User talk:Parrot of Doom: Difference between revisions

Some basic rules. One, anyone coming here accusing me of WP:OWN will be told in no uncertain terms where to shove it. Two, anyone whinging about WP:CIVIL will be referred to the previous answer. Three, anyone coming here with a genuine request for help will of course be afforded all the help I can give. Four, never again will I venture onto ANI or any similar admin-related pages, either to resolve an issue, or to respond to somebody else's issue; I'm here to write articles, nothing else. Five, I apologise to those who've supported me in the past, but good-faith content editors can only put up with so much nonsense before they begin to question what good, if any, they're doing here. One day, I'm sure, all that's left here will be a clique of admins and a claque of their sycophants; the rest of the world will have moved on, hopefully to projects where people's contributions are valued, and not decried.

Archives

Archive 1  • Archive 2  • Archive 3 Archive 4 - Dec 2008 - May 2009 Archive 5 - May-July 2009 • July 2009 Aug 2009 • Sep 2009 • Oct 2009 Nov 2009 • Dec 2009 • Jan 2010 Feb 2010 • Mar 2010 • Apr 2010 May 2010 • June 2010 • July 2010 Aug 2010 • Sept 2010 • Oct 2010 Nov 2010 • Dec 2010 • Jan 2011 Feb 2011 • Mar 2011 • Apr 2011 May 2011 • Jun 2011 • Jul 2011 Aug 2011 • Sept 2011 • Oct 2011 Nov 2011 • Dec 2011 • Jan 2012 Feb 2012 • Mar 2012 • Apr 2012 May 2012 • Jun 2012 • Jul 2012 Aug 2012 • Sept 2012 • Oct 2012 Nov 2012 • Dec 2012 • Jan 2013 Feb 2013 • Mar 2013 • Apr 2013 May 2013 • Jun 2013 • Jul 2013

This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.

Hi Parrot,
Did you fully listen to the video that was attached as a reference? In the video Choudary acknowledges that one of the murderers was a regular attender of his former group, and he also brought up the term "Security Covenant". Please check out this ref which I probably should've also used as a supporting ref as well:
Choudary's idea of a "Security Covenant"
I am planning on reinserting this with the better ref, unless you can give me a good reason why I should not?

Thanks,
Scott P. (talk) 12:40, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PS: What was there not to believe about the Mail article about Choudary's family being ushered into police protection over this? The Mail article even had photographs of them being ushered into police protection. Are you saying that you believe the Mail article could've been a fabrication? Might you be being a little bit "overly protective" of this article? True, this is a biography article, but that should not prevent Wikipedia from publishing properly referenced facts about the subject matter. Scott P. (talk) 13:21, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I watched the video, not only did you link to a copyright violation but your edits seem to have introduced original research "In another interview regarding this attack he used the term "Covenant of Security" which appears to be a special legal standing which he seems to posit applies only to British Muslims". But the main issue is that every time he appears in the news, a flurry of editing activity takes place on this article, usually along the lines of "lets write paragraphs and paragraphs of material about what he just said in the news", without any real attempt to weigh such material against what's already in the article. We know what he stands for, what he says, who he supports - so why on earth do we have to keep adding extraneous text?

Also, you accused someone of murder. The man is innocent unless proven guilty, so there's absolutely no way that's going to stand. Parrot of Doom 16:20, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for watching the video. You make some valid points. I agree that the term "alleged" should preface the term "murderer", despite the fact that these two men have already openly admitted to, and been photographed in the process of the murder. In light of these facts, I wouldn't fully agree with your claim that my failure to use the term "alleged murderer" instead of "murderer" would amount to a "liable" in this case. Still, using the term "alleged murderer" is generally good Wikipedia practice in all cases until so decided in a court of law. Also, this "flurry" of editing activity does need to be monitored carefully.

It appears that you may not have yet had a chance to review the second reference that I linked to above. This is critical in my opinion. Choudary is reported In this reference as having the fundamental premise underlying all of his teachings that all Muslims ought to currently consider themselves as being in a "state of war" against Britain and the US. To me, if true, this seems to be highly significant and worthy of inclusion in this article. According to this reference, Choudary's use of the term "Covenant Of Security" is merely a thinly veiled reference to his fundamental belief in this. Please review this reference link that I gave you above. I would like to know what you think about it. By the way, regarding the link to the video, what copyright violation are you speaking of? Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 18:22, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Still awaiting your reasoning for your earlier deletion of the Mail reference by an earlier user referring to the police protection of Choudary's family. Did you delete this because you believe the Mail is an unreliable source, or something else?Scott P. (talk) 19:24, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't wipe my arse with the Daily Mail. It is a wholly unreliable source. Parrot of Doom 19:25, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think my arse would somehow survive such an encounter… :-), However despite the fact that they are a bit "sensationalistic", they are a major award winning newspaper, and generally such "sensationalistic newspapers" are not regarded as entirely unreliable sources in Wikipedia. Bottom line: do a Google search on "Choudary family" and "police protection" and you will see multiple sources for the same event. Does that change your mind any? Scott P. (talk) 19:38, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What I would like to do in the article is, rather than simply deleting such references, if they are clearly true facts, then I would like to try and rework them so that they are better. For example changing the ref to the Mail to perhaps some other publication that you find to be of a higher grade. Also, while technically your deletion of the reference to Choudary's Pakistani/British status was correct, along the lines of the original intent of that user, if it is okay with you, I would like to include a reference to the fact that Choudary is indeed of "Pakistani heritage", but correcting the original "sloppy reference" which you rightfully deleted, with a "proper reference". Comments? Scott P. (talk) 19:54, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The only time I'd use the Daily Mail as a source would be if I was writing an article about the Daily Mail. And even then I wouldn't trust it. Only the Mail and Sun print the story. The Mail probably just took some images of his family with the police (if they are his family, they're all masked) and invented their own story. That's what newspapers like them do - create stories to sell newspapers.

Mentioning his heritage should be done in context. If it adds to our understanding then fine, but if it's just "he's of Pakistani heritage" and nothing else then I don't see what that offers. Everyone has a heritage, unless Choudary's helps explain his views then I don't see how it's relevant. Parrot of Doom 21:00, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. OrangesRyellow (talk) 09:52, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]