User talk:121.73.7.84

May 2008
Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Paul Twitchell has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks.  Felis Leo Talk! 10:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

ANI notice
Hello, 121.73.7.84. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. GiantSnowman 15:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

January 2012
Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Pomegranate juice. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. --Ronz (talk) 03:46, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Your recent editing history shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. 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. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. Jim1138 (talk) 04:12, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm discussing the article abundantly on the talk page, i seem to be the only one doing so! People should act in good faith rather than just reversing edits to maintain a exceedingly POV article. There appears to be a lot of wikilawyering going on as an indirect way of shutting me up rather than accepting the flaws of the article. 121.73.7.84 (talk) 04:15, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Welcome!
Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia! You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, although if you wish to acquire additional privileges, simply create an account. It's free, requires no personal information, and lets you:
 * Create new pages, and customize the appearance and behavior of the website
 * Rename pages
 * Edit semi-protected pages
 * Upload images
 * Have your own watchlist, which shows when articles you are interested in have changed
 * Utililize a vast array of editing tools

In addition, your IP address will no longer be visible to other users.

We hope that you choose to become a Wikipedian and create an account. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place  before the question on this page. We also have an intuitive guide on editing if you're interested. By the way, please make sure to sign and date your talk page comments with four tildes (&#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;). Happy editing! Silvrous '' Talk  16:43, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring warning
Please do not revert again on Hanged, drawn and quartered but rather take your case to the talk page. At the present, you appear to be edit-warring against consensus. Please follow the correct procedure and explain your position on Talk:Hanged, drawn and quartered.

If you revert again, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you, — Berean Hunter   (talk)  15:53, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * You seem to have the wrong end of the stick. Other people have been making intelligent constructive edits to the page which Parrot or Doom and his other sock puppet identities have been vandalising. Wikipedia has been taken over by bored meddlesome teenagers, and editors like me don't bother with it any more. Sadly, the bored, trolling teenagers are winning. 121.73.7.84 (talk) 15:56, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, I looked at the article, and your version was correct. But edit warring will always get somebody blocked; best to take it to WP:DRN. —Kerfuffler 16:23, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks Kerfuffler, in the meantime can you reverse the article back to how I left it and at least block Parrot of Doom/Malleus Fatuorum and his other identities for at least as long as i've been blocked? I can't even write anything on the talk page, nor on the talk pages of the people who banned me. 121.73.7.84 (talk) 16:29, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * If you ever want to return to editing, you had better stop accusing other editors of WP:VANDALISM and WP:SOCKPUPPETRY, when they are rather obviously not guilty of those sins. Favonian (talk) 16:33, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Favonian, why have you been so hostile and so quick to defend Parrot of Doom/Malleus Fatuorum? On what basis please? Is it possible that Favonian, Parrot of Doom and Malleus Fatuorum are the same person? Why else for the threats against me? It seems odd, Favonian, that you'd come out of nowhere to defend Parrot/Malleus's behaviour, esp. when he obviously IS guilty of what you are denying to anyone who reads the page's edit history.


 * Since i am unable to write on any other pages, and since you've made me into the baddie, when clearly Parrot of Doom is the problem I will post my response to parrot of doom here. I find it odd that someone doing the right thing on wikipedia gets a hard time while a trouble maker gets off scott-free. Wikipedia is clearly in trouble.

Response to Parrot of Doom/Malleus Fatuorum:


 * For someone taking swipes at my intelligence you have displayed the most incredibly obtuse behaviour.


 * Firstly, when did I ever say that people will presume it means that horses once disembowelled traitors??? Where on earth did that interpretation come from? I am saying that people will confuse the drawn in the title "hanged, drawn and quartered" to mean hanged, dragged behind a horse and quartered. The drawn in the title is a reference to disembowelling, not being drawn behind a horse.


 * This very source of confusion was demonstrated by Nikkimaria who edited the article on the basis that drawn (behind a horse) was a reference to the drawn in the title. That is why we should use the term drawn in the article only as a term for disembowelling and use different terms to drawn when we mean pulled or dragged.


 * My edits were very simple and somewhat obvious. Your objections are obstinate, your responses bizarre and your behaviour teenage. Do you really think you've helped the article or made it clearer by undermining my efforts? 121.73.7.84 (talk) 16:46, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Since you ask, very much so yes. And your obstinate ill-judged insistence on this sockpuppet nonsense is doing you no favours. Malleus Fatuorum 16:52, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Once again Malleus Fatuorum, you've completely FAILED to explain your edits to the article.


 * Your "simple and somewhat obvious" edits are based on a lack of research. Perhaps you should begin by reading medieval historian Ian Mortimer's detailed analysis of why the word drawn was used.  An analysis which includes a critique of the OED's entry.  The best source I'm able to find, from the most knowledgeable person on such subjects, concludes that drawn = pulled by horse.  Your assertion is based on the OED's entry (which as Mortimer demonstrates, is flawed) and...well, what else exactly?  Your own presumptions?


 * For your information, I almost single-handedly wrote this article (other edits are mostly copyedits by editors more skilled in English grammar than myself). Before you continue with your baseless and rather childish accusations, I think you should consider that I might actually know what I'm talking about. Parrot of Doom 17:05, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Drawn certainly can mean pulled by a horse, if you read what i've said i'm not denying that. Drawn also means to be disemboweled, which is what the word means in the context of hanged, drawn and quartered. It is confusing for the reader to see the term drawn used in its other context, i.e. to pull, drag - and so for clarity in the article it is best not to confuse the two terms. Use pull or drag in the place of drawn, and only use drawn to mean disemboweling, so that people don't think that hanged, drawn and quartered means hanged, pulled behind a horse and quartered. It's hardly a good article if it creates confusion about its meaning from the outset. 121.73.7.84 (talk)


 * "which is what the word means in the context of hanged, drawn and quartered" - what source do you offer to demonstrate the validity of this claim? And have you read the essay I linked? Parrot of Doom 17:34, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Interesting article. It does seem to be going out on a limb somewhat, and i'd be more inclined to believe the Oxford dictionary and the encyclopedia Britannica: http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Drawing_and_quartering That article may simply be the rogue interpretation of one historian (or it may be correct). It would have been good to explain your reasonings when you undid the edits, rather than just undoing them with no explanation.


 * It would have been even more helpful if upon my first reversion of your edits you'd asked why I did so on the article's talk page. Rather than, you know, accusing people who know a thing or two about the subject of being "meddlesome" sockpuppets.  But obviously you know best. Parrot of Doom 17:58, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * It's not my job to chase you up, you are obliged to explain your edits at the time. Secondly I realise that you believe this article is your personal property rather than a wikipedia page, but you've hardly definitively proven your definition of the term. In fact it goes against the mainstream POV of what hanged, drawn and quartered means. You are hostile to debate beyond your own judgements and you are an extremely egotistical personality. 121.73.7.84 (talk) 18:03, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The only thing I feel obliged to do right now is tell you that you're talking out of your arse. When you come to the article's talk page and present some reliable sources to demonstrate your view is correct, I'll listen to what you have to say.  Otherwise, you're wasting your breath. Parrot of Doom 18:24, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Parrot, please don't make me give you a WP:CIVIL warning.

Regarding the dispute, it turns out that historians have been confused about this for a long time. That book from 1908 has some meta analysis of what other prior authors had to say, and apparently he found little consensus. I might be more successful searching for references were it not for the fact that English spelling was hugely divergent up through the 16th century. *sigh* —Kerfuffler 18:50, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * You appear to have me confused with someone who gives a shit about this site's civility policy. Unsurprisingly, you've completely ignored the numerous insults thrown my way, but what else could I expect. Parrot of Doom 19:47, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

@Kerfuffler, from what i've read you are right, although the most reliable sources (encyclopedic, dictionary) tend to diverge from the single source offered by Parrot. However don't bother trying to convey this reality into the article as Parrot owns the article and he'll reverse everything he doesn't personally endorse (with no explanation or else some complete miscomprehension or what you are saying). If you attempt to reverse his undoing of your contributions you'll just be blocked.

Actually Parrot, I haven't thrown "insults" your way, just observations. How fascinating that you dislike yourself being mirrored back to you - now you know how others find you. Since you've brought it up, here's some analysis of your behaviour (which naturally you'll ignore): You have a combative personality that seeks and forments conflict. Your disregard for civility probably comes from your demonstrated lack of empathy and your indifference to others. You have some idea that we should chase you up (as if the world orbits around you), you lack regard for explaining things to others, you demonstrate absence of thought about how something may appear to others - with no mindfulness about how to convey it to them in a helpful way or keep them in the loop. You reverse edits because you feel that others should be able to read your mind. Your total disregard for the perspective of others, your haughtiness, obtuseness and brick-wall behaviour indicates some frustrating combination of narcissism and autism. From how you present on this site you most probably edit wikipedia because you are socially inept in real life. You will continue to write poor articles because of your refusal to accept the valid insights of other "lesser" beings. But your own self-centredness will shield you from your demonstrated mediocrity. I have better things to do with my time than to waste it on the absolute worst type of wikipedian personalty. Goodbye, have fun with your "article". 121.73.7.84 (talk) 20:34, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Then you ought to consider reading a little more deeply before displaying your ignorance and ongoing boorishness. To give you just one further example, the Dictionary of Phrase and Fable (2006) describes "hanged, drawn, and quartered" as an "allusion to the traditional mode of execution for traitors, by which prisoners were drawn on a hurdle to the place of execution, and after being hanged were disembowelled while still alive; their bodies were then quartered, for display in different places." Now, would you like to hear my analysis of your retarded and stunted personality? Malleus Fatuorum 21:15, 10 September 2012 (UTC)