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

Moors Murders edit
I see that you reverted one of my edits on the Moors Murders article (this one) - I think that my edits were justified, and I'd like to explain my reasoning:

"Hindley made the first of two visits to assist the police search of Saddleworth Moor on 16 December 1986. Four police cars left Cookham Wood at 4.30 am."

By not saying that Hindley was in one of the police cars the second statement becomes grammatically detached and ends up sounding odd - it comes across as equivalent to "Hindley made the first of two visits to assist the police search of Saddleworth Moor on 16 December 1986. 200,000 copies of the Sun were printed at 4.30 am."

"At about the same time, police closed all roads onto the moor, which was patrolled by 200 officers, 40 of them armed. Hindley and her solicitor arrived by helicopter from an airfield near Maidstone, touching down at 8.30 am."

This makes it sound as though Hindley flew herself, or was unsupervised in some way. Unlikely, perhaps, but later in the paragraph it says "At 3:00 pm she was returned to the helicopter, and taken back to Cookham Wood", which provides the correct perspective - that she was taken by someone else. It should be changed if only for internal grammatical consistency.

Also, "At about the same time" comes across as vague and doesn't really add anything.

"Wearing a donkey jacket and balaclava, she was driven, and walked around the area."

Saying "she was driven, and walked around the area" in this way could be misinterpreted as the other form of "driven", i.e. "she was determined, and walked around the area". The second comma separates the two statements, which is what leads to the confusion. But even if we remove this comma we are left with "she was driven", which implies that someone else led her, and then "and walked", which implies that she led herself - which is contradictory, hence I changed it. I also don't see how "escorted on foot" can be wrong as a replacement for "walked" - we already know, after all, that there were 200 police officers present, and that she was escorted in the car.

I changed "Wearing" to "Hindley wore" because in the original sentence the part up to the comma is a clause with an object and a verb but no subject, which is grammatically incorrect.

What do you think? Sjc196 (talk) 12:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem I have is that your edits don't reflect what the source says - it doesn't mention that Hindley was in one of the cars (which may have been decoys, she may have left via another method). I don't disagree about the helicopter edit, so don't mind that being changed back (it got lost in me selecting the entire paragraph and restoring it).  Sorry about that bit, but I'm working on a few articles.  This one is presently at WP:FAC, and I have to keep my eye on it.  "At about the same time" may be vague but it does indicate the level of security used, that the police may have feared retribution from a relative sneaking up there.  I appreciate your point about driven, we don't drive people, but I can't allow "escorted on foot" as the source doesn't say that she was.  For all we know, she may have been left to wander around for a bit.  On such a controversial topic, we must stick to the WP:VERIFIABLE facts in this section. Parrot of Doom 12:31, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "The problem I have is that your edits don't reflect what the source says - it doesn't mention that Hindley was in one of the cars (which may have been decoys, she may have left via another method)." - But if she wasn't in one of the cars, and the cars weren't decoys (I assume that the source equally doesn't mention that they were decoys), then mentioning it is irrelevant and adds nothing to the article...in which case I'd argue that the sentence should just be deleted. As for the rest, we'll agree to disagree. :) Sjc196 (talk) 12:56, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, going from the source used we don't know either way, but its certainly relevant information. Most people will probably presume she was in one of the cars, but if the source doesn't state that explicitly, neither can we.  Let the reader decide, don't decide for him. Parrot of Doom 13:01, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

This is bloody hard work
I don't think that it's generally realised that pretty much everything "known" about the circumstances surrounding these murders, with the exception of Evans's, comes from Hindley's various confessions, and I don't know about you, but I've been pretty disappointed with the quality of fact checking in some of the "definitive" accounts. I'm coming around to the view that my trust is with Ritchie and Topping—Topping's book is credited as "with Jean Ritchie", and I doubt he wrote it himself anyway.

But what I really came to say was this. Since our discussions the other day I've pretty much set my face against any introduction of pop culture crap, even if that jeopardises the FAC. I think it would trivialise and demean these appalling events. Wikilinks needn't be symmetrical; let the RA's exhibition link to Moors murders. Anyone who wants to find out what other topics refer to the murders can use one of the various search options, including "what links here". --Malleus Fatuorum 01:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I completely agree. We don't need to discuss some attention-seeking artist to get across how awful these crimes were.  BTW, I think there was a Panorama special in 1997 devoted to the release of Myra Hindley.  I can't find anything more than the programme transcript though. Parrot of Doom 08:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * On a completely separate subject, when you drive to Granada studios, where do you park (at a reasonable daily rate)? --Malleus Fatuorum 09:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Normally in the Corrie car park, which is free :D But there's a half decent car park directly opposite the studio that's ok. Parrot of Doom 15:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Map
Here's the map. Let me know when you've downloaded it so that I can delete it. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Got it. The photograph I uploaded of the Moors pictures almost that exact area. Parrot of Doom 08:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Very nice, I'm quite impressed! Looking into my crystal ball though ... ah, the mists are clearing ... I can confidently predict that someone will be along soon to demand an SVG version though. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Well they can sod off, the jpeg works better than Wikipedia's shitty svg renderer, which always manages to screw things up :) I should also add the recent search area for Keith Bennett, I don't know exactly where it is yet. Parrot of Doom 13:03, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

This doesn't quite work
"Brady and Hindley corresponded by letter until 1971, when she broke off contact. The two remained in sporadic contact for several months ...". Either she broke off contact or she didn't; can we tighten this up? --Malleus Fatuorum 19:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes I can do that Parrot of Doom 19:32, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't be afraid to tell me if you think I'm going too far
On reflection I really have generally set my face against the all too common In popular culture sections, which I hate almost as much as the (almost invariably uncited) Notable people sections. It's not just this article that's persuaded me; I've been struggling for months now to keep out of the Guy Fawkes article the fact that a character in some comic book thing called V for Vendetta wore a mask apparently styled on Fawkes. Having thought about this more over the last few days I've become convinced that the linking is all too often in the wrong direction, and too many assume that it has to be symmetrical. Sure, link Marcus Harvey to the Moors murders, but why is it necessary to have the reverse link? I really am deadly serious that I'd rather see the article fail FAC than compromise on the stand we've, I think rightly, taken. But I'm no diplomat, so if you think I'm going too far, then don't be afraid to give me a kick up the backside. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * No, you have my full agreement. I've seen V for Vendetta, and have seen the arguments.  Its idiocy, especially as the character V pays very weak lip-service to the motives of Guy Fawkes, nothing more.
 * People get confused between a faithful account of a notable event/person, and mention of that event/person, no matter how small or insignificant. I don't like it either.  How people can compare a painting, to the pain and suffering of the families involved, is beyond me. Parrot of Doom 20:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * By the way V for Vendetta is a very good film. You should watch it, its quite intelligent. Parrot of Doom 20:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I was talking to a friend yesterday (yes, I do have friends) about V for Vendetta, and she also spoke highly of it, so she's going to lend me her DVD next time I see her. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Please don't continue behaving like this
You seem to have some control issues with The Final cut article, to the point that you simply won't allow anyone to make any changes. The songs mentioned were re-recorded for the Wall film. That's sourced. Please don't accuse me of doing things I clearly haven't done. Just calm down. Articles are going to be edited, even if you feel the need to control every aspect of the process. There's nothing wrong with what I'm adding, so please understand that you do not own this article, and that simply calling oher users' edits "unsourced" doesn't make it true. Thank you. Friginator (talk) 21:28, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I will respond to this on the article's talk page. Parrot of Doom 21:31, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Pink Floyd
I support your position, but I would like to see some progress in filling the redlinks. When I see redlinks in an article, I have been known to search out some good sources and turn them into blue ones! See you around! Regards, Hamster Sandwich (talk) 21:10, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Pink Floyd tended to use the same facilities and people repeatedly. Those links will appear in more than one article, and should eventually turn blue. Parrot of Doom 21:16, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If you should happen to have anything in print (or a suitable interweb source) about those folks that the 'floyd utilized, or those facilities, the information that you could include would be a huge help to the project. I hope you can help! It might even win you a coveted Lemmy! Good luck, and good hunting! Regards, Hamster Sandwich (talk) 23:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well I only have The Wall, Animals (album), A Momentary Lapse of Reason, The Division Bell, the early Pink Floyd stuff, the biogs of each band member, and probably some other stuff...to get to GA or FA. I'm sure it won't take long... Parrot of Doom 23:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Nick Griffin
Good result. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 19:51, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Just in time for Question Time on the 22nd :) This is what Wikipedia is about IMO - unbiased information.  Good job its indefinitely protected though! Parrot of Doom 19:56, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you going to be ready for the mass vandalism? :S --Jza84 | Talk  23:26, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Its indefinitely protected, so I don't see a problem :) Parrot of Doom 23:35, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Pink floyd saucerful of secrets interstellar overdrive.ogg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Pink floyd saucerful of secrets interstellar overdrive.ogg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Parrot of Doom 21:47, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Nick Griffin's Croydon North West election results
I saw a comment at the peer review about the results of the 1981 and 1983 elections that Griffin stood for. I had a quick looks through The Times digital archive and found this, the result of the 1981 election. I'm sure the 1983 one will be in there as well, as The Times publishes all the election results. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

... yup, here it is. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:33, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Excellent stuff, thanks! I was just looking for the 1983 result.  That fills in a hole nicely, I'd looked for ages and couldn't find a thing. :) Parrot of Doom 19:34, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Rabbit, rabbit
I don't know if you already know, but Mary Toft is to go on the front page tomorrow (21st). Mr Stephen (talk) 08:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I thought that was a contender for 1 April next year. I've dropped a note on Raul's page. Parrot of Doom 08:58, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It's a great article. Thanks for writing it. :) SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 04:26, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I enjoyed working on it :) Parrot of Doom 23:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

What were you thinking?
Mary Toft on mainpage yesterday, and Nick Griffin on Question Time later today. You're a glutton for punishment! --Malleus Fatuorum 23:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * heh, I'm wondering if the Anti-Fascist lot have set up a few accounts so they can barge in and vandalise it tomorrow :D Now that Mary Toft is out of the picture for 1 April, I'm wondering if I could improve Cock Lane ghost to FAC... Parrot of Doom 23:58, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I've no doubt you could, but you have to bear in mind the delicate sensibilities of our friends unfortunate enough to have been born on the wrong side of the Atlantic. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:09, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, the delicate sensibilities of a nation twisted enough to murder its own citizens in the name of justice, while working itself into a frenzy of repugnation over a 'wardrobe malfunction' and a bare tit. I love America, I really do, I just wish they'd learn to accept that they're only 250 million out of 6 billion. Parrot of Doom 00:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Cheerz
Thanx very much for the encouraging message! I'd never heard of such a thing as a sooterkin, and that together with my dislike of seeing red links led me to investigate and proceed accordingly:). Will investigate your 'Wikiproject banners' request forthwith (don't know what they are but I'll find out and ammend appropriately asap). Cheerz again for the encouragement. 1812ahill (talk) 23:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanx for the 'banners' advice. You've even inspired me to start of a quick new article on 'John Maubray'! Both obviously need more attention, but that will have to wait till tomorrow as it's way past my bedtime:) - Cheerz 1812ahill (talk) 00:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanx. I'll incorporate that somehow aswell, unless you want to. Obviously I do appreciate the guy was a complete quack (just in case there was any remote chance of you thinking I thought otherwise :)). I also seem to have generated some further 'red' links. Alas(!) I can see this becoming/ generating a prolonged project for me. Ta 1812ahill (talk) 00:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Do not call my edits "vandalism" in your edit notes.
Read the heading and consider it a WARNING for clear breach of policy. --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:20, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Unwarranted removal of referenced text is vandalism. Feel free to make a complaint, I stand by my edit.  Do it again, and I'll call it what it is - again. Parrot of Doom 23:34, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Try reading WP:vandalism. The Nick Griffin Introduction's last line: "Since he became the leader of the BNP several educational institutions have invited him to speak on political radicalism, multiculturalism, and BNP policy" looks like it was written by the BNP themselves. Was it? It has absolutely no weight at all, and is purely promotional. Far from being the 'norm' (as the line suggests), there is always an outcry when people choose to 'invite' Griffin to speak! The Nick Griffin article is almost sans criticism of him. How is that?--Matt Lewis (talk) 00:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Read the talk page, the good article reviews, and the peer reviews. Your questions are all answered in there. Parrot of Doom 00:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, and if you can't see the criticism of Griffin in the article, may I suggest Specsavers. Parrot of Doom 00:22, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Griffin
Can you ask me again in about a week? I'm afraid I've already taken on too many article reviewing commitments at the moment, to say nothing of real life stuff. I'd also like to see if I can find the time to do some actual article writing somewhere in there. Besides, I think one thing that has to happen before it can go to FA is some kind of stability, and for that it would probably be helpful to wait until his TV appearance was a little further behind us. Sorry, and I will get to this, now's just a bad time. Steve Smith (talk) 14:44, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I've added it to me to-do list, so I won't let it fall completely off my radar. Thanks for your understanding. Steve Smith (talk) 14:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Pink Floyd GA nom
Hi, PoD. I was thinking of doing the GA review of Pink Floyd, but became concerned about the article's lack of focus (Good article criteria 3b). Even by band standards, Pink Floyd appear to have a complicated career - splits, advisers in then out and then some times in again (e.g Ezrin), complicated private lives, etc. Some specifics: I suggest backstories of members be moved to articles on the members, unless they directly affect the band's formation; most details of solo and other non-Floyd efforts should have their own articles or appear in the members' bios, leaving only what's relevant to Pink Floyd's career. I also think there's a lot of copyediting needed, but that can be done piecemeal after the coverage issues are resolved and after any consequent tweaks to structure. If I've judged the focus issue half-way right, there's too much to do before the nomination moves to the top of the queue. It might be sensible to get quick reads from a few second opinions to see whether they echo my concerns. On the bright side, it's unlikely that there's a lack of broad coverage, so you probably need to do additional research, which I've found a more common problem at GA reviews. --Philcha (talk) 08:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd tend to agree with what you say, especially their later solo efforts, however the early stuff should certainly remain. I'll take a look at it and move what isn't strictly relevant to the biogs (which I'll also be working on at some point).  It is a bit of a rambling monster I agree, but its the largest article I've ever written and I'm hoping that any GA reviewer will hold it for a long enough period so that we can hammer it into shape.  Unfortunately the Pink Floyd Wikiproject is as dead as a Dodo. Parrot of Doom 08:47, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I've chopped a fair bit of solo information from the article, and moved it to the relevant artist articles. Parrot of Doom 18:10, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Pink Floyd/GA1
Hi Parrot of Doom. I've finished the initial assessment of Pink Floyd. I think it's an excellent article. At first I thought it would be an easy pass as the writing is very good, there are lots of cites, and bags of material. However, after reading it I have a number of concerns which I have raised. Mainly it is about focus and broad coverage. There is a lot of stuff on the history, but not enough on other major aspects of the band. The questions now are:
 * 1) Would you agree with my assessment?
 * 2) With regard to the focus and parts of the content, yes, but not everything. I've explained in detail on the review page.
 * 3) How are the concerns best tackled?
 * 4) Collaboration, of course :)
 * 5) How long would it take?
 * 6) Not too long, I have plenty of time to work on these things.
 * 7) Would you want the review to be put on hold for a specified period, or would you rather withdraw the nomination at this stage to allow you to work on it in your own time?
 * No, its better to remain on review. If the nomination is withdrawn I'll simply get bogged down with other articles.  I finished Pink Floyd with a metaphorical sigh of relief. Parrot of Doom 18:40, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Regards  SilkTork  *YES! 11:47, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

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)
 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

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)


 * 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)


 * 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)