User talk:Parrot of Doom

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 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#Parrot of Doom reported by PBS (Result: ) -- 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 Wikipedia: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#3RR case about Guy Fawkes Night, 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)

• "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)

Four more reverts and partial reverts in 24 hours

By my count you are again in breach of the 3RR rule:

• 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"

-- PBS (talk) 23:56, 24 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)