User talk:Parrot of Doom/Archives/2011/May

Bon chance

Good luck with this; I sense that PBS may be out to give you a hard time though. Malleus Fatuorum 21:17, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

He did similar on the HD&Q FAC, fortunately nobody paid him any attention - which is what I intend to do. Parrot of Doom 21:33, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

And so it goes on, but I don't object too strongly to that format. What do you think? In other news, I think I've found my niche, and I've found a few more sources for the Paisley witches, so hopefully it's GAN for them later this week. Malleus Fatuorum 18:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I think the solution would be to rename the whole section "The stuff nobody reads anyway". Parrot of Doom 19:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Or "The stuff that only GA and FA reviewers bother to read (and not even all of them)"? Malleus Fatuorum 19:55, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Outing attempt

I'm just going to bed after a long drive but see discussion at User talk:Kurt-the-parrot-hamster Richerman (talk) 23:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I wondered if someone was slandering me and the comment had been removed (I'd have asked for it to be restored tbh) but that's even sillier! Parrot of Doom 06:39, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Canvassing?

Is this allowed, if it is it shouldn't be. [1] [2]--J3Mrs (talk) 09:52, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it falls foul of any guidelines but the motivation is clear. I've posted to that effect on Iridescent's talk page, here. Parrot of Doom 10:06, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

As he's only posting on the pages of those who have agreed with him in the past it's clearly canvassing. I've added my two penn'orth on Iridescent's talk page Richerman (talk) 13:40, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I thought the first line of WP:CANVASSING made his comments acceptable, but I admit I tend not to get involved in policies like this. I'm surprised he did it, I presumed the two editors canvassed would have had the article on their watchlist anyway. Nevertheless, something has to be done about PBS's behaviour. Parrot of Doom 14:30, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Butting in: I think this is problematic because it has a chilling effect on anyone who commented on the talkpage, and it makes the talkpage discussion spill over into the FAC. Perhaps this discussion should be moved to FAC talk where it could be suggested that that those who engaged on the talk page recuse themselves from the FAC. I've been watching the page for quite some time, am interested in the subject and would like to review it, but given the controversy on the FAC page am afraid that would only fan the flames, so to speak. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:38, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

pay none of it any attention truthkeeper. I'd rather people review the article and then comment. Maybe it could use more on contemporary events, if so it may have to remain a GA as there aren't really any quality sources that say more than "bonfire toffee and fireworks". Parrot of Doom 08:46, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

The question in mind is what more than "bonfire toffee and fireworks" is there to say about contemporary events? It's all very well for certain editors to keep blathering on, but I've yet to see a solid, specific suggestion of what it is that's missing. Malleus Fatuorum 14:22, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

If I could find a source as good as Cressy, Sharpe, Fraser even, that offers a good summary of the modern celebration I'd almost certainly include it. However, none of the sources I've seen do, in fact Sharpe brushes the issue away with a dismissive gesture (I can quote the section if required). Cressy spends only a paragraph or two on the 20th century, and only does so in order to demonstrate how innocuous and unimportant today's events are, compared to what happened over the last four centuries. The simple fact is that all the quality sources I've found focus almost exclusively on the historic aspect of the day, and I see no reason why we should move away from what the experts write about. Mentioning "in x people eat bonfire toffee and watch fireworks, in y fireworks are banned but people are still allowed to hold sparklers, and in z people dress up in Donald Duck costumes and chase goats" is absolutely trivial. I view such things with as much suspicion as both of us view the hated "popular culture" sections. Parrot of Doom 19:52, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I really don't know what to suggest at this point, and I feel rather sorry for SandyG in having to try and keep the FAC on track. It's clear to me that PBS won't stop his disruption voluntarily, so he has to be stopped in some other way. Malleus Fatuorum 20:00, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

He's still harping on about the appendix on the article's talk page, despite clearly having no support to change it to his preferred version. I've had enough of his interfering, he's made one or two decent suggestions which I've acted upon, but honestly, he's bored so many people that there's an entire herd of donkeys missing hind legs. Parrot of Doom 20:08, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I would just refuse to engage with him on the talk page as by trying to derail an FAC he's digging a very large hole for himself. Richerman (talk) 22:39, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Breach of 3RR

I have reported you (yet again) for breaching 3RR on the Guy Fawkes Night article. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Parrot of Doom reported by PBS (talk) (Result: ) -- PBS (talk) 11:54, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

It appears that this edit was made using Twinkle, and the comment indicates that Twinkle was used in an inappropriate way: Reversing a good faith edit and calling it vandalism. Such usage if repeated, can result in an editor not being allowed to use Twinkle (see Wikipedia:Twinkle#Blacklisting). As we are involved in a content dispute, I would not take such an action, but another administrator might. -- PBS (talk) 11:54, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

How convenient that just as I'm attempting to get the article through FAC, and just as I'm drafting your RFC, you once again start making silly changes to the article. I know exactly what your game is, now fuckoff back to your hole. Parrot of Doom 12:07, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Reply

Please do keep me posted on when it gets to User Conduct RFC. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 06:09, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Philips Park

You may be interested in the history of Philips Park published on the Bury Council website here Richerman (talk) 20:34, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, it looks interesting. Somehow though, I can't help but experience a bitter taste in my mouth when I read things like that. It was councils who were responsible for maintaining those properties, and councils who failed spectacularly, preferring instead to spend money on all kinds of left-wing nonsense. They demolished the mansion house only a couple of years after they got their hands on it, not before they flogged off the interior though. It was a council that demolished (with explosives) Damside Aqueduct in Bolton, for no other reason than "well it looks a bit unsafe" when actually it wasn't.

/rant! Parrot of Doom 20:41, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Yep I know, Prestwich Council were responsible for demolishing loads of beautiful houses. The conservatory and pond in Philips Park used to be maintained when I was a lad but now they're a disgrace. And then there's Heaton Hall and Whitefield town hall - I could go on. Stiil, at least Prestwich Town hall was eventually turned into some rather nice flats although that was nearly lost as well. Richerman (talk) 21:36, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Let me add to that list Longford Hall, the home of John Rylands, which Trafford Council let collapse into dilapidation until they could justify demolishing it. Malleus Fatuorum 21:44, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

• The same tactic that Alex langsam is using with some old villas in Kersal - er, allegedly 21:51, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

And Lever Park up near Rivington, which should be utterly beautiful, and is instead a wreck. Parrot of Doom 21:48, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Having just read half of the publication it's very comprehensive and well referenced. I've added it to the Philips Park article as further reading for now, although not sure if the section is in the right place. Richerman (talk) 22:52, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Re: Star Trek V FAC

I've tried to address your comments so far, although I'm afraid I can't more definite with dates due to a lack of timestamps in the sources. Your comments thus far are greatly appreciated! Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 14:27, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

My sincere apologies, I saw your comment last night and intended to return, but I forgot. I shall do it now. Parrot of Doom 14:36, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Harris's List

Since you started rewriting the article the article views have shot up. Was there something in the media that brought it to your attention or do you have a fan club? Nev1 (talk) 19:50, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

It was posted on Reddit (I found it via that post), they have a "subreddit" for Wikipedia and sometimes there are some decent articles on there. Also, posting anything on Malleus's page is bound to attract attention! Parrot of Doom 20:29, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Frustrated and pissed off

What a pointlessly frustrating experience RfC is! I've been running on fumes for a while now, but the tank really is empty now. Nothing will change here, maybe it's time to call it a day. Malleus Fatuorum 12:07, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I believe they tend to run for some time before being closed, no matter what the consensus. It is heartening, however, to see that in only a week, so many people have arrived who concur with our views. Its also completely unsurprising that PBS's response so far is to try and have it closed on a technicality.

Anyway, I'm having fun with Harris's List of Covent Garden Ladies, and I'm trying very hard to find a valid reason to put a pornographic caricature image in there. I will have porn on the front page! Parrot of Doom 12:26, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Good luck with that. I've got two articles I'd like to "finish off", but I think that might be it for me. The frustration is overwhelming the enjoyment. Malleus Fatuorum 12:33, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

And I've said it before, but you really should devote more energy to things you're interested in, as opposed to things other people want you to do for them. I found the above article by fluke and it instantly jumped out at me. For instance, maybe you'd like Ada Byron? Parrot of Doom 12:38, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I once had the idea that I could make a difference at GAN, but in reality it's a thankless and never ending torrent. You're right of course. Malleus Fatuorum 12:49, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Driveby comment to PoD—before you sign off on it, Harris's List is going to need at the very least a readthrough alongside Catherine Arnold's City of Sin (just published in the last couple of weeks in paperback; I'd have thought any reasonably large library will have it). CoS is probably the definitive history of prostitution in London, and an article which doesn't at the very least explain on the talkpage why you're not citing to her will be shot down in flames under 1(c). – iridescent 12:59, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

*Dons wig* eh eh calm down calm down. I'm nowhere near finished yet, I'm still waiting for Rubenhold's books to arrive. :) Parrot of Doom 13:01, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Anyhow Malleus, I don't know if you're aware of its existence but today I found a very nice bookshop on Sharston Industrial Estate. It's one of those places you can easily get lost in, basically a warehouse unit piled sky-high with second hand books on every subject. I bought a hardback version of Boswell's London Journal for a fiver. Their British history section is extremely comprehensive. Parrot of Doom 17:45, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Sounds interesting, I'll have to pop in and take a look. Malleus Fatuorum 21:01, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Iri, I just got City of Sin and a very interesting book it appears to be. It isn't that well researched however, as I found when I checked what it had to say about Gropecunt Lane (thinking I could use some of it on that article). Arnold makes the old mistake of assuming that Grub Street was once GC Lane, when in reality it never was :) Tsk! Parrot of Doom 19:42, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Mail

Hello, Parrot of Doom/Archives/2011. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

--Σ _☭^★ 05:11, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not interested in being an admin but thanks anyway. Parrot of Doom 08:26, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

The Wall

Hello. As toolserver.org said, you are the major contributor to this article. I nominated it for FA but there's a problem – in the Selected album sales section, the sales in Australia needs to be sourced but I can't find it. Could you help? TGilmour (talk) 15:07, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Not right now, I'm busy with another article. The Wall needs a fair bit of work before it's ready for FAC, and to be honest, right now I'm not really all that bothered about helping it get there. Parrot of Doom 15:22, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Just give me a couple of suggestions and a source of Australian sales if you have. TGilmour (talk) 15:28, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Fred Dibnah

Our description of the play be clear and informative - what issue could you possibly have with that ? Furthermore, have you read your 'line' ? it reads awful ! Anoraker (talk) 22:40, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

It be clear and informative? That's a familiar style of writing. Nev1 (talk) 22:46, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

If you're trying to defend this - "A play based on his life with his third wife - 'The Demolition Man' - was staged at Bolton's Octagon Theatre in 2011" then I'd suggest you not bother. While Fred Dibnah needs a bit of work to tidy up the prose, your edit certainly was not an improvement. Parrot of Doom 22:46, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

...and neither were these edits, which I at least tidied up and bothered to cite. Parrot of Doom 22:49, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Sandbox

I looked at your sandbox, too. You have a great sanbox of The Piper at the Gates of Dawn. Why wouldn't you improve a little bit, then embed it into the article? It has chances to become FA. I'll help you if needed. TGilmour (talk) 15:09, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Looks like the above user nominated The Piper at the Gates of Dawn to the GAN (even picking up what you left in your sandbox!). igordebraga ≠ 04:10, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning, I withdrew the nomination. Parrot of Doom 07:01, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Gong Farmer

In my search for material to flesh out the gong farmer article I've come across a great book by Emily Cockayne, Hubbub: Filth, Noise & Stench in England. Did you know that public privvies were called houses of easement (how appropriate), or have you ever heard the saying "he that wrestles with a turd is sure to be beshit"? Malleus Fatuorum 21:50, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I can only assume that medieval Englishmen never consumed a mix of curry and beer on a friday night. There's nothing easy about dealing with that... Parrot of Doom 22:43, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Ice cream is your best friend. Malleus Fatuorum 23:10, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, what do you do with it exactly? - no, on second thoughts don't answer that. Richerman (talk) 23:19, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

It's an old joke. When you're sitting the loo and your arse is burning because of the too-hot vindaloo you try to encourage the ice cream you had as a dessert to come to your rescue. So to speak. Malleus Fatuorum 01:08, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Pink Floyd

Hello. Pink Floyd is very good article and can really become FA, but lacks the musical style and lyrical themes section. As the top contributor, could you make it? TGilmour (talk) 13:41, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Why should I? Parrot of Doom 14:22, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Because I suppose only you can do that. TGilmour (talk) 18:07, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Been watching with interest

I've been watching your Guy Fawkes Night FAC with some interest, not least because the issues being brought up there very closely parallel why I've stalled with the workhouse article. For me it's about the classical English Victorian workhouse; who knows what happened in Belgium, Germany, Jamaica, West Africa, Canada, Australia ... if they had workhouses and want articles on them then let the fuckers write them themselves. Malleus Fatuorum 23:09, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Can you imagine writing an article on the English Civil War, and then being criticised for not including a large section with a list of re-enactment societies, their battles? I've given up on that FAC, it'll either be promoted or not. Parrot of Doom 07:46, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Samuel Derrick

I think the reader is better served by a redirect to an article which has quite a lot of informaion about him, with references, rather than a single sentence stub. (Though, curiously, his death date is one thing missing from the other article!). If you've got more information and sources, then of course he probably merits an article - but for now the redirect seems more useful, so I've reverted to it. PamD (talk) 23:16, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Well perhaps I was about to expand his article? I rarely insert tags and the like without fixing things up myself. Parrot of Doom 07:43, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Edward Teach biography

I have a source all my own concerning Teach. I had an ancestor who sailed with him and survived only by giving evidence along with one other member of Teach's crew as to the location of Teach's treasure as their was a pardon for whoever would give evidence. The article says all changes must be verifiable, so I made sure to study my ancestor's journal well. STCooper1 (talk) 23:42, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately that isn't what's considered a WP:RELIABLE source, and it isn't WP:VERIFIABLE either as nobody but you has access to your ancestor's journal. While I don't doubt your good faith your edits to Blackbeard aren't an improvement, and can't stand. What would make a difference would be if you allowed a historian access to your journal - his/her opinion, if published, would be suitable for inclusion. Parrot of Doom 14:15, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

understanding

I see then. I am sorry about the non-verification. It seemed right since I had the journal's age dated and it was consistent with Blackbeard's reign of terror, but I was wrong to edit it with only me having access to it. I am sorry. I will not edit the article again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by STCooper1 (talk • contribs) 16:59, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

You can edit whatever article you like, just make sure you follow these rules - Wikipedia:Five pillars Parrot of Doom 18:44, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

done

I will. Sorry. I am just taking a while to get used to the terms of service. Some I don't remember right away. (STCooper1 (talk) 03:35, 31 May 2011 (UTC))

Nev1

PoD - you and Nev1 - what are you like ? ! Anoraker (talk) 11:28, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Is there a point to this? Parrot of Doom 12:37, 31 May 2011 (UTC)