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

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)
 * 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)


 * 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)


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


 * 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)


 * 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)

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)
 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * "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)

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)
 * Yes, I'm sure its fascinating to someone like yourself. Parrot of Doom 16:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It was a failed attempt to drive your agenda home, deal with it. 212.139.68.178 (talk) 16:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Really. What agenda is that? Parrot of Doom 16:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

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)

November 2009
Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did to Nick Griffin, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Parrot of Doom 11:24, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Ouch! You've used a template to send a message to an experienced editor. Please review the essay Don't template the regulars or maybe listen to a little advice. Doesn't this feel cold, impersonal, and canned? It's meant in good humour. Best wishes. User:MiszaBot III (talk) 01:19, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Seriously though. What's up? I added no personal analysis to Nick Griffin. I merely added a statement of fact that was well sourced. How can one not conclude that the person in question is not a facist or a bigot. His party is facist ... it says so on Wikipedia, and apart from meeting the definition of a bigot, he is identified as one in many references. Going to a warning template for my first edit on the article (well I think I edited it once a few months ago, but that edit is still there, so obviously that isn't an issue) seems a bit uncivil to me! Nfitz (talk) 14:47, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * If you believe that adding "and a fascist bigot" to the opening sentence of the lead as here: "Nicholas John 'Nick' Griffin (born 1 March 1959) is a British politician, chairman of the British National Party (BNP), Member of the European Parliament for North West England and a facist bigot", demonstrates a neutral point of view then it's difficult to take your claim to be an experienced editor seriously. A wikipedia article should present the facts neutrally and allow the reader to make up his or her own mind. It's not a fact that Griffin is a fascist bigot, it's a fact that The Sun and other tabloids have called him a fascist bigot. Big difference. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I couldn't care less if you think the warning is uncivil. Keep making edits like this, or this, and I'll keep using warning templates.  Maybe one day you'll accept the basic principle of neutrality.  I take your claim to be an 'experienced editor' with a cwt of salt. Parrot of Doom 16:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah,that's amusing ... I'd actually forgotten that edit. And essentially it's the same.  I still think something like that should be there ... and although people might try and fight such descriptions, I can't see any reason why a NPOV article should reflect this.  Surely ignoring something that the media have referenced time, and time again, actually adds POV into the article. And while you may not want the article to be NPOV, I do.  As for your incivility ... I personally believe deliberately uncivil editors should be banned. Please try and follow Wikipedia guidlines on good faith, civility, etc.  Nfitz (talk) 00:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * If you want to create a section about the common view or media perception of Griffin, go right ahead, and as long as it contains relatively equal levels of criticism from all sides of the argument then nobody will mind. Restrict your contributions to 'nick griffin is a racist bigot' in the lead however and it'll be removed immediately, and I'll continue to make notes of it on your talk page.  I take great offence to these accusations that I don't want the article to be NPOV, they're weak, childish, and immoral.  If you have a problem with my civility, go and take it to WP:CIVIL, and if you think I'm not being neutral, then go to WP:RFC, where I'm sure you'll get a fantastic level of support.  Go on, do it right now - don't just make vague threats, carry them out.  Really, do it - I'm quite happy with what I've written.  I wonder how people would view these constant personal attacks over neutrality that are being directed at me? Parrot of Doom 08:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. I was confused. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Parrot - I'm being totally serious here. You cannot template that way for those things - you simply don't have the right. They are not 3RR or the like - they are content issues, and you just can't threaten a block over them - you have to take them to Talk, revert, get other opinions etc (very different to a review) - ie go through the Wikipedia editing process. This proper process would actually benefit the article, and it's something so many of us have gone through so many times, why should you be different just because the article passed a GA? I do feel I will have to report you (as I've already said) if you carry on hard-hitting like this, as you just need to be told by someone you respect, and the big names surrounding you don't seem to be doing it. Content aside, I think there is an underlying WP:OWN issue here, probably bacause you have got too close to the article, and perhaps the archness of its thankless subject too. The article wouldn't implode if you were not there dishing out warnings. And you really ought to care more about your civility too - no one is (or should be, in any case) above the law on that one. It only leads to others doing the same, which is surely just saying what we all know. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Hang on, I didn't say that you want the article to be NPOV. What I said was you may not want the article to be NPOV ... I have no idea what you do, or do not want; how could I?  What I do know however, is you have violated, and continue to violate WP:CIVIL with statements and personal attacks like I couldn't care less if you think the warning is uncivil, they're weak, childish, and immoral.  I am asking you again to be civil; and I'd appreciate an apology.  Thanks, Nfitz (talk) 02:35, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Take your baseless arguments and pathetic insinuations elsewhere. I've already told you, if you have a problem with whatever I've done, you're quite free to make a complaint in the appropriate channels.  Any further additions you make here will face a stunning silence.  Oh, and your request for an apology is the funniest thing I've read here today.  Well done. Parrot of Doom 21:42, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Please be careful PoD. There are too many here who can't distinguish between straight talking and incivility ... hell, why am I telling you something you already know. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:56, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Dick Turpin
I just had a look through Dick Turpin, which I hadn't seen for a while. What a fantastic job you're doing with it! So much improved over this sorry excuse. I had a look at Guy Fawkes as well, but I think I'm going to give up on any ideas I had of doing anything with that. Continually battling to keep out the trivia section and the lobbying of the V for Vendetta afficionados is more aggravation that I need right now. Now that Ottava's gone perhaps I'll turn my attention to Rookwood ... I dunno. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I already posted on your talk page just now, I'll reply there. Parrot of Doom 14:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Seconding that. Amazing work.  Only two minor suggestions to add:
 * 1. Could you try and coalesce your section edits? In less than four hours you've made over 50 edits; it's hard to track, and I'm worried that if someone made a minor vandalism while you weren't looking, your own copious edits might rapidly hide it in the "old" history.
 * 2. If possible, could you try and find some additional sources for inline references? The references section is a little too mono-source, and it's good to have multiple sources of verification, so it doesn't look like we are just trusting Sharpe alone for the entire article, or just summarizing his work.
 * --ShadowRangerRIT (talk) 17:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for keeping an eye out. Only one instance of vandalism has occurred (you can expand the scope of the history page by clicking at the bottom).  I'm working on more sources as we speak - see the Dick Turpin section on Malleus' page.  As for speed, well, I work quickly - especially on an article as full of bollox as Turpin's was :) Parrot of Doom 17:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * There's an illustration from Rookwood here, of Turpin jumping over Hornsey Toll Gate on his ride to York that you might find useful. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:38, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That's cool, I haven't seen that one. The images I'm really after though are the six images mentioned in the last section, one of which is used in the article (shows a bloke hanging a woman over a fire).  I think the article can't take many more images though, so perhaps one or two of the modern-day pics should go. Parrot of Doom 19:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I've had a go at the lead. Feel free to hack away at it as you think best. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Its excellent, thanks. I added a couple of important points that were missing, but the article is now looking pretty good.  I just need to get hold of that book by Barlow, although the closest copies are bloody miles away :(  There aren't any cheap copies on sale on the internet either. Parrot of Doom 21:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, though I say it myself who shouldn't, with your additions that's now a damn fine lead. Good luck at GAN. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm very pleased with it, it reads well I think. Parrot of Doom 23:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Just a small thing. It's probably obvious why the overnight ride from London to York as described by Ainsworth is impossible, but I remember seeing somewhere a technical account of exactly why it was impossible. Ainsworth goes into some detail on Black Bess's breeding, describing her as sired by "a desert Arab, renowned in his day, and brought to this country by a wealthy traveller; her dam was an English racer." IIRC Arabs are fast, but they don't have the stamina of other breeds. Turpin's pursuers, according to Ainsworth's story had to change horses 20 times to keep pace with him. I continue to find it strange that the one thing everyone knows Dick Turpin for is a complete fiction. Anyway, for the benefit of our American cousins it might be an idea to give an idea of how far apart London and York actually are. Pobably rambling now ... forget I spoke. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:08, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * They're living in our colonies. They should know these things :) Parrot of Doom 00:13, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

NBSP
Sorry for removing them from the article. I hadn't even realized they served a purpose other than allowing you to force multiple spaces in a row; having found the notes on MOS I understand why they are there now. I still thinks it ugly, but at least it's ugly for a reason. :-) --ShadowRangerRIT (talk) 20:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem Parrot of Doom 20:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Dick Turpin
Hi, I should be able to access that NLA document for you. Could you please ping me an email so I've got an address to send it to? cheers, Nick-D (talk) 00:52, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Excellent, done. Parrot of Doom 00:54, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I just sent you the document. Nick-D (talk) 05:04, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Absolutely brilliant. Thanks so much for that! Parrot of Doom 07:40, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Griffin
FYI, I heard Griffin is standing for parliament on BBC News 24. My disdain for his beliefs prevents me from writing neutrally about him, but it's likely people will be coming to WP for information on him so I thought I'd let you know! Regards, HJMitchell    You rang?   17:14, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:CRYSTAL until someone reports as such. Parrot of Doom 17:31, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Rambles in Germany and Italy
The above travel narrative, written by the incomparable Mary Shelley, is up for peer review. I would appreciate any thoughts you have on it! Awadewit (talk) 20:20, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd love to - I'm busy on the Gunpowder Plot for now. If you don't mind waiting I can read through it in a day or so.  I'm no expert on literature though, a complete ignoramus in fact. Parrot of Doom 20:24, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Pink Floyd
I'm currently going through the article trimming back (not an easy job as there is so much interesting material in there!). One editor has shown concern with the amount of changes I am making. There is always going to be a certain amount of subjective judgement in deciding what information is encyclopedic and notable, and which is interesting, but of lessor importance and more properly belonging in an extended book rather than a general encyclopedia article. As such I am naturally uncertain as I am doing this which of my edits are appropriate and which are not. Usually such uncertainties can be cleared up by discussion, and I would welcome any questions, queries, challenges or confirmations to the editing I am currently undertaking. Regards  SilkTork  *YES! 16:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * What you have to bear in mind is that the structure of the article is difficult to change, as its almost entirely chronological. I don't mind trimming sentences here and there, and perhaps removing certain details (like Wright going off to record his own song), but large-scale structural changes are going to result in important things going missing, and readers becoming confused, if you're not careful. Parrot of Doom 16:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * What do you think of the article currently? I've been busy with Gunpowder Plot and Dick Turpin, so I'm especially pleased that you've taken it upon yourself to improve the article - many people wouldn't bother. Parrot of Doom 23:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It's getting there for sure. I don't think the issues holding it back from GA are unsolvable in the short term so I'm quite happy to keep the review open, and I'm quite prepared to have a go at helping out. I have to say that for a while I kept looking at the article meaning to start trimming it, and then going off to do something else because it is a daunting task - not just in terms of time (background reading to ensure that the most commonly reported - therefore most important - details are not removed, etc), but also in terms of making decisions as to what to cut, what to leave, and what to reorganise so that the most important details stand out and are brought to the fore. Organising information is tricky - paragraphs have main points, and the lead sentence of the paragraph should contain the main point, with further detail later in the paragraph. This is so people can scan articles for the relevant paragraphs they need for the information they are looking for. It is all too easy to forget that we are first and foremost a reference tool, and to get carried away with telling a story.  SilkTork  *YES! 00:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

River Irwell
Thanks for the heads up. A rise in activity - was the pun intended? :) Anyway, it's just as well we put in all that information about why it floods and the flood defence scheme - maybe they'll find the information they were looking for. I noticed it was very high yeserday and it seems its already burst it's banks at Nuttall Park so I'm sure there's more to come, although it says here that they've taken off the flood alert. Richerman (talk) 17:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Gunpowder plot
Hi, I noticed you and Malleus had done a lot of work recently on The Gunpowder Plot so I'll try to help out where I can as and when when I have time. Did you see the message I left on the Fred Dibnah talk page? That quotation doesn't sound quite right to me. One question I've been meaning to ask you - I was watching something on TV the other week and when someone was making a presentation they used that camera techniquique where they zoom in and out, focus on the hands a lot, take wobbly shots and generally make it look as if an amateur is filming. As a professional cameraman do you find that sort of carry on as annoying as I do? Richerman (talk) 17:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah I forgot about that, I'll check it out tonight. Yes, that technique annoys me, but only when done badly - if its something like 24 I don't mind.  When its done on a Sony Z1 (spit) I feel like throwing the telly through the window. Parrot of Doom 17:11, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Seeing as there is already a section on this....The gunpowder plotters image seems to be slightly messed up, with the names not correctly linking. Oddly, it works fine on the Van de Passe family page, but the Template:Gunpowder plotters has the same issues. I've checked in IE and chrome and it's the same in both. I know nothing about working with image maps, so don't know how to sort it out! Quantpole (talk) 10:52, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Me neither. I think its a silly template to be honest. Parrot of Doom 10:57, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeh, it does seem to be a bit "Oooo, we can do fancy linky things". Maybe it would be better to just put the image in without using the template. The names could always be linked in the description. Quantpole (talk) 11:06, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Great minds think alike :) The article is undergoing a significant expansion so its highly likely that all names will be visible around that image in the near future.  You're welcome to join in, if you have any good sources. Parrot of Doom 13:57, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I noticed the expansion that was going on, hence why I pestered you! I'm afraid I don't have books or anything about the plot, but would be more than happy to give it a look over once you're done to see if it all makes sense. Cheers. Quantpole (talk) 14:39, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I haven't been able to help much with the Plot so far, but you seem to have it it well under control anyway. It's not that I'm not interested, just that I'm busy on a RL writing contract (yes, I do have a real life), so I might not be able to do much except dip in and out for the next couple of weeks or so. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:15, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That's good news, I know someone on another forum who is a children's writer, she just lost a book deal and has had to repay her advance. I've got bugger all work on right now (one day this week, one day the week before that), so plenty of time to knock this article into shape.  I'm grateful for your copyediting, I think I'm getting better with my prose because of your help.  I should have worked my way through the entire story in a few days time. Parrot of Doom 00:28, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I think all of us who're self-employed go through good times and bad times, feast or famine. You've either got too much work or too little. I just wish that our daft tax system recognised the difficulties that we face, and rewarded our enterprise instead of trying to stifle it. Fat chance though, because it's run by people who get paid a regular salary each month no matter what they do or don't do, and aren't expected to pay their income tax in advance of actually having made any money. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:01, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I haven't yet paid my tax from July. Too many bloody slow payers. Parrot of Doom 01:10, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


 * When I started out on my own, over 15 years ago now, I set up as a limited company, because the main company I worked with then insisted that all of their contractors had to be limited companies, for tax reasons. Gordon Brown's IR35 bollocks later made a mockery of that whole contortion though. VAT was also a problem; we had to pay on invoices issued, not on payments received; sometimes you don't get paid, as you probably know ... I could go on and on ... --Malleus Fatuorum 01:40, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Blimey. Always been either in a partnership or a sole trader (I gave ltd a try but hated the paperwork and scrapped it).  Always been cash accounting for me though, I'd de-register from VAT if I was forced to pay on invoices.  Flat rate now. Parrot of Doom 09:11, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Northcote Parkinson's book has a print of the House of Lords as it would have looked in Fawkes's time, shortly before its demolition in 1809. Might be suitable for the start of the Discovery section? --Malleus Fatuorum 19:37, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Go for it. There's a similar sort of thing here but I wasn't sure which chamber was depicted.  I've also looked for images of Westminster Hall but the closest I've found is Charles I's trial, which obviously isn't suitable.  I'm also to understand from the Haynes book that there is a fine portrait of Everard Digby knocking around, I've seen one on the internet but can't vouch for its reliability.  I was also pondering the idea of creating a 3D image of the exterior, using the one on the ITV programme as inspiration, but I don't think I can be bothered tbh! Parrot of Doom 19:41, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * This is an exterior view. Shows where the cellars were and where the tunnel was alleged to have been as well. I'll scan and upload it later and you can see what you think. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The image, is it this one? Parrot of Doom 22:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not the same picture, but it's a very similar view to the one on page 89. That's got the advantage of having publication details, which the Northcote Parkinson image doesn't. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:45, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, I've added the picture. Its the first I've ever seen, its just a shame there's moire patterning from the scan (too large for me to remove with a median blur) Parrot of Doom 00:03, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The image I have is no better unfortunately, and it's not attributed. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:17, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's game on now at FAC. In Early plots I notice we say that: "... James was grateful enough to allow pardons for those recusants who sued for them, as well as postponing payment of their fines for a year", yet nowhere that I can see before that do we explain that recusants were fined.

Do you have any thoughts now on the articles for individual plotters? I think that some, like Thomas Percy make sense, but I'm less convinced about Thomas Bates, for instance. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:17, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It should be fairly easy. Guy Fawkes is the obvious first choice to sort out. Parrot of Doom 10:10, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully you've got more patience than I have with this FAC, but that wouldn't be saying very much to be honest. Thousands and thousands of words about stuff that doesn't matter a shit to anyone but a hopeless pedant. Not for me. I'm going to unwatch it, before I say something I may later regret. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I can't say I blame you. It doesn't look as though that user has even read the article, its pedantry beyond belief. Parrot of Doom 09:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll let you know when people start commenting on the main course, and not the knives and forks :) Parrot of Doom 09:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I think I've dealt with all his points about the referencing (except the icons site, and the interest thing). Another user has commented on the content, and I think we'd benefit from your input, particularly a question about the structure, which is something you're quite good at. Parrot of Doom 18:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, OK. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:45, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I've had a go. It works for me now anyway. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:18, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * At last! Someone actually likes the article. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 01:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * He'll be brought into line. Comment on the decorations, not the tree... Parrot of Doom 09:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Pinky

 * Right I'm mostly finished with the two FACs I'm working on, so I can get back to this. I've had a look through and unfortunately have had to revert some of your edits - the chronology had become misplaced, and there were more citations than needed (I have all the Floyd books here with me so can see what's cited and what isn't), and some of those citations didn't match the format already laid down in the article.  I must admit I wasn't happy with the presentation and grammar of some things either, but I've kept a lot of them though, and have started trimming other things that weren't strictly relevant.  I didn't want you throwing your hands in the air and thinking "WTF" when you saw my changes, they're not in vain!  If we can bash it back and forth between us it won't take long now to get it to GA.  I'm confident that only the focus can be sorted out in a day or two, and perhaps after that we can look to FAC? Parrot of Doom 15:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm glad you're back on the case because this is taking up what time I have on Wikipedia, and there's still so much to do! What I was going to do next is cut back the material on each on the albums to a paragraph at most - apart from Piper, which needs a bit more coverage. And cut back on the use of quotes - I quite like an article to use quotes, however guidelines frown on using too many/too much: Quotations. If you want to get going on that, I'll be quite happy, and I'll check back in seven days to see how it's getting on.  SilkTork  *YES! 15:52, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Okey dokey. Parrot of Doom 16:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think its feasible to cut down the albums to a paragraph. Most of Pink Floyd's history, in fact the reason for their breakups, was what happened during production of each album.  Having said that, I'm cutting down all the stuff that isn't strictly relevant to those relationships, such as the hiring of other musicians, or where something was recorded.  But we have to chart a clear path for the reader from DSotM to The Final Cut, so they understand how things went downhill from DSotM.  The quotes, I feel, are quite important.  They help break things up, and I don't feel they're particularly over-used.  We have to remember that there's 40 years of interpersonal relationships here. Parrot of Doom 20:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The Final Cut
Just a few more items I listed on the FAC page before I can give it a full support. Good work so far, by the way. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:44, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * By the way, I plan to review the Gunpowder Plot FAC soon. I'm always glad when more historical event articles are nominated, particularly if it isn't something that happened in the last year. WesleyDodds (talk) 13:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It'd be nice to have more reviewers comment on the content, rather than having dots and dashes in the correct place in the references :) Parrot of Doom 16:49, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Congrats on your pending FAC promotion (still don't need those catalogue numbers, though). What's your next music project? WesleyDodds (talk) 00:58, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It'll either be aMLoR, or tDB Parrot of Doom 09:10, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations once again!
Dick Turpin is in great shape now compared to the sorry state it was in only a few months ago. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:28, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! By coincidence the other book I was after has arrived at the local library, so I'm going to get it tomorrow and pad the article out a bit, with this new source.  Then its FAC time I think.   I love history! Parrot of Doom 21:50, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm waiting for my sources on Matthew Hopkins to arrive. Somehow I feel comfortable with witchcraft. :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum 22:03, 26 November 2009 (UTC)