User talk:Unbuttered Parsnip

Afrikaner

Why did you eliminate that pararaph in the last edit you made today in the "Afrikaner" article??? -- Aflis (talk) 23:56, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

@Aflis: I didn't change any article. I just corrected article to remove error in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting, which means remove superfluous exit-reference. Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Thu 08:03, wikitime= 00:03, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Hmm

Why the reference blanking here? You may have had good reason but the edit summary was entirely insufficient for such a significant and eyebrow raising edit. --Dweller (talk) 10:12, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

@Dweller: Dead references were already not used – Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting. Family = WP:IINFO – Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Fri 18:31, wikitime= 10:31, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Gosh you're hard work to communicate with. Is it possible you could use full sentences and edit summaries that describe what you're doing? I think I understand this reply, except you've not removed extraneous info about his family, you've just removed the citations that referenced the information in that section. --Dweller (talk) 11:02, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

@Dweller: [I thought I'd reply earlier, but it seems to have gone AWIF.]
I had a stroke in April. I can read and hear fine, but writing or speaking is very hard. Sorry. – Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Sat 03:30, wikitime= 19:30, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Ah. That makes sense. Wish you well. --Dweller (talk) 13:22, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Paul Ryan

I am working to create an independent positions page for Ryan, as so many politicians have. Nobody sees it due to the redirect, to right now, it is its own sandbox. It is ready to be completed, I just have to fix the reflist on the main page and I can execute the changes.   Spartan7W §   19:19, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

@Spartan7W: You should use your own sandbox – that's what it's for. Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Mon 03:59, wikitime= 19:59, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Removal of citation on Dark Age of Camelot Article

Can you please explain why you keep removing a citation from the Dark Age of Camelot Article? The first time you put only 'ce' in your edit description (I assume Copy Edit? But removal of content isn't a copy edit). The second time you gave no explanation.Caidh (talk) 04:10, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting showed that Dark Age of Camelot (and Cite error: A list-defined reference named "jennings-macris" is not used in the content (see the help page).) has its substantive text removed, but not its associated reference. So it removes too. Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Mon 18:32, wikitime= 10:32, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Please put in a full edit summary.... It's confusing we don't know why you've done it and whether to revert or not. --JQTriple7 (talk) 20:35, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Anderson

Can you explain why you deleted information about Carl A. Anderson? I'm not sure it sure should be in there either, but without a solid reason to remove it I left it alone. Is there a policy on this type of information? Thanks. --BrianCUA (talk) 16:52, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

November 2015

Hi there! Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

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

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

I noticed your recent edit to Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster does not have an edit summary. Misleading edit summary here noted. Can you join the discussion on the talk page instead?

Edit summary content is visible in:

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

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 04:21, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Removal of 'Controversies' Section on the page of City Montessori School

This is with regard to your edits on the page of 'City Montessori School' in the 'Controversies' section. I wish to point out that it wrongfully maligns the reputation of this well-known, world's largest school as per the [1] Guinness Book of Records.

I wish to present some references which present the facts:

1. With reference to the allegation that CMS founder Dr Jagdish Gandhi stopped a Pakistani school from participating in 2014 International Students' Cricket Premier League, it may be noted that during that time, tensions were running high between India and Pakistan because of the beheading of some Indian s oldiers at the India-Pakistan border. Due to the security concerns prevailing during that period, especially when anti-Pakistan sentiment was high, the school management was not sure if it was the right time for Pakistani children to come to India. Later, it was found that the student team from Pakistan was also denied visas by the Indian Embassy to travel to India. CMS is the only school in the world ever to receive the UNESCO Prize for Peace Education (in 2002) for its work to unite warring countries in order to secure a safe future for the children the world over. As well as its pen friends program (“Aao Dosti Karein”) with children in Pakistani schools, CMS has invited, welcomed and hosted a large number of delegations from Pakistani schools over the years.

2. The allegation about the school hiking the fee gives a partial and imbalanced picture. The full press release at 'New academic session, new fee structure' of The Times of India says, "With 20 branches, City Montessori School (CMS) has hiked the nursery, Montessori and kindergarten (KG) fees by 16% compared to last year. The school management has increased the fee for other classes by less than 10%. " The fact about the school increasing the fee only by less than 10% (8% to be more accurate) has been hidden from the material on the ‘Controversies’ page. CMS is probably the only school which is so transparent about its fee structure that it publishes a dossier every year clearly stating the new fee for various classes for the session. No other school probably publishes the fee dossier for the benefit of its parents and the public.

3. With regard to CMS refusing admission to 13 poor children under the RTE Act (Right to Education Act) and the contempt notice by the Allahabad High Court in September, 2015, the fact is that the school had approached the Supreme Court of India to appeal against the decision of the Allahabad High Court, and to make such an appeal for a ‘stay’ against a lower court’s order is legal under Indian law. The school itself had approached the High Court first against the directive of the Basic Education Officer in April 2015 to admit 31 poor children as that directive was not in accordance with the legal state rules for the implementation of RTE Act. It is not unlawful anywhere in the world to approach the courts against the directive which are not found in accordance with law. Once the Supreme Court's directive came, the school immediately admitted the said 13 children the very next day, as is evident from the press release here. The matter is still sub-judice before the Supreme Court with the last order of the court saying that the 13 schools should be admitted forthwith as an interim measure so that their education does not suffer, however, should there be found vacancies in other nearer schools in the vicinity of the residences of the children (as claimed by the appellant), the Supreme Court may order the shifting of these children to those nearby schools.

4. With regard to the matter of slapping of a student by a CMS teacher causing him to bleed from one ear and a subsequent filing of a police complaint against him, the fact is, a thorough enquiry was conducted by the CMS management in the case and it was found that though the teacher had indeed slapped the student. While CMS does not condone the action of the teacher the behavior of the student (snatching the lunch-box of a much younger student and throwing it) leaves much to be desired. The student later apologized to the teacher for his behaviour and the parents withdrew the police case against the teacher. The teacher in question also submitted his clarification and an apology. The school has a zero-tolerance policy towards corporal punishment and this is strictly enforced.

5. Regarding the case of a student of CMS Mahanagar Campus I committing suicide allegedly due to harassment from his school principal, the case is still sub-judice. No judgement has been delivered and the culpability of the Principal has not been established. She must be held to be innocent until proven guilty, as per Wikipedia rule which says, "A person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law. For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured.[6] If different judicial proceedings result in seemingly contradictory judgements that do not override each other,[7] refrain from using pithy descriptors or absolutes and instead use more explanatory information."

I sincerely hope the above clarifications are sufficient to establish that the 'Controversies' section has been inserted with the intent to malign the reputation of a world-renowned school. Therefore, it is my earnest request to kindly remove the section from the page of 'City Montessori School' and oblige.

I am quite aware that this so-called school has nothing to do with the well-known Montessori School. – Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Thu 03:28, wikitime= 19:28, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Ballot paper

Hi. This is your ballot paper for the Wikipedia leadership election, 2015. Please vote:

• Jimbo Wales (Tick here)
• User:Roestįk (Tick here)

I will check your ballot paper shortly. Thanks. --Roestįk (talk) 19:00, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

1. Yes
2. No

Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Thu 03:28, wikitime= 19:28, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

The only allowed to delete my talk is myself. – Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Thu 03:28, wikitime= 19:28, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Why are you erasing references??

Can you explain why you are deleting my edit's that include reference's to your mom's house podcast???

???

Disambiguation link notification for November 22

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:08, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Lawis

1630 and not 1830[edit] to: User:Unbuttered Parsnip Dont make any changes or jump into any statement as not true without showing any basis. I was in Lawis for a visit the structure in front of it was a memorial with its inscription that the Kota was built in year 1790. Basing from this then your 1830 edit will be untrue. on the upper hand I read book written during spanish time I found out that the structure was built in 1630 and not in 1790.... So I didn't follow the year 1790 as the founding date of the Kota which was posted by the municipality of Madridejos but the year 1630 as the founding date as narrated by fray Medina.

you changed facts claiming to be wrong but when ask about your basis or reference you are unable to provide. You are inconsistent with your edits, first the 1630 you change to 1830 then now changed it to 1790 and deleted some references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mateothehistorian (talk • contribs) 23:28, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Learn have to make comments. Stop putting you WP:CB in real pages. You have any basis on your nonsense – you ignore reality and choose instead a web blog. De Medina (and Blair & Robertson) had nothing about Lawis, obvious because there is not settlement there. And you have least three different people, unless one man is about 200 years old. And I've been there to Madridejos many times. - Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Wed 07:53, wikitime= 23:53, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. LjL (talk) 23:29, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on content, not contributors

The comment you left when reverting my edit called two editors "stupid". If you read WP:NPA you will see "Comment on content, not on the contributor". Thank you. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:56, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: Any editor who takes starts with an article syntactically correct and then leaves the article in an Error status is what I call "stupid", and/or blind. Nothing to do with WP:NPA. – Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Tue 17:00, wikitime= 09:00, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

It has everything to do with NPA. It is unacceptable to insult editors in edit summaries or on talk pages. Stop it. Boghog (talk) 09:20, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

@Boghog: Nothing to do with NPA: maybe you should read it again. Or for the first time. There seem be some editors think it's good to change text from correct to incorrect and not think even to check their balls-up. Quite a lot of them. Not many though cry to their mothers when they're told off. Now fuck off. – Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Wed 01:16, wikitime= 17:16, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Your attitude is completly unacceptable. It has everything to do with NPA. Please read it again. Boghog (talk) 17:22, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Edits

Hi! I hope you don't mind my edits on some municipalities in Cebu. If you think there are grammatical lapses on my edits, feel free to call my attention. After all, Wikipedia is for everybody, not a monopoly for senior editors. Take care and have a great day! (Iamtheyeishow talk) 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

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

Note I didn't file the report; I'm just the messenger. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 22:52, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

December 2015

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. Please use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did, and feel free to use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do. Saying "ce" (short for copy edit) when you are just removing refs is not appropriate. Removing refs can leave content in a way that is against WP:V policy and related guidelines. DMacks (talk) 22:54, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

@DMacks: As usual, some twat makes a mess of an edit, but I get told off mending the balls up. When I make edits, I clean any mistakes before commit. Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Mon 09:11, wikitime= 01:11, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Calling people "twats" is not very WP:CIVIL, and if this is about the thing there was an WP:ANEW report about, undoing an edit that attempted to be helpful without even a summary is not too cool. We are meant to WP:PRESERVE content, even when it's not "perfect", not undo any edit that, among various possibly useful things, contains some particular "flaw". LjL (talk) 01:17, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Neither of these [2] [3] are constructive, none of them are simple "ce", and none of them appear to relate to fixing (in any sense) or altering (at all) someone else's recent edit. DMacks (talk) 03:58, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Three revert rule

FRIENDLY NOTICE: Please refer to Three revert rule. A possible report ticket might be issued upon regarding the reverts you made on Naga, Cebu. HavenHost (talk) 21:09, 22 December 2015 (PST)

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.

Welcome!

A cup of warm tea to welcome you!

Hello, Unbuttered Parsnip, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you are enjoying editing and want to continue. Some useful pages to visit are:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Simplified Manual of Style
• Wikipedia Teahouse (a user-friendly help forum)
• The Wikipedia Adventure (a fun game-like tour to help get you oriented within Wikipedia)

You can sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

If you need any help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. We're so glad you're here! 7&6=thirteen (☎) 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:04, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

@7&6=thirteen: I've edited 8 years with 16000 edits. Tell that other tit to learn edited, with 1500 edits in 4 years. - Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Tue 22:20, wikitime= 14:20, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I did not see any welcome.

Given your recent history, I thought there might be useful information. Like leaving edit summaries, WP:3RR, Edit warring and WP:BRD. Better to light a candle than to curse the dark.

I had not (at least recently) run across your work. Should have looked first. It would have helped if you had an archive on your talk page. But that is up to you I apologize for any offense given.

Nevertheless, it was not my purpose to criticize. I prefer we all work together collegially and I WP:AGF. Happy holidays to you. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:27, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

@Unbuttered Parsnip: Bragging about one's seniority and number of edits makes one unprofessional and unethical. Calling an editor "tit" is also a form of personal attack. Also, we don't monopolize Wikipedia so don't bite the newcomers or those editors with 1500 edits in 4 years. Just sayin' though. No offense intended. – User:HavenHost (talk) 14:44, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

@Unbuttered Parsnip:: Learn to accept other people's edit. Wikipedia is for everybody. Central Visayas particularly Cebu articles is not limited to User:Unbuttered Parsnip only. Avoid jumping into conclusion that the newly added content by other editors for those articles is immediately considered "tosh" in your POV. Give others a chance. Whether they are new editors or less-experienced than an experienced user like you. I hope everything is gonna be fine. User:HavenHost (talk) 05:21, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring at Naga, Cebu

Hello Unbuttered Parsnip. It appears that you broke WP:3RR on this article, which normally calls for a block. There may still be time for you to respond at the 3RR report. When you do so, you should agree to wait for consensus before changing the article again. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 19:17, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

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

The full report is at the edit-warring noticeboard (permalink). Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 03:50, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for persistent vandalism. 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 ~~~~}}.  kelapstick^(bainuu) 07:52, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism and edit warring. Even when logged out will still get you blocked. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 07:53, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

December 2015

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. 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 ~~~~}}.  Bbb23 (talk) 05:38, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation

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

HavenHost (talk) 10:13, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Lighthouse icon

Template:Lighthouse icon has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Izno (talk) 11:47, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

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

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

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

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Cite PH act/core

A tag has been placed on Template:Cite PH act/core requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is an unused duplicate of another template, or a hard-coded instance of another template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is not actually the same as the other template noted, please consider putting a note on the template's page explaining how this one is different so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{substituted}}</noinclude>).

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 deleted 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. Izno (talk) 15:13, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:PH 16 cities

Template:PH 16 cities has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Izno (talk) 02:48, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

"List of the works of Charles Cottet depicting scenes of Brittany" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect "List of the works of Charles Cottet depicting scenes of Brittany". Since you had some involvement with the "List of the works of Charles Cottet depicting scenes of Brittany" redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:48, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Female sign

Template:Female sign has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 12:49, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Male sign

Template:Male sign has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 12:49, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Bantayan islands

Template:Bantayan islands has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Nigej (talk) 19:16, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Grey shades

Template:Grey shades has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Nigej (talk) 19:20, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:PH plural

Template:PH plural has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:22, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:PH electorate

Template:PH electorate has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 16:44, 22 June 2023 (UTC)