User talk:Parrot of Doom

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

I'm really a delightful person, as evidenced by this spoonful of Angel Delight

Some basic rules. One, anyone coming here accusing me of WP:OWN will be told in no uncertain terms where to shove it. Two, anyone whinging about WP:CIVIL will be referred to the previous answer. Three, anyone coming here with a genuine request for help will of course be afforded all the help I can give. Four, never again will I venture onto ANI or any similar admin-related pages, either to resolve an issue, or to respond to somebody else's issue; I'm here to write articles, nothing else. Five, I apologise to those who've supported me in the past, but good-faith content editors can only put up with so much nonsense before they begin to question what good, if any, they're doing here.

One day, I'm sure, all that's left here will be a clique of admins and a claque of their sycophants; the rest of the world will have moved on, hopefully to projects where people's contributions are valued, and not decried.

These aren't your decisions to make.[edit]

Hello there. You seem in need of some friendly reminders. Unfortunately, you have gone out of your way to make sure nobody feels the least bit friendly towards you.

You say:

Some basic rules. One, anyone coming here accusing me of WP:OWN will be told in no uncertain terms where to shove it. Two, anyone whinging about WP:CIVIL will be referred to the previous answer.

Those are not your decisions to make. You are required by the guidelines of Wikipedia, the consensus of both users and administrators, to maintain a civil tone in your contributions to articles, your article summaries, article Talk pages, other users's Talk pages, and YES, your own User:Talk page. You can be blocked for violating these requirements. It can happen in a single day. I speak from experience.

If you feel like you should have the right to set the rules of your very own Talk page, I sympathize with you. But no, you are not free to be an insulting jerk to anybody, anywhere, on Wikipedia.

I found this out the hard way, when I had to change my tone very abruptly, or else face being blocked over my own use of abusive language, in a confrontation that began one morning, and ended with an admin threatening to block by me by nightfall. I've kept most of it on my own Talk page, so you or anyone else can see the change in attitude I went through rather quickly.

We probably agree that it's a fact, and not an opinion, that there are stupid people in the world. We probably both believe we should be allowed to call them as we see them. But no. Just NO. You aren't. I'm not. We aren't. Keep it to yourself.

You have a history of inappropriate, insulting comments. I didn't rise to your bait when you said, "You sound like a child having a tantrum". Even though it wasn't true. I imagine you basically glanced at my comment, noted its length, and my use of exclamation points, then made your assumption that it was a childish rant. If you can't be bothered to check my cited sources (as you admitted), I assume you didn't seriously read my comment.

This is hardly the first time. Another recent comment of yours shows you refusing to explain your reversions, simply dismissing a good-faith edit as "rubbish": "That you fail to see what's rubbish about it isn't my problem" is your completely-inappropriate Edit Summary, and your comments include gems like "The changes you made read as though they were written by a 10-year-old child. In short, they were utter rubbish and do not belong here." and "Don't make the mistake of presuming I care what you think or whether you're upset or not." These are rude, insulting, and entirely unnecessary things to say to anyone, anywhere, on Wikipedia.

I may bring this to the attention of the very admin who came close to blocking me.

I am sorry I find myself unable to make my point more concisely; I apologize for the length of this comment, but not for its content. If I had to summarize it, I would say, you obviously know how to find WP:OWN and WP:CIVIL, and it's a fact that you need to review them at your very earliest convenience. I don't need to see a canned response to that.

If you didn't bother to read this comment, please don't bother to tell me, or in fact tell me anything. Rude dismissals don't impress me.

--Ben Culture (talk) 05:21, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

you seem to have assumed I'm interested in your opinion. I'm not. Don't post any more patronising claptrap here. Parrot of Doom 11:38, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
It's not opinion. You aren't allowed to run around telling people to "fuck off" or even "shove it". You've been allowed to violate WP:CIVIL for far too long, and it's become a problem. I'm not the only one bringing it to administrative attention.
Nor was I being even slightly patronizing. I was trying to find common ground with you, while holding my own ... you idiot. (Is that better?)
--Ben Culture (talk) 13:56, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
You might want to consider the hypocrisy of accusing an editor of incivility while simultaneously calling them an idiot. Eric Corbett 14:02, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Hello! My, that was quick. Anyway: It was deliberate. I don't like to say things like that. My previous post was a attempt to be as civil as possible to a User who had already personally insulted me, and he complained, calling it "patronising claptrap". So, as you probably know, I deliberately altered my usual ways to see if he preferred such language. ("Is that better?") Do you understand now? I apologize if you were offended, but if you're pals with Doom you're probably accustomed to much harsher language. I don't even really consider Doom an idiot. --Ben Culture (talk) 14:10, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
If you really don't like to say things like that then don't say them. Easy. Eric Corbett 14:13, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Parrot of Doom's contributions to Wikipedia makes all sorts of things I don't like happen. For God's sakes, man, did you fail to notice his boxed message up top saying, essentially, "Stop telling me that I'm owning articles and being incivil, because I don't intend to change." He has a history of unacceptable language and behavior. --Ben Culture (talk) 14:34, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
"you have gone out of your way to make sure nobody feels the least bit friendly towards you". That's rather a bold statement, and completely untrue. I for one have always been on the most cordial terms with PoD, perhaps because I've never tried to patronise or bully him into submission. Eric Corbett 11:44, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Or perhaps because he doesn't revert your good-faith, well-sourced edits without explanation?
The man literally told me he couldn't be bothered to check my sources, so he assumed me guilty until proven innocent. That doesn't encourage cordiality.
--Ben Culture (talk) 14:01, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Neither does it justify your continuing hostility and incivility. Eric Corbett 14:57, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
"continuing"? Where? I made a point of using "idiot" because he rejected my polite approach with a response of pure rudeness. That's it. It's neither rude nor hostile to point out that Parrot of Doom has a history of rudeness and hostility. Anyone who is discouraging users from boldly editing Wikipedia is a problem.
I've already neutralized that one personal insult, "idiot", by stating that I don't really consider Doom an idiot. To make you feel better, I've boldfaced it.
You're not going to agree with anything I say, are you?
Go ahead, have the last word . . . . --Ben Culture (talk) 15:50, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Probably not. I find that I rarely agree with sanctimonious idiots. Eric Corbett 16:30, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
at this moment I'm in kouvola in Finland, sat on a scaffold with 20 minutes off work. So right now I'm not best equipped to deal with these issues but benculture seems to be another in a long line of shouty individuals with too much to say and no idea how to say it. I don't think I'll be able to deal with any of this for some weeks. Parrot of Doom 11:48, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
If you're too busy to Discuss, do not Revert.
Is that brief enough for you?
I'm not the least impressed with where you are or what you're doing. (Do you respect me now?)
--Ben Culture (talk) 13:47, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Does anyone respect you? Eric Corbett 14:03, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, plenty. I have a pretty good history. You could check it for yourself.
Are you really being productive? I'm not comfortable doing this here. If you wish to insult me further, please do it on my User Talk page. Thank you.
--Ben Culture (talk) 14:34, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Where have I insulted you? Eric Corbett 14:57, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Most would take "Does anyone respect you?" as an insult. I did. --Ben Culture (talk) 15:50, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Then most, like you, are deficient in basic language skills. Eric Corbett 16:30, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
I was talking to Eric, not you. Do not edit my talk page again. Parrot of Doom 18:03, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't like heights, so rather you than me. Mind you, if the money was right ... Eric Corbett 12:30, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
it's only a small scaffold but the days are long and tiring. Still, the money is OK :) Parrot of Doom 18:03, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Don't worry, Parrot of Doom, I came here for a sympathetic ear after I did three reverts on Abbey Road (uno, dos, tres) and remember someone saying that keeping a GA / FA article at the same standard without edits degrading the quality is a thankless task that few are appreciative of. It's a serious problem with Wikipedia. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:30, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

it's a thankless task getting them to that stage (although I've had a lot of help on many articles, not least Eric) but keeping them in order can be maddening. That's one reason I tend to the unusual; the zealots aren't interested. Be careful though, doubtless some of my stalkers will now be casting their gaze at your contributions... Parrot of Doom 17:40, 2 July 2014 (UTC)