User talk:Parrot of Doom/Archives/2011/March

Your GA nomination of Mince pie
The article Mince pie you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Mince pie for things which need to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:25, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Enthusiasm slowly returning
My enthusiasm for trying to finish off workhouse, or at least to continue making it less bad than it was, has slowly begun to seep back. I never thought I'd see myself saying this, but your (and Peter I. Vardy's) recent escapades at GA and FA have made me think very hard about whether I'd ever want to nominate it at either. I'll know when it's good enough, and that's good enough for me.

Nice job with mince pie btw. Malleus Fatuorum 00:46, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

...actually I'm going to take the books back to the library tomorrow, I just can't be bothered any more. So much for motivation. Malleus Fatuorum 02:17, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd typed a big reply to PBS's criticism but when I saw the "ownership" comment I deleted it. Then I typed something else but no doubt that would be exactly the response he deserved expected, so I deleted that too.  Look at the article's history, before I started editing it, that's the version he prefers. Parrot of Doom 07:51, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * You probably don't need to respond to PBS's nonsense at the FAC anyway, the delegates aren't daft. Unlike the majority of administrators it seems. In the worst case, as occasionally happens, you have to choose between a good article or a "good" article, star or no star. The bling's not that important after all. Malleus Fatuorum 20:58, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * No but its nice when people recognise that you've put a lot of work into something, it demonstrates that you're at least heading in the right direction. I'm surprised the anon IP hasn't popped in to have a say also. Parrot of Doom 21:16, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The more work you put in here the more you have to be punished. Unless you're a terminally ill (supposedly) ex-administrator of course, then you can pretty much do no wrong. Bitter? Moi? Malleus Fatuorum 21:54, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Personally I think Rod has issues, which isn't to say I'm insulting him, just that I think he has issues. I think someone needs to remind him that he can do whatever anti-vandal work he wants, but when he starts attacking content creators and misusing the tools he has to stop.  Anyway, I'm happy today, I ordered some bits for my MTB and the supplier included a bag of sweets.  Oh and I might be buying a new car tomorrow, Lexus LS400.  Depends on the price. Parrot of Doom 21:59, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

The boat that Guy built
You may be interested in the above series which is being shown on the BBC - it was filmed on the Bridgewater Canal. The first episode is available on iplayer here. Richerman (talk) 20:58, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Richerman. Coincidentally I've been cycling the Bridgewater Canal for the last week or so and noticed that the water around Worsley is as orange as it ever was.  I guess the filtration system isn't doing its job? Parrot of Doom 21:38, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't realise it was being filtered - it always looks pretty orange when I've seen it. Richerman (talk) 22:56, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If you look on Google maps, just west of the motorway junction you can see the filtration system on the south bank of the canal, it looks like a series of ponds. The canal was much clearer for a few months, however, its back to its old orange self now. Parrot of Doom 23:35, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't realise it was Guy Martin in the show, I've filmed him a few times and he's a top lad. Disappointed I wasn't asked to do some of that, it's just around the corner :( Parrot of Doom 23:24, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I did wonder if he might be someone you may have come across. BTW shouldn't there be something about the water filtration in the Bridgewater Canal article? Richerman (talk) 10:09, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * There should, it's on my list of things to do but I'm a bit demotivated right now. Parrot of Doom 11:41, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

A serious question
You're doing a lot less here, I'm doing a lot less here, Nev1 is doing a lot less here, Jza84 has become almost invisible ... what's changed? At one time the GM project was a hot bed, but now it's a morgue. Was it something we said? Malleus Fatuorum 00:27, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't speak for anybody else but personally I'm getting just a little bit sick and tired of people pecking away at things I've written in good faith. When I look at what most of those people do here, I find that the majority of them haven't authored a decent article, and have little or no understanding of the difference between "I know this subject and I can tell you that that's a load of bollocks" and "WP:OWN!!11!one".  Its frustrating to have to argue with people on what type of bird Dick Turpin shot, or if Wife selling was a sexist practice, or if the long s should be used or not.  Sometimes I feel like telling them to fuckoff back under their stones, you know the feeling, its as though they don't recognise that you may have spent a good 5-10 hours in total writing something decent and that really you're only there to satisfy their anal tendencies.  It isn't all bad though, look at Whewalt's advice on the HD&Q FAC for instance - that's a rare example of someone obviously intelligent enough to point out that I've missed something important, and pushing me to do something about it.  Completely different to another comment there, suggesting the article should be moved to change its title's tense, and another even worse comment from someone who thinks the table of contents is just the most important thing (n)ever to happen.
 * Also if I'm honest, I've moved on from articles about places. I find history, particularly gruesome history, much more interesting.  I'd quite like to investigate for instance something like the anatomical dissection of murderers in England, and I still have to finish Thomas Rowlandson's article so I can get cartoon shagging on the front page.  Unfortunately the source material for such things is harder to locate, much harder than simply popping down to the library and getting a few books on your local town.  I think the WP:GM project needed 3-4 contributors to push things along, but unfortunately we've all become sidetracked. Parrot of Doom 00:43, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you're right. I am so pissed off with that interminable and pointless sexism discussion, which keeps going round and round in circles. I like gruesome history as well, almost as much as I like witches. But as our wife selling article proved that kind of non-mainstream history isn't always welcome here. Malleus Fatuorum 01:00, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * (talk page stalker butting in) Well I for one welcome it, and I'm far from the only one. That and Gropecunt Lane are two of my favourite articles on Wikipedia. Please don't let a tiny minority of whingers put you off. the wub "?!"  02:18, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe things aren't so bad after all, HD&Q FAC now has four supports, and after the various criticisms is a better article than it was. It isn't perfect but it's getting there. Parrot of Doom 01:27, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know if my contributions were a help or a hindrance, but I've given up anyway, mostly because I can no longer bear to read the painfully bad prose of an editor whose thought processes seem to be as confused as his writing. In my defense I submit examples, collapsed to protect the innocent.


 * Sources do have to be dug up, since women used to be denied most access to printing presses and the custom had largely disappeared when media began to be opened up, given that media tend to concentrate on current complaints rather than historical ones
 * But it is not necessary or appropriate to state wife-selling's sexism only in the patriarchy article and one being the law and the other being unlawful or quasi-unlawful (I think unlawful) is not important to where the criticism is to be stated: it's on this subject, so it would be in this article.
 * Another major purpose for reading more of Wikipedia is to learn subjects, but I agree with the thinking that says Wikipedia is a good starting point but not a good finishing point, and, while I help improve the latter, I use many sources, including print, radio, and electronic, for finishing points.
 * Discourse at any given time is more likely to be about what is of the highest priority to its participants at that time, and that is likely to be what is contemporary; discoursing on the past is not without utility but if you are drowning discussing how you got there is normally delayed until after you start drying off.
 * French is a sexist language because it insists on assigning sexual genders to nouns without nonhistorical justification (to my knowledge) but people in France still speak it, thereby perpetuating sexism, even though many have no practicable alternative.
 * Whether French is categorizable into Sexism may be a good justification for deleting the category, per the CfD I've already supported. But French is sexist even if it wasn't intended to be when first developed. The view to the contrary about timing is in error.
 * I generally have been replying to what is in the topic and intend to stay within that scope.
 * My support for deleting the category that you ascribe to being a conclusion from an internal contradiction is not from any internal contradiction of mine.
 * Category-specific rules are to be stated somewhere visible to assigning editors, like on the top of the category page, so we'll implement them, although admittedly I don't often read category pages, not expecting to find rules on most of them, and thus might err in overassigning against a rule.
 * To my knowledge, wife-selling in the English custom is done by no one living today.
 * If Wikipedia creates and retains Category:Nice with no particular restrictions and it gets populated by every article (over 3.5 million), including by you and me, that's not your or my problem, since evidently the community would have wanted that category populated that way.
 * Whose intent is about wives' intentions vs. husbands' intentions
 * I appreciate, too, being designated to receive complaints that belong elsewhere.
 * But in the article's main text it would be appropriate to require discussing how it's very much like a home computer and that the manufacturer disagrees, and that would justify the former category.
 * I agree that our Sexism case is contentious by a thread posters' head-count but, even if the reason for contentiousness was not in error, contentiousness is a BLP issue and BLP doesn't apply.
 * Misogyny probably shouldn't be a category ... but it exists and is more appropriate than Sexism for wife-selling (absent sourcing as misandrous, too). While it exists, assigning it is on the same principles as for Sexism. It may well signify 'hatred', but so did sexism, perhaps consequentially of the definitions you gave, at least until fairly recently, and that may explain its contentiousness, but assigning is no less apropos.
 * If they read it, it's a misuse of TLDR (and the other editor had a duty to read it and, too late, told someone else of reading every word but qualified even that, and had refused to provide a required reason for an action except to say it was what everyone else said, referring to conflicting statements); the other TLDR instance was outside of this topic.
 * The length of some of my posts tends to be inconvenient to writer and reader but necessary when responding to serious and erroneous claims and where the other party seems not to understand essential elements.
 * Disagreement, even with sourcing, about whether the custom is sexist or not is not the same as proof against the other, and the best treatment of such a disagreement may be the reporting of it.
 * I've habitually been choosing fora and what I'll do there...
 * However, it's likely different since few, if any, major long-lasting customs have ever been identical except for sex reversal because many genderal differences overlap.
 * I take it there's no sourcing that sexism is genderally entirely unidirectional. 


 * Confused and tortuous writing is a technique that could go far. Geometry guy 04:17, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I got bored of that discussion a long time ago. Parrot of Doom 11:05, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Just noticed that HD&Q now has that little bronze star, a deserved reward for your perseverance. Malleus Fatuorum 23:50, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I read through it today and I'm still not happy with it, it isn't quite gelling together right now.  I have some ideas on that and I don't think it'll take much.  It also seems a little impenetrable (boring) so I'll work on that also. Parrot of Doom 00:00, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Latin translation
Just a quick note to be sure you know I answered your request for a reliable translation of Matthew Paris's Latin here, since I see you've been busy at work on HD&Q since then. Wareh (talk) 17:46, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That's perfect, thanks very much. Parrot of Doom 19:38, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm very glad I could help. Wareh (talk) 19:55, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Doing so enabled me to make significant progress on that section, so you're fully entitled to be glad :) Parrot of Doom 22:12, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Did you buy that Lexus?
An LS400 wasn't it? Malleus Fatuorum 20:01, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * As a matter of fact I bought one today. Collecting it on Sunday.  Not looking forward to the insurance quote. Parrot of Doom 20:17, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No, but then who does these days. BTW, staggeringly, the Lexus LS article is actually rather good. Malleus Fatuorum 00:48, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Financially I'm not in a bad position, a relatively low mortgage (bought before prices went mad), no debts, lots of creditors. I'd rather not spend money right now but the Mercedes had to go, 253,000 miles and it felt it.  Propshaft was going out of balance, bushings need doing, rust, electrical niggles, driver's seat creaking, plus two new front tyres shortly.  Best to get shut and replace it with something better, I thought. Parrot of Doom 01:53, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * How can you have no debts but lots of creditors? Get your act together PoD, that's basic double-entry book-keeping. If you mean that lots of people owe you money then join the club. Malleus Fatuorum 02:16, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The latter. I'm owed somewhere around £15,000 at the moment.  Extremely frustrating when people don't pay on time. Parrot of Doom 08:48, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Some pictures of said car, if you're interested :) Parrot of Doom 19:02, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Very nice. It has a kind of Mercedes look about it to me, especially at the front, but perhaps that's why you chose it. (That looks like a pretty dodgy car par park BTW. Were you there to collect your drug shipment?) Malleus Fatuorum 19:07, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That car park is the top floor of the railway goods depot on the A6 out of Stockport, the one on the left a few hundred yards outside the city. The floor is full of a trader's, not a bad one as things turned out, they also took the rustbucket off me too.  The car is fantastic.  Some minor issues to fix but just great. Parrot of Doom 20:58, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * What did you get for the Merc? Malleus Fatuorum 21:17, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * £350. I'd expected £500 privately but it was worth the difference to not have to bother selling/insuring it separately. Parrot of Doom 21:37, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

That's not a bad price. When I bought the XJ-S I had an XJ6 that I needed to get rid of. It dated from well before Ford's takeover of Jaguar, rust had set in to the bonnet and boot lid, and the electronics were unreliable; looked like they'd been designed and installed by a not very talented 14-year-old kid. I just wanted shot of it, so I put into an auction. The auction company insisted that I put a reserve of £500 on the car (I guess they were deceived by the "Jaguar" marque), so I reluctantly agreed, even though in truth I'd very likely have given it away. Come the day I had a message from the auctioneers telling me that the car hadn't met its reserve price, but a couple of hours later I had another message asking me if I'd accept an offer of £250 from one of the unsuccessful bidders. The alloy wheels and tyres alone were probably worth more than that, but I could have kissed that bidder. Malleus Fatuorum 22:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah I was relieved to see the back of it. Not that it's been a bad car but the Lexus is streets ahead.  In truth the accountants at Mercedes should look at what Lexus did, and hang their heads in shame.  I'm off over to Swinton tomorrow to check out an LPG installer, to see what he can offer.  An installation will cost about £2000 but it'll save me at least £1000 a year on fuel.  No-brainer. Parrot of Doom 22:52, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Guy Fawkes' Night nursery rhyme
I noticed you and Moonraker2 were trying to find a source for the Guy Fawkes nursery rhyme. I have a source for you. Iona and Peter Opie, "The Lore and Language of Schoolchildren" OUP, 1959. Page 282 in my paperback edition. And they cite "Juvenile Amusements" 1797, no 50, as well as other sources of the same period. Is this what you were looking for? I'm going to send the same message to Moonraker2. MidlandLinda (talk) 21:07, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

And I found the piece in the Times you were looking for. It's Tuesday 23 Nov 1790. And refers to the carrying of an effigy of Mr Burke (of the National Assembly) as Guy Faux (note the spelling) in Paris on 5 Nov. MidlandLinda (talk) 22:15, 19 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think anyone doubts that the nursery rhyme is pretty old but what's needed is some kind of context, and that means that someone outside Wikipedia would have to research that and publish it. I'm grateful for what you've dug up but I really think it needs a bit more than an 18th-century report of its existence to make sense of its inclusion.  If I remember correctly the primary source for the article, Cressy, mentioned nothing about it, although I can only speculate on the reason for that.  I'd love to know where it came from and why children sang it, but that unfortunately remains a mystery right now. Parrot of Doom 22:20, 19 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Is the context you're looking for 17/18thC or 20thC? The Opies' survey consisted of 5000 children from 70 different schools during the 50s and the book has four pages of build up and activities that the children engage in on bonfire night.  MidlandLinda (talk) 12:03, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


 * That'd certainly allow us to add something about the rhyme to the section on the 20th century, but what I'm interested in is how the rhyme fitted into 17th/18th-century life. The article is pretty well integrated, I'm just a little wary about adding facts without context, is all. Parrot of Doom 14:49, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, pages 280-283 of the paperback I mentioned. In the run up to 5 Nov all the children's comics had stories involving bonfires and fireworks.  Boys go out collecting material for a fire, the collecting is called 'chumping' in Yorkshire, 'cob coaling' in Lancashire, 'wooding' elsewhere.  The bonfires have to be guarded against other gangs either remove stuff for their own fire or lighting a rival's fire early.  Guys are made and displayed while collecting pennies to buy fireworks.  The Guys are burnt on the bonfires except at St Peter's School York, as it is not good form to burn an old boy.  Evelyn apparently recorded in his diary for 1673 the the youth of the City burnt the Pope in effigy on 5 Nov.  They give half a dozen different rhymes which they collected from various parts of the country.  After the fireworks have been let off the children bake potatoes in the embers of the fire and dance around it singing the rhymes.  MidlandLinda (talk) 15:45, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately it still doesn't tell us where the rhymes came from, and how they became so popular. Perhaps the rhyme was written by someone and printed in a book - if so, whom? Parrot of Doom 11:09, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

On a lighter note ...
... reflecting on the success of an article about an underpass I'm thinking about writing an article on the alleged scene of a witches Sabaat. It seems perfect to me: nobody is quite sure where it was, or what it was, or when it was demolished. An interesting challenge.

But what I really came to say was forget about the nonsense at Guy Fawkes Night. It'll blow over, always does. Look how quiet wife selling has become for instance. The messianic zeal that seems to drive some editors is at best a sputtering flame. Malleus Fatuorum 23:49, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm beginning to think I'm being trolled by a few editors and that one day I'll be blocked for simply telling the truth - that they don't have the first clue what they're on about. Good luck with Malkin Tower though, and if you need any assistance please feel free to ask. Parrot of Doom 00:21, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Maybe you could take a picture of an empty field where it might have been ... any old field would probably do. :lol:


 * On a different topic I've just realised that someone must have nicked my digital camera last summer as it's nowhere to be found. Shows how often I use it. It was a Fujifilm Finepix S7000 that I bought on the strength of a friend's strong recommendation, and I was quite happy with it. I've been looking through a few reviews and I've seen the term "bridge cameras" bandied about, as a half-way house between point-and-shoot and DSLRs, which is what I guess the S7000 was. If it doesn't turn up soon I'm tempted to go for one of the bottom-end Canon DSLRs, but I don't want the faff of extra lenses. On the other hand I want decent pictures, the option of full manual control, and macro. Oh, and cheap would be good as well. Any recommendations? Malleus Fatuorum 00:50, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Lenses are always the most important thing, any Canon DSLR will be more than fine but they're hardly portable. My old D60 was good enough to produce images I could blow up to 20x30 (indeed there's one on my wall) so don't believe all the rubbish about how important the resolution is.  For a good cheap lens the 50mm at the top is awesome, there's no zoom but for portraits it is superb.  The basic 18-55mm Canon lens is, however, utter crap, so if you buy one make sure you get rid of it.  In short if you're interested in photography you can spend a lot of money on DSLR kit - bags, accessories, tripod, lenses, etc.  I'd look at a cheap point and shoot for now, the Panasonic Lumix or similar.  Something like that can disappear into your pocket, and it supports RAW shooting so you can play around with the images in Adobe Bridge or similar. Parrot of Doom 08:28, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Great to hear a professional talk about the subject, I have a rather nice mahogany stereoscopic camera by Lancaster & Son, of Birmingham and a Rolleiflex 127 pocket TLR but I have difficulty buying the plates and film.
 * For more serious work I am using my second ebayed secondhand Fujifilm F610. A nice point and shoot with a optical viewfinder- current toy cameras have plenty of expensive marketing but no viewfinder- how one is expected to do a low light shot waving one of these at arms length beats me. My bigger machine is a fuji S9600 which provides the big zoom and lots of settings- the manual/handbook is crap and some features are not documented, the lens show distortion at extreme settings As always add a UV or pol filter. So why use it. Single lens does all so keeps out the dirt. A flip screen at the back so you can hold it at waist height like a TLR (portraits should always be taken from below the eyelevel of the victim-important for kids), also you can hold it high to photo over walls (important for FoP) Uses AA batteries you can pick up at Tescos in an emergency. Fuji have brought out a more capable HS20 to replace the HS10 so prices will continue to drop. If you were happy with the S7000 theres one on ebay for 99 quid --ClemRutter (talk) 09:26, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks Clem, I'll check out eBay. The Lumix was another one I was thinking of as it happens PoD, looks good. Malleus Fatuorum 15:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * One of the cheapest upgrades anyone can make to improve their photography (presuming that you don't already shoot good photographs) is to buy a book. I can take better pictures with my phone than some can with the most expensive equipment.  Learning how to use what you have is very very cheap. Parrot of Doom 16:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I've long believed that it's the photographer that makes the difference, not the camera. I've found a really good deal on the Pentax X70, but it doesn't capture RAW images ... need to think hard about what features I really want. Malleus Fatuorum 16:56, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The ability to manipulate the raw sensor data is a very handy feature. I wouldn't buy a camera that couldn't do it.  You can rescue over-exposed shots, add proper vignettes (or remove them), change colour balances easily, compress dynamic range, etc.  You'd be surprised what you can get away with, underexposed shots are easily sorted with a bit of tweaking.  There's a free bit of software that's well worth having, I'll try and remember what it is.  If I'm not blocked first, heh. Parrot of Doom 16:59, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * GIMP? Mr Stephen (talk) 22:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * This is the one. Parrot of Doom 22:27, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, kind of different. The right tool for the job, I guess.  Mr Stephen (talk) 22:56, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I can see that the option to use the raw data could be useful, but I'm not certain how much I'd use it, or even if I'd ever use it. Need to have a think. Thanks for the advice anyway. Malleus Fatuorum 21:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Well think of it as burning a pizza in the oven, and then using the raw data to unburn it. Very useful. Parrot of Doom 22:26, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Two things have become obvious to me after looking around today. The first is that technology has moved on a bit since I bought my S7000, especially in zoom lenses on these bridge cameras and gizmos like panoramic mode. The second is that nothing is perfect; pretty much every camera I've looked has about as many good reviews as it does poor ones. Often though reviewers are critical of the lack of features I'd never use, like no stereo microphone, or reduced zoom functionality when recording videos. I'm still hoping that my old camera turns up and avoids me the angst of having to make a decision. (It does capture images in RAW format as it happens, but I'd never used that feature.) Malleus Fatuorum 22:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Reported for an alleged breach of 3RR
I have reported you for breaching the 3RR rule see Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring -- PBS (talk) 11:22, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Good for you. Parrot of Doom 11:29, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Some greater engagement would be useful here. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:46, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not interested in engaging with PBS, my view of him is plain for all to see. I could elaborate but that would only bring more dramahz here.  I'd rather people got on with writing good articles, and I'd rather people left me alone to do the same. Parrot of Doom 10:43, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I note also that PBS has once again imposed his own preference for citation formatting with this edit. He argued for a similar change on this article and found little support.  Since Guy Fawkes Night is part of a featured topic, subject to the Featured topic criteria, he has even less of an excuse to do it there.  But Wikipedia's stifling levels of bureaucracy would mean that if I attempted to change it back I'd probably generate more dramahz.  I'm beginning to think I should just start my own blog and write articles there, instead of wasting my time here. Parrot of Doom 10:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think you are wasting your time here. And I don't think PBS is wasting his time; and nor am I by raising this matter here. Accepting that not everyone will agree on everything all the time, matters will come up and have to be sorted out in some fashion into "agree to differ" and "discuss on merits". Charles Matthews (talk) 10:58, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Any effort you can make to reach a compromise at Guy Fawkes Night would be welcome. At first glance, you appear to be using reverts to defend your view of the article. It is not clear to me whether your dispute with the other editors is just a matter of taste regarding what the article should cover, or a question of lack of sourcing for the slant that the others would prefer. There could be room for more than one article in this space (Bonfire Night vs GF Night etc), so your stance that you are defending the One True Article about Guy Fawkes Night might be over the top. You're being discussed (indirectly) at User talk:EdJohnston, where I've suggested that PBS consider a WP:Request for comment if he has an alternative view of this article. EdJohnston (talk) 17:35, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You appear to be working from a false premise, that Parrot of Doom is the only one who objects to the expansion of the article in the way that PBS is demanding. In reality at least two other editors have expressed the same position on the article's talk page. It is quite extraordinary to me that an administrator should be behaving in the bull-headed way that PBS has been doing. He is clearly in the wrong but refuses to admit it, instead trying every trick he can to get his own way at whatever cost. Disgraceful. The last administrator I saw behaving like this is currently blocked. Malleus Fatuorum 17:43, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Gratuitous personal attacks aside - "ownership" is a serious issue here. And if the consensus is really the other way, there should surely be no need to push the envelope on 3RR. Charles Matthews (talk) 17:57, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Nobody is "pushing the envelope" on 3RR, and the only "gratuitous personal attacks" have come from the administrator who made the spurious 3RR report in an effort to force his own way on the article by eliminating one of its chief editors. Malleus Fatuorum 18:07, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Look, that makes no sense and you're not being in the slightest helpful here. Charles Matthews (talk) 18:40, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It make perfect sense to me, and it's you who's being unhelpful. Malleus Fatuorum 18:46, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok I'll sum things up very quickly. I took a crap article and with high quality sources rewrote it to focus on the history of the commemoration - which is what most reliable sources focus on.  PBS decided he would like to see more about the modern-day celebrations.  I don't automatically object to that but since most sources view the day's 400 years of history as being far more important than the last 10 years or so, then so do I.  So imagine my surprise when, within a few minutes of making that suggestion, PBS decided to re-insert a load of badly-written and dubiously-sourced tripe into the article, tripe that I'd judged long ago had little relevance.  Interesting to some or not, it made the article a disorganised and badly-written mess, so I reverted it.  Then PBS decided to change the images around to place modern images in the lead of an article based mainly on history, so I reverted that too, as it made no sense (and tbh looked ugly).  Then a few other people got involved and repeated PBS's additions, so I removed them also.


 * I don't revert people's edits when I believe my view is the only one that counts, I revert or remove them when I think they make no sense and when they make an article demonstrably poorer - and there can be no argument that a half dozen headings filled with single sentences and quotes from modern politicians makes absolutely no sense to include when discussing 400 years of history. Just look at the grammar, sourcing and structure of those additions - does anyone honestly believe that PBS would then have set to work integrating them fully into the article, in a well-written and meaningful way?  No, as usual, it was left to me to tidy it all up.  PBS's point about Diwali I took on board immediately as it was a good point and made sense when discussing 5 November's recent decline.


 * There's far too much recentism going on here, and too many people slinging silly accusations around. Defending one's corner isn't an ownership issues, its an unwillingness to allow an article to be ruined by those who have little or no familiarity with the sources, and who seem to think that they know better than those sources.  They don't. Parrot of Doom 18:29, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh and if anyone needed any proof of the real motive behind this 3RR threat, read this. Apparently I'm not sorry enough and must be punished. Parrot of Doom 18:37, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I think if you admitted you didn't handle the situation in the best way, we could all move on. Charles Matthews (talk) 18:40, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Whereas the administrator who's the cause of all this trouble has acted properly? I don't think so. Malleus Fatuorum 18:48, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * When I see people apologise for slurring me with the ownership brush then perhaps I might. Parrot of Doom 18:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Could you just disregard for a moment the point of pride? What MF is writing here is grossly misrepresenting what might be legitimate concerns, and in a combative tone that anyone can see is jarring and useless when good editors disagree. On the "recentism" issue, you should note my own interests in historical biography, which would put me (if anything) in your camp. I happen to have met PBS solely in the context of 17th century history; I encountered you, if you recall, on an enquiry about Everard Digby. I happen to have served three years on ArbCom; I also chanced on the thread concerned with the 3RR issue, and saw that clearing up this matter might be helped by a third-party opinion. I think I have done what I can with sweet reason. Content issues can and should be worked out on talk pages. But please do not just wade on regardless. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:24, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I know you've come here in good faith Charles but my stance has little to do with pride. My primary motivation for editing on Wikipedia is the improvement of articles, I really don't care about policymaking or bureaucracy and I care even less about the feelings of people like PBS, who is clearly not helping matters by not having the slightest clue how to improve an article.  That he's now resorting to 3RR and ANI reports to get his own way is very telling.  He's obviously another one who doesn't understand the difference between "fuck off" and "you're an idiot, fuck off", or maybe he does, and just enjoys a bit of drama.  Either way I know what conclusion I draw. Parrot of Doom 08:31, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * "Another celebration involving fireworks, the five-day festival of Diwali (normally observed between mid-October and November), was in 2010 held on 5 November." How can you hold a five-day festival on one day? Malleus Fatuorum 23:53, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I have wondered about that, and I can only presume that perhaps the article's author was referring to 5 November falling on a friday, the start of a weekend and the most popular time of the week to celebrate 5 November? Parrot of Doom 23:55, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * A quick Google search tells me that Diwali started on 5 November last year. Malleus Fatuorum 00:06, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll correct the article accordingly. Parrot of Doom 00:07, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Four more reverts and partial reverts in 24 hours
By my count you are again in breach of the 3RR rule: -- PBS (talk) 23:56, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 18:32, 24 March 2011 "Origins and history in England: great, now you've managed to split citations from the text they support)"
 * Revision as of 21:39, 24 March 2011 (4 intermediate revisions by one user not shown) "Waxing and waning: nothing in this section suggests 'waxing'"
 * Revision as of 22:21, 24 March "ffs stop splitting up the text"
 * Latest revision as of 23:31, 24 March 2011 "this looks stupid, please stop it"


 * You just don't give up do you. The reality is that you are vandalising a perfectly good article and invoking technicalities in an attempt to have your own way. You are a disgrace as an administrator, but not entirely atypical. I very much look forwards to seeing you desysopped in the not too distant future. Malleus Fatuorum 23:59, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * And by my account you are now engaging in bully tactics; continually making changes you know will create problems, moving entire sections of text around without considering what that does to citations, moving images based on your personal preference and attempting to force your POV in doing so, despite clear opposition. Creating pointless headings and adding expansion templates, changing appendices based on personal preference, the list goes on.  Frankly I find your complete inability to understand the most basic requirements of creating a good article shocking in an administrator.  I think it is you, not me, who should be taking a close look at their behaviour of late.  Do not post on my talk page again. Parrot of Doom 00:04, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh and not that I care if I'm blocked, but I did not revert your "waxing and waning" addition; I renamed it because it made absolutely no sense whatsoever. Parrot of Doom 00:05, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * FYI All five edits count as one (that is just your comment on the last of the sequence to help you identify the sequence easily). So it is not the "waxing and waning" it is the cumulative change of all five edits. -- PBS (talk) 02:17, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * If anyone is going to be blocked I think it's quite likely to be you. Think on. Malleus Fatuorum 02:23, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Reported for an alleged breach of 3RR (24 March)
I have reported you for breaching the 3RR rule see Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring -- PBS (talk) 23:17, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I couldn't care less. Parrot of Doom 23:21, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * He might. If he remains an administrator after this episode he'll be very lucky. Malleus Fatuorum 23:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd consider myself lucky if these people would just work on articles that they actually know something about. Parrot of Doom 23:29, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

April 1 TFA proposals
Apparently there's a dearth of them, no surprise there I suppose. "When will they ever learn, when will they ever learn?" Malleus Fatuorum 04:53, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * All I have is Cock Lane ghost. What about that nuclear forest park place in the US? Parrot of Doom 08:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The Quehanna Wild Area is currently the only proposal, but it's really not suitable if you look at the article. There's nothing in the article itself that makes you think "surely that's not true?"Malleus Fatuorum 17:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That was the one I was thinking of, and I'm of the same mind. It's a good article but somehow I doubt it'll fool any newspapers, as last year's did.  What if I nominated Cock Lane ghost?  If anything it would be worth it, how can anyone resist ghosts, cocks and scratching fannies? Parrot of Doom 18:58, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If you think you can put up with all the nonsense and vandalism on the day then go for it; I certainly can't think of anything better. Malleus Fatuorum 19:26, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I must admit Wife selling was quite strenuous and I was forced to request protection, which it eventually received. That's to be expected though considering the unusually large number of views it received. Parrot of Doom 21:43, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If I ever write another FA, which is looking increasingly unlikely, I'll be quite happy for it never to appear on the main page. Malleus Fatuorum 22:13, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That's because between us we tend to write some of the most unusual FA's here. With Iridescent, we should become a triumvirate, dedicated to making people lean back from their monitor with a look of disbelief. Parrot of Doom 22:35, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, Iridescent. I'm beginning to think that voting for Iridescent in the ArbCom elections was a big mistake, as the job is obviously too time consuming. Malleus Fatuorum 22:38, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I've thought something similar, but I'm sure I've seen iridescent write somewhere that they were busy in real life and not able to take a full part in Arbcom for the time being. Nev1 (talk) 22:44, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Barring the unforeseen, Iridescent will be back in the next couple of days, although is likely to be tied up catching up with backlogs. The only one of mine which would really be suitable is Pig-faced women, and IMO that's too close to wife selling to be usable—plus, it would send the vandals and complainers right off the scale. Daniel Lambert would have been ideal ("World's fattest man wrestles bears in Leicester!") but Raul already ran it a couple of months ago. Watch this space, though; I have very high hopes for it. (Russian Orthodox monks venerating the bodies of the Anglo-Saxon monarchy?&#x2713; A hospital-to-grave railway system?&#x2713; The empty tomb of Dodi Al-Fayed?&#x2713; Rupert Bear?&#x2713; ) – iridescent  22:50, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If you're happy for scratching fanny to be on the main page shall we write a blurb for it? I'm quite happy to help by getting the ball rolling. Malleus Fatuorum 16:10, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure. Lets see how much support (if any) it gets because I need to do a fair bit of copyediting on it. Parrot of Doom 18:04, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I've made a start on the blurb, what do you think? It really needs to about twice that length, but I'm reluctant to spend any more time on it until we see if it has any support. Still, it establishes a potential framework. Malleus Fatuorum 20:41, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * HAHA, that is abso-fucking-lutely sensational! Parrot of Doom 20:49, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Glad you like it. It's deliberately designed to upset pretty much every prude on the planet. Malleus Fatuorum 20:52, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it'll probably upset more Brits since the US fanny is our arse. But then again our cocks are birds, as are tits.  Wait, I'm confused. Parrot of Doom 22:35, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Raul is leaving it rather late, don't you think? I've gone through Cock Lane ghost twice now just in case, but there are still improvements to be made, mostly referring back to the sources and chopping out what isn't relevant. Parrot of Doom 22:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It's just been scheduled for April 1. Malleus Fatuorum 23:13, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok now it's your turn to post the Ha Ha link. I don't think there's a lot needs doing, I should easily be able to shuffle it around tomorrow. Parrot of Doom 23:25, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Will you be adding to the blurb? I think it's excellent but if you can stretch out another couple of sentences? Parrot of Doom 23:29, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah I see you already have. Thanks for that!  How many "Outraged from Mississippi" do you think we'll see? Parrot of Doom 23:36, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The more the merrier. Malleus Fatuorum 23:43, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Hard to know what to do
Is battling against yet another crazed admin and their child followers a way any rational person would choose to spend their time? Malleus Fatuorum 22:43, 28 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Asking that question is the second sign of madness. Nev1 (talk) 22:47, 28 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Touché. Malleus Fatuorum 22:56, 28 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I spent six hours on Sunday walking 10 miles with my sister around the hills above Dovestone Reservoir, beautiful views, nice butties and drinks, all told a great day. Following things like that I'd like to get back, relax and think about improving another article, but it's annoying that I'm sidetracked into such silly arguments.  Those people represent the thousands of articles here that are just lists of badly-written trivia with no historical narrative.  I hope it doesn't make me sound vain or big-headed but I have nothing but contempt for the energy they spend arguing over such things, instead of pouring it into researching and writing half-decent articles.  Were it left to them the article would be nothing but a list of bonfire toffee, firework injuries, crap photographs of Guys and obscure celebrations in distant realms. Parrot of Doom 23:04, 28 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Wow - I just realized that hanging around talk pages and making pointless comments really adds to the edit count. Never realized that. Anyway, PoD, you should be proud of this series of articles. I can't really understand why they want to trivialize it, though that's easier than actually researching anything worthwhile. The clustered group of gold stars at the top of the page has me thinking I might try to do something like that with Ernest Hemingway related pages - so people are aware of the work you're putting in here. That said, I do have my days when I think spending time on Wikipedia is pretty pointless.Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:30, 28 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks Truthkeeper, and if you'd ever like help on those pages then feel free to ask. Not that I know anything about Hemingway but I can certainly help with the copyediting side of things. Parrot of Doom 23:32, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Forgot to thank you for this nice offer. In the meantime, good luck for the next 24 hours! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:59, 31 March 2011 (UTC)