User talk:Parrot of Doom/Archives/2012/February

Template

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.

"Of course the articles you are keen to mention should be linked to Guy Fawkes but it is completely unnecessary for this article to link to them." This is your opinion. I find it to be relevant, and your belief that it is unnecessary is not criteria for removal. If your logic were used across wikipedia The Aviator mention would be removed from Ava Gardner's article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ava_Gardner#Film_Portrayals

Gandhi is a great example. His legacy section mentions movies which include the fictionalized character Gandhi. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohandas_Karamchand_Gandhi#Legacy_and_depictions_in_popular_culture

The fact remains that a major hollywood picture included Guy Fawkes as a character, and it merits a brief mention in his legacy section. More people worldwide are exposed to this knowledge this person exists because of this movie. The link is appropriate as per precedent across wikipedia. It sounds as you have a personal vendetta against this inclusion because a historical person with whom you are well versed has crossed over and achieved mainstream attention. You have yet to explain how the inclusion worsens the article.

Don't post on my talk page again. Parrot of Doom 22:41, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Anjem Choudary

Thank you very much for your curt dismissal of my updated facts on the Anjem Choudary page. So obviously nothing whatsoever has happened in his life since the demise of Islam4UK. It certainly seemed like an improvement to me and everybody else who saw the page. But not to you. I'm beginning to wonder whether it is actually worth bothering contributing at all to Wikipedia when I could probably tell the truth and point out the relevant facts with a blog? Sieg Heil!Greenpenwriter (talk) 09:45, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I know I'm supposed to assume good faith, but when you change "dead soldiers" to "fallen soldiers", use edit summaries like "choudary's latest exploits on the world stage", and add a lot of rumour and hyperbole based on dubious citations which include the Daily Mail, I find it nearly impossible to do so. Parrot of Doom 18:35, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

And frankly any bit of good faith I might have assumed has disappeared. Parrot of Doom 19:04, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Wife selling (English custom)

Well, it's quite simple: I always link to the most important articles, which can make a good context for understanding the current one. Of course it may look like boring, but I think this is a proper way of linking ant this is probably the first time that someone is questioning it, so I'm a bit surprised. =} If you're interested in who is James Bryce, you have the link to him to check up deeper, but he creates much less of a context for the "wife selling" than the country where it was a custom. kocio (talk) 11:33, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I doubt there are many people in the world ignorant of England, but I would put money on most not knowing what a jurist is. Parrot of Doom 12:08, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Of course, you're right! But look at the "Wikipedia" entry - everybody knows what the encyclopedia is, and probably most of readers of the article knows what this "Internet" thing is ;-}, but they are both linked as the most defining (and thus: creating the context frame) ideas for the subject. At the same time readers may not exactly know what the "pageviews" are, but it's just some additional knowledge, which you can easily skip when trying to catch the main article, and so it is not linked. There are many more examples of this way of linking. kocio (talk) 12:45, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

The user who filed this neglected to tell you

[1] I've already given my opinion there. Malleus Fatuorum 23:27, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I think most people who want that film in that article are just offended at the notion that something which they think is fantastic isn't relevant. Even the Fawkes that the film does show is historically inaccurate. Parrot of Doom 23:37, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I think they're mostly idiots. Cue another ANI report. Malleus Fatuorum 23:42, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I tend to agree. In other news I'm still interested in improving Commodore PET, but have yet to find anything that would help me do so. Don't suppose you know of any computer history books, or "history of commodore computers" type material? Parrot of Doom 23:46, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't. I remember I checked through all my old computer mags some time ago, but I don't have anything that old. Malleus Fatuorum 23:53, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Please tell me you don't save old magazines.J3Mrs (talk) 23:55, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I do, particularly those I've had articles published in. The Commodore Pet was an iconic machine, strange there seems to be so little decent material available. Maybe PoD ought to write his own book. Malleus Fatuorum 00:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh dear, my husband is a prolific collector of "stuff" like that, that he's had "stuff" published in. It drives me mad. J3Mrs (talk) 00:09, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I bet you don't let him have a shed either. The poor man! Parrot of Doom 00:11, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

That would be a cruel and unusual punishment; every man needs a shed, or a workshop. It's in the genes. Malleus Fatuorum 00:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree all men should have a shed, married men should be given one as a wedding present. Mine has his workshop in a double garage that doesn't have room for the cars. If only everything fitted in there......J3Mrs (talk) 00:18, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

A search of the British library catalogue throws up some hopeful stuff. Try poking one of our London editors (my British library card has sadly expired and I haven't got around to replacing it yet). For our more midlands based editors we have a backstage tour.©Geni 14:09, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry I missed this Geni, could you elaborate? Parrot of Doom 23:40, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

The British library holds various books on the Commodore PET (and just about any other computer system you care to name). Some of our london based editors have reading room cards. Might be worth poking them for more obscure sources.©Geni 01:40, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Victoria Bridge, Manchester

Jail or gaol? J3Mrs (talk) 17:36, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Jail is what the source wrote, however, some also call it a dungeon. Basically a smelly place to lock drunkards up for the night. Apparently one bloke had his toes chewed off by rats. Parrot of Doom 17:44, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Just sounded a bit US. Second question, I presume it was a chantry chapel where travellers prayed for safe journeys? There are a couple left here on the dark side. J3Mrs (talk) 18:07, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I believe it was one of those chapels. It's nice to know that even 700 years ago Broughton was a dangerous place :) Parrot of Doom 18:11, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I remember Iridescent once explaining that there were both Jails and gaols in this country, the difference being in who ran them. As this was a local lock-up rather than what we'd now call a prison then "jail" is correct; gaols were intended for long-term prisoners. Malleus Fatuorum 18:19, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I expect I'll forget that. [2] and [3] show it to be a two-storey affair with a cell for the priest just to confuse the easily confused. J3Mrs (talk) 18:29, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

The old bridge is shown on the rather beautiful 1794 William Green map of Manchester, of which I have a large copy on 18 A3 sheets. If I can find the software for one of my numerous all-in-one printers (one day I'll get organised!) I'll scan the sheet and upload it. It's actually just called 'Old Bridge' on there and it's on Old Bridge St. The one by the New Bailey Prison is called 'New Bridge. Richerman (talk) 23:15, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

No need - most of it can be found here. Note on that page just how few bridges there are. One wonders how people ever managed - Blackfriar's Bridge was a tiny wooden affair. BTW Malleus you might be interested to note the building in the top middle part of the image. Parrot of Doom 23:45, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

What image? I'll need a clue, wait, I'll go look for my specs. Malleus Fatuorum 23:54, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I thought that may spur you on to find a copy. It's not as clear as mine though :) Tell you what Malleus - I won't have a red carnation, I'll have a large map under my arm. Richerman (talk) 00:02, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I have a feeling I've walked in on a half-finished conversation, the end of which I'm uncertain I want to hear... Parrot of Doom 00:03, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I thought you had my talk page on your watchlist - look there under the Manchester meetup section. No chance of you going along to that? Richerman (talk) 00:17, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I do, I just hadn't read it. Not a chance I'm afraid, I have to do the Newcastle game on Saturday, then the Sheffield Wednesday game the day after. Parrot of Doom 00:19, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for catching my error on the Guy Fawkes article (Not sure where this goes so I'll put it here ^^)

Hey there,

I've seen on some other user pages, many cases of kittens, cookies, barnstars, thumbs up and various other forms of appreciate put around and was hoping to try find out how exactly and where I even put such a thing, at first I was going to put such a thing on your userpage thinking that was here it would go, however upon seeing the sheer awesomeness of said userpage, it would be a shame if I defiled that awesome layout with my newbie attempt at a thanks.

Therefore, thank you for catching my mistake on reversing the vandalism on the Guy Fawkes article with the incorrect tier of the section and the extra paragraph spacing from my edit.

Thanks again, Terkaal ^^

Terkaal (talk) 10:42, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

No problem. For future reference, if one or more editors make several changes that damage an article, it's easier just to find the undamaged version in the article's history, click edit, and save. Parrot of Doom 10:49, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• facepalm*

And there I was looking for a rollback button. Thanks for the tip, I'll remember that in the future ^^ Terkaal (talk) 10:51, 29 February 2012 (UTC)