User talk:Parrot of Doom

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by when more than 1 section is present.

Thanks

Dear Mr Parrot. I read your article on Nick Griffin yesterday, to get some background before his laughably poor performance last night. I found the article comprehensive, informative and balanced. As we all apparently have to declare allegiances before discussing anything about the BNP, I can say I've never been so far right as to actually vote Tory, let alone sympathise with the pedallers of ignorant hatred Mr Griffin represents. However, I'm concerned you've not received your dues for a good article, so I wanted to congratulate you. We are here to write balanced encyclopaedic articles and you have done so at Nick Griffin. Kind regards --Joopercoopers (talk) 10:52, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. That certainly makes me feel a lot better, and I very much appreciate the comment. It can still be improved, but its good to know that some people appreciate the effort I've put in. Parrot of Doom 10:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also came here to say thank you for writing that. I went there to find out more after the Question Time situation, as did 72,600 other people that day, according to this. It's well-written, informative, and balanced, which is why I checked to see who had mainly written it. After seeing the quality of your work in Mary Toft, I wasn't at all surprised to see that it was you. Well done for a great job on a difficult subject. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 07:16, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bloody hell. I'd thought that perhaps 10-20,000 would go and view it. 100,000! Thanks again for the message of support, its very much appreciated. Parrot of Doom 08:17, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, the 100,000 figure wasn't there when I checked. Just as well we had a decent article for people to read. Don't be surprised to see your own words appearing in journalists' articles without acknowledgment over the coming months and years. :) SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 08:34, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just thankful the article is protected...can you imagine how busy it would have been if it were not? Parrot of Doom 08:36, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article on Mary Toft is certainly very important. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.30.71.244 (talk) 13:43, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given the above comments and the quality of the work, I'd be surprised if you didn't already have one of these, but having looked up Nick Griffin expecting to find a shabby, badly referenced piece of POV pushing, and found it to be informative and neutral, so I think you deserve this, not least because of your apparent disdain for the man's abominable views. HJMitchell You rang? 23:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The BLP Barnstar
		For maintaining an admirably neutral, well written article despite his (ahem!) controversial views HJMitchell You rang? 23:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank-you for the compliment and the kind words. I'm glad I started on it now, given the article's significant traffic stats this month I just hope that many more people now have a better impression of Wikipedia than they once did. Parrot of Doom 23:33, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, you earned it. If I'm honest, were it up to me, he wouldn't have but it's a good thing that his coverage is in such a neutral light so noone can use anyone of pushing their opinion on WP. Hopefully the article will allow people to come to their own, better informed decision about his politics. HJMitchell You rang? 00:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Dibnah

Hi Parrot of Doom, I can do something else for the next 24 hours or so, if you need a bit more time: I've got loads of GA Sweeps to do. Pyrotec (talk) 16:58, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nah its ok, I think the article is pretty close to GA so please do continue at your leisure. Parrot of Doom 17:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just wanted to say how much my family has enjoyed this article, Fred is something of a hero of ours, thanks :-) --J3Mrs (talk) 21:50, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I wonder, is it worth putting the business about his will into the article? Parrot of Doom 22:19, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You caused a bit of an argument with that question :-( However with the sides evenly balanced it is entirely up to you :-) --J3Mrs (talk) 22:46, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well it did cause a bit of a stir in the news. David Hall does however mention that in his last year of filming Fred was often a bit confused, due to the drugs he was on. Years ago I met someone heavily involved in the production of some of those series where he presented, and he had nothing nice to say about Sheila Dibnah. Its all quite sad really, I can't even find anything that says if she won her case. Parrot of Doom 10:01, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Teach yourself German

I must admit that I'm not sure about "He read books like Teach Yourself German ..." either. What would other books like that be? Teach yourself Calculus or Teach yourself Accountancy? What are we really trying to say? That he tried to teach himself German? --Malleus Fatuorum 15:16, 31 October 2009 (UTC)--Malleus Fatuorum 15:16, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have to have a look at the pages concerned to see if I can make clearer the context that these books are mentioned in. I'm probably just a little trigger-happy, with people assuming bad faith, making edits that don't improve grammar, adding bollox content to articles where it isn't needed, and just the sheer level of vandalism on the articles I edit. Parrot of Doom 18:54, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You should look at something like Helena Blavatsky to reassure you that you're by no means alone in facing a tidal flood of bone-headed stupidity. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:48, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One thing I'm finding incredibly annoying is people who don't understand that British English exists, and that it is closer to International English than American English. Honestly, I wish there was some kind of Wikipedia thing where you could tag an article as British English, and instead of people ignoring it, it would trigger some kind of "THIS IS A BRITISH ARTICLE YOU DOOFUS" when people 'correct' the spelling. Parrot of Doom 21:43, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"They [colleagues] were impressed when they saw him reading Teach Yourself German, but bemused .... Mein Kampf". I think its perfectly reasonable really, he was interested in Nazi Germany, and with the other material he read (was Mein Kampf available in English at the time?) it seems only right to mention it. Parrot of Doom 09:59, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stalking

Interesting that you should be stalking other users after a discussion which happened days ago. 212.139.68.178 (talk) 16:02, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm sure its fascinating to someone like yourself. Parrot of Doom 16:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was a failed attempt to drive your agenda home, deal with it. 212.139.68.178 (talk) 16:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Really. What agenda is that? Parrot of Doom 16:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DSOTM

Fair enough - I apologize also if I've poked a sore spot. I think we may still have some work to do to reach consensus on paragraphs (one paragraph per main subject- not messy, just good practice), and the line about symbolism (which I really can't see as viable without some references). For what it's worth, I agree that a section on the album's legacy should be beefier than it currently is (that Radiohead example sticks out like a sore thumb; there must be dozens of albums whose creators acknowledge DSOTM's influence, and the only example we have is from a band that has denied it? Yuk. Jgm (talk) 20:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]