User talk:ParkH.Davis

Welcome!

Hello, ParkH.Davis, 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 take 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 click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Poti Berik (talk) 17:46, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Early history of American football non-free images

Hi ParkH.Davis. Each use of non-free image must be accompanied by a separate non-free-use rationale on the image description page. If this is not done, a fair-use claim is invalid and constitutes a copyright infringement. If you want to display these images on the article Early history of American football, you have to provide non-free-use rationales first. Images without a rationale for that article will be removed. Please see Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline. I have reverted your edit, please don't restore the images until there are valid rationales. This is not a matter of opinion, it's a requirement by the image use policy to comply with copyright law. For some images, all ten requirements may not be met and they can't be used at all. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 23:08, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Template:History of American football has been accepted

Template:History of American football, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:40, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

October 2015

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Vince Lombardi into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. This appears to be the source of your edit to Homosexuality in American football. Great addition to the article, but do attribute where it came from. Thanks. —Bagumba (talk) 17:35, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Quarterback, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Full back and Half back. 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) 11:36, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

November 2015

Your recent editing history at American football 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 get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. - BilCat (talk) 03:34, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. I have noticed that some of your recent genre changes, such as the one you made to English Defence League, have conflicted with our neutral point of view and verifiability policies. While we invite all users to contribute constructively to Wikipedia, we urge all editors to provide reliable sources for edits made. When others disagree, we recommend you seek consensus for certain edits by discussing the matter on the article's talk page. Thank you. Sıgehelmus (Talk) |д=) 04:06, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

3RR Warning

Your recent editing history at 2015 Colorado Springs shooting 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 get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:23, 1 December 2015 (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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:ParkH.Davis reported by User:Viriditas (Result: ). Thank you. Viriditas (talk) 07:37, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto I also filled out a report at the same time. I'd think they will be combined. [1] Legacypac (talk) 07:40, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

December 2015

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 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. NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:46, 3 December 2015 (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).

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

Request reason:

A consensus was reached concerning the content in question via the talk page. I reported the BLP violation to the BLP noticeboard and repeatedly attempted make it clear that I was attempting to preserve the status-quo of the page in lieu of sources which stated that shooters' religions had anything to do with the shooting or their motives for the shooting. I was not aware of the dispute resolution process and I apoligize for my ignorance. ParkH.Davis (talk) 19:52, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The policy is very simple: no edit warring, even if you're right, and this page is full of warnings that explain this to you. NPOV is not a reason to revert repeatedly. BLP gives you an exemption from edit warring restrictions, however this is absolutely not a BLP issue because the suspects being Muslims is neither negative information nor wasn't it unsourced. If you have a content dispute, please use dispute resolution instead of reverting again and again. Max Semenik (talk) 20:08, 3 December 2015 (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.

You were reported to WP:ANEW and still continued to revert. Also, based on this conversation it seems that you think consensus is "my edits stay until there is agreement to remove them". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:59, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Am I being blocked for my edits on American football or 2015 San Bernardino shooting? Why was I unitaterally found guilty of edit warring?ParkH.Davis (talk) 20:08, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015 San Bernardino shooting. But your past behavior in edit wars plays a part when judging if you will continue to edit war in the future. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:11, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why were my edits to American football brought up if they had nothing to do with me being blocked? ParkH.Davis (talk) 20:27, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, your past behavior in edit wars plays a part when judging if you will continue to edit war in the future. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:31, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So my past comments were cherry picked for content which you personally percieved to be incriminating? ParkH.Davis (talk) 20:34, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at your past comments, decided that they indicated you'd justify more edit warring, and blocked you partly because of that. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:40, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That was not made clear to me in your reason for blocking me. ParkH.Davis (talk) 20:43, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The implication was that because the shooters were muslim that they were terrorists. There are no sources which have established any sort motive connected to the islamic religion or terrorism. The BLP excemption should have been upheld. ParkH.Davis (talk) 20:27, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, the FBI is currently investigating Farook's links to Islamic extremists because of his contacts with them. Furthermore, all the evidence points to a premeditated attack using a virtual arsenal of weapons, ammo, explosives and battle armor, that one does not just decide to wield on a whim in the workplace. There are links to Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and extremists. As for motive, the links to radicalization are all there. Are all Muslims terrorists? No. But somewhere around 100-300 million are considered potential terrorists due to radicalization, according to the latest figures. That ups the odds quite a bit, regardless of percentages. Viriditas (talk) 21:00, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I never denied that attacks weren't pre-meditated. I am saying that there are currently no sources which connect the shooters' religions to their motive. This is not the place to spread your anti-muslim propaganda. This is not conservapedia. You are speculating and synthesizing. ParkH.Davis (talk) 21:18, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nor is it a place to promote whatever political agenda you are promoting. CNN just spent the last 1/2 hour discussing exactly how his religion is connected. The question now is not IF but HOW he was radicalized. You are breaching your block, which perhaps should be extended. User:NeilN? Legacypac (talk) 21:48, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop responding to this thread. I have accepted my block and this discussion is over. ParkH.Davis (talk) 22:02, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your block will expire in less than an hour. You should try to avoid the topic area because it is under active DS sanctions now, which means anyone could be blocked or banned from the article due to 1RR in effect. Viriditas (talk) 19:10, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am freely allowed to edit any article which I am given the permission to edit as is out lined in Wikipedia:Introduction. I am aware of the DS sactions and will take that into consideration while I am making any change. ParkH.Davis (talk) 20:06, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Based on this edit [2] one might think the block had no effect on you. Legacypac (talk) 22:45, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion is over. I accepted my punishment and have moved on. I will not partake in edit warring in the future and I have learned my lesson. ParkH.Davis (talk) 22:48, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2015 Colorado Springs shooting, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Army of God. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:36, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adding references can be easy

Hello! Here's how to add references from reliable sources for the content you add to Wikipedia. This helps maintain the Wikipedia policy of verifiability.

Adding well formatted references is actually quite easy:

While editing any article or a wikipage, on the top of the edit window you will see a toolbar which says "Cite". Click on it.
Then click on "Templates".
Choose the most appropriate template and fill in as many details as you can. This will add a well formatted reference that is helpful in case the web URL (or "website link") becomes inactive in the future.
Click on Preview when you're done filling out the 'Cite (web/news/book/journal)' to make sure that the reference is correct.
Click on Insert to insert the reference into your editing window content.
Click on Show preview to Preview all your editing changes.

Before clicking on Save page, check that a References header ==References== is near the end of the article.
And check that {{Reflist}} is directly underneath that header.

7. Click on Save page. ...and you've just added a complete reference to a Wikipedia article.

You can read more about this on Help:Edit toolbar or see this video File:RefTools.ogv.
Hope this helps, --Shearonink (talk) 22:32, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To use this message, place {{subst:User:Shearonink/ref}} on User:talk pages when needed.

Islam

Good way to get yourself re-blocked, revert or no. [3] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:43, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Gamergate_controversy

“This is not a forum. Please only discuss how to improve the article. ParkH.Davis (talk) 05:40, 7 December 2015 (UTC)”

People were discussing how to improve the article. Please refrain from any additional acts of intimidation or censorship. Cheers! 24.90.121.4 (talk) 00:46, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pac-12 Conference terminology

Hi Park, discussion at Talk:Pac-12 Conference has determined the "Pacific-12" conference name to be incorrect (since inception in 2011!), with "Pac-12" conference preferred. We have been working to update any and all references over the last month. Therefore I've reverted your change to Modern history of American football to the preferred version of "Pac-12" which links directly to the article at Pac-12 Conference. You're welcome to discuss at Talk:Pac-12 Conference. Cheers, UW Dawgs (talk) 02:39, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make a change to Modern history of American football you should discuss that page's talk page to seek a consensus before making a change on that page. ParkH.Davis (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per the conference's 2015–16 handbook (p. 6), "The name of this association shall be the Pac-12 Conference". Is there a reason to use the wrong name in this article, alone? UW Dawgs (talk) 03:37, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Make your argument on the appropriate talk page, not here. ParkH.Davis (talk) 03:44, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Peyton Manning, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Daily News. 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) 11:40, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Descriptive words are not the same as weasel words

Please take note that your edit to Super Bowl 50 had no basis in policy, and has therefore been administratively reverted. We try to use descriptive wording whenever possible, and as long as such description is backed up by reliable sources - as this is - it should be used. WP:WEASEL, which you noted in your removal of the wording, has absolutely no bearing in this matter, (and I'm confused why you even brought it up in your edit summary). Please, do not repeat your previous patterns of disruptive behavior (as I can see above, you've been involved in several revert wars)... or you will face the same outcome as before. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 05:09, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So much for assuming good faith. Is it now acceptable to threaten other editors for making edits they disagree with? ParkH.Davis (talk) 05:11, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need to assume anything, this is a highly visible article that I don't have patience for editors tagging unnecessarily or edit warring on. It's my job as an administrator to make sure articles, like this one, aren't disrupted in the process of them being edited to reflect updates. I'm not warning you again, the next disruptive edit you make is getting you a block. I clearly added a ref in the article that backed up the wording added by another editor (to ensure that your tag was no longer needed), and posted two other refs here (in my previous warning) which clearly indicate that this wording has been used. Stop being disruptive, I have 0 patience right now for this kind of behavior. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 05:36, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia policy requires that all editors assume good faith. Please stop threatening me. ParkH.Davis (talk) 05:37, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm formally warning you, not threatening you. Take note. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 05:40, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are threatening me. It is not disruptive to promote objective editing. The wording has been changed by a third party, so this issue should be considered dropped. ParkH.Davis (talk) 05:41, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Describe my warning however you like, if it makes you feel better. It still stands. And, adding {{according to whom}} (which states in it's documentation "Do not use this tag for material that is already supported by an inline citation") to something you know is backed up by actual citations is not "promoting objective editing", it's being simply disruptive to the appearance of the article to our readership. Don't play games with me. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 05:52, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The wording has been changed by a third party. Just drop the stick and walk away. ParkH.Davis (talk) 05:56, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary Sanctions Notice

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Eastern Europe, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 06:40, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding GamerGate

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 06:42, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding American Politics

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 06:53, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

February 2016

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Peyton Manning, without citing a reliable source. Many of your edit's give of the impression Manning is guilty of the allegations. Until that is proven to be the case, do not revert to controversial titles.WillsonSS3 (talk) 21:34, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop edit warring. ParkH.Davis (talk) 21:35, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add nonconstructive malicious content, as you did at Peyton Manning. Failure to do so will result in you getting blocked from editing. WillsonSS3 (talk) 01:10, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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. —C.Fred (talk) 02:22, 9 February 2016 (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).

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

Request reason:

I repeatedly attempted to end the edit warring and requested numerous times that the situation be resolved by an admin. I attempted to resolve the situation via the talk page, yet User:WillsonSS3 continued to unilaterally blank large sections of content without seeking consensus on the talk page before making their edits. User:WillsonSS3 violated the three revert rule two times over and continued to revert after I reported him/her. As Manning played in a big game yesterday and emotions are running high, any large changes in content should only come with proper deliberation on the talk page and should not be made unilaterally by a single editor. I continued to revert as the situation was not being resolved and User:WillsonSS3 was making highly disruptive edits which were damaging the article. ParkH.Davis (talk) 02:29, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I agree with C.Fred. This is a clear case of 3RR violation and a clear case of your unblock request only focusing on the actions of another editor and not on your own. If you request again, please be sure to address your own actions with an explanation of your understanding of what you did wrong and how you'll avoid it moving forward. only (talk) 02:50, 9 February 2016 (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 is not about another user's conduct. This is about your conduct and your flagrant disregard of 3RR even after opening a report to the edit warring noticeboard. —C.Fred (talk) 02:31, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was simply restoring the article to its previous state. I am not against changes that come with consensus. I am against one editor taking ownership of an article and then blocking anyone they disagree with from editing on that page. The content in question is well sourced by numerous reliable sources and should not have been removed. ParkH.Davis (talk) 02:35, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~I accept my block.~~ ParkH.Davis (talk) 02:53, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:C.Fred, User:WillsonSS3 is continuing to remove content without consensus. ParkH.Davis (talk) 03:47, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BRD. He's making bold changes; nobody has reverted or otherwise opposed the changes (other than you). There's nothing that says he can't continue to work on the article; he hasn't crossed the line that I told him about with 3RR. —C.Fred (talk) 04:18, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He made a third revert. Why is he being allowed to take ownership over the page while I am not even allowed to voice my opinion? He has continued to unilaterally remove large sections which he is personally offended by for whatever reason. He is removing sections which he personally disagrees with despite the fact they are well sourced by reliable sources. He has removed several key pieces of information which are vital to understanding the topic in an effort to give the page a pro-manning bias. The three reasons for which HGH can be legally and safely prescribed to an adult were part of the original al jazeera report and have been widely reported since. He removed the date in which the most recent collective bargaining agreement was ratified, thus making it ambiguous for the reader as to which CBA is being referred to, as HGH was banned by both the 1991 agreement and the 2011 agreement. He has removed the header "misogynist comments" even though the article source given discusses manning's misogynistic comments both from his book and from things he said out loud to the trainer. He has removed a section of media criticism which he seems to personally disagree with, thus censoring out a perceptive which he disagrees with. He is blocking me from dissenting against his changes and is continuing to delete large sections of content without discussion. He clearly violated the three revert rule, yet has been allowed to continue to vandalize the page to fit his own personal bias. I accepted my block with the understanding that the status quo would remain pending a talk page discussion, yet no talk page discussion has occurred and he has been allowed to continue removing content which he doesn't like. This is not a peyton manning fan page and all the content in question is well cited by reliable sources. ParkH.Davis (talk) 04:29, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He has now also removed comments from Manning's book in which he discusses his opposition to gender equality. How is this not censorship? Are we now being relegated to pretending like peyton manning is capable of doing no wrong? Should we just go ahead and delete the entire controversy section while were at it? ParkH.Davis (talk) 05:01, 9 February 2016 (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).

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

Request reason:

I did not violate the three revert rule as I was simply reverting vandalism. I was preventing vital information, which had been previously accepted as consensus, from removed, which would have damaged the article and prevented a reader from a having a full and unbiased understanding of the topic. It is clear that Manning is a polarizing figure that has been subject to a significant amount of controversy, both on and off the field. Any changes should first be fully discussed on the talk page before a change is made and unilateral blanking of large sections should be seen as nothing but vandalism. I will seek to resolve conflict through the proper channels next time and apologize for any wrong I have done. ParkH.Davis (talk) 04:36, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Considering this isn't your first block for edit warring (nor your first time disrupting the encyclopedia) and that you are standing behind your clear violation of 3RR (even going so far as to call the edits of someone you disagree with "vandalism", when they clearly are not)... I am declining this request. I suggest you use this time to think about what you've been warned about previously, and take note that your rope here is getting shorter and shorter. If you continue acting in this manner, an indefinite block will be in your future. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 05:50, 9 February 2016 (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.

Edit carefully at Peyton Manning. Removing a maintenance tag is not vandalism by definition; re-adding it could be a violation of WP:3RR. —C.Fred (talk) 17:44, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I never claimed that it was vandalism. It is clear that the neutrality of the article is under dispute. I don't understand why the tag keeps getting removed. The tag doesn't mean that the article isn't NPOV, it just means that it's NPOV status is under dispute. ParkH.Davis (talk) 17:49, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

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

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Meatsgains (talk) 19:21, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I need to be sure we agree

I invite you to read my statements on topics we both are involved and then talk to me on my talk page. I'm not sure if everything I'm writing contribute to your concerns and I don't want to compromise your views or your status as editor, specially in Peyton Manning's case. Thank you. Leo Bonilla (talk) 22:00, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're doing just fine. I want all of the content restored and ideally put back into a "controversy" section. Keep it up, I need all the help I can get. I think those in the opposition are contending that the scandals aren't a big deal and therefore should receive marginalized coverage, which is the core of my argument against them. We need to show them that the scandals are major events and deserve to be fully covered in the article. ParkH.Davis (talk) 22:03, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, let's keep working. Leo Bonilla (talk) 22:13, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We all can agree the topics need a mention. We do not agree that they need such a large mention, because Manning's notability comes from his other pursuits. Additionally they should not be written in Wikipedia's voice but we should detail that they are allegations and Manning has denied them. I hope we can continue to work together on this article. Mr Ernie (talk) 23:29, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why shouldn't they be written in Wikipedia's voice? Also, I think the scandals deserve to be given a proportional amount of space in the article that reliable sources are giving to the scandals. There is no reason why the scandals can't make up 5% of so of the article and have their own section. ParkH.Davis (talk) 02:42, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly! Again I cite Kobe Bryant and Tom Brady page's as examples. Leo Bonilla (talk) 03:57, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We can't write it in Wikipedia's voice because those incidents were never proven to have occurred. The allegations are definitely true, but we would have to list that they were allegations. The lawsuit was settled before a court could determine the facts. That leaves us with saying "According to [reliable source], Manning was accused of sexual assault." However this really isn't good prose and is just summarizing a news article, which isn't encyclopedic. That's why we should wait until better facts come out or a more established narrative is developed. Remember, just because a reliable source prints it does not make it fact. I will support you including a mention of these issues, but they shouldn't take up so much space just because a lot of news sites are covering it. Manning is a living person and subject to BLP so we can't make claims about him that aren't proven to be true, regardless of what source says they are. Manning was never judged guilty of any of those allegations - they were settled or are still pending investigation. On Kobe's page it does the same thing - it says he was accused but the charges were dropped and it was settled out of court. That's exactly the point I keep trying to make. Mr Ernie (talk) 03:58, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The allegations are fact though. The content in question is not endorsing any hypothesis in which manning is either guilty or not guilty of these crimes, it is simply recounting the series of events surrounding the allegations. You can't minimize a major event in the history of the subject just because of some personal bias towards or against the subject. Again, and I reiterate this, the content clearly does not violate WP:BLP as it well cited by numerous reliable sources and is given the same due that it is given by these same reliable sources. This is a POV issue, not a BLP issue. ParkH.Davis (talk) 05:23, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I found a part where I think we disagree. On the last version of the controversies section in question there's no part of Manning negating the allegations and defending himself, which is important to present a balanced article in this case. Leo Bonilla (talk) 07:35, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Leo Bonilla: It actually did include manning's denial in several sentences: "claimed that he did not do everything the trainer alleged and that he was just mooning teammates across the room when she happened to be behind him" and "in his autobiography published in 2000, Manning: A Father, His Sons, and a Football Legacy, saying he was "crude, maybe, but harmless" in his conduct towards her" and "Manning issued a statement stating, that he is 'angry, furious [...] disgusted is really how I feel, sickened by [the allegations]'". ParkH.Davis (talk) 15:19, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My bad, I was only referring about the documentary statement. Leo Bonilla (talk) 19:26, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Leo Bonilla: The third comment was made in response to the documentary. ParkH.Davis (talk) 19:37, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I know. The thing is there are a lot of characters while you are watching the edit window so a single sentence may make yourself lose. That's why I used a quote template in the AJ article. Sorry. Leo Bonilla (talk) 19:44, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Check it, this what I talked about: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peyton_Manning&oldid=706342256. Leo Bonilla (talk) 21:27, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another Loophole

The facts about the PED use allegations by Al Jazeera in which refers Manning should be adknowledged at least on AJ page as it can't be part of Manning's page for now. But there is no mention about it Talk:Al Jazeera America#Why isn't any mention of the PED documentary?. And it's worth to note Manning is not the only one in mention in the documentary as other players from the NFL and the MLB are mentioned. Leo Bonilla (talk) 20:04, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Al Jazeera America only aired the documentary, they were not involved in the reporting at all. I do support there being an article focusing on the scandal as a whole though. Feel free to create it and I will add as is necessary. ParkH.Davis (talk) 20:36, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done: Al Jazeera English#The Dark Side: Secrets of the Sports Dopers. Now I think I'll add a section on AJA controversies reporting the reactions to the documentary in general. Leo Bonilla (talk) 04:29, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done: Al Jazeera America#Reactions to "The Dark Side: Secrets of the Sports Dopers" documentary/Al Jazeera controversies and criticism#Reactions to "The Dark Side: Secrets of the Sports Dopers" documentary. I think we can solve half of the issue with this. Leo Bonilla (talk) 07:29, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute Resolution?

Why are you requesting dispute resolution? Insert what you want to. Make sure to avoid BLP violations and refer to allegations as allegations. Be careful not to weight the items too heavily. Peyton Manning is a notable athlete. If he were not notable as an athlete none of these claims would exist. People are sued all the time. Use editorial judgment on what you think is encyclopedic and what is simply news. We are all here to work together. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:22, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have requested dispute resolution because multiple attempts to resolve the conflict among ourselves has failed and it is clear that an outside opinion is needed. The titles of the content in question both explicitly included the word "allegations". Censoring the article of all mentions of the scandals is a clear violation of WP:NPOV, there is no reason to mention the scandals in the article. It is WP:SPECULATION to say that allegation would not exist if the subject were anyone else but Peyton Manning. The allegations exist and have been extensively covered by reliable sources for 20 years. ParkH.Davis (talk) 17:31, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

February 2016

This is your only warning; if you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory content into an article or any other Wikipedia page again, as you did at Talk:Peyton Manning, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Mlpearc (open channel) 19:33, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All of the content which I have added is rigorously cited by numerous reliable sources. It violates WP:NPOV to actively censor any mention of the allegations against manning. ParkH.Davis (talk) 19:35, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, do what you're going to do, it has been suggested by many users on how to proceed, if you can not see that then just continue. Mlpearc (open channel) 19:45, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have made it explicitly clear what I think should included in the article. There have been no specific proposals made on which content to include and which not to include from any other editor. It is a clear WP:NPOV violation to omit any and all mentions of the scandals from the article. ParkH.Davis (talk) 19:50, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Brady

I'm not sure why you removed all the deflategate material from Tom Brady. Is this a matter of WP:POINT? There's certainly no obvious WP:BLP violation going on in those statements. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 19:56, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The allegations made against Brady were proved to be unsubstantiated and were made by unreliable sources and faulty journalism. ParkH.Davis (talk) 19:59, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That the allegations were made, widely reported, and seriously affected his career, his team, and the NFL as a whole (made a laughing stock in federal court) is not unreliable. The description of the allegations and fallout from them do need to remain in the article. This has nothing to do with adding allegations dug up decades after the fact for Peyton's biography. Please see WP:POINT which seems to precisely describe what you are doing. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 20:31, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing to do with Peyton Manning at all. The "deflategate" allegations against Brady were proven to be false. ParkH.Davis (talk) 20:35, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They were not totally false, they did were out of place. There were ball tampering but there wasn't evidence it was anti-competitive act. And the NFL prove he was guilty and suspended him but a court disestimated the charges in the same way Adrian Peterson and Ray Rice were set free from their suspentions. Leo Bonilla (talk) 22:12, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're intentionally misunderstanding. Regardless of the accuracy of the allegations, that the allegations were made and that major repercussions ensued is not debatable. That requires the presence of description of the events in the article. The Peyton case is another situation, please do not drag your problems with that article elsewhere in Wikipedia. I again refer you to WP:POINT. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 20:38, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I made the edit on Tom Brady's article. The entire Deflategate section based on poorly sourced material which likely damages the subject's reputation. Why do you keep bringing up Peyton Manning? Peyton Manning has nothing to do with Deflategate. ParkH.Davis (talk) 20:41, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm done here. I've added comments to the ANI section. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 20:48, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok men. Leave alone Brady. If you read the article about Ballghazi you'll see the scandal itself was more about the hilariously ludicrous way the scandal was covered instead of if Brady's name was affected; it was more like the 2010 Tonight Show conflict than Bill Cosby's personal issues. I'll find the way to fix Manning's BLP conflict, I promise. Now there's a mention on Al Jazeera America wikipage, it's something. Read the Manning's talk page, there's important information related to both cases. Wikipedia measures articles case by case. Leo Bonilla (talk) 21:29, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

February 2016

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for persistent disruptive editing. 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 ~~~~}}. Swarm ♠ 21:48, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blanking large sections of articles per a disingenuous BLP concern, as you did here, here and here, constitutes blatant violation of WP:POINT. You were clearly unsatisfied with the response you got at ANI and instead of moving on you chose to cause disruption. This behavior is not and will not be tolerated. Swarm ♠ 21:53, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Peacock

I noticed you removed this content at Peyton Manning, alleging that the editor who added it violated WP:PEACOCK. You are actually misunderstanding what peacocking (puffery) is. As the guideline clearly explains, peacocking only refers to very high praise that is not sourced and is "without attribution". The content you removed had excellent attribtuion; it used a high quality source (Sports Ilustrated), which verified exactly what the content stated - that Manning's college offensive coordinator called Manning the greatest NFL quarterback ever. So, rather than calling it peacocking, which it clearly was not, you would have been much better off removing it for giving undue weight to a view that many disagree with. I'm sure there are many people who believe he's the best ever; however, there are surely many more people who believe he is not the best ever and would instead choose Brady, Montana, or someone else. So, do I agree with your removal of the content? Yes, I actually do. However, my reason for removal would have definitely been undue weight, and I would have asked for a balance of sourced content to be presented. Including only the view of his mentor, who actually admitted in the story to being very biased ("I’m not a little biased, I’m a lot biased"), definitely gave undue weight to the content.

One other note. I know you're passionate about the Manning "controvery" issues that were removed and are being debated on the talk page, but your tone may come across to some other editors as angry, aggressive, and biased. I think you would serve yourself much better if you'd back off a bit by not taking so much of the spotlight in all of the discussions. Eventually, the contentious content will end up back in the article in an appropriate manner, so I feel you should really should try to work with the other editors in a more friendly, cooperative, and compromising manner. People are much more likely to go along with the ideas of someone with whom they enjoy working, and oppose those they don't. Good luck! Tracescoops (talk) 01:08, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The content I removed was not properly attributed and did not include the word "greatest" in quotes. It is peacockery to put a bunch of statements talking about how "great" the subject is. ParkH.Davis (talk) 01:15, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you are completely misunderstanding peacocking. The word greatest does not at all need to be in quotes because the editor paraphrased exactly what Cutliffe said, which was "In my opinion, there’s no question, he’s the greatest quarterback to ever play the game." That's how almost all of Wikipedia's content is written; by paraphrasing what the reliable sources tell us. So the editor writing that Cufliffe said Manning was the greatest ever is completely accurate and proper without the quotes. The only problem with it was the issue with undue weight, which is the valid reason to remove it. Peacocking would only have applied if the editor had written it in Wikipedia's voice that Manning was the greatest ever or said it without a reliable source to prove he said it. The editor said that Manning's former OC said it, which is an an undisputable, sourced fact. Also, you are totally incorrect when you say, "It is peacockery to put a bunch of statements talking about how 'great' the subject is". No it isn't, as long as it's sourced and is not in Wikipedia's voice. See Michael Jordan, Roger Federer, and others. Tracescoops (talk) 01:45, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One other point. You said, "The content I removed was not properly attributed". That statement shows that you don't understand what attribution means. Attribution simply means "who said it". And of course a reliable source must be provided to prove that person said it. So the statement that Manning is the greatest QB ever is attributed to Cutliffe and sourced by Sports Illustrated (and others). Tracescoops (talk) 02:05, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP noticeboard

I have opened a discussion about an article you created on the WP:BLP noticeboard. Please find it here. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:33, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Last attempt to directly discuss with you.

Calling someone a sex offender when they have not been charged or tried is a BLP violation. Simple question - do you understand this? I have engaged with you longer than most reasonable people would have, but this will be the final attempt. Mr Ernie (talk) 22:34, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BLP policy explicitly states: "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." [4], yet there is zero mention of the defamation lawsuit brought against Manning and the HGH allegations against him. You can't just pretend like the allegations never happened, Wikipedia is NOT censored. ParkH.Davis (talk) 22:40, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It most certainly will not help you respond to everyone with your "BLP policy explicity states" mantra, as you've done endlessly today.[5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16]. Tracescoops (talk) 23:14, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

March 2016

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add defamatory content, as you did at Talk:Peyton Manning, you may be blocked from editing.
Edits such as this are completely unacceptable. Please read Wikipedia's editing policies and guidelines thoroughly so that you can edit more effectively. - ^theWOLFchild 23:06, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI

I have opened a report at WP:ANI. Please find it here. Mr Ernie (talk) 23:20, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

March 2016

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at Peyton Manning. - ^theWOLFchild 23:27, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BLP policy explicitly states: "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." [17], yet there is zero mention of the defamation lawsuit brought against Manning and the HGH allegations against him. You can't just pretend like the allegations never happened, Wikipedia is NOT censored. ParkH.Davis (talk) 22:40, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you remove or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia again, as you did at Peyton Manning, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Mlpearc (open channel) 23:30, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BLP policy explicitly states: "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." [18], yet there is zero mention of the defamation lawsuit brought against Manning and the HGH allegations against him. You can't just pretend like the allegations never happened, Wikipedia is NOT censored. ParkH.Davis (talk) 22:40, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Look, regardless of whether you think you're right or wrong in this situation about the BLP policy, do you seriously think that blanking the article is going to accomplish anything good for you or anyone else? Seriously, cut the crap. --A guy saved by Jesus (talk) 23:34, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Last chance – stop edit warring. I don't know what the dispute is, but that doesn't matter. —SMALL JIM 23:36, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistent vandalism. 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 ~~~~}}. Huon (talk) 23:37, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Should any administrator ever consider unblocking this editor, please take note of his admitted motive on his user page, and his edit summaries, including hashtags, for the 11 times he blanked Peyton Manning.[19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29] Tracescoops (talk) 01:27, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ParkH.Davis, "#RapeCultureIsWhen all mentions of sexual assault are systematically censored" all you want--but it's hard to explain this edit, then. Drmies (talk) 03:03, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Should this editor become unblocked at some point, an all-BLP topic-ban should certainly be considered. - ^theWOLFchild 04:36, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RFD

I have nominated an article / redirect you created for deletion. == Peyton Manning sexual assault controversy listed at Redirects for discussion ==

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Peyton Manning sexual assault controversy. Since you had some involvement with the Peyton Manning sexual assault controversy redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. . I realize you are blocked, and I don't mean for this to be gloating, but it says to notify the creator. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:50, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, ParkH.Davis. 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)[reply]