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

Safe Speed which you contributed to, is currently up for deletion
FYI. Ikip (talk) 10:46, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Presumably you didn't notice the comment there which I made quite some time ago... Parrot of Doom (talk) 10:48, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Crown Fountain FAC 4
I see you recently edited Crown Fountain. You may want to comment at Featured article candidates/Crown Fountain/archive4‎.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:58, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Nick Griffin
I've finished my second opinion now, so I'll drop a note on the lead reviewers talk page. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:58, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The best way to deal with this is to open a community GAR, else it just becomes a disagreement between two reviewers. Probably be quicker than going back into the GAN quesue as well. If you don't want to do that do you mind if I open one? I think it's the only way to get a satisfactory result here. It would, of course, mean removing the article from the GAN queue. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem Malleus, if you feel you can help then please do so. Parrot of Doom (talk) 16:05, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * PS. I've had an article failed at GAN but subsequently listed as the result of a community review. It doesn't usually take any longer than a regular GA review—a week or so—but it has the advantage that several editors will have given their opinion on the article, so there can be no bitching afterwards. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Good article reassessment/Nick Griffin/1 --Malleus Fatuorum 17:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Recent activity at SafeSpeed
Re: Wikipedia has a neutral point of view, which means we strive for articles that advocate no single point of view.

I see that you recently asked for evidence to support the case for keeping the SafeSpeed article. In the interests of fairness, you may want to also ask for evidence to support the case for deleting the same article. George Monbiot has written some good material about it. Some of the posters there do not agree that the site is a true road safety organization. Some would like it to change. Basingwerk (talk) 10:57, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * What makes you think I'm unaware of Wikipedia's NPOV policy, and that I would need reminding?


 * If you believe the article's subject isn't notable, find reasons yourself. Don't expect me to do it for you, because I won't, that isn't my job, it's yours.  I've presented my arguments, and that's that.  If it gets deleted, meh. Parrot of Doom (talk) 11:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It might be best if you gave up your self-appointed role as SafeSpeed's bouncer. You gave a personal pledge of support to the founder of the site, Paul Smith, so it's too late for you to claim impartiality. Cheers for all your help. Basingwerk (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:49, 7 September 2009 (UTC).


 * It might be even wiser if you stopped posting drivel on my talk page. I neither value or need your opinion. Parrot of Doom (talk) 15:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I find the evident dishonesty on display here rather distasteful. It appears that some people are incapable of judging the article, preferring instead to judge the author. That to me displays a childish lack of confidence in one's own abilities to make up one's own mind about the merits of a case, a bit like a Muslim condemning without having read it any book by Rushdie.


 * PS. I haven't read any of Rushdie's books either, but only because I find them tediously boring. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Well he may have a point Malleus, after all I own most of Pink Floyd's albums. I guess I'm not qualified then to edit their articles, with such obvious bias. ;) Parrot of Doom (talk) 16:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The argument gets more and more ludicrous the more you think about it. I'd obviously be ideal for writing video games articles, because I don't own a games console, and I've never played any games released post Space Invaders. I'd probably also be ideal at Anglo-Saxon literature, as I can't understand a word of it. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 16:08, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Pink Floyd
I've added some (scant) details about the winter tour, 74. I was at the L'pool Empire. It was a sellout. I think there were several dates. It was a very memorable night out. Basingwerk (talk) 17:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

PS: I hope we can put our differences behind us now. Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Basingwerk (talk • contribs) 17:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, and I removed it. Don't edit my sandbox again. Parrot of Doom (talk) 17:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

You may think you own Wikipedia, but you don't, chum. As for your sandbox, stick where the sun don't shine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Basingwerk (talk • contribs) 17:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Look, what's your problem, kid? Have you got some kind of disorder, or something like that? This is the part I need to put in, OK:

The band toured Britain in the winter of 1974, taking a quadraphonic sound system and a fabulous light show on the road. They performed the Dark Side of the Moon, and high lights from their forthcoming album.

So just get on with it... unless you have some kind of power problem,. What is it with you, anyway. Can't we edit your stuff? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Basingwerk (talk • contribs) 17:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * First of all, where's your reliable source? Secondly, if you make attacks against people again such as "Have you got some kind of disorder", you will be blocked. Nev1 (talk) 17:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * No, you can't edit 'my stuff'. When it goes live onto the Pink Floyd article, then you can edit it to your heart's content, so long as it conforms to WP:V.  Until then, leave it alone, as its an article I've spent around 50 hours working on, and isn't ready yet.  Please just go away and embarrass yourself in somebody else's presence. Parrot of Doom (talk) 17:21, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Kralizec !
I couldn't care less about you, but quit screwing me around. Now this Nev1 blokes on the war path, and this moron called Kralizec is getting all het up as well. How many of you twits are out there, buggering me up?

You gotta find a way to get by without this power trip you're on. Just get back to your work, and quit bugging me. There's got to be a way for you to live without causing all this grief. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Basingwerk2 (talk • contribs)


 * Antonello da Messina 005.jpg Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Parrot of Doom/sandbox
What's this article going to be called? Is it intended to be a replacement for the current Pink Floyd article? --Malleus Fatuorum 23:20, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep, complete replacement, merging various bits of course. I intend to get the Pink Floyd article back to FA, although its been TFA once before.  I think my ultimate aim is to create a Pink Floyd Featured Topic. Parrot of Doom (talk) 23:33, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * OK. My initial impression is that the opening is pretty laboured and choppy. Is it really necessary to give full birth dates for Mason and Waters? And this just strikes me as really strange: "They spoke first in 1963 when Waters asked to borrow Mason's car." So you just walk up to someone you don't know and say "Can I borrow your car? --Malleus Fatuorum 00:35, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * That's what Mason's book says - he wanted to borrow his car. I agree it isn't a great introduction, my other thought was to open with how each band member grew up, but that would be difficult with the late introduction of Gilmour.  The birthdates are just to give an idea of their age. Parrot of Doom (talk) 08:18, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd probably prefer to give their ages then. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:59, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Just read the sandbox now. There's a few, minor cosmetic type things I'd like to change (if I have permission?), but rather than edit lead, I thought I'd best make some suggestions here:


 * 1) In the very first sentence of the lead I'd specify (by decade?) when exactly they recieved that recognition.
 * 2) "Pink Floyd are known for philosophical lyrics, sonic experimentation, innovative album cover art, and elaborate live shows." - I'd swap "Pink Floyd are known for" to "Pink Floyd's work has".
 * 3) Recommend changing "One of rock music's most successful acts" to "One of rock music's most critically acclaimed and commercially successful acts"

--Jza84 | Talk  22:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Go for it - you're one of the editors I trust to make such changes, I know I won't have to even check they're correct. The lead is mainly copied from the present live article. Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * How did you get on? I was rather brutal so hope that was OK. One thing that struck me was the use of "later", as in "later, he became such and such" and "sometime later the band did this". As someone with only a slight exposure to PF (you're gonna kill me no doubt!), I was left a bit confused as to the chronology of events in some places. --Jza84 | Talk  23:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok I think. Doubtless its still got plenty of work left, but I added the dates you requested, and removed those which the sources didn't say.  I keep re-reading the odd paragraph now and again, and fidgeting with things.  Most of it was written as I looked at three books, my fingers flying away on the keyboard :D  Its at GAN now but I think it may be a while as nobody wants to review a 150k article... Parrot of Doom (talk) 23:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmmmm, I haven't done a GA review for ages... I couldn't possibly do PF as there'd be calls of bias owing to our close proximity etc! But I could review one that was in the same queue as PF, that may help? Malleus once said something wise along the lines of "if you nominate one, and are capable, it's good practice to review another too". --Jza84 | Talk  23:27, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That'd be good, but thinking about it Meddle and Wish You Were Here were taken up pretty quickly. I wouldn't worry too much about it, there are still issues with it I have to deal with so there's no rush.  Besides, once WYWH is out of the FAC queue, I'm renominating Dark Side. Parrot of Doom (talk) 23:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Nick Griffin
I could have acted better too, I should have discused my concearns more clearly. No offence was taken. I hope I have inproved my practices too, but sadly can only tell when its too late. I think the Nick Grfiffin article is comming along fine, much credit to you for that.Slatersteven (talk) 14:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, and Werneth Low
Thanks for the assistance with Chadderton and its FAC today - it didn't go unnoticed!

I was up at Werneth Low today and was astonished by the views of Greater Manchester from up there (it was my first visit). I took a few shots with my phone, but they aren't great (I set it to landscape mode but when I've viewed them on the PC they're very blurred and I'm disappointed). I know you're a keen photographer, so on the off-chance you don't know about this place, I can certainly recommend it: in addition to the whole of Manchester, Salford and Tameside on view in stunning detail, it's possible to see Oldham, Greenfield, I assume Stockport, parts of Derbyshire, Warrington and even (according to the viewing platform) North Wales. --Jza84 | Talk  01:08, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * P.S. I was also at Dovestones Reservoir (which I noticed was called "Dove Stone" - or maybe that was the name of the area). Just noticed your post above with the reservoirs which look like Dovestones to me. We may have crossed paths in real life! --Jza84 | Talk  01:11, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Yep, Dovestones is the one I was looking at. I plan to return there tomorrow if the weather is good, I want to have a walk up to this and take a proper photo of it.  I'll check out the place you mentioned. Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:25, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Bloody hell! Perilous!!! I have walked to the top of Indian's Head at Dovestones, but it's nothing on that, really! --Jza84 | Talk  22:28, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Nah, there's a path right up to it, the trinnacle is about here. Quite a walk though so I may take some butties :) Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:33, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Wish You Were Here (Pink Floyd album)
Congratulations. Excellent job, well done. :) – B.hotep •talk• 07:14, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well that's a surprise, I thought the objection to the non-free image would stall this, as it did DSotM :) Parrot of Doom (talk) 08:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The Final Cut
In your ongoing related articles, could you have a look at The Final Cut when you have some time? I've done a series of copyedits to it already, but the article is a little bit of a train wreck. Cheers. -- Web H  amster  19:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I've promised Malleus that I'll work with him on Moors murders for a bit, I think if I take time away from that he'll probably wring my parroty little neck, but I will be getting around to The Final Cut. You can, if you like, copy a chunk of the material from Pink Floyd over to it, as I'll eventually use the same sources to get it up to speed.  I do intend to work my way through Animals and The Wall also.  The last two Floyd albums I'm not too bothered about.  BTW I think The Final Cut is very much under-rated, as is Amused to Death. Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:01, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

DSOTM
Right, as you can see here, it's charted in quite a few places. So, since you're allowed up to 10 charts per WP:CHART, I would put the peaks in the English speaking world and the major markets. So: UK, U.S, AUS, NZ, Finland, France, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden. And you can use the Ultratop ref for all. So, remove all the ones that say -country-charts.com.

Finally, I tried finding refs for the Billboard Top Pop Catalog but couldn't, even on their official website. It will have to be removed. Also, I'm not a big fan of giving tons of details on the chart table. Keep it simple as per the box here. RB88 (T) 18:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Personally I think charts are shite, I'd much rather use prose instead, but they seem to be popular so I can't consider removing it. I'll make the changes above, it'll be easier to have the one ref anyway, smaller article too.  Thanks for the pointers. Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:04, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I sorted the formatting out and added 1 more chart. It's fine now. You know, you can add a small prose section in the text if you so wish when the album has had a good commercial reception. I prefer to do it in such a case. Have a look at A Weekend in the City. RB88 (T) 22:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Its taken ages to get this article to where it is now, I'm starting to feel worn down by it.  I may just disappear back to 18th century oddities for a while, I don't have to watch them like a hawk :) Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:39, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Moors murders (again)
I've expanded on Hindley's bit in the Personal backgrounds section, to include her relationship with her father, which at least one forensic psychiatrist believes may explain her acquiescence in the murders. Do you think there's anything more that can be said?

I need to say a bit more about the trial, because the playing of the tape recording was likely a turning point, as you've commented before. Is there anything else you think needs attention before GAN?

PS. Good luck with Pink Floyd. I'd be surprised if you have too many problems with that. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The book I have doesn't yet seem to have mentioned much about her father, but I've been cherry-picking it so far. I'll keep going through and adding bits and pieces.  There's quite a bit about Brady's attempts to control Hindley through the press (while in prison) in the book. Parrot of Doom (talk) 08:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Great work with the pictures! I especially like the one of the house on Wardle Brook Avenue; it looks so ordinary. Is that a picture of the present 16 Wardle Brook Avenus, or where the house used to be? --Malleus Fatuorum 15:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Its where the house used to be. There was a better shot to be had from the 'wardle brook walk' on the opposite side, but its quite tight, and from what I've read locals are sick of people hanging around there, so I stood at the road.  I have a couple more oblique angles but I think that is probably the most representative one.  The house on the right is no.14.  I also have lots of shots of the rocks on Hollin Brown Knoll, if you'd like to see them, without the road? Parrot of Doom (talk) 15:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I think a picture of the difficult terrain could be useful in demonstrating why the police called off their search. I also think that we're now about ready for GAN. What do you think? --Malleus Fatuorum 15:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Have a look at my Flickr page, there are 3 or 4 pics there. Parrot of Doom (talk) 15:54, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * As for GAN I think its close and would probably pass, but there's more material to be had from this Ritchie book. Depends how long the nomination takes to be reviewed, if you nom it I imagine it'll be picked up sharpish :) Parrot of Doom (talk) 16:02, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, my view is that we could pick away at it forever, and it still wouldn't be "right". I'm going to nominate at GAN. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with this. It was listed as a GA earlier this evening. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:19, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * hah, and I just added a comment to the review, thinking it wasn't yet passed! I still have much more to add. Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:21, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Good work. Nev1 (talk) 20:25, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * (ec) What's struck me during the article's recent development is that it now shows up quite starkly the relative lack of quality in Myra Hindley and Ian Brady's articles. In fact I'm seriously wondering whether anything relevant from those two—with the exception of the horrible In popular culture triva sections—ought to be merged with the Moors murders and those two prodded for deletion, or taken to AfD. Do you have a view on that? --Malleus Fatuorum 20:29, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think that on their own, they're notable people (other than them both being the longest serving prisoners in the UK). They're only known for their involvement in these crimes.  I think there's plenty of scope for having only the one article. Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:35, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It's a good point, and I agree that with a comprehensive article on the murders and their aftermath, there's no longer a need for separate articles on Hindley and Brady. I don't think a prod would be successful as someone's reflex will be that the two are notable, I think it would end up at AfD anyway. Nev1 (talk) 20:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I was thinking of proposing a merger of the two into Moors murders. Not that I think there's very much of value in either that isn't already covered in the murders article, but that might be the easiest way to have both of them (hopefully) end up as redirects? --Malleus Fatuorum 20:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Is the content you're thinking of merging of sufficient quality to ensure that Moors murders is still a GA? I haven't read the two other articles. Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:45, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Sshhh! Don't tell anyone PoD, but I wasn't actually going to merge anything from them. I just thought there might be less resistance to a merger proposal than a delete, but the effect would be the same anyway. :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum 21:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I thought that might be the case ;-) Nev1 (talk) 21:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I've done the decent thing and opened a joint AfD on both Brady and Hindley. Machiavelli would be turning in his grave. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

PoD, should the page range in citation #106 be 37–40 rather than 37–30? --Malleus Fatuorum 01:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah yes well spotted. Fixed. Parrot of Doom (talk) 07:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Are you thinking of FAC for this? I must admit I was quite happy to tidy it up to GA, especially if the two spin-off Brady and Hindley articles get deleted. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Yep, although I have a feeling to remained balanced it will need an additional source, as the Ritchie book isn't very neutral. Parrot of Doom (talk) 08:09, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


 * As I said on my talk page, I think we need to be a bit cautious about saying too much about the details of the murders beyond what the police have evidence for. Everything else comes from Hindley's confession made 20 years later, which Topping at least seemed to have reservations about, especially the fact that Hindley always seemed to be somewhrere else when the actual killing took place. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:39, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * PS. By which I meant that there are really only two sources; what the police said and what Hindley said. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:12, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

AfD closed
Now that the AfDs on Brady and Hindley's articles have been closed I've taken what little there was of value in those articles and merged it into this one; they're both redirects now, which I'm really pleased about. What do you think is left for us to do before chancing our arm at FAC with this?

PS. There's obviously a bit missing in this "Hindley hired a vehicle a week after Kilbride went missing, and on 21 December 1963; ostensibly to make sure the burial sites had not been disturbed." --Malleus Fatuorum 22:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll have a look tomorrow for the van thing. I haven't actually read through the article yet so I don't know what its missing.  There are a few hundred pages of this book to go though.  I suppose I should get a shot of the flats where the Smiths lived.  Sorry for the short reply, I'm about to go to sleep :) Parrot of Doom 23:00, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

William Calcraft
William Calcraft has got to be just about the most incompetent hangman there's ever been. I can feel a GAN coming on. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 00:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That sounds good. What kind of mistakes did he make? Parrot of Doom (talk) 07:41, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The same one repeatedly. He couldn't work out the correct length of rope for each of his victims, and so very often had the rush underneath the gallows and haul on his victim's legs to finish them off. It took one of the Manchester Martyrs 45 minutes to die, for instance, because the priest in attendance wouldn't allow Calcraft to touch the man. But he was a hangman for 45 years, and he even has an ODNB entry. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Blimey. Sounds like the axeman who executed Thomas Cromwell in the last episode of The Tudors.  He kept missing, as some members of the court had plied him with drink the night before.  No idea if its factual, but it made good entertainment! Parrot of Doom 16:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to join WP:PROGROCK
Figured your genuine interest in the well being of the pink floyd articles would be worth adding your name to the list. Cheers -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢
 * Cheers, have done so. Although my progrock interest extends only as far as PF really.  I tried Rush once and didn't like them.  I have a couple of Yes albums, and a Rainbow album IIRC. Parrot of Doom 21:28, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You might consider specific songs that have that Floyd like feel. Floyd was where I started several years ago, and is still one of my favourites. Suppers Ready by Genesis, Close to the Edge by Yes, and The Truth Will Set You Free by The Flower Kings might be worth a listen for you. All of them should be on youtube. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  22:55, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll certainly give those an audition, many thanks for the pointers. Parrot of Doom 14:03, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

New legacy section
We will never get away with that new legacy section in Moors murders at FAC. It's a distressing case, but we've got to stick to the verifiable facts, not get carried away into editorialising. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:06, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * That's ok, the way you've edited it - would that be ok? If so, get it nominated lad :) Parrot of Doom 18:38, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll have another look through the whole thing and then stick it up at FAC. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:17, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

It's done. We'll see what the jury makes of it now. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:12, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * "What kind of business is 'Bratby and Hinchliffe'. All the others seem to get a mention." Can you answer this? --Malleus Fatuorum 22:11, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Engineering company. Sorry to be brief, I've just finished an 18 hour day :) Parrot of Doom 22:12, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


 * No worries, I'll stick that in. Glad to see you back. The FAC's going well so far, but there have been quite a few suggestions to deal with. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:15, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry to bother you again PoD, but was it really "Bratby and Hinchliffe", not "Bratby and Hinchcliffe"? --Malleus Fatuorum 22:22, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Forget that, you're right. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:35, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Fair use media clips
I notice you've replaced a clip I uploaded with a newer version, I don't object to this, but there are a couple of problems, you're missing a rationale for using these sound clips and they're both too long - you're needing to cut a second from the Comfortably Numb clip and reduce the Brick clip down to 24 seconds. Music_samples should help. Nick (talk) 18:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notice. I'm replacing most of the clips mostly to standardise the volumes - some of the clips on Wiki are set to maximum volume, so it would be annoying for the reader to listen to a clip of, for example, Money (at the correct volume), and then listen to a much louder clip of another Floyd track.  I've used pretty much the same rationale for these clips as I have the clips on DSotM and WYWH, and nobody objected at the FAC.  I'll have a look at shortening the Brick clip though - it will eventually be used on the replacement Wall article currently in my sandbox. Parrot of Doom 20:04, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Gropecunt Lane
We messed about with Gropecunt Lane, but I really do think that we achieved something significant with Moors murders, whether it gets through its FAC or not. It's been a difficult article to write, but I doubt you'd find a better summary anywhere online. Well done to us! --Malleus Fatuorum 21:04, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Difficult indeed. Reading the details of the case was disturbing, but I didn't think more of it until I realised that I hadn't been sleeping properly for a week or so.  The only reason I can think for that is what I've been reading.  No nightmares I can remember, but I can only imagine what the people directly involved with the case went through.
 * I want to get a photograph, at night, of Underwood Court - to give the appearance of it being taken at 3-6AM. Another thing I wondered, was including some details of the parents in the aftermath - good idea?  Joan Reade became an inpatient at a mental hospital, and the Kilbrides were divorced five years after their son was murdered. Parrot of Doom 23:01, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I think they would be good additions, yes. I welled up at some of the stuff I read, particularly Winnie Johnson's first letter to Myra Hindley; I'm not certain I'd like to tackle another article like this one again, but I felt it had to be done. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:16, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any pull with the BBC? This would be a great picture to add --Malleus Fatuorum 08:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * None whatsoever in that regard. However, Ann West always wanted the tape recording of her daughter's torture released to the public, and so I very much doubt that anyone would have any problem with an image of her daughter being used.  That said, there are plenty of NFCC images already in the article and I think we'd struggle with another.  The BBC won't own that photograph though, it'll be the property of the family.
 * BTW, Patrick Kilbride told me when I saw him a few years ago, that he believed that Hindley was still alive, and that a cover story was invented to disguise her freedom. Not something we can use though. Parrot of Doom 09:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd be prepared to stick my neck out for another non-free use image in this case, but I'll ask the editor who commented on the images first. This story clearly hasn't ended yet. --Malleus Fatuorum 09:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * PS. It's interesting that the BBC reporter commented that Hindley's coffin seemed too small ... perhaps Patrick was right. --Malleus Fatuorum 09:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * There are better images than that - click the link in the Smiths image, there are some pictures of the children in there. Parrot of Doom 09:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * That site needs the attention of a good copyeditor. I like the starkness of the BBC picture though. Is anyone really likely to complain? Why is it different from the picture of Keith Bennett? --Malleus Fatuorum 09:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Well I added the picture of Keith Bennett over the others purely because he's the only child whose grave hasn't yet been found. I don't think anyone would complain too hastily, lets just say I'm very cautious about NFCC content after the roasting I got from some users on the recent Pink Floyd articles I've done.  It boils down not to policy, or guidelines, but the opinions of different editors, and I'd hate to see the FAC derailed because of a single objection.  There is a wealth of photographs available on this case - I think that the image of the police searching, in the link I provided, might even be a more suitable addition to the article.  There may well be images out there with the police searching through blanket snow, which would certainly be of value to a reader who lives, for instance, in sunny California, and who may not be familiar with just how remote and uninviting Saddleworth can be on a cold day.  I'm thinking of going for a walk  up there today, so will take the camera if I go.  I've also asked on the Keith Bennett site if I can get a photograph of Winnie, on her next visit to the moors.  I've been up there once before with her for ITV, she may just remember me, I don't know.
 * Back to photographs though, I know the PRO released a load of photographs and case information to the public, but I do not know the copyright status of such things. Presumably they're owned by the Crown? Parrot of Doom 10:02, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't want to see the FAC derailed over image objections either, so probably best to hang fire for now. --Malleus Fatuorum 10:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

FYI

 * I don't find it incivil, and neither do many other people.

My edit summary said, ''No such thing as a "civility free zone". It applies on every page.'' I removed the statement that WH's talk page was a "civility free zone" and the images which amounted to personal attacks. There is no such thing as a "civility free zone" on Wikipedia and restoring personal attacks is not helpful. Viriditas (talk) 11:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If you don't like it, make a complaint. Don't arbitrarily barge into a user's talk page and make changes based on your view of civility.  In effect, mind your own business, and stop preaching to others. Parrot of Doom 11:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That's the second time you've told me that I don't like something, after I explained to you that my "likes" and "dislikes" have nothing to do with this. There is no such thing as a "civility free zone" on Wikipedia, and adding images of the middle finger as a response is a personal attack.  The edits you restored are not only wrong, they are against best practices.  This has nothing to do with me or what I think.  Furthermore, three users have removed the nonsense: myself, KoshVorlon and Daedalus969.  You are the only one restoring it, there aren't "many other people".  So, you are not only editing against consensus, you are restoring nonsense and personal attacks.  User pages do not belong to anyone.  Wikipedia is a privilege, and you seem to have forgotten that fact. Viriditas (talk) 11:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * WebHamsters warning has been there a very long time. Your view of what constitutes civility is not necessarily my view, and your edits to the talk page are very clearly based upon your personal views.  If you have a problem with the content of another's talk page, then make a complaint.  Otherwise, leave it the fuck alone - it isn't your role to police other people's thoughts, or views. Parrot of Doom 11:46, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Third time: My "views" have nothing to do with this discussion. There is no such thing as a "civility free zone", and this might explain why WH is currently blocked. Viriditas (talk) 11:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you want a pulpit to go with your sermon? I really am not interested.  Leave other user's talk pages alone.  It is not your place to impose your views upon others. Parrot of Doom 11:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Fourth time: It is not my view, it is Wikipedia's, and user talk pages do not belong to you, they belong to the community. Viriditas (talk) 11:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * They don't belong to you either. Please leave others' talk pages alone. --Malleus Fatuorum 12:00, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No. Viriditas (talk) 12:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If you're the arbiter of civility you believe yourself to be, go and put yourself forward at WP:RFA. Until then, if you remove any more material from WebHamster's page I will class it as vandalism. Parrot of Doom 12:01, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Fifth time: This has nothing to do with me, but with WP:CIV and WP:NPA, both of which are policy. I will never run for RFA because I do not believe in popularity contests, nor do I believe in any special authority beyond the skills that I bring here myself.  Now, why are you restoring personal attacks made against other editors (middle finger images) and why are you restoring a message which claims that civility does not apply in user space?  Do you think this sets a good example? Viriditas (talk) 12:04, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Its good to know you can count. I can do that too.  Shall we count together?  Perhaps we could count the number of times I've made a point which you've repeatedly ignored. Go away and bother someone else. Parrot of Doom 12:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That's funny, because the only reason I'm still here is because you never answered my question. But, I'm clearly the better person here, because unlike you, I do subscribe to CIV, and when someone asks me to leave their talk page, I do.  Meanwhile, you never explained why you continue to restore personal attacks made against Protonk.  I will assume from your non-answer, that you have no explanation. Viriditas (talk) 12:10, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Look, you can bait me all you want, in the vain hope of securing some kind of WP:CIVIL victory for yourself, but I really have absolutely no interest in your opinion. If Protonk has a problem with what WebHamster has written, then Protonk can bloody well do something about it himself.  What this project doesn't need is people on some puritanical mission to save us all from the evils of 'incivility'.  What it needs is for people to apply some common-sense, and go and edit articles.  I suggest that's exactly what you do.  I'm here to improve the articles on Wikipedia, not to have to put up with the views of other people on useless and POV policies that average readers don't care about.  Stop posting on my talk page, stop boring me to death.  Escalate your problem via the correct channels, I couldn't care less what you think. Parrot of Doom 12:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC)