User talk:Parrot of Doom/Archives/2014/March

GA reassessment

With the recent controversey on the talk page along with the time since it's first review I thought it necessaey to put Anjem Choudary up for a reassessment.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 05:40, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

• Not sure if EarwigBot will send you the templated message, since the reporting user misspelled your name, but you've been named by Atsme (talk · contribs) in a report at WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard. —C.Fred (talk) 21:50, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I suspect more drama to come but I'm not about to let racism rear its ugly head on here. Parrot of Doom 22:17, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello

I don't care for the drama own way or the other. Honestly some of it is hilarious. I don't think this BS is a reason to remove the GA status. If I wanted to remove the GA status based on that I could have done a self assessment. I don't think you own the article. I find it funny someone tryimg to own the article is claiming that you do. However you are most definitely a Stewrd of the article. This article has been GA for 4 years. It doesn't look like this is the first chunk of Drama there. It should only be reassessed on the basis of GA criteria. Serialjoepsycho (talk) 03:34, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. The article could probably be revisited but I don't think there's much worth adding. I don't think it's Wikipedia's place to label anyone, no matter what their political or social views. So far, Atsme's drama-mongering has seen the matter at RFC, GAR, WP:BLPN and WP:DRN. I wonder which popular drama board will be next? Parrot of Doom 07:29, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Pre-ANI discussion about concerns over your conduct

Parrot,

I am contacting you in advance of proceeding with a formal posting on ANI regarding your longstanding conduct issues, both on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Anjem_Choudary and elsewhere. As you probably know, this is required prior to beginning the formal dispute process. I note, however, that your talk page begins with an flat assertion that you will not, under any circumstances, engage with anyone raising concerns about your conduct or engage in any dispute resolution or mediation process or address any concerns about your non-compliance with Wikipedia policies. Is this still your position? If so, it is difficult to see any way of resolving the concerns that myself and other editors have about your conduct. Could you suggest a method by which we could resolve this?

I would like to reiterate that I am not questioning the substance of your edits or whether you are appropriately applying Wikipedia policies when doing so. My concern is about your hostile, aggressive tone and language whenever challenged over one of your edits and the clear issue that you feel only edits approved by you should be allowed. These concerns are enhanced by the note at the top of your talk page. I appreciate that you state you don't believe WP:OWN or WP:CIVIL applies to you but the fact is that they do. They apply to everyone, from the newest editor all the way up to Jimmy Wales. You go on to say that you don't feel your contributions are valued. I assure you that they are. What is not valued, and what seems to cause so much conflict on every article that you work on, is your choice of tone and language. Is it really not possible for you to continue your good work but do it civilly and in compliance with Wikipedia policies?

To give you an example of my concerns (albeit a historical one): we had a disagreement over the use of tabloid sources in a BLP. As it turns out, I was wrong. Another editor recently (and politely) pointed me to the correct policy and I gained some new knowledge in the process. This is what should happen when there is a disagreement. However, your approach was to state your opinions and aggressively attack anyone that disagreed with it. There was no reference to policies, no attempt to lend your greater experience to new editors and certainly no attempt to comply with WP:CIVIL. The general thrust of your argument was that, because you did not believe the material should be included, it could not be included. That was the only thing that mattered to you. This violates WP:OWN. It is clear that many many people have attempted to address these issues with you -- this is made clear by the fact that you feel the need to preempt them with your note at the top of your talk page -- and yet you have refused on every occasion to address them. Instead, you revert to insults and insist that your opinion is the only one that counts. This cannot continue. Does the volume of complaints about your behavior not give you even a moment's pause for reflection on whether you are acting correctly?

I hope that you take this in the spirit with which it is intended. Not as a criticism but as an attempt to resolve some clear longstanding issues that are impeding your ability to act as an effective editor and damaging the articles that you work on. Regardless of whether you choose to do this, I am required to give you an opportunity to address these issues before taking them forward. I hope that you choose to do so.Robinr22 (talk) 17:56, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I think the spirit in which it is intended is very clear to see, and it does you little credit. But if you find it in some way amusing to waste your time at ANI I doubt that PoD will be unduly concerned, no more than I would be in his shoes. Which is to say not at all. Eric Corbett 18:01, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

In what spirit do you think it is intended? Robinr22 (talk) 20:28, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

You clearly don't have the first clue what you're talking about. Do not post here again, not even to acknowledge this comment. Parrot of Doom 23:01, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

ANI-notice Atsme (talk) 10:25, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

And you can get off my talk page as well. Parrot of Doom 10:26, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Burning of women in England

Hello! Your submission of Burning of women in England at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! --Allen3 ^talk 21:41, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi PoD, I've moved your contribution to International Women's Day. If we can clear the QPQ requirement then its all set for Saturday. Thanks Victuallers (talk) 22:08, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Blocked for edit warring

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 36 hours for edit warring, as you did at Anjem Choudary. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:16, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Block me for 360 hours if you like, I don't care. I'm not about to let racists dictate article content here. Parrot of Doom 14:11, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

• Parrot, you're unblocked. Now I'm going to have lunch. Drmies (talk) 17:25, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you Drmies, I hope you don't suffer the standard drama that accompanies such things. I reiterate that my priority is, and always has been, good quality reliable articles. Parrot of Doom 19:23, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
    • No problem with the unblock but can you please avoid calling people racists whether you think they are or not. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:22, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
      • Callanecc has a point, PoD... Drmies (talk) 01:17, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
        • I don't see how anyone who changes "British" to "British born" or "British Pakistani" can be construed as being anything else. Parrot of Doom 07:49, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
          • Then you need to think a little more before posting. The requests made above by Drmies and Callanecc seem reasonable. Will you agree to them? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:01, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
            • I haven't really made a request. I'm not in charge of much here. Drmies (talk) 21:23, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
              • Well, I won't object to you reversing your last administrator action on this issue, then. I don't think "can you please avoid calling people racists whether you think they are or not" is wildly unreasonable. Do you? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:04, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
                • Parrot wasn't blocked for a personal attack. Drmies (talk) 22:11, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
                  • (ec) Is that a good excuse? Do you have a better one? Regardless, it goes on your talk page (free tip: read up on "without fear or favour"), unless PoD is willing have a discussion with me about this. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:18, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
            • "Then you need to think a little more before posting." - I'm slightly annoyed that anyone might suggest I don't think before posting. Parrot of Doom 22:13, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
              • It's not been evident. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:18, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
                • Perhaps you care more about the views of racists than I do. Parrot of Doom 22:25, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
                  • That you're so far from understanding people's concerns is an indication of why I - and others - won't bother with people who behave in the ignorant way that you do. Please enjoy your morally blind editing. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:03, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
                    • I understand their concerns, I just don't agree with them. It's funny how people who cry for tolerance have none for opinions other than their own. But if your post means that you're finished using my talk page as some kind of moral blackboard, then at least one good thing has come out of this conversation. Please go and bother someone else, I'm sick and tired of being criticised for actually working on articles. Parrot of Doom 23:16, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Burning of women in England

The DYK project (nominate) 08:03, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Burning of women in England: Difference between revisions

Hi, Parrot of Doom, I noticed your edit, Why if I may ask? Lotje (talk) 06:07, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Already linked, and not too distantly either. I considered expanding on her name but to do so properly (she had more than two) is probably beyond the scope of what presently, is quite a short article. Parrot of Doom 08:15, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Tasty Æbleskiver

	Some delicious Æbleskiver
	Looks like you could use some mouth-watering Æbleskiver today. Hope you enjoy. Duke Olav Otterson of Bornholm (talk) 15:05, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea what that is but it looks Scandinavian, and I will be off to Sweden and Norway this summer, so I shall look out for it. Parrot of Doom 16:54, 21 March 2014 (UTC)