User talk:Parrot of Doom/Archives/2010/April

Main page

Just a note to say that wife selling looks good. It was the right choice. :) SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 01:07, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Malleus contributed more to it than I did though. Interesting to read the talk page comments. Parrot of Doom 08:09, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello.

Hello Parrot of Doom, have you thought of visiting the Lounge forum at www.metropol247.co.uk  ? Gavin Scott (talk) 10:37, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Not really. What's it about? Parrot of Doom 11:32, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Blackbeard's Jolly Roger

In case you missed the update on my talkpage (amidst the chatter of blowing oneself) your Blackbeard image is available. Whether or not it's up to standard is another matter. I didn't know if you wanted me to do an entirely new illustration or just do a trace of the original. In the end I went for the latter, though the trace was a manual one being that Illustrator's Live Trace function isn't particularly good for images like this. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 11:59, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

That's perfect, thanks very much. Far far better than what was originally in the article :D Parrot of Doom 12:28, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't know there was already a version on commons, otherwise I'd have overwritten it with this one rather than creating a new one. In fact I might do that anyway and get my original deleted, what do you reckon? --Fred the Oyster (talk) 12:32, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Its used in loads of articles so I'd say update it with yours, and get an admin to delete the old, shit version. Parrot of Doom 12:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

All done. Just you wantch some jobsworth come along and revert! --Fred the Oyster (talk) 12:45, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Do you do svg for a living, or just a hobby? I've been working for ages on a crest for the original ELR railway article. Bloody hard work. Parrot of Doom 13:07, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

A bit of both. I'm a layout designer but do most of my work in Photoshop and InDesign. My skills in Illustrator were very sucky so I started to use the requests in the Graphics Workshop as an excuse for practising my vector image skills. Starting to understand SVG came out of that when finding that Illustrator didn't always convert from AI format to SVG format properly. My skills still suck, just not as much as they did although I still can't draw! I have to say I'm starting to enjoy doing diagrams, especially medical ones. Doing illustrations strictly for SVG is a bit limiting though, e.g. using gradient meshes aren't supported by SVG so have to be converted to raster thereby making them a bit redundant, which is a shame as they are damn useful sometimes. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 13:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

The outdated Long s

You reverted my change by suggesting that I did not "have the ability to think". That strikes me as WP:Civil. Apologize to me or I will report your comment to an administrator and will request him/her to block you. Moby-Dick3000 (talk) 15:56, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Go ahead, make your report. Parrot of Doom 15:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Will do. Moby-Dick3000 (talk) 15:58, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Trolling

Why did you post that ugly hand at my talk page??

I'm making a request for administrator arbitration. THis has gotten way out of hand.

NedTugent (talk) 16:20, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of removing the inappropriate warning here, because it will confuse the programs that many users use to fight vandalism. We only use those final-warning templates on the talk pages of seriously disruptive users, and not on the talk pages of people who are working in good faith to make the encyclopedia better. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:26, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Go ahead, make your request. I can't wait, I've needed a good laugh for ages. Parrot of Doom 16:27, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, I've just had my laugh for today. You're at ANI, Fred's at WQA, but I've not been dragged to either of those places for, oooh, must be hours now. :lol: Malleus Fatuorum 17:07, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Not even dreaming of trying to add it to today...

...and possibly you have already seen it and rejected it, but there is a little ditty sometimes called "John Hobbs" or "John and Jane Hobbs" that recounts John's unsuccessful attempts to sell his wife at Smithfield, subsequent attempt to hang himself with the rope, his rescue by Jane and how they lived happily ever after (though occasionally the last verse is omitted). It may be traditional and I assume the couple are purely fictional, but it was featured in a musical farce called "Any Thing New" which opened at the Lyceum on 1st July 1811 and it was the hit of the show with three encores. Anyway ,I see you are tied up with being reported for not being ashamed at your lack of apology for a perceived slight, so I'll leave you to it (Blast them with lasers I say. pew pew pew). Yomangani^talk 16:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. If it isn't already in the article (I'm busy with other things right now) then feel free to include it. Nobody will mind. So long as its correctly cited I'm sure it'll be fine. Parrot of Doom 16:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Anjem Choudary

Interesting choice of subject matter! Out of interest, why do you pick the likes of him and Griffin? Do you just have a taste for political controversy? Anyhow, your hard work is not in vain- you have mail at Talk:Anjem Choudary/GA1. It shouldn't take you too long to fix the issues, so if you'd drop me a line when you want me, I'd appreciate it. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:55, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Controversial but important figures deserve entries that are informative and neutral. I hate newspapers for the way they portray these people almost as much as I despise those people anyway. I'll take a look, thanks. Parrot of Doom 09:59, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

A well-earned barnstar

		The Civility Barnstar
		For going above and beyond the level one could expect to blow a gasket whilst maintaining a Manchunian level of civility. I award Parrot of Doom the rare and much sought after Civility Barnstar. Well done mate for not going over the top under the extreme circumstance you were put through today with the attempts of a certain mummy's boy to sully your pristine character.--Fred the Oyster (talk) 21:12, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

heh, the badge should still be rusty though :D Parrot of Doom 21:36, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

It's brand spanking new. It hasn't had time to rust yet! Anyway, in these days of super-special alloys... ;) --Fred the Oyster (talk) 21:49, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I think it's maybe this "Manchunian level of civility" that gets us into trouble, maybe it's even a British thing. If I think you're acting like a twat, then I'll tell you I think you're acting like a twat. Then, when we've discussed it, we'll have a beer together, and forget all about it. Malleus Fatuorum 22:43, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

The problem I seem to be suffering with though, is that the older I get the number of twats I meet seems to increase. Strange that. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 23:07, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Watch out, watch out, there's a big white dick watching over us. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 23:35, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Some Mummy's boys might call that that an attack page, but I call it ... something else. You have to remember though Fred that there's a considerable body of kiddies and their apologists whose sole intention is to drive you (and me) away from their plaything, thereby gaining admin points. Maybe RfA ought to be restructured along the lines of the old Wild West? Fred's worth 100 admin Brownie points, dead or alive, Pod's worth about 150, and I'm stratospheric. Malleus Fatuorum 00:07, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

It wouldn't have been so bad if I hadn't had to correct the spelling of one of the statements he quoted. Sheesh, you'd think this was an encyclopaedia where people were at least able to copy quotes correctly. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 00:18, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Fred, you know as well as I do that this project is, by and large, run by a bunch of kids who ought to told to fuck off until they've grown up. Malleus Fatuorum 00:25, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Seems you and I have similar views, but I do have to note that there is one thing worse than kids running the place... American kids running the place. How come the American value system is based on nicey-nicey until the oil is threatened then it's blow the fuck out of anyone who they don't like? They have spent so long wearing rose-tinted glasses and pretending to be nice to each other that they have not yet realised that they now live in a Facist state where the religious Right are trying to homogenise everyone to think the right way... their way. As a result they are totally unprepared to deal with cultures and belief systems in the real world away from the US of A. But in typical fashion, rather than trying to integrate and absorb culture and other value systems they do their normal thing... try to invade and convert us to the one true way, The American Way. That is why on a server and project that is American we shall always be outsiders, just down the ladder a bit from Bin Laden (Bush's best friend who helped him get the Patriot Act through Congress). --Fred the Oyster (talk) 00:34, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Funnily enough if there was a country in the world I could move to without financial issue, it'd be the US. I've been there twice and both times thought I loved the place. Yes, by and large the people are quite insular, but they can be charming, friendly, intelligent, and fun. They just have to go through the same process that the UK went through, and that's to lose their empire. And they do have an empire, there is no doubt. It won't last though, no empire ever has. When another one rears its ugly head and replaces the US, perhaps then they'll come running back, having realised how much they've suffered for their want of a monarch :) Parrot of Doom 21:33, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

From Moby-Dick3000

You take Wikipedia too seriously.

I had a look at your contribs for March and February. You edited every single day. Keep in mind Wikipedia is really just a glorified bulletin board -- simply a way to share information. Also, the fact the you so vigorously defended the usage of the long s in the Wife selling article, a very trivial issue, says at the very least you, and user:Malleus Fatuorum, have ownership issues (you both have the greatest number of edits) and at worst you've become obsessed with the article and Wikipedia. I think you need to ask yourself, does it make sense to insult another editor over minutia?

I noticed from the discussion page I wasn't the only user to object to the usage of the long s, another did as well. He/She raised many valid points and yet you couldn't bring yourself to accept the change. Keep in mind he did this as a courtesy to you. As you well know, no editor needs to ask another's permission to change an article. I must admit I became a bit too wrapped up in this little argument as well and I'm guilty of many of the flaws I'm pointing out in you, but at least I knew when to quit. I recently placed a retired tag on my account and denied myself access to it by creating a password that's impossible to remember. Then I discarded it. I won't be contributing to Wikipedia anymore.

Your personal page says you're 37. That makes me 10 years your senior. Here's some friendly advice: Wikipedia is hardly worth the time you're spending on it. Cut back on your editing or stop altogether. Spend more time socializing with people face to face but do it politely. Rude behavior gets you nowhere in life. Just because you can get away with it on Wikipedia and elsewhere on the internet doesn't mean you’re helping yourself.

I fully expect you to respond to this message with angry denials, insults and defensive arguments given from what seen of your posts. For that reason you won't be hearing from me even if you do respond.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.8.4.155 (talk) 21:59, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

This post is so full of irony I don't know where to begin. Thanks for keeping me entertained, I think I'll keep it here for posterity. Parrot of Doom 22:14, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Me too. Rather funny, rather telling and rather pathetic. Such is life in the good ol' USA. Have a nice day now ya hear. I suspect someone who <sarcasm>isn't taking Wikipedia too seriously</sarcasm> hasn't felt closure. Maybe now they can go on for a long, fruitful and fulfilling life. As for the irony PoD, you know as well as I do the Yanks don't do irony terribly well. I suppose he will just have to figure it out for himself. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 22:26, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Funny isn't it Fred, the ones who complain most loudly about "rudeness" and "civility" are all too often the ones to dish it out themselves when their egos remain unmassaged. Parrot of Doom 22:28, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Amazing how someone engages in a long and heated discussion with you on an article talk page and then, when he gets nowhere, takes the time to check out your conribution history and comes to your own talk page to tell you you're taking it all too seriously. Richerman (talk) 22:52, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

It looks like my newest bestest friend, who thinks that I take this all far too seriously, isn't above returning to read the responses to his post and commenting to interested parties. Love it. Parrot of Doom 20:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

"Identify" definitions

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/identify "to establish the identity of"

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/identify "to recognise or establish as a particluar thing; to verify the identity of" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregcaletta (talk • contribs) 12:24, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Perhaps you might like to explain how identifying something implies that that identification was correct, and also why do you need to state the obvious twice in one sentence? Parrot of Doom 12:26, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

It says "verify the identity of". "Verify" means "to make certain". How much cleared do I have to make it? In any case, he word "mistook" is used in the cited source (FoxNews) and it is up to you to justify why "identify" is better. Gregcaletta (talk) 12:28, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

"Identified" implies that the crew were certain of their identification. The current phrasing makes their certainty, and the mistaken identification, perfectly clear. The sentence already states that they were not carrying weapons, but cameras, so why do you feel the need to state the obvious twice? Makes no sense to me. There's my justification. Parrot of Doom 12:34, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I was having a bit of tongue-in-cheek fun on the Wife Selling page on April Fool's...

...and I can't imagine why you felt it necessary to label it "patent nonsense" and delete it. I know that the fine art of wordplay is diminishing, but one would have thought that you would have been more aware of such.

I thoroughly enjoyed the article and didn't do any vandalism or the like on the main article page, just some banter on the Talk page (where such items belong.) It was a bit of sourness on your part to sweep it off, and judging from the nastiness that evolved after my rather innocuous commentary seems to bear out that a large number of people ate some rather bad suet in their morning oatmeal.

Taking Wikipedia seriously - especially the Talk Pages - leads to shortened life. Why risk it? Have a frolic now and again, Parrot, you won't regret it. PR (talk) 14:15, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not in a position to check but it was a busy day with lots of silly edits so apologies if ur good faith edits were misconstrued by me. Parrot of Doom 16:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I've just had a look and it was patent nonsense, so no apology required. It wasn't even funny, just annoying. Parrot of Doom 19:57, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate the spirit of your apology, Parrot; then that suet kicked in and your sour stomach acted up again. Try switching to whole grains and using Irish butter rather than the rancid bacon leavings from yesterday's scrape and bolt. You'd be surprised how much better you feel. No, no need to thank me. I'm sure if you take my advice your demeanor will take on a brighter aspect, and if you don't, you won't be suitable company; in either case, it's down to you and my work is finished. Tar'ar! PR (talk) 21:18, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm utterly devastated that you don't feel my company is suitable. There was me, thinking that we were destined to become lovers. Parrot of Doom 21:23, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Heads up

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 9, 2010. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:15, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

More poo-based shennanigans on the front page then :) Parrot of Doom 08:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I've emailed you some old newspaper articles that may be of interest Richerman (talk) 16:46, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the Baghdad air strike article

I'm really confused as to why you keep removing the text I added in the "Third" section. Even more so by your most recent reversion and edit summary- what is it that you are contesting? I don't understand. Wikileaks is the site that leaked the video and spurred the controversy, if that's what you're asking. ALI ^{nom nom} 16:22, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not contesting anything. The problem is that thus far in the article no mention has been made about Wikileaks, or the release of the footage. That part of the article should deal only with the events on that day, else you risk confusing the reader, who at that point will be thinking "Wikileaks? Who?" This is why mention is made later in the article. Parrot of Doom 16:24, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah- I had assumed they would know, based on the lead. But I see what you mean, Wikileaks doesn't have a role in the actual events and that part should be introduced later (which it is). Sorry for the confusion. ALI ^{nom nom} 17:25, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, if you had only the word "Doom" in your signature linked to your talk page, then it would be emboldened and discussion on your talk page would look much more formidable. Sorry, just thinking aloud. ALI ^{nom nom} 17:26, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

No problem :) I read the article this morning and was shocked by its poor quality. I'm just kicking it into shape, although I haven't checked the sources used yet. One suspects that more trouble lies ahead... Parrot of Doom 17:45, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Serious question: are you one of those guys who believes that questioning the official reports of the incident is equal to spreading anti-US propaganda? 98.246.144.63 (talk) 21:03, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

No. Parrot of Doom 21:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe just one of those guys who doesn't believe all the bullshit that governments pump out day after day after day after ... Malleus Fatuorum 21:49, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Well someone has to, now that it isn't being dumped in fields :) Parrot of Doom 21:54, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

ANI notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Prenigmamann. Thank you.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:07, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Peer review: Adrian Boult

After putting in my two penn'orth to the Elizabeth Canning article this morning it occurred to me that I might be able to persuade you to cast an eye over this article which I have put forward for PR. Shall perfectly understand if you can't fit it in, but most grateful if you can. Tim riley (talk) 15:20, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok I'll take a look at it shortly. Parrot of Doom 08:03, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I have recruited some other WP colleagues who have given their counsel, so please don't feel under any obligation - though very pleased to have your comments if you are inclined and have time. - Tim riley (talk) 17:13, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Driven by my burning sense of injustice ...

... I think I make have come across my next project. I just can't get out of my mind the thought that if I'd been born 200 years or so earlier that might have been my fate as well ... maybe I should book an appointment with a trick cyclist. :lol: Malleus Fatuorum 19:48, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

That's a great subject on which to work. The whole concept is almost alien today, and I think people will be surprised at just how frequently such buildings were encountered in towns and cities. Parrot of Doom 20:51, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

On a similar theme, Borstal is yet another in the long list of articles about our history that is woeful. Parrot of Doom 20:55, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

That Borstal article is dreadful. I'm currently suffering from what I'm going to call a reverse encyclopedia syndrome. I look at one article, do a bit of tidying up, then follow the links to see if they're appropriate, do a bit of tidying up, then follow the links ... it's a job for Sisyphus, not for humans. Malleus Fatuorum 21:04, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

To pre-warn you; I was eyeing this general area when I was considering cleaning up the current mess at Bedlam (and in keeping a watching brief on Slim's work at Marshalsea), and it'll be more trouble than you expect. There are huge number of linked articles that need to be cleared up, or in some cases created, to avoid explaining basic background in the article itself or in a mess of footnotes (Poor Law, Orphanage, Pemsel Case, Undeserving poor, Almshouse… – as an example, this is what Wikipedia currently has to say about arguably the single most important piece of social legislation in British history); plus, you can expect a serious battle with the "…in popular culture" merchants demanding you include their half-remembered musings on Dickens, assorted nationalist cranks slapping {{globalise}} templates on because you don't mention the workhouses of Prince Edward Island, and every amateur photographer uploading snapshots of their local asylum. (Suggestion, FWIW; David Kynaston's Austerity Britain has an excellent section on the background to and thinking behind the 1948 abolition of Poor Law.) – iridescent 21:07, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I have considered that, and you're right, which is why I've trodden (fairly) lightly so far. But if we don't confront this issue, then wikipedia will coalesce into a fancruft site. Surely together we can do better than this? Malleus Fatuorum 21:15, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

You might want to see if Ironholds can be pestered into cleaning up and expanding the legal articles listed at {{Poor Law}}, and set Ottava to work on Dickens; that would fill out the legal-and-cultural-background side of things, leaving you free to work on the "how it worked in practice" side. – iridescent 21:20, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I just followed your link, and I almost fell off my chair laughing. Call that an article? Malleus Fatuorum 21:23, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll see if Ironholds owes me any favours, and I'll try twisting Ottava's arm. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 21:25, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

(For the benefit of watching Americans etc, the National Assistance Act 1948 wasn't some obscure piece of legislation; it was the law which introduced the concept of the Welfare State and Social Security, and is arguably the single most important law of the 20th century.) – iridescent 21:28, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Let me know what books on Workhouses you get Malleus, and I'll see if I can track any others down. Parrot of Doom 21:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I've only got the one so far, Simon Fowler's Workhouses: The People: The Places: The Life Behind Doors, published by the National Archive. Shall we do this? Are you with me? For too long the working class has been oppressed by ... oops, sorry, wrong speech. Malleus Fatuorum 22:02, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I've been scratching my head about how best to tackle this article. As Iridescent says, most of the supporting articles are poor, so they can't be relied on, but I'm coming to the conclusion that the structure and organisation is just wrong, and the whole thing needs reworking. That block of "legal background" just doesn't work for me. This is looking like a bigger job than I'd bargained for. :-( Malleus Fatuorum 22:57, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

As it stands, it's totally missing what I'd consider the most important point; the thinking behind them. The people pushing these through weren't the evil rich locking up the poor for their own nefarious ends; they were concerned MPs, religious leaders and philanthropists trying to come up with a system that would prevent the poor from starving, while being unpleasant enough that people wouldn't submit to them unless they had to. The article as it stands conveys none of this. – iridescent 23:04, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree completely. In its present form the article just doesn't work. Malleus Fatuorum 23:57, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Dancing the Dream

Hey, there. I currently have Dancing the Dream at FAC. Ling.Nut made some edits to the article and suggested that the prose could perhaps do with some further tweaking. As you did a good copyedit for Say Say Say, I was wondering if you could perhaps take a look and give it a quick going-over? Pyrrhus16 16:39, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Certainly. I have to look at Adrian Boult first, however. FAC is slow right now so there's plenty of time. Parrot of Doom 16:55, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. There's no rush. Oh, and heads up. Three TFA's in two weeks might be a new record. Pyrrhus16 21:09, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, bad luck PoD. :lol: Malleus Fatuorum 21:21, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

lol. From the best Floyd album (DSotM) to the worst Floyd album, in only a few months! Parrot of Doom 22:04, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't normally laugh at vandalism but this is hysterical Parrot of Doom 17:22, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

"..the contempt it deserves."

It really makes no difference to me one way or the other if you hold anything I say in contempt, however I would like to point out that you began the personal attacks by paining an ambiguous and unnamed, unquantified, phantom population of people as, basically, lower than yourself. Not just personally attacking others, but that is also haughty, arrogant, and speaks to a pseudointellectual mind. If you feel the need to strut like a peacock in talk pages, you should understand that not all people see your feathers as brightly as you see them. Jersey John (talk) 11:07, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Whereas others are bald as coots. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 11:17, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

You made a perfectly valid suggestion, I gave a perfectly valid response, and made no personal attack toward anyone on Wikipedia. You then dove straight in and claimed I was "a bit arrogant", which is exactly what prompted the line in the title of this thread. So do me a favour, stop talking out of your arse. Parrot of Doom 14:26, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

lol stepping back this is the classic clash of two strong personalities with more than a few brain cells. By the way, further along in that same talk age you made an ecellent argument against some of the nutters who wanted to add some bizarreness to the article, and I have to give you credit on that. see I'm not a TOTAL jerk. Cheers! Jersey John (talk) 03:35, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

What a surprise; lies highlighted, and no apology. Clear off. Parrot of Doom 09:07, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Malleus Fatuorum

Hi. I noticed you referred to me there, in particular you accused me of having threatened "a punitive week-long block for language that only the most conservative-of-thought would consider rude". I couldn't disagree more; did you actually examine the diff I offered to block for? WP:CIVIL is a policy, and I intend to enforce it. Malleus' comment clearly breaches said policy and if I see him breach it again, he has asked me to block him, as is my job. What part of all this are you having difficulty with? --John (talk) 13:34, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I examined the diff. Really, some of you politeness pontiffs need to get a sense of what is, and is not, offensive. The art of the true insult is something that seems to be missing on Wikipedia, because you completely ignored the comment which preceded that one, something which in my opinion is just as offensive. So tell me, do you actually bother to investigate fully the situation as it presents itself, or do you just go flouncing into a discussion having only bothered to read half of it, issuing pointless warnings to editors who are well aware of the silly Civility policy? Parrot of Doom 14:12, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

"Flouncing", eh? I think you have just illustrated more perfectly than I ever could why the civility policy is far from silly. By insulting others, you give them permission to ignore anything substantive you might have to say, and take the conversation from an adult level to a stroppy teenager level. Feel free to suggest and attain consensus to have WP:CIVIL derecognized as policy, or failing that, to look elsewhere for another internet project whose rules more closely align with your own tastes. Let me know how you get on, and good luck. --John (talk) 15:10, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

So in your eyes, its perfectly correct to threaten a punitive block against a user accused of a breach of policy, but it isn't correct for another user to highlight that blocks are supposed to be preventative, not punitive? If you're going to impose standards on the rest of us, you should start by looking in the mirror.

I don't bother with the policy-making areas of Wikipedia, because they're filled largely by editors busily puffing their chests out and making grand speeches. Those places are incredibly boring. The only policies I care about are notability, reliability, and verifiability. They're the policies I remember as I'm building decent, honest, reliable articles, which is what this place is for. Maybe when you're finished telling other people where to go and what to do (what of your civility policy now, eh), you should go and do a bit of that yourself? That is, of course, only after you've warned PeeJay for his incivility. After all the rules apply to everyone, do they not? Parrot of Doom 15:21, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

In what way would it be punitive to block an editor who persistently fails to follow policy after multiple warnings, and has even called for a block on himself? In what way do you feel I have a requirement to "look in the mirror"; there's an implication there that I have done something wrong; are you able to clearly state what that is, in your opinion? In what way would you say that reminding users that if they don't like the rules of this project, they are free to try to have the rules changed, or to leave, breaches our civility policy? The rules certainly do apply to everyone, you're right there. --John (talk) 15:36, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I make no comment on Malleus's edits or opinion of policy, that's his opinion, but if you admit that he "fails to follow policy" then what on earth is the point of a block, if it is not punitive? You haven't warned User:Bjmullan and yet he made a comment about Malleus's mother that some might find just as offensive as the reply it received. Do me a favour, go back, read your civility policy, and see what it has to say about marching onto my talk page and telling me what to do. Then try answering some of my questions by not using the age-old tactic of throwing a million silly questions back. Parrot of Doom 15:45, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean this? You're stretching if so! If there is a complaint about another user, please show a diff that you object to and I will look at it. I am sorry you do not seem to understand the difference between preventive and punitive, but that's ok. "Marching" onto your talk page? How does that work? Do you talk to people you deal with in real life like this? If so, how does it work for you? --John (talk) 16:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and it demonstrates perfectly how different perceptions colour our opinion of civility. My opinion of Malleus's comment is no different to your opinion of Bjmullen's comment. In real life, if I think someone is being a bit of a twat then I'll tell them, but on here, it'll likely result in a block. I don't bother reporting people for incivility (and I've had some pretty strong stuff thrown my way), its called having a thick skin and a bit of life experience.

What a pointless discussion. I wonder how people with such a weak grasp of principles ever managed to gain admin tools. Parrot of Doom 16:22, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry you're not enjoying the discussion. I will let you get on with your article improvement now, and I look forward to seeing Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Parrot of Doom become a blue link, and to your efforts in reforming WP:CIVIL and any other of our policies you think need improved. Happy editing! --John (talk) 17:10, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I've three times been asked (by editors whom I trust and respect) to think about being an admin. It holds no interest for me whatsoever, so don't bother, and as I've already said I don't frequent policy areas so you've not much to look forward to. Parrot of Doom 17:19, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• User:John (used to be called Guinnog) is an interesting case, a born-again civility preacher. Just take a look at one of his very first edits, and his rather contentious RfA to see what I mean. Malleus Fatuorum 17:23, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Its interesting in a "not really very surprised" kind of way. I recall someone once telling me that upsetting people was the quickest way to get your RFA redlink bookmarked, I guess whoever said it was right on the nail. Not that it matters, although I don't want Jza and Nev to think that I don't appreciate their confidence in me. Parrot of Doom 17:27, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
    • I think I've said to you before, but it's worh repeating. If you have any aspirations to becoming an administrator you need to do it sooner rather than later. The longer you edit without that cloak of invulnerability the more enemies you collect just waiting for that link to turn blue. Your friends and supporters won't have it watchlisted though, so before you know it everyone you've ever had a disagreement with has lined up in the Oppose column, and you're effectively sunk. Malleus Fatuorum 17:35, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
      • No interest whatsoever. I prefer writing good articles. The real "power" comes in being able to correct or confirm people's perceptions of real events or people, by removing their misconceptions, and by being entirely honest and neutral in the presentation of information. That, and that writing said articles I've found is the best way of keeping information in my head, and I really need to know exactly how a Tobacco Smoke Enema worked. Parrot of Doom 17:42, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
        • I am flattered that you find me interesting Malleus. I am glad to see from reviewing your recent contributions that you have managed to refrain from any more serious insults. Well done. It seems that, like me, you are capable of learning and adapting to community norms. I find that heartening. --John (talk) 18:14, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
          • What I find interesting is your intellectual dishonesty, not you. I couldn't care less about you. Malleus Fatuorum 18:19, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
          • Good God John I don't think you realise quite how glutinous your words sound, oozing from every pore as they do. Parrot of Doom 18:32, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
            • LOL! Happy editing you both, and keep up the good work. I will follow your future careers here with interest. --John (talk) 18:35, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
              • It isn't a career, its a hobby, and I hope you'll excuse me if I ask you to go away now. I can only stand to be nauseated so much in one day. Parrot of Doom 18:39, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
                • I think he's achieved what he intended doing. He thinks he's got you all looking over your shoulders now... – B.hotep •talk• 19:21, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
                  • I, for one, am terrified. I'm sure PoD is, too. What you have to remember is that a lot of Wikipedia's admins have such an inflated opinion of the importance of the role, they genuinely can't understand someone who doesn't want to be one and don't understand how ridiculous "I'll watchlist your RFA!" looks as a threat to a normal editor. – iridescent 19:38, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
                  • "I look forward to seeing Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Parrot of Doom become a blue link". So John reveals himself as just another thug trying to mould people in his own image through threats and intimidation. Nev1 (talk) 20:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
                    • Oh no, looks like he hasn't finished his game. Parrot of Doom 23:00, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
                      • I really think it's best to ignore John, at least for now. He's obviously confused his day job with his administrator role here, so we're all to be treated as naughty schoolchildren. Malleus Fatuorum 23:23, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
                        • What I don't understand is why John got involved in this in the first place. Was there a complaint from someone or do the civility police watch Malleus's talk page waiting for a reason to block him? Richerman (talk) 00:06, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
                          • The latter. Malleus Fatuorum 00:10, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
                            • Yeah, that's what I thought. So now he can add another one to his watchlist :) Richerman (talk) 00:18, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Talk heat

Please consider being a little less belligerent in discussion, and especially in edit summaries.

Peter ^Isotalo 15:06, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Take your insults elsewhere, I find your hypocrisy laughable. Parrot of Doom 15:20, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

You're not the first ever primary contributor of an FA to get defensive about changes suggested after mainpage featuring. I've been pretty annoyed myself about some suggestions on my own babies, even a bit pissy at times. However, I've never tried to fight tooth and nail for weeks to keep non-essential archaisms in the face of coherent, concerned arguments from a fairly broad range of fellow editors. These days usually try to wait a few days, or at least several hours, before reverting and I avoid tart comments in edit summaries at all costs no matter what I personally think about some suggestions. My impression is that you've almost deliberately abrasive from page one, despite any sign of provocation.

You're obviously experienced and quite capable of writing high-quality articles. So why willfully sour discussion with other experienced, capable editors on account of a fairly minor, though entirely valid, complaint?

Peter ^Isotalo 21:41, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Because I completely disagree with the arguments for removing the long s, and because I don't appreciate being lectured to by people who twist the truth toward their own ends. Just accept that I don't agree with your arguments, don't insult me on article talk pages, and then don't come on my talk page whittering on about civility when I've done nothing to deserve it. It insults my intelligence, and I don't care for it. Parrot of Doom

Stop reverting

You've made three identical reverts within 24 hours on the Wife selling article. If you make a fourth you will have violated WP:3RR and you will be at risk for a WP:Block. GlooscapSinclair (talk) 16:16, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Fascinating. I'm beginning to understand why Malleus has fucked off. Parrot of Doom 16:30, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Boult at FAC

Are you satisfied with Boult's article now? I think Tim riley responded to all your comments. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:24, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Ssilvers, I'm a little tied up with one or two things right now but trust me I will get around to it in the next day or so. Parrot of Doom 21:46, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

If you don't mind adding further comments on the talk page, as suggested by the authorities, your suggestions will be very gratefully received. - Tim riley (talk) 21:41, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

No problem, its a great article and congratulations on seeing your hard work rewarded with the bronze star :) Parrot of Doom 21:43, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations Tim riley, the article was promoted about ten minutes ago. Nev1 (talk) 21:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Album cover rationale

Hi, I currently have an article on a Sparks album at FAC, and the nfcc rationale for the album cover in the infobox -- which, as far as I recall, I copied from the infobox image in one of your Pink Floyd FAs -- has been challenged. Could you have a look at the discussion at Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/The_Seduction_of_Ingmar_Bergman/archive1? Am I missing something? --JN466 09:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

That's odd, I've replied on the FAC. I think that unless he explains his opposition further you need not worry about it, User:SandyGeorgia or User:Karanacs read everything in each review, and will most likely discard his opposition. I've found that Sandy is very helpful at FAC, so she may be able to resolve the matter if it develops into an argument. Parrot of Doom 11:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at this. I was puzzled as well. Cheers, --JN466 16:51, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Dancing the Dream comments

Hi PoD! Sorry to sound so nasty there. I don't normally oppose, but in my view the prose is the least of the problems, and the most fixable. Didn't realize you were in the process of copy-editing. SandyGeorgia wants articles to be reviewed, and as most of my article content is about books, I chose that one. Do you think of Malleus' leaving has left a lot of us in foul moods? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi there - sorry, I didn't think you were at all nasty! I was just trying to support the nominator as I feel a little annoyed at myself; I'd started to copyedit the article but hadn't finished. Apologies for the misunderstanding.

I'm not in a bad mood about Malleus's decision, more sad really. I do, however, feel quite disappointed that the reasons for his departure have been allowed to fester for so long. Its sometimes incredibly frustrating to put a lot of work into an article only to see it undervalued, and Malleus's work here in my opinion is certainly to be valued. Just watching him correct my early ham-fisted attempts at article writing has given me a lot of confidence when editing. Parrot of Doom 17:46, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I've been driven off wikipedia by the civility police PoD, as has Fred, so don't make the same mistakes that we did. I might occasionally move a few commas around as the mood takes me, under different usernames, but basically the game's up for me. No reason why you have to follow in our paths though, but every reason why you need to look at the pattern; you're now being targetted. Don't make yourself a target. Malleus Fatuorum 23:53, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't particularly think its targeting, but it amazes me how the people who pop up here to complain about civility always do so only after they've made the odd snide insinuation. Apparently its perfectly ok to call someone whimsical, but it isn't ok to call someone's argument pathetic. Right now it seems to me that the whole issue of the long s is being held onto by certain parties as a staffie locks its jaw onto a branch - it doesn't do it because the wood is tasty, it does it because the branch becomes the most important thing in its life, and it can't ever envision letting go. I'm just the person swinging the bit of wood around. I'm not particularly bothered about the long s, but I very quickly become the immovable object when people invent reasons and engage in bullying behaviour, just to get their own way. Frankly, they can get to fuck. Parrot of Doom 12:07, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Parrot, I avoid commenting on chatter between friends, but the misunderstanding is too obvious to let pass without comment. My complaint above was about all the tartness you've aimed at everyone, and not just people who happen to imply that you are whimsical or whatever.

Peter ^Isotalo 13:23, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

No Peter, I'm not rude to everyone. I am, however, quite happy to point out where editors invent arguments out of thin air, and I absolutely will not stand by and allow you to tarnish my reputation by posting civility nonsense on my talk page. If you want to apologise for stating that I direct "tartness" to "everyone" then you can do that now, and if you also want to apologise for accusing me of being "whimsical" and guilty of "cherry picking", feel free. If you can find a single instance where I've directed similarly offensive comments to you or anyone else on that page, now's your chance to highlight them. If you can't, and if you won't apologise, then the reply given in Arkell vs Pressdram may prove enlightening. Parrot of Doom 14:29, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Personally I think both sides are in the wrong, exaggerating what has happened and making the long s a greater issue than it should be. Peter doesn't strike me as one of the civility police, and making claims that he and other are using bullying tactics doesn't really stand up to scrutiny. My recommendation is that everyone involved on talk:wife selling finds something better to do; there are plenty of articles with more important issues than the long s. Nev1 (talk) 15:32, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

No you're certainly correct in that Peter isn't the sort to engage in bullying and I didn't intentionally label him as such, but I still don't care for the now rather personal comments which are beginning to infect that page. Posting warnings about language here is just insulting. Parrot of Doom 16:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I might well have dug my heels in as well PoD, but at the end of the day, who gives a fuck? Malleus Fatuorum 20:24, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, Malleus, but taking back this thread! PoD, I've started a huge restructure of Dancing the Dream and have added instructions to the talkpage about writing about books (not easy). I tend to make lots of stupid careless errors, so you having you picking up my pieces/mistake would be really helpful, if you don't mind. I think with some work this will get through GAN. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:17, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't mind at all. Give me a few days, I've just got my allotment after a very long wait, so I'll be playing in the soil for a bit :) I also have to finish copyediting Adrian Boult. Parrot of Doom 16:43, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Responding to Request to Peter Isotalo

I'm sorry to butt in, but you made a reasonable request, and I can provide. "If you can find a single instance where I've directed similarly offensive comments to you or anyone else on that page, now's your chance to highlight them."

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wife_selling&offset=20100401154805&action=history

(top 2 edits) "Usage of the archaic s here is confusing and unnecessary." --Moby-Dick3000

"its only confusing to those without the ability to think" --Parrot of Doom

--Rsl12 (talk) 15:09, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

on that page - do me a favour ffs. Parrot of Doom 15:20, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Given the context, I thought this was the most apropos exchange. "Apparently its perfectly ok to call someone whimsical, but it isn't ok to call someone's argument pathetic." --Parrot of Doom --Rsl12 (talk) 16:10, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not at all interested in what you think. Go away. Parrot of Doom 16:40, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I apologize if I've caused offense. As you were.--Rsl12 (talk) 18:23, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations

Nice job me hearties! While I've been waiting to see how this FAC plays out, I've been amusing myself with one of my favourite hoaxes, because it may not really be a hoax at all according to one of the protagonists, and also because it suckered Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. Malleus Fatuorum 22:40, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey, well their story is just as likely as an invisible bearded bloke in the sky who loves you but will send you to hell if you don't worship him, so why not ;) I remember reading about them in The Unexplained. Spontaneous human combustion, Kirlian photography, Men in Black, Poltergeist, loads of those things were in that magazine. Parrot of Doom 22:50, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

IIRC Frances Griffiths' version (I assume it's her you mean) was "The photographs were fake, but that's only because there really were real fairies there but they didn't show up, so we faked the pictures to show what they looked like". To me, that sounds less plausible than "there were genuine fairies in the pictures". Substitute "ghost", "UFO", "weapons of mass destruction", or "Daily Mirror pictures of British troops in Iraq" for "fairies" for just how weak "forged reconstruction of a genuine event that only I witnessed" is as an argument. – iridescent 23:15, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Elsie was adamant they'd faked all five of the pictures, but Frances died maintaining that the last one was real. Who are we to judge, we just report the facts. And before you ask, no, I don't believe in fairies. Or ghosts, or UFOs, or that invisible bearded bloke in the sky, or ... just colour me cynical but open-minded. Malleus Fatuorum 23:55, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I was quite interested in Kirlian photography at one time, so I clicked on your link with some trepidation. Thankfully it was a pleasant surprise, for once. Malleus Fatuorum 00:02, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for rewriting Blackbeard ... and for rewriting all of my previous conceptions about pirates. :P —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 07:13, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, it was a pleasure :) I wish there were more books on the man. Parrot of Doom 08:07, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Stop reverting

You've made three identical reverts within 24 hours on the Wife selling article. If you make a fourth you will have violated WP:3RR and you will be at risk for a WP:Block. GlooscapSinclair (talk) 22:45, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Is there a template that tells people to stop being a wazzock? Parrot of Doom 22:49, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Right back at you GlooscapSinclair. Feel free to address this. If the discussion is ongoing, it means consensus has not been reached so the long s should not be removed. Nev1 (talk) 22:49, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Your comment

Telling me to "shut up" is obviously a form of incivility. Accusing me of personal attacks against you is ridiculous since you're engaging in wp:own and wp:uncivil, otherwise there would be no way to warn users who engage in these behaviors. I might very well file a report against you when I've got the time later. However, regardless of its outcome, you'll find it impossible to shut me up. BarkingPumpkin1981 (talk) 22:57, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

All mouth and no trousers. File your report, link to it here when you've done it, and then don't ever post here again. Parrot of Doom 23:00, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. BarkingPumpkin1981 (talk) 23:08, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Manchester Bolton & Bury Canal

It appears the crane has been repainted are you in a position to get a new pic?©Geni 11:57, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Its had a lick of hammerite on the boiler but nothing more, I could get a new picture quite easily. There isn't much difference, however. Parrot of Doom 12:13, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Blackbeard going down with his ship

For your attention Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pirate Flag of Blackbeard (Edward Teach).svg --The Pink Oboe (talk) 16:21, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning, I think the nominator certainly has a point and I've emailed Fred to see if he's in a position to help. Parrot of Doom 17:15, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

If you can ſpare a moment ...

... would you mind casting your critical eye over this and letting me know what you think? It's not something I'm planning to take to FAC – I'm not in the mood for the "why haven't you used Gardner's 1945 book", or "I think you need to explain in the lead what a fairy is" ... nonsense – but I'd still like it to be a useful and accurate account of one of the most famous hoaxes of the 20th century before I leave it. Malleus Fatuorum 22:31, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Parrot of Doom 08:34, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

• I'm sure you wouldn't have been bothered in any case PoD, but just in case. Malleus Fatuorum 02:09, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks Malleus, do we know who this child is a sockpuppet of? Parrot of Doom 07:33, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

• No idea, but whoever it was certainly went to some trouble to collect together all of those postings, so obviously not one of your many adoring fans. Malleus Fatuorum 11:47, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oh well, it makes me appear awfully rotten, what what... Just a shame that the person who posted it went to all that trouble for nothing. Well maybe not nothing, I got a 10 second chuckle out of it. I do wish people would learn to appreciate that civility isn't a hammer to be used against those with whom one happens to disagree. If those are the worst comments of mine they could drag up, I'll not lose any sleep. The constructive work I've done here easily outweighs a few choice words. Anyway, what should I plant in the second plot on my allotment Malleus? Parrot of Doom 13:50, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

• Parsnips. Can't go wrong with parsnips, the most versatile of all vegetables - sweet, savory, boiled, baked, fried, blended as a smoothie, raw… Plus the rabbits generally go for the leaves and leave the roots alone. An abiding mystery to me is why they vanished from US cuisine, given their importance in the English, German and Slavic cooking from which American cookery descended. (They used to be a staple—one of the Little House on the Prairie books has a long section devoted to Laura planting parsnips—but I have literally never seen them on sale anywhere in North America other than, for some reason, Quebec.) – iridescent 15:02, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
• Potatoes, the king of vegetables. (I can't stand parsnips.) Or onions. To be honest, they're about the only two vegetables I eat much of. Malleus Fatuorum 15:10, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

• Already got Juliette potatoes in, onions, and Lollo Rosso lettuce. Sugarsnap peas will be going in once they've germinated on my windowsill. Carrots and Parsley I think I have to buy tunnels for, that's money I'd rather not spend yet :) Anyone want a load of gravel? The previous tenant was a pillock and put loads of it on the back, 1/3rd of my allotment is full of bloody gravel instead of vegetation :| Parrot of Doom 15:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

• How much does an allotment cost? Malleus Fatuorum 16:03, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

• Mine's just behind Brook Road in Flixton, took me a year to get, and costs about £25 a year. When you consider a bag of potato seedlings costs about £2, and you can get easily 100 potatoes from that, it's something of a bargain :)

• (ec - good discussion) I live in the states and cooked parsnip a few nights ago. Very delicious, I must say. Do you get enough sun for tomatoes and basil? Of course, leeks and cabbage always do well, if you like them. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:10, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

• Plenty of sun here, not many people know this but the English invented tomatoes :D Can't stand them myself, however. Parrot of Doom 16:19, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

• Funny that, I know so many people who hate tomatoes. So much for that idea. Your gardens are so much better than ours it's pathetic! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:26, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

• The odd thing is that its only the raw tomato I don't like—sauce, pizzas, soup, I love all those. Actually I also love fresh cherry tomatoes on Bruschetta, but only in Italy or Spain where it's fresh. The standard British tomato, ugh, horrid thing. Anyway heres my plot as it develops. Still a fair bit of work to do, mostly at the back. Parrot of Doom 16:44, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

April 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Edward Stanley, 19th Earl of Derby appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe this important core policy. Thank you. Parrot of Doom 20:01, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I just started with Wikipedia and I've just seen what I've added, which is:

1. Entirely Factually Accurate 2. Not Slanted or One-Sided in Any Way

has been deleted by you. You could have at least sent me a message first to discuss it.

I have a quite full understanding of this issue and have been following it closely. So perhaps you could investigate the issue in detail yourself, which frankly I suspect you have not, to see if the text submitted is neutral and accurate before simply erasing all of it. I would then politely request you to tell me exactly what was submitted which was non-neutral.

Thanks and Regards.

That article has clearly become the mouthpiece of a particularly angry little campaign. There is nothing neutral about the additions that have been made recently. I'm sorry if you truly are a new editor on Wikipedia, no doubt this might be a little confusing, but I suggest you have a sit down and a read of the WP:NPOV policy. What you're doing is adding text that only supports the views of people who are against the Earl's plans, which makes the article very one-sided. I've no interest in whatever he's up to, I came across the article from elsewhere, but I suggest if you want to improve this article you start by balancing your additions with opposing views, and without the use of peacock words. Parrot of Doom 20:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. I'm trying to contribute to the article, because I think it's an important issue and worth recording. I don't actually live in the town. You're certainly right that the contributions can be taken one way, but the problem is that as yet there's been no good reasons I've seen floated as to why the plans SHOULD be allowed to go ahead. Maybe someone who supports Lord Derby could add it, but they seem to be very thin on the ground. Look at the poll! 93% against Lord Derby's plans! I'll just put the number in. That should be better.

Thank you for the explanation.

Your opinion of the proposed development is, unfortunately, irrelevant—as is mine. What matters is that when a reader views that article, he/she is left feeling that they've been given an appropriate, unbiased, completely neutral report of the subject. Inserting words like "large majority", "large number of", "nearly impossible", "ruin the town's core business", "ignored"; these don't make the article neutral. What does make the article more neutral is inserting opposing views as I have just done. This wasn't information I had to go looking for - this was information contained in the sources already used in the article. That some editors chose to ignore the views of the Earl or his supporters, and instead insert only the parts of the source that agreed with their personally-held view (and I make no apology for judging whomever inserted those sources), says a great deal about the motives behind the recent wave of edits to this article.

As things stand, I've got my eye on it and I'll not be letting it revert to a mouthpiece for angry local residents, which is undoubtedly what it was. I appreciate you're trying to help, but we can't just present one side of an argument and call that "balanced". Parrot of Doom 21:02, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I hate running away from a fight

I've been thinking about Guido. If you're going to work on the main article, then I can try and knock up in a separate article something about his cultural significance, as has been suggested on the talk page. That way, we can at least quarantine the pop trivia. I'm probably the wikipedia editor least qualified to write anything on cultural topics, but I'm prepared to give it a go; I don't see why I should be chased away by one boorish and ignorant administrator. Or even a dozen boorish and ignorant administrators come to that. Malleus Fatuorum 21:16, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll give it a go. I'm sure it could be gotten to at least GA. Parrot of Doom 22:14, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

"Gotten"? I thought you lived in Flixton, not downtown Smallville USA. I've noticed this trend towards Americanisms, like Tony Blair's embarrassing new accent. How many times do you see the word "concur" here on wikipedia, for instance, when the rather more straightforward "agree" has the additional benefit of being one letter shorter? Malleus Fatuorum 22:19, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The OED dates "Gotten" to Hall's Chronicle, and in its previous spelling of "geten" as far back as John Wycliffe. I don't think you can pin that one down as an Americanism (c.f. Pope's Iliad, "Haste to the ships, the gotten spoil enjoy"). </ottava mode> – iridescent 22:26, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

"English is a language that lurks in dark alleys, beats up other languages and rifles through their pockets for spare vocabulary, thereby making any form of any word completely and utterly possible." I'm just formalising a continuation of the proud traditioning of our communicable vocalisms, in a moment of blue-sky thinkering. Parrot of Doom 22:27, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

• I've created an initial stub (Guy Fawkes in popular culture), to hold the bloody V for Vendatta nonsense that keeps being inserted, so hopefully that should leave your way clear to work on the real article without that distraction. Malleus Fatuorum 17:04, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Ok. I'll try and work on it this evening, but I have a busy few days coming up and its unlikely I'll be able to do much until the middle of next week. Parrot of Doom 18:14, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Civility Enforcer

Well that was an interesting outcome. Fortunately the CU was run despite MuZemike declining the request (although I'm not really sure why he did; the Civility Enforcer account behaved like a sock so finding out any associated accounts made sense). As relatively new users, it was unusual to see GlooscapSinclair (talk · contribs) and BarkingPumpkin1981 (talk · contribs) editing talk:Wife selling in support of each other, but I had hoped it was because the article was high-profile and might attract new editors rather than something nefarious. Nev1 (talk) 19:35, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

A strange conclusion that Civility Enforcer has anything at all to do with Fred or WebHamster. I'm struggling to think of anyone (other than myself) less likely to be complaining about the imagined incivility of others. Malleus Fatuorum 20:18, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Nev that confirms the suspicions I mentioned on your talk page. Suddenly the arguments on talk:wife selling don't seem quite so varied. Parrot of Doom 21:14, 30 April 2010 (UTC)