User talk:Parrot of Doom/Archives/2013/November

Talk: Guy Fawkes Night
I struck through the two comments because they are a blatant violation of WP: NPA, not CIV. I understand that if someone is being a dick, you should call them out for it. Calling someone an "idiot" or a "cunt" clearly fall in line as a personal attack, however. Things like that typically do nothing more than stir the shit, so they should be struck through, not to remove the comment entirely, but to simply nullify the offensiveness of it. Admiral Caius (talk) 20:44, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I find your attempted censorship to be more offensive than the comments. Parrot of Doom 21:47, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * As do I. What difference does a couple of silly little lines make? Eric   Corbett  21:49, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you will never understand, but some of us are trying to collaboratively write an encyclopaedia, and that requires following the five pillars. -- 127.0.0.1 (talk) 00:18, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it's you who doesn't understand. What have you written exactly? Anything? Eric   Corbett  00:24, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Why is en-wikipedia's localhost making sassy comments? -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  02:50, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Fine. Have it your way. I was only concerned because you are supposedly a skilled editor, and it would be a shame lose such a productive person to the dreaded foul-mouthed trait. If you don't care then I don't care. Keep in mind that out of the approximately 7.2 billion people on this planet, over 31.7 million are Wikipedians; at least a good few are going to react poorly to name-calling and other incivil gestures, but given your stated disregard for civility, it's no skin off my nose if you get complaints, blocks or bans. I've got much more important things to attend to. Admiral Caius (talk) 15:16, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It's no skin off my nose, either. Parrot of Doom 16:34, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Parrot of Doom: battleground on article talk pages.The discussion is about the topic Talk:Guy Fawkes Night. Thank you. —PBS (talk) 16:12, 9 November 2013 (UTC)


 * That you're still an administrator says much about the malaise at the heart of Wikipedia's decline. 17:22, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Francis Tresham
Good luck tomorrow with the TFA. Can't say I envy you, I'm still trying to get down from the ceiling over Malkin Tower's appearance, not helped by the ongoing nonsense about the word slut. Eric  Corbett  23:00, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I think we should write an article so chock-full of expletives and unsavoury practices that the "people who are offended on behalf of everyone else" lot can visit the same ceiling. There's got to be something extremely offensive we can do proud. Parrot of Doom 23:51, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Re your second suggested change to the Tresham TFA blurb (which I didn't spot first time round as we were editing the page at the same time), the Cecil ODNB entry says that he was elevated to the earldom of Salisbury on 4 May 1605, so that predates the events of October/November. Or have I misunderstood? BencherliteTalk 09:26, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it has something to do with the change in calendars. I haven't had chance to check it out fully so the article may be correct, but I thought it was prudent to avoid the issue anyway by using his job title. Parrot of Doom 09:56, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gunpowder_Plot&oldid=580437458&diff=prev
Hi, User:Parrot of Doom, I was wondering why you undid this edit of mine. Lotje (talk) 11:29, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Because you changed the image formatting. Parrot of Doom 11:38, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * What do you mean? I know not better than:


 * 1) thumbed images always appear on the right side of the page, so there is no need to add the |right| position
 * 2) thumbed files do not need the |px| size to appear.
 * btw, you might be interested in taking a look at this Lotje (talk) 11:47, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I mean exactly what I said. You changed the image formatting and altered the article.  I changed it back. Parrot of Doom 12:16, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Whatever, if that makes you happy. I added the commonscat again, just to let you know. Lotje (talk) 12:34, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * That's fine with me. Parrot of Doom 14:27, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Parrot of Doom, only me again, just to let you know I added an image to the Guy Fawkes Night, and before you undo my edit without comment, please take a look:


 * 1) As a general rule, images should not be set to a larger fixed size than the 220px default
 * 2) In most cases, images should be right justified on pages, which is the default placement. If an exception to the general rule is warranted, forcing an image to justify on the left side of a page is done by placing a parameter in the image coding in the form |left,... Thank you for your time. Lotje (talk) 17:07, 10 November 2013 (UTC)


 * You're talking crap, of course, so I'm going to revert you. Eric   Corbett  17:32, 10 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Well I think we'll have to disagree Lotje. Regarding the new image, I think it may be better placed in the town article.  By the way, I'm always looking for a better firework image for GFN, one that shows fireworks and a crowd, watching, so if you come across something good... Parrot of Doom 20:14, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you mean this and this is crap? Interesting to be informed how you think of this article. You might want to explain your comments over there. A link to here, I will make in a minute. Lotje (talk) 09:56, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

John Bingham, 7th Earl of Lucan
I was considering nominating this article for TFA. As the major contributor to the article, would you have any objection? Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:43, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Not particularly, as titled, I think most people wouldn't click on it as they'll think it just another boring peerage article. What must be considered though is Lady Lucan's attachment to the article, she raised several objections but the matter was never properly resolved. Parrot of Doom 23:23, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Radcliffe
In regards to your recent edit on the article in question, the material i removed wasn't due to the fact that I could not see it, that would constitute original research and would not be applicable anyway as I was not alive during the time that the road allegedly existed. The reason I removed it was because i was unreferenced material. I have read the section of the book the citation refers to thoroughly and cannot see any evidence of that which I had removed and you reinstated. I am by no means an expert on the subject matter I was just reading through the reference and failed too see it, therefore do not believe it should be included due to the lack of citation. Correct me if I am wrong. Jamez1502 (talk) 21:34, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I wrote the article some time ago, but very little that's in it isn't referenced. I certainly wouldn't have added anything about a Roman road without a source.  Perhaps you should check some of the other inline citations in that section, sometimes it can be difficult to keep everything in order without adding lots of little blue numbers to every sentence. Parrot of Doom 21:53, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I understand, perhaps I was reading it too chronologically, Ill have a read over all the citations when I get a chance. Jamez1502 (talk) 22:32, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Woodchester Mansion
You recently deleted an article on the paranormal side of Woodchester mansion. I wrote this article and cited all the sources after having it removed from a previous moderator due to no citations apologies but I am new to Wikipedia. These were corrected and the moderator is now happy with all the cited sources. You appear to have just removed the article as in your opinion you think it is rubbish. I am a parapsychologist who has been engaged in research of the 'paranormal' in this building for over 10 years. When I say paranormal I am not referring to ghosts and spirits I am referring to odd encounters that defy current rules of physics. My interest is how people perceive or appear to perceive these oddities. The article is based on cited sources and is in fact part of a psychological experiment being conducted with the help of a local university. Whilst I understand that 50% of people find the talk of ghosts and spirits 'rubbish' the 50% who do believe or who are on the fence continue to research this building and therefore the article is helping us in our research. If you remove it again can you give some other indication as to why other than personal opinion.

Many Thanks

Fotoraptor (talk) 13:04, 27 November 2013 (UTC)fotoraptor
 * Took a look at the content that was added, and I say, none of the content that was added would pass for an article. Too much stuff in there (22,000 characters is a big change to an article) and all of it was unencyclopedic. Albeit, the "rubbish" was uncivil, but PoD isn't exactly the nicest person on Wikipedia, so I wouldn't expect an apology. Admiral Caius (talk) 15:38, 27 November 2013 (UTC)


 * There's nothing "uncivil" about a simple fact, which is that Fotoraptor's additions are rubbish. There are no such things as ghosts and anyone who claims there are, without providing concrete proof, is deluding themselves. Parrot of Doom 16:05, 27 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Way to not let your personal opinion affect your edting on Wikipedia. You really should know these things by now. Admiral Caius (talk) 17:58, 27 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Only on Wikipedia could one be accused of bias for stating a simple fact, that there is no such thing as ghosts. Next you'll be saying that homoeopathy is a valid science.  I suggest you go and patronise someone else. Parrot of Doom 18:59, 27 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I've also looked at it and would agree that it is not encyclopaedic. First of all the tone is entirely wrong - the style you've used of asking a question then answering it would be fine for a magazine article but not an encyclopaedia with should be written to be as neutral as possible. Secondly, it all has to be referenced with citations from published reliable sources - which don't include wikipedia or IMBD or indeed television programmes, unless they have been archived somewhere. Information collated by someone but not published constitutes wp:original research which is certainly not allowed. Also each fact has to be referenced properly so others can check up on them if they want to - you can't just sprinkle a few citations about randomly. If you wan't to contribute to wikipedia you really need to read up on some of the policies first. A good start would be wp:Your first article.  Richerman    (talk) 16:32, 27 November 2013 (UTC)