User talk:Parrot of Doom/Archives/2009/August

Dark Side of the Moon
All I added was the album was recorded in "Studio 2" at Abbey Road. The entire sentence was unsourced, so why does my addition of "Studio 2" need to be sourced. Should we just take out the entire sentence since it isn't sourced? This edit was constructive and added detail, as are each my edits. HM211980 (talk) 01:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)HM211980HM211980 (talk) 01:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The contents of the entire paragraph are fully sourced, I should know, I wrote it. Your additions were not.  There is nothing in the existing two sources for that paragraph that mentions a "Studio 2".  Unless you can demonstrate with a WP:RELIABLE source that your additions are correct, they won't remain - full stop. Parrot of Doom (talk) 01:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Then you should know that it was recorded in studio two. If you don't want in your article, no problem, you're just eliminating information for the average reader who might find it interesting to read that DSOTM was recorded in the same space that the Beatles used. I already know it. I've been in the studio myself. I don't care if it's in "your" article or not. HM211980 (talk) 01:58, 30 July 2009 (UTC)HM211980HM211980 (talk) 01:58, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Who else knows that apart from you? --Malleus Fatuorum 02:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Probably people who have had some interest in the Beatles or Pink Floyd. But it would have been nice to offer that information to casual readers here if the contents of the article weren't so proprietary. I was just trying to add something interesting. HM211980 (talk) 02:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC)HM211980 HM211980 (talk) 02:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I know it, as well - and I've been inside number two myself. There absolutely are sources for this somewhere.   R ad io pa th y  •talk•   03:26, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, now that you've acknowledged it he will use it. Why do you keep reverting my contributions? HM211980 (talk) 04:37, 31 July 2009 (UTC)HM211980HM211980 (talk) 04:37, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It isn't 'my' article. Just about everything in it however, needs to be verifiable.  Your additions were not. Parrot of Doom (talk) 10:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, they are easily verifiable. Lots of bands have recorded at Abbey Road Studios. It's no big deal.  Not that many bands recorded in Studio 2 during the late 60s and early 70s because it was the Beatles' domain.  DSOTM was recorded in 2 and 3.  Given that you hold yourself out as an expert ("I should know, I wrote it") I'm a little surprised that you didn't include it, because it's the more unique aspect of the location of the recording of the album. Eventually someone will include it. HM211980 (talk) 02:12, 31 July 2009 (UTC)HM211980HM211980 (talk) 02:12, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If its easily verifiable, then demonstrate as such. Tell me the publication, author, publisher, and page number where it says so. Parrot of Doom (talk) 08:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Google it yourself if you decide you want to include it. If not, it doesn't matter to me. It's not my article. It's yours. You've made that clear enough. HM211980 (talk) 22:04, 31 July 2009 (UTC)HM211980HM211980 (talk) 22:04, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * HM211980, while much of wikipedia is unreferenced, it's integral to its improvement that every time you add information to an article you add the source of the information. The burden of proof is with whoever adds info because others may not know where you found it. And remember that adding references helps the reader. Wikipedia can't be considered a reliable source, but by adding links to websites with the appropriate information or details of the books it can be found in we help the reader and make the article verifiable. A careless attitude towards sourcing is harmful to wikipedia. Nev1 (talk) 22:40, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Obviously wikipedia can't be considered a reliable source. That's why no reputable educational institution with accept it as a reference for work produced by its students, even down to the elementary level. Everyone knows this, which is why it really isn't that critical that every piece of information be sourced. HM211980 (talk) 15:08, 2 August 2009 (UTC)HM211980HM211980 (talk) 15:08, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * People may know that it's unreliable, but even university students use wikipedia. They shouldn't but they do. That doesn't mean we shouldn't hold ourselves to achievable standards. It is critical that wikipedia is reliably sourced for the very reasons I stated above. So please provide sources every time you add information. It's not that hard, just say where you found the information. It's good practice whatever you do. Nev1 (talk) 15:19, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I would be glad to reference or source, but I don't know how to do it. Where do I find out?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by HM211980 (talk • contribs) 18:00, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The article is not mine, and I couldn't care less whether its in or not. It has to be from a reliable source—that's it.  I'm sorry you don't understand this, but I'm not about to waste any more time on a discussion with someone who can't be bothered to read the guidelines I've already given. Parrot of Doom (talk) 23:07, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I couldn't care less whether or not it is included either. At least we have reached consensus. Much of this article is poorly sourced and incomplete; this is but a small example of how it could be made more detailed and interesting. HM211980 (talk) 01:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)HM211980HM211980 (talk) 01:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * With the greatest of respect, that statement is completely untrue. Go away and bother somebody else.  Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:27, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Everyone's an expert, eh? Even when they're not. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 19:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * What's especially annoying is that I've spent money procuring the books used in the article (not that I'm not a big fan of the Floyd). I don't think there's anything in that article that isn't sourced, I must have made 500 edits at least. Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * In fact, this is the article as I first saw it. That is unsourced, not the article now. Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has got to be just about the most thankless way yet devised for spending your time. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Mary Toft to FA
Well done on getting the article to the standard and through the process. -- billinghurst (talk) 04:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Very well done PoD, nice work once again. --Malleus Fatuorum 04:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Many thanks chaps, I only just saw this. Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I only just noticed that the article was promoted. Great stuff, I'm sure you're almost guaranteed the 1st April 2010 TFA spot. Nev1 (talk) 20:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Andy_Billups
I am trying to ask for this article to be reviewed for deletion because it is a self-promo/ad created by a vulgar and abusive editor called webhamster - every attempt i make is bloked becuase he removes any tags or becomes too abusive for me to tolerate. Please could you help by at least creating a deletion discussion page so that i can list all the reasons for its deletion. many thanksYiwentang (talk) 12:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Its pretty obvious to me that the subject is notable (a basic google book search reveals two instances). Read WP:BLP, and if you feel that the article is lacking references, consider using some of the templates in Template:Refimprove - or perhaps Template:BLP sources.  If you think WebHamster's edits are disruptive, first create a discussion on the article's talk page to try and resolve the issue.  Do not resort to personal insults.  Your last resort is probably WP:ANI. Parrot of Doom (talk) 12:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your help. I think the two vague references in google books to Andy Billups actually reinforces the point that he is anything but notable. I cannot use the templates becuase he keeps vandalising them within seconds of their publication.Yiwentang (talk) 13:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm presuming you mean 'removing', not 'vandalising'. The talk page history shows no attempt at any kind of discourse.  You really should try discussing the matter there.  Try and establish some kind of consensus on the notability and verifiability of the article.  Simply deleting text, adding and re-adding templates, etc, isn't going to solve anything.Parrot of Doom (talk) 13:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Grub St.
Why did Grub Street disappear from DYK on 3 August? Sca (talk) 17:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Because DYK changes several times a day. Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Greater Manchester August Newsletter, Issue XVIII
Nev1 (talk) Nev1 (talk) 17:44, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Starting to struggle a bit ...
I'm starting to struggle a bit with the Moors murders, not quite sure why, as I've got plenty of material. Maybe because they're just so incomprehensible? I don't know. Anyway, I know that I need to expand on Hindley's background a little bit, add some material that distinguishes between the initial police investigation and the later ones, and finish off the initial investigation section. Also the reaction (which was there when I picked up the article) needs to be properly sourced.

Is there anything else you think I've missed? --Malleus Fatuorum 03:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll take a look next week - I'm away for the weekend working now. Parrot of Doom (talk) 08:45, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. As I said on the GM project talk page I've found this really hard. Winnie Johnson's letter to Myra Hindley begging for help to find her son's body just cracked me up. In some ways I really wish I hadn't started on this article, but I know it's got to be done. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:11, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments on the talk page. I think I agree with you about the reorganisation, which I've started—it'll probably result in a better narrative flow. I've been paying more attention to all the gaps in the story so far, and hadn't really given much thought to the structure, particularly that victims section, which I inherited. I think this might well have been easier to write from scratch; there are still lots of bits I haven't been able to find references for. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Heh, it certainly isn't crap - there are old featured articles that aren't much better - it just needs kicking into touch. There's a wealth of good research on this case and I doubt it would take long to make it an FA, if that's your ultimate aim.  By the way, what do you think of the lead on The Dark Side of the Moon? Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I think I'll probably settle for GA with this one. I've been ploughing a bit of a lonely furrow with it and I'll be pleased enough if it's no longer an embarrassment. Haven't quite got the emotional energy for FAC right now. I'll take a look at Dark Side's lead and let you know what I think shortly. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * ... I hadn't noticed that The Dark Side of the Moon was at FAC! Looking pretty good so far, touch wood. I think I agree with the comment about the lead being "functional, and not sufficiently expressing what's so special about this album. The article body waxes lyrical about the innovations, both musical and technical, but we get little sense of that in the lead. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * What do you think now? One thing I just noticed is there is nothing about the recording label (Harvest).  Must remedy that. Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that's a really big improvement. If it wasn't for raising the suspicion in some editor's minds that you and I might be in some way in cahoots I'd be lodging my support at the FAC. A propos my own problem, I've had a busy evening myself, reorganising along the lines you suggested. Any better do you think? --Malleus Fatuorum 23:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd been thinking right from the start with this article that I just wanted to get it to a reasonable GA standard, but your recent comment on my talk page has made me reconsider. I think that perhaps we ought now to be aiming for FAC; I'm certain that we could do it between us. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:35, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I think so too. I'll see what Manchester Library has. Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:41, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Geometry of love
Good day. Can you search some sources for article Geometry of Love ? Probably this article contain interesting fact for DYK. --Movses (talk) 05:15, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't particularly enjoy the album and most sources would be in French. I can't really help you out here. Parrot of Doom (talk) 15:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. It is strange, but the best article today - italian :-) Unfortunally, without sources :-( --Movses (talk) 19:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Toshiba HD-A1
--Cyber cobra (talk) 04:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:Parsonsquad.jpg)
 Thanks for uploading File:Parsonsquad.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Parrot of Doom (talk) 15:06, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think you need to notify yourself! Would you like me to delete the image now, or do you intend to use it elsewhere? Nev1 (talk) 18:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * hehe, the toolkit thingy did that. I don't think it'll be reused - its just a bloke at a mixing desk, there isn't much historical significance to it.  I'm hoping however I'll have more luck with the two image in here.  Feel free to bin it, at least it'll stop people reinserting it against the decision at FAC. Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:07, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Gone. Hang in there, it's a good article and hopefully the images should be the last hurdle (and maybe Indopug will come back to see if his comments have been addressed). Nev1 (talk) 18:54, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it always irritates me when people don't return to address my replies. Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:08, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

re: erm
My apologies. My rollback rights were removed, so I'm using lupins anti vandal tool for the first time in ages. I don't actually recall reverting that. - Drew Smith What I've done 13:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Another thing that makes this quite odd; I've been monitoring IP edits only... Again, sorry about that. - Drew Smith What I've done 13:43, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Also incredible

 * Note, I gave you your first award, dude. :)  ceran  thor 23:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks :) Parrot of Doom (talk) 00:51, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

TTXGP image used
Hi Jeff. I wanted to let you know that I used your image Ttxgp_bikes_isle_of_man_tt_2009.jpg in an article: Brammo. I wasn't exactly sure how to properly give you credit for it, so if it needs to be fixed, please feel free Hbmallin (talk) 19:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No credit is required, anyone wishing to use it outside Wikipedia may simply click the file, they'll find all the details required there. In short, if its on Wikipedia (and correctly licensed), you can use it in whatever article you like, and you don't have to notify anyone. Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:35, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Pink floyd wish you were here.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Pink floyd wish you were here.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The Dark Side of the Moon
Hello Parrot of Doom. I notice you've put in a lot of work into the aforementioned article. I'm sure you've already noticed, but I decided to edit the lead section a bit. I hope you don't mind.

I notice it's at FAC. Whether or not it passes, you're doing great work. Keep it up!  Master&amp;  Expert ( Talk ) 04:03, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I don't mind as long as whatever you change is mentioned in the article, and referenced at some point. Parrot of Doom (talk) 07:30, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Wish You Were Here (Pink Floyd album)
I've had a good look through and it looks pretty good to me. You're always going to get some comments at FAC, but nothing leaps out at me as needing attention and I think it should do well.

I do have one comment about the alt text though, which is that I think it really needs to be a lot more concise, and just give an impression of the image's main features. Also, to a visually impaired person, colours like "blue" may very well not mean much. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:26, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that, its really appreciated. For the alt text I imagine that I being asked to draw an image that's been described to me.  I have a feeling the alt text thing hasn't quite evolved fully yet, I don't think people quite know what to do with it. Parrot of Doom (talk) 15:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Mary Toft, one of wikipedi's 10 best articles
Have you seen this article in The Times? Mary Toft and ferret legging both in the best 10 articles on wikipedia. We're heroes. :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum 14:12, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * haha. I've been reading Nick Mason's autobiog and have been laughing lots today.  The best bit so far being the bit where Rick Wright left the band's kit overnight in an old Bedford van, which subsequently got nicked.  Mason chides him for never returning the £200 it cost to replace it! Parrot of Doom (talk) 14:31, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Dark side of the moon mobile fidelity cd.jpg
Just wanted to inform you that this is a fair use image since the cd is still copyright, and that you may wish to tag it as such. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  16:46, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit fed up now with all this image stuff, so I'll leave it to someone else - but thanks for the warning. By the way, you might be interested in the new version of Pink Floyd which I've started work on.  Comments welcome (I only started it yesterday, and have another three books to read through after Mason). Parrot of Doom (talk) 16:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ya I agree on that. I think knowledge should come first, free-use content second, in terms of priorities on here. I will have a look see at what you are doing. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  17:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Just wondered...
...if you're still doing photography for Wikipedia. I recently visted a block of flats at Nine Acre Drive in Ordsall. From floor 17 is the most perfect shot of Manchester I have ever seen (day or night). The tower block is gated and has a guard, but it's liberally used - a chat with the guard for photography would be fine. Might be worth it if you're in the area - it truely is the most perfect shot. --<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;border:2px solid #A9A9A9;padding:1px;">Jza84 | Talk  21:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I might have a look. I'm waiting on a new lens right now, its taking ages to arrive :( Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a beautiful scene at night - never seen the city centre look so great. The angle, composition, lighting etc is stunning. The top floor is a perfect vantage point for a new lead image for the Manchester article, I'm sure. --<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;border:2px solid #A9A9A9;padding:1px;">Jza84 | Talk  22:44, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

The Dark Side of the Moon
I reverted BeatleFloydBowie's edit and suggested that he take your advice and read WP:RELIABLE. You on the other hand might like to read WP:OWN though.-- The LegendarySky Attacker 21:15, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your help. This has nothing to do with ownership of an article.  Its a simple matter of a user inserting what appears to be an unreliable source into articles that are either at WP:GAN, GA, or WP:FAC.  The user clearly does not understand wp:reliable, or has not read it, despite my repeated requests to do so.  Under his pre-reg IP, he also removed correctly-sourced material from DSotM, from a failure to comprehend the review, or its context.


 * He just needs a bit of guidance, that's all. I'd rather not see this escalate into anything untoward. Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:19, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. I also think you made a good call there reporting him to WP:AIV. Sometimes I just can't help, but think that (even WP:AGF) there are vandals out there that just pretend they don't know these things so they can get away with it.-- The LegendarySky Attacker 21:23, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I can only hope he has the best of intentions. Unfortunately I've chosen to work on some pretty popular articles here, and have to keep my beady eye on them to ensure that standards are maintained.  I believe referencing to be extremely important, hopefully this user will appreciate this. Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:26, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well I guess this would suggest otherwise. Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:45, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't worry. I will be keeping an eye on developments so you can get on with what you are best at. ;) – B.hotep •talk• 21:47, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thankyou Bubba. Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:50, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I forgot to say, Nev has got an eye on it too. And he was quicker off the mark than me. – B.hotep •talk• 22:06, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I actually found it all quite funny, in a 'reminds me of the time I was 13 years old' kind of way! Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:07, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's silly and he's threatened to return under another IP, but that's a bridge to be crossed later. 24 hours should be long enough for him to work out how to change his IP. Do these people never see the irony in their own comments? Nev1 (talk) 22:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It is silly, but you know as well as me Nev, we could have done that after their second or third edit if we didn't have to conform to the wikiethics. Protect the content editors (you included) is what I say. Keyboard warriors be damned 's what I say. – B.hotep •talk• 22:14, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not something I'm at all worried about mate. By the way I got a nifty new lens today (for example), its so wide I can see the back of my head while shooting.  Anyhow I'll be off and about playing with it, so will probably call at some new spots to take piccies.  Any suggestions, massive buildings perhaps that are difficult to snap on a standard lens? Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:16, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The Hidden Gem might be worth a shot as the pics on flickr and the one on wikipedia are rather cramped. Nev1 (talk) 22:40, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem, it'll be Tuesday or later now but I'll do it justice. Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Nick Griffin at Cambridge
You recently hid a line on the Nick Griffin page that says, regarding a planned debate in Jan 2003, "Although the debate went ahead, neither Griffin or al-Masri attended". As you point out, this has remained uncited, though there are several sources for the planning of the debate. I came across an article in Cambridge News from 24 April 2003 regarding an invitation to speak to Jean-Marie Le Pen, which includes the following: "The latest row comes four months after the Cambridge Union was forced to cancel a debate featuring Nick Griffin, the leader of the British National Party." So, it seems the debate did not go ahead either with or without Griffin and al-Masri. Or did it....?Emeraude (talk) 08:20, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm quite certain that the cancelled event to which you refer was the December invitation with Lembit Opik, and not the November invitation. I could be wrong though.  What we need is an article that says 'griffin etc didn't show up' Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:52, 31 August 2009 (UTC)