User talk:Parrot of Doom

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.

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)

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to everyone who - whatever their opinion - contributed to the discussion about Wikipedia and SOPA. Thank you for being a part of the discussion. Presented by the Wikimedia Foundation.

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)