64. -- ferret (talk) 19:54, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

February 2021

Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. Thanks! Jklamo (talk) 17:43, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, LordParsifal

Thank you for creating Piotr Zgorzelski.

User:Celestina007, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for creating, but note that creating when biographical articles or any article whatsoever, you must not leave it unsourced. I have proceeded to add one source, so please could you add at least add two more sources? Thank you.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Celestina007}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Celestina007 (talk) 17:52, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

March 2021

Hello, I'm CommanderWaterford. Your recent edit(s) to the page White nigger appear to have added incorrect information, so they have been removed for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. CommanderWaterford (talk) 10:35, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Controversial topic area alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in any gender-related dispute or controversy and associated people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor. — Newslinger talk 07:36, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Generalrelative (talk) 23:07, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

April 2021

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to George Floyd. Your edits could be interpreted as vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use your sandbox. Thank you. —Bagumba (talk) 13:26, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at George Floyd, you may be blocked from editing. Generalrelative (talk) 23:04, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Response to your comment on Talk:DonaldTrump

From the FAQ:

This page is biased towards/against Trump because it mentions (or doesn't mention) X! Why won't you fix it?

Having a neutral point of view does not mean giving equal weight to all viewpoints. Rather, it refers to Wikipedia's effort to discuss topics and viewpoints in a roughly equal proportion to the degree that they are discussed in reliable sources, which in political articles is mostly mainstream media. For further information, please read Talk:Donald Trump/Response to claims of bias. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 21:43, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring Template:War in Afghanistan (2001–2021) infobox result

I suggest you do not revert more user as you've violated WP:3RR, making further reverts beyond this point without discussion will most likely result in a block. Viewsridge (talk) 16:16, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:51, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Łódź

Hi LordParsifal,

I undid your edit to Łódź as it removed the city's name pronunciation guide. I've no opinion on the Latin/German/Russian names you removed, so feel free to remove again, but please leave pronunciation in the note. 66.209.91.155 (talk) 20:35, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Katowice

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

Your new changes in the article were considered as irrational and ridiculous. Your new changes has been reverted, again. I'm sorry, but Katowice is not Warsaw, most of Katowice's history was under German rule, just like the rest of Silesia. The city was granted city rights as a German "Kattowitz", the city operated under the German name of "Kattowitz" for few hundred years, longer than the Polish name. If you can't understand the simple arguments, per Wikipedia:BRD and Wikipedia:Stable version, you must to get a consensus to make your new changes. 84.10.242.48 (talk) 14:59, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LordParsifal! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Jewish Bolshevism that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. (t · c) buidhe 08:05, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Jewish Bolshevism. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. 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.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
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 and 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. (t · c) buidhe 09:42, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. (t · c) buidhe 10:01, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello LordParsifal. You've been warned for edit warring as a result of the complaint. I'm also giving you an alert (below) to the discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBEE. EdJohnston (talk) 20:09, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish Bolshevism is covered by discretionary sanctions

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in Eastern Europe or the Balkans. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Whether the Jews held 'primary power' is a claim that needs sourcing. Merely counting Politburo members doesn't settle this one way or the other. You have asserted that 'The fact of Jews being overrepresented in the Bolshevik Party is a fact, not the conspiracy theory' but your conclusion that they were overrepresented seems to be WP:Original research. EdJohnston (talk) 20:15, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, by "overrepresented" I'm merely comparing the proportion of Jews within the leadership versus within the general population. Which I think is fair and another editor agreed with me and linked a JPost article on that. LordParsifal (talk) 01:58, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

August 2022

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Globalism, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 07:54, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LordParsifal! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Deep state in the United States that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 20:19, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Deep state in the United States, you may be blocked from editing. Doug Weller talk 20:23, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I request a definition of disruptive that pertains to the precise matter of my actions. LordParsifal (talk) 20:26, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, here you are: Adding unsourced and poorly sourced content is disruptive. Edit-warring to keep that content in the article is disruptive. And so is failure to ever touch an article's talkpage while at the same time editing the article in such a way. "Disruptive" is a manifold concept that is hard to define generally, but it is in fact defined and explained at Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. Your editing is not a good fit for Wikipedia. See my new block notice below. Bishonen | tålk 09:00, 23 August 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Please explain these edit summaries

Hi, LordParsifal. Can you please explain what this edit summary means? When you changed "far-right" (which was sourced) to "radical" (which was unsourced), Doug Weller reverted you with an explanatory edit summary. You then reverted him back, with an edit summary saying "Doug Weller does not understand how citation formatting works". That seems both rude and quite irrelevant, since the change had nothing to do with citation formatting. Also, it seems unlikely on the face of it that Doug Weller doesn't understand citation formatting, as he is a highly experienced editor. It's also rather strange that your next edit was summarized "improved formatting", since, again, the edit had nothing to do with formatting. But at least that summary wasn't an offensive attack. Please respond below. Bishonen | tålk 10:03, 17 August 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Apologies for trying to kill two birds (reply to you and unblock request) with one stone (unblock request form), so to speak. Regardless, I think I managed to answer your question in the unblock request form below, and therefore am now absolved of all guilt. Cheerio. LordParsifal (talk) 11:03, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Page block

Hello again. I note you have again reverted, reinstating your tendentious edit, without answering my question above. You have been blocked indefinitely from the page Globalism. Note that you can still edit its talkpage (as well as the rest of Wikipedia) and there attempt to gain consensus for the version you prefer. You can request unblock by placing {{unblock|your reason here}} on this page. I advise you to, at a minmum, answer my question before you do so. Further wikilawyering about citations referring to particular sentences (as in your edit summary) is unlikely to help, but of course what you want to write in an unblock request is up to you. Bishonen | tålk 11:25, 19 August 2022 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

Request reason:

My conduct in editing is normal. An unsourced specific statement can be corrected to an unsourced broader statement and there's no burden of citation just as there wasn't one when the allegation that anti-globalism is solely far-right was made. If that really is your claim, you will have to source it, so the burden is on the venerable administrator, not me.

Decline reason:

The burden of citing material always falls on the editor doing the addition. That there may be other uncited material in the article has nothing to do with that. — Daniel Case (talk) 06:16, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

LordParsifal (talk) 05:19, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request reason:

No clear reason for blocking. Refer to Platonic dialogues for the definition of "clear reason."

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. PhilKnight (talk) 14:51, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

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

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

Request reason:

I'm not trying to whitewash anything here, it's just my push for encyclopedic completionism, that's all. The anti-globalist movement does not extend solely to the far right, in fact I would say the far left is more anti-globalist, anti-neoliberal, anti-NATO, anti-international corporations than the far-right is. I am sensing weird agenda-pushing and a smear attempt going on. The page itself acknowledges the term hasn't been completely co-opted. That's all. If anyone needs to explain themselves, it's definitely not me. LordParsifal (talk) 04:17, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This is not an appeal. The point you need to address is not the content of the article but your conduct in editing it.Cabayi (talk) 09:24, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

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

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

Request reason:

There's no rule on Wikipedia which dictates providing a citation for every single line in an article. Citations are only required for specific claims. I made none such, in fact I merely replaced a claim without a citation with a broader encyclopedic description which fits with the rest of the article better. Cheers. LordParsifal (talk) 06:46, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

There is a rule requiring citations for material that is "challenged or likely to be challenged"(WP:WHYCITE) which is exactly what you are doing. Again, if other material is not cited, that does not justify yours. 331dot (talk) 08:12, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

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

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

Request reason:

Exactly! Which is why Doug Weller needs to provide a citation that contemporary anti-globalism is a solely far-right phenomenon. I merely removed an uncited addition and replaced it with a broader, more encyclopedic summary that fits the article. In any case, the burden is not on me as I do not make any singular specific claim.

Decline reason:

This is not an unblock request. WP:GAB explains how to request an unblock. Talk only about your actions, not the irrelevant actions of other editors. Yamla (talk) 10:17, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Be warned. You've had five unblock requests declined. If you make another request like this, please expect your block to be extended sitewide. --Yamla (talk) 10:18, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ironic that i’ve had to warn him for adding incited content and marking a major edit minor. Doug Weller talk 20:26, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request reason:

Aha, now I see. In any case, I should be unblocked because my motivation isn't malicious and is merely pedantic, like any good Wikipedian's (and blocking a good Wikipedian site-wide would be an unwise move purely guided by emotion). You have my word: I will not participate in edit-warring, unwise or otherwise, and if my request succeeds, since you so wish, the edit on the Globalism page I wished to go through with will now include a citation. Thanks in advance

Decline reason:

The partial block being appealed here has since been superseded by an indefinite sitewide block for Persistent Disruptive editing, edit warring and POV-pushing at several articles; in order to be unblocked, you will have to address all of these things in a future unblock request. --Blablubbs (talk) 21:51, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

LordParsifal (talk) 10:59, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked indefinitely

Lord Parsifal, I see you POV-pushing at Deep state in the United States, as well as edit warring, while all the time ignoring what you're told about consensus, and while never touching the article's talkpage. That is the last straw. You have been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia for persistent disruptive editing. You know how to request unblock. Bishonen | tålk 09:00, 23 August 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Edit warring is defined by the 3RR, which I do not break. My edits contain the necessary sources and are not outrageous. Everything is proper. I am an innocent editor and a victim of some weird partisan bias of which I shouldn't be victim as I don't even have anything to do with the United States or domestic issues, and merely strive to be impartial. The sources are there, the attitude is proper and by-the-book, 3RR isn't broken, I do not understand the issue. I would utilize the unblock form for this message but I see the unblock form necessarily demands kowtowing to administratorial bullying. I think you should all rethink your behavior and improve the guidelines whose fuzziness allows abuse to fester. Currently, the "encyclopedic" status of these articles is objectively a joke. Whether you're satisfied by that merely because it suits your dualistic, partisan confirmation bias, that's on you, but keep in mind you're actively destroying Wikipedia by doing that. LordParsifal (talk) 22:27, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring is not "defined by 3RR"; you only need to read the opening paragraphs of the policy page to understand that.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:42, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is arbitrary reverting allowed in the admin policy page? I follow the 3RR, but I guess even 1 revert is too much for a mere mortal (in which case it's curious why the option is there at all, is it like an emergency brake in trains?) and is classified as edit-warring. Well, normal users have an obligation to correct vandalism, too. As the article stands right now it is vandalized and POV. There's no personal agenda or the zeal of edit warring and the zeal of suppressing the other side, on my side. LordParsifal (talk) 23:09, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As the lede of that article stands right now, PDT seems to have almost a monopoly on the deep state concept even though a few lines below it's stated quite clearly that the concept goes way back and has been uttered so many times by political insiders and normal people who aren't kooky, just the guys who were behind the sausage-making of politics. Wikipedia should be focused on such descriptiveness, instead of pursuing some specifically politically-philosophically inclined educational "mission" by arranging the focus and careful wording so that each article gives the reader a "correct" tone. I'm for honesty and no subtext, that's all. LordParsifal (talk) 22:33, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request reason:

There's not much to discuss, I can see that there's an unspoken rule that the admin can arbitrarily revert even edits which are good and by-the-book just because of a personally-tainted dislike. Basically means that if you do something even a single (and there are many, many admins, and a crucial point--with differing views!) admin doesn't like, you HAVE to go to Talk (where most of even best meaning attempts at improvement die simply because people stop responding and the article stays as the admin wanted it) because you are forced by the admin under, as is self-evident, threats of blocking, and even threats of blocking requests to unblock. You would think Wikipedia would be free from the constraints of 2000s PHP forums, but apparently even when it's based on such a meritocratic constitution, it devolves into toxic schema. But since this is ultimately an unblock request, and as explained by me earlier, that means kow-towing to the admins and apologizing for (and this is important) merely implied wrong-doings (what a truly kafkaesque situation), that means I have to fit this semi-apparent mold given, and promise that you'll get what you want, that is a user who does kow-tow to admin pressure to keep articles as they want, with all hope left in discussions in Talk not dying before anything gets anywhere. So yeah, there you have it, this user was not vandalizing Wikipedia and never wanted to, now you have precisely what you wanted, and therefore I do not deserve to be blocked from editing anymore. Because I get it now, Wikipedia is ruled by the law of the fist, and my fist ain't nothing. That's it for the unblock request, and since these are probably discussed by a wider pool of admins, let me tell you this one last thing: consider how representative Wikipedia is when it's not truly edited by anyone but a narrow pool of administrators who are mostly straight, white, affluent Anglo-Saxon or otherwise Germanic men. LordParsifal (talk) 22:52, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

None of your conflicts over the last couple of days have involved admins, despite your assertions. WP:3RR is just a bright-line indicator of an edit war. It is NOT the only determinant. Going to a talk page should be your first option in dealing with a revert (WP:BRD), not a reluctant concession. Involve the WikiProjects listed on the article's talk page if the discussion doesn't get traction. This appeal is totally undercut by the diatribe with which you start it. Since blocks are preventive, and you still clearly don't understand why your behaviour is problematic, a preventive block is still needed. Appeal denied. Cabayi (talk) 13:07, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

WP:BRD is just a guideline. It's not a rule. An editor is not automatically below the person who reverts the edit. And as there's also WP:ROWN. I see you have a point to make but I'm not convinced because I'm not sure there are any clear-cut Wikipedia rules determining you're right, and I'm wrong. I want to appeal, I want to be unblocked, I'm a good Wikipedian, but I won't appeal just yet because there is this matter that needs resolving. I would appreciate feedback. LordParsifal (talk) 05:31, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]