User talk:Parrot of Doom/Archives/2010/January

AfD nomination of Glen Jenvey
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Glen Jenvey. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/Glen Jenvey. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

You know?
There are some editors you want standing by your side at FAC PoD, and you're right up there. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 00:13, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've noticed a few nominators at FAC who will do pretty much anything to get that bronze star. I probably did the same, once, but no longer.  I'm much more confident than I once was, and quite happy to stand my ground.  I'm not certain he's really thought about his comments, although all are welcome of course. Parrot of Doom 00:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The image in my mind is from that film of the Battle of Thermopylae. when the 300 Spartans defending the pass are charged by the Persian cavalry. They wait, and and then at the last minute they they lie down under under their shields until the cavakry have charged over them, then get up and hack them to pieces. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:12, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

dyk hook problem
Hi,

Could you point out where your proposed hook is sourced in the article for your dyk nomination here. Thanks, — mattisse (Talk) 01:54, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Dark Side of the Moon nom for WP:TFAR?
There's an opening so I was looking for a good TFAR, and for no particular reason liked Dark Side as the best available. Perhaps it has to do with all the flying rocks there recently. Would you mind if I nominated it? Or if you'd like to nominate it, so much the better. I'd think it's a zero pointer, and the date is up for grabs (perhaps Jan 14, the day after Gannymede).

BTW, Cock Lane Ghost looks like a good TFA for next Halloween, and I should be able to find something on Tobacco smoke enema to get "something going" there. All the best. Smallbones (talk) 14:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Its about time we had a Floyd album on the front page (IIRC only Pink Floyd has ever been TFA, and that was years back). I'd been looking at release dates and things to see if I could suggest one (more points).  If you want to go ahead, you have my full support.  I was (if it gets to FA) thinking of nominating Cock Lane ghost for 1 April, as its primarily a hoax article. Parrot of Doom 15:01, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I'm sure we could come up with something suitably spooky before next Halloween. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Devil's Footprints is a good contender for that spot. Parrot of Doom 15:56, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I came across that when I was looking through some old issues of the Fortean Times, which is a great read, a publication we Brits can be proud of. I've thought for a while as well that this article ought to be at least a GA by now. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I read about it as a child, in The Unexplained (magazine). There were loads of great things in that, like spontaneous human combustion, and Kirlian photography.  I also remember reading a Reader's Digest book which contained the scariest thing I've ever seen (I bookmarked the page to avoid opening it), Belmez faces.  Frightened the living daylights out of me. Parrot of Doom 00:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The Spanish are prone to exaggeration, or even invention, as in the case of the green children of Banjos, a village that doesn't exist, a story based on the green children of Woolpit. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Dark Side now on TFAR. Thanks for your cooperation. Let's hope it goes as a 0 pointer and nobody objects to my sense of what's appropriate. Smallbones (talk) 16:14, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I see what you mean about "rocks flying about". I love the astronomy articles, I remember the original Horizon documentaries as the two Voyager spacecraft were doing their thing.  Utterly spellbinding. Parrot of Doom 16:15, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * BTW - my knowledge about Tobacco enemas seems to be limited to the liquid variety, but there are many sources on this. SeeTalk:Tobacco_smoke_enema Smallbones (talk) 17:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I haven't done any work on it yet, but its an interesting topic that people urgently need to know about. I'll get around to it one day :)  Malleus keeps distracting me with things like pail closet... Parrot of Doom 19:12, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Anjem Choudary
Twice today you have removed cite, or request for a cite, from the lead section in the above article. You claimed on both occasions "no requirement to cite within a lead". I am assuming that you are using WP:When_to_cite as the reasoning behind this. If you read the whole section you see it says at the end Contentious material about living persons must be cited every time, regardless of the level of generality. since Anjem Choudary is living and since a claim of an investigation into possible incitement to murder is easily contentious, it is prudent to leave a cite in. Since the original Guardian link is no longer working I have added one from the Evening Standard. Codf1977 (talk) 17:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Anything that is in the lede should be also be in the main body too, and that is where the cite should be, not in the lede. If what is in the lede does not refer to anything in the body then that factoid should be removed from the lede. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 17:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * His comments regarding the Pope are already cited in the article. There is no requirement in Wikipedia policy to cite within a lead section, provided that the text which the lead summarises is adequately cited within the article body. Parrot of Doom 17:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I disagree with There is no requirement in Wikipedia policy to cite within a lead section and and that is where the cite should be, not in the lead if you read what WP:When_to_cite it says :Contentious material about living persons must be cited every time, regardless of the level of generality. (my bold) you see it does say - every time means every time I don't think it could be clearer. Codf1977 (talk) 18:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * You're quoting an essay, which has no bearing on policy. Leads do not require citations, especially when there are no controversial statements made in the lead. Parrot of Doom 19:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I should add that I've spent several days completely re-writing this article, and have barely touched the lead section. I still haven't finished.  Grant me the time and space to get it ship-shape please. Parrot of Doom 18:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I accept that you are re-writing this article, and making on the whole a good job, but that is not an excuse to revert other editors edits. Codf1977 (talk) 18:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * No, you're correct, it isn't. Inserting cite requests where they are not needed however, is.  I hope you don't take it personally, I never do. Parrot of Doom 19:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The cite request I inserted was needed - it was against the claim that "Choudary has urged Muslims to not cooperate with the police in fighting terrorism" that claim was not repeated else ware in the article, a claim which you yourself removed with this edit - totally justified. Codf1977 (talk) 20:39, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I suggest then that you read the article thoroughly, because it most certainly does include that information. Parrot of Doom 20:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * if you mean "He encouraged Muslims not to co-operate with the police under any circumstances" then my mistake as I searched for both "cooperate" and "terrorism" - never the less not the same Codf1977 (talk) 20:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll have a look, I think it needs spliting up (much like the Nick Griffin article). Yourf right it is hard. You might want to look at non-English sources.Slatersteven (talk) 19:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Re:Warning
"Please stop your disruptive editing..."

'Editing' in the context of a multiple occurrence. Hundreds of contributions, as opposed to a single piss take. Warning not really relevant. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 18:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * One piss take is one too many. I suggest you don't ever do it again. Parrot of Doom 19:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Hundreds of decent edits does not justify vandalism. It's possible AssociateAffiliate is . Nev1 (talk) 20:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you ever?
Do you ever look back at an article you've written and think "Bloody Hell, that's a belter!"

I was checking a (perfectly OK) edit earlier, and took another look through the whole thing, probably for the first time in months. I really do think it was an incredible achievement. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Oops! forgot to mention that I'm talking about this article. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I completely agree, its a superb article, certainly the best resource on the internet. Sometimes, however, I look through articles which I was proud of.  Like The Dark Side of the Moon, which I've realised lately needs a fair bit of work to the prose.  I think I'm just becoming a better writer, and more critical.  I'm still very happy with Mary Toft, that's my best so far, I think. Parrot of Doom 22:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I harbour a secret desire to get this up to GA, but every time I look at it I think "What were you on when you wrote that?" :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum 22:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * There's some interesting writing by Paul Hindle (he of the MB&BC society) about Sale Water Park, and the Mersey, flood defences, Urmston flooding, etc. Sale Water Park is similar to Clifton Country Park, although the latter isn't connected to any waterways. Parrot of Doom 01:48, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It might be that focusing on Sale Water Park's role in flood defence is the way to go. Could perhaps justify a trip out to Jacksons Boat for a pint and a picture of the sluice gate anyway when the weather warms up. I'm sure I've seen the remains of some of those WWII sulphur-burning fog-making devices somewhere around there as well. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Hard for me to say this without sounding patronising ...
... so I won't bother. I'll simply say that the quality of your writing has become exceptional over the last year or so. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:45, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, its mostly from watching you tear my articles to bits :) I must say my involvement with Wikipedia has had some quite positive effects.  One of which, that might become the most important, is the serious consideration I'm now giving to moving away from television into teaching [children].  For that, however, I need to look at a degree.  I only have decent GCSEs and a National Diploma. Parrot of Doom 21:57, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Also, I'd planned to get The Division Bell up and running today, but a burst water pipe put paid to that! Parrot of Doom 22:00, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * When we lived in London we had a series of burst water pipe problems, and a series of rubbish plumbers who claimed to have fixed the problem, so I can sympathise. I think that degrees are in many ways funny things. I have a BSc, and my wife, who's presently lecturing at a Manchester College has a PhD. Neither of us thinks about our degrees, but perhaps we'd take them more seriously if we didn't have one; I think I probably would anyway. But once you've got one, it means nothing. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:11, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The annoying thing is that to get to the pipe, I had to rip up the floor. A floor which I'd spent a lot of money paying someone to tile properly.  Now its a disaster zone.  Hopefully the insurance company will cough up so I can pay a tradesman to put it all back together, although I suspect the tiles are no longer available.  All this for a lousy pipe that wasn't even connected to anything. Parrot of Doom 22:15, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Talking to the converted. A few years ago I installed a false ceiling in our far too high-ceiled Ewardian kitchen. My idea was to install state-of-the art downlighters, but the crappy transformers I was sold have now failed, leaving me with no choice but to break through the plasterboard and replace them with something more sensible. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:28, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm about to put a false ceiling up in the back bedroom, since the ceiling is about 100 years old and I don't want to pull it down. Should be doable within a day or two.  With downlighters, the best bet is a dimmer switch.  I've had 4 halogen spots in the kitchen for eight years now, and not one has blown.  Soft on, soft off.  Its repeated power cycles that kills devices. Parrot of Doom 22:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations to us (again)
Wife selling has made it to FA, and I'm sure your Cock Lane ghost won't be far behind. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Excellent stuff. I'm hoping Cock Lane will pick up more support as it gets to the bottom (there's a page somewhere that alerts people to unreviewed FACs).  Proposing it over Winterval perhaps was asking for trouble. Parrot of Doom 23:33, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Beautiful little topic (I think)
I popped into Chorlton library earlier today, on an unsuccessful search for some more books on Belle Vue Zoo, but I think that article's in hand now (no names, no pack drill). Anyway, I found the most amazing account of two Zeppelin raids on Bolton and Wigan during the First World War, in 1916 and again in 1918. That's just got to be worth an article. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:07, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've heard about the one on Bolton, but not the Wigan incident. There's a photograph of it here.  What I like about the photograph is the chimneys.  It looks as though they raised them to improve the draught. Parrot of Doom 22:19, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * That "unnamed row" was Kirk Street, bombed in 1916. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

the lede
In the lede it goes on about his university and he is a lawyer but he gets his money from handouts for poor people because he hasn't got a job, ... how sad it that? I don't need a online link, the fact that it was publically broadcast and I saw it is plenty, do you dispute that he is a poor person supported by government handouts? Off2riorob (talk) 22:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I suggest you go and read WP:LEAD. I'm warning you now - I view your behaviour today on Islam4UK as disruptive, and blatantly against WP:NPOV.  People are trying to create a neutral, balanced, and informative encyclopaedia.  I couldn't care less whether you like Anjem Choudary or not, take your prejudices and irrelevant opinions elsewhere until you understand what those three words mean. Parrot of Doom 22:46, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Rubbish, I dislike scum wherever I find it, why should it be a big issue that he has qualifications if he doesn't work and is on poor peoples benefits? Neutral balanced encyclopedia, so he is on poor peoples benefits, what the problem? Do you deny that he is on poor peoples benefits? No you don't because he is and I will cite it soon enough. Off2riorob (talk) 22:53, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If properly sourced, it might be worth including it in the article, however it's obvious that the lead was the wrong place. Nev1 (talk) 22:55, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't bring my personal views here. Did the ITV interview say what benefits he's on?  Did it say why?  Did it say what his wife does?  Did it offer any kind of context that would qualify your adding such an obvious non-NPOV statement into a lead?  Like I said, go and read WP:LEAD, and leave your prejudices outside the door. Parrot of Doom 23:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I just put it there as it was going on about how he is a university qualified solicitor and I thought when I watched the news and he himself said he was on government handouts and that the money came from Allah, I didn't make that up, I just sat and watched it, well but he is on government handouts and not working so the two things are connected so I was bold and put it there, no it did not specify what benefit he is on, but it is not jobseekers is it, his wife, I have no idea even if he is married, that makes no difference to the fact that he is not working and he gets government money. Off2riorob (talk) 23:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Fascinating. Go and read WP:LEAD.  Don't bother replying until you do, and until you understand why placing that statement there was so obviously incorrect.  I'm sick and tired of explaining the perfectly obvious. Parrot of Doom 23:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I will tell you something, Nick Griffin the leader of the British national party would rather chop his arms off before he took government handouts designed for poor people. Off2riorob (talk) 23:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * You're behaving like a complete pillock. You do realise that? --Malleus Fatuorum 23:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * You're not going to teach me much about the 'charms' of Nick Griffin. Don't reply here again.  I am not interested in your opinions. Parrot of Doom 23:34, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for grabbing those pages
from Islam4UK website. Leaky Caldron  23:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. And by the way I genuinely am sorry if you thought I called you a troll before, so sorry for that.  Indenting replies is the best way of keeping track of a conversation. Parrot of Doom 23:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * By the way, the webcitation page will only archive single pages - if you want to store the other links on there (recommended if you're a main contributor to Islam4UK), its very simple to do. I'd do it myself but honestly I've had enough of that article now. Parrot of Doom 23:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * NP. I didn't read as much into Rob's edit as maybe other's did, so just assumed your reply was intended for me. In any event, my reaction was uncalled for. Just go to that org's. website and enter the page's URL together with an email address? Do you bother with the metadata? Leaky  Caldron  23:34, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * You can see from the above thread just what sort of person I was dealing with, but its forgotten now. What's important is making sure those articles are reliable and informative, for the general public.  Webcitation, go to this page and fill in as many details as you can.  It'll email you a working link pretty much straight away (check your spam folder), and away you go.  Although if their website is hosted outside the country it may be up for at least a year. Parrot of Doom 23:38, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

content and sourcing issue
If you have issues with the sources and content take it to the wiki RS noticeboard, you are edit warring to keep content you don't like out of the article with no good reason. Please stop, the content is also part of the RFC and should be left until the discussion is over. Off2riorob (talk) 12:30, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The reasons are outlined on the talk page. Concern for accuracy, NPOV, and context are certainly constitutes good reason. Nev1 (talk) 12:37, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Your positions as regards you desire to keep this simple content out are a bit excessive and are no good reason to revert repeatedly. References to what are wikipedia reliable sources as bottom wipers does them a disservice. Off2riorob (talk) 12:42, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Didn't I ask you to stay off my talk page? Please do as I request.  I don't want to read about your prejudices here. Parrot of Doom 12:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Orient vs. Orientate
Sorry, I should have done the research on the US vs. UK spelling before changing it; I went to revert my edit and saw you beat me to it. Apologies again. Doonhamer (talk) 13:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That's fine, I actually had doubts myself but I checked with the OED and it's in there. The British will be back for our colonies one day, so you guys should swot up on your English for when we return   hehehe :) Parrot of Doom 13:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

crossed Choudrys
Not sure but Wikipedia may have crossed one of my edits with one of yours, if so sorry.Slatersteven (talk) 16:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, I fixed it. These things happen. Parrot of Doom 16:36, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The Dark Side of the Moon
You seem to be getting a bit riled up on that talk page. Bear in mind it's quite likely that everyone willing to put in the effort at the talk page is a Pink Floyd fan, and if we can see eye to eye on that&mdash;arguably the most important of human qualities&mdash;then surely whatever minor disagreements might arise can be worked out with civility. Kafziel Complaint Department 21:30, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You're right, I probably am. I'm not excusing it but the last few days have been nothing but pick-pick-pick (see the talk page for Anjem Choudary), and its probably being reflected in my comment on the DSotM page.  When people are constantly making minor (and mostly incorrect) changes to articles you've spent many many hours building, the constructive edits/comments can sometimes be overlooked.  I'm going to have a coffee and a couple of bacon butties.  Thanks for your comment, I take it in the spirit in which it was meant, and I think I'll just pop a conciliatory note onto PL290's talk page. Parrot of Doom 21:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Not too late to pop out for a quick pint before the boozers close PoD. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * And get drunk and beat up a yank? --Fred the Oyster (talk) 22:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I'm not really a big drinker though. I prefer to go and belt out some miles on the road bike, I did that earlier this evening.  No, I think I'll go and shoot some (yank) zombies on L4D2, and then play a bit of Osmos. Parrot of Doom 22:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Perhaps one day we ought to fork a real English wikipedia, under the leadership of Sir Edward Forethington-Smythe-Hythe, third baronet of God-knows-where-and-who-cares-anyway. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:15, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It's a shame that a whole continent has forgotten that "English" means pertaining to England, and not 'pertaining to the Bronx etc'. British-English is English, American-English is not English, it's American. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 22:18, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Looked nip and tuck for a while ...
... but you made it. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Good stuff. Fanny for 1 April TFAR methinks. Parrot of Doom 00:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Someone might put wife selling up against it, but it won't be me. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That article's a right load of rubbish, its got no chance :) Parrot of Doom 00:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * When do you think we should admit that the whole thing was an elaborate hoax on our part? --Malleus Fatuorum 00:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * What, like the Bottle Conjurer? Can you imagine the fuss, thousands of people running around wrecking the place.  It would be a scandal, best keep quiet... Parrot of Doom 01:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Toilet snorkel?
Not talking about you of course, but I just came across this. Amazing. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * heh, not a bad idea although I can't really imagine a practical application. Like having a smoke alarm on a garage forecourt. Parrot of Doom 23:33, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Is Malleus planning on marketing it? I was worried when you collaborated on Manchesterś latest SME, and I have been googling Magpie Lane, Oxford to see if you had opened shop there too! You may be onto a winner with this one ;-} --ClemRutter (talk) 23:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Tobacco smoke enema is on my list of things to do. Maybe this snorkel could be dual-purpose. Parrot of Doom 23:48, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I think PoD's out of control. Scratching Fanny was a step too far. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Just wait until you see the image I have planned for Thomas Rowlandson's DYK. Parrot of Doom 01:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Anjem Choudary Lead
Hi,

I have made a small change to the lead of the above article, just to make it clear he was leader and spokesman of I4UK before it was proscribed. Please feel free to edit if you can think of a better wording, however I do feel that it is important that the wording be as clear as possiable as so not to inadvertently imply Anjem Choudary could be breaking the law. Codf1977 (talk) 09:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * That's fine, although I was never comfortable with 'leader' as that Bakri fellow always seems to be hovering in the background. Spokesman is a less contentious word. Parrot of Doom 10:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I know what you mean about Bakri - he may well have been the "Power behind the thrown" but there are enough refs out there calling him leader, and even by him, to simply ignore that - may be worth a bit in the body of AC or in I4UK where it can be explained fully - perhaps put the word leader in "" in the lead ? Codf1977 (talk) 11:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * or "UK Leader" ? Codf1977 (talk) 11:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I haven't really seen much about the structure of the organisation, and exactly what, as a "leader", he does. I therefore prefer to refer to him as a spokesman, since he clearly has that role. Parrot of Doom 16:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I also don't know much about the structure of the organisation, and exactly what, as a "leader", he did - however that is not the issue. You can be the Leader of an organisation with out doing anything. What we do know is that he was referred to as leader (or former leader) by himself and others - do you have anything to suggest that he was not the leader ? otherwise I see no reason why it should not be reinstated - I am happy to cite sources (even if it is the lead) as to that's what he was called.Codf1977 (talk) 18:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think there's much difference between leader and spokesman, but all I've ever seen him do is speak on the group's behalf. I've seen nothing that says when the group was formed, where it was formed, if it has a committee or a constitution, how many members it has, where they meet, who decided that Choudary would be in charge, what his exact role is - there's simply not enough information out there to expand on this.  All we know is that if someone wants to talk about Islam4UK, he's the one that gets rolled out, and that, to me, means that he is a spokesman first and foremost.  Some newspapers may call him a leader but I've not seen their rationale for doing so.
 * BTW I'm not about to get bogged down in a silly argument over semantics, as exists over at Talk:Islam4UK. There are more important things to work on than a word. Parrot of Doom 18:20, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Gunpowder plot
Hey, I never got around to reviewing this article at FAC. How did that nomination go? WesleyDodds (talk) 10:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Not too badly. For sure, its the best online summary of the plot that exists now.  Oh, now I sound like a Swedish Rally Driver, "for sure" indeed... Parrot of Doom 10:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, if you want feedback for another FAC in the future, let me know. These days I can only handle one FAC at a time. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Manchester Tramways Picture
See for events

and

for normal opening

--Keith 22:37, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that. Parrot of Doom 11:06, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Rumours
I don't really like the Harvnb template. It seems unnecessary, especially with more blue links, for something only a scroll below. I originally had a references list but removed it as I was using only a handful of pages and a handful of citations from each book. I reckon it's better and less cumbersome to add them with a pp. in the reflist if they're not used extensively, unlike say Bowman on Remain in Light. RB88 (T) 05:48, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I love the Harvnb template, use it all the time. As your articles become more developed, and the number of citations increases, you may find that blue link to be very useful. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:48, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I probably will end up using it, but I might need to write a magnum opus first with only book sources. Oh, and Parrot, I know it's a bit premature, but get ready to put this up on your user page after your input and hard work pays off:

RB88 (T) 06:24, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I have to say that my support was largely dependant upon being allowed to further improve the article, but you seem insistent of reverting many of the changes I've made since then. I'm beginning to wonder if I was premature in offering that support.  I'm certainly not going to take three steps forward just to be shoved two steps back. Parrot of Doom 12:54, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If that comes across as an attack then I apologise - it isn't. It's just that I'm a little bemused by your edits. Parrot of Doom 17:06, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Rochdale Town Hall

 * Well, I only made a few minor edits to it :) I feel guilty having this here... Parrot of Doom 18:02, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

DKY?
... that you're the "top" editor of Wikipedia in the last week? (scroll down slightly) --Jza84 | Talk  23:25, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Bloody Hell! I'm in awe! --Malleus Fatuorum 23:38, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey, I have been the 7th top editor in the past 6 hours.-- Coldplay Expért Let's talk  00:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I can't even make that. How pathetic am I. :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum 00:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * How can someone like me, who has over 40% of their edits to user talk pages be #7 from namespace edits while someone like you not even make the top 30?-- Coldplay Expért Let's talk  00:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Blimey. What does it mean?  I clicked my name but it wasn't working.  I'm only busy editing because I've got no work on right now.  I won't have a home to edit from at this rate, lol. Parrot of Doom 00:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Album rating in infobox. A Momentary Lapse of Reason.
Hi, thanks for writing a great article about one of my favorite Pink Floyd albums.

You reverted my edit, of the infobox. But per the album infobox documentation, reviews shall no longer be included in the infobox, but instead be placed in the Reception section. Please see, Template:Infobox album. Cheers, P. S. Burton (talk) 00:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, and it looks utter garbage. The article has a fairly solid prose in the reception section, and doesn't require a template there.  If no template is allowed in the infobox, then as far as I'm concerned there won't be a template at all. Parrot of Doom 00:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thats your call, but fair enough. P. S. Burton (talk) 00:30, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * As a wikifriend, may I just say one thing to you PoD? If you have any aspirations to become an administrator, then throw yourself on the mercy of RfA sooner rather than later. The longer you edit and add content the more enemies you'll make. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 00:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks PS Burton. I'd read the consensus when the bot changed Animals (and made a pig's ear of the layout in the process).  I just don't agree with it.  Infoboxes are handy places where the casual reader can, at a glance, discern what he might be interested in only a few seconds.  Moving those links down to an already fleshed-out reception section just makes no sense to me whatsoever.  I appreciate that other people might think differently, but in my view good quality album articles just don't benefit from this change.  I could have worded my reply above with a little more respect though, so please don't take it personally :)


 * Malleus, I'm not interested in becoming an admin mate, and I don't think that will ever change. Its just too much work away from what I enjoy, which is helping build good-quality articles.  Its far more satisfying, and I only have to justify my edits when I work on the articles of bigots like Choudary or Griffin. :) Parrot of Doom 00:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No hard feelings whatsoever. On this specific article I think I actually agree with you. I believe the change of policy came about because the infoboxes started looking really weird when people put more then ten reviews in them. And then there were edit wars over which ten reviews deserved to be included etc. etc. This doesn't seam to be an issue in this case. P. S. Burton (talk) 01:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. For me, if they're available, only 2 or 3 reviews per position are really required (ie, 2 good, 2 average, 2 bad).  Any more than that is overkill.  I suspect that having 10 or more reviews tends to become a problem on modern album articles, new releases, etc, where you get a lot of teenagers adding stuff willy-nilly, with little regard for readability.  Oddly enough, I can't yet find enough reviews for A Momentary Lapse, so if you know of any please feel free to add them. Parrot of Doom 01:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Interstellar Overdrive
Hey, I'm new to using User talking, so let me know if I'm doing anything wrong. I wasn't aware the music was THAT loud. It's from the 40th anniversary mono remaster of the Piper album, and it may have had some minor clipping in it, but it didn't seem like a huge offender. If you still want me to change it, though, I will. Do you know how to make it quieter under Audacity, since that's what I used? Psychedelicpiper (talk) 10:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Personally, I thought a fade-in was unnecessary, since I had picked a part in the track that seemed to start seamlessly and also showcased the overdubs in the intro missing in the stereo version. And I did have a small fade-out at the end.


 * The reason I replaced the existing sample was because the stereo version had nothing to do with Syd Barrett's and everyone else in the Floyd's vision at all. It was a marketing gimmick for promoting stereo. While the stereo effects at the end seem interesting, they pale to what, for example, Jimi Hendrix accomplished for his second two albums, a case of an artist being involved with his mixes. The effect sounds like it's switching very fast from left to right and back instead of actually moving through the speakers. Plus, I personally feel like the ending is "given away", which I'm sure you know what I mean if you dive yourself into the instrumental. I thought it best to start at the beginning of the track.


 * I'll find out how to reduce the volume, though. It shouldn't be too difficult. Psychedelicpiper (talk) 22:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * That's not the original mono version. That's the stereo version folded into mono, and the quality sounds lower as well. The gain knob is right there when I open Audacity, and I now have time and my headphones, so I'll get on it right now. Psychedelicpiper (talk) 17:50, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, I got it done now, but I forgot that I have to go somewhere, so I'll post it later. Change it to the previous sample, for now. Psychedelicpiper (talk) 18:02, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * After going through things in life and some hassles with accidently deleting the file, I have finally posted the new sample. I actually noticed that there a couple of samples in the article that don't have a fade-in, and I made extra sure the beginning of this sample sounds seamless. Tell me what you think. And as you'll notice, the mono version has overdubs missing from the stereo version. Psychedelicpiper (talk) 03:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Good stuff. Some of the tracks don't have a fade-in, but only because I found a suitable point at which to open the sample (Echoes, for instance). Parrot of Doom 16:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

English or British?
I noticed most of the Floyd articles start out by saying "X is an album by English (progressive) rock band Pink Floyd". Wouldn't British be more appropriate? You can be a British citizen, but you can't be an English citizen. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  03:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * A band can't be either an English nor British "citizen". It's an 'entity' that was formed in England and contains English members. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 09:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I would recommend using whatever source material says. --Jza84 | Talk  12:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't really have a strong view on the matter. I'm not the best qualified to comment on matters of nationality. Parrot of Doom 21:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If the band had an Englishman, Irishman, Welshman and a Scotsman it would be British. If the band were all Scots and formed in Scotland it would be Scottish band etc. etc. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 21:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily.... Irish nationality law is distinct from British nationality law. If you identify as Irish, that certainly doesn't mean you're British (consider the Troubles!). Also, ethnic minorities (such as the Black British community) may consider themselves British, but not English, who they see as a white ethnic group.... However, I understand the point you're trying to make. --Jza84 | Talk  00:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If one is Northern Irish then one is British whether one wished to refer to it that way or not :) And oh god, please don't get us into the same PC pickle the yanks have got themselves in with "African-America" vs "Black British". You never know where that will end. If it keeps up I'll be "Pale-Manchester-English" (in the winter anyway, in the summer it'll be "not-so-pale-Manchester-English". Regardless, a Black guy born in England with an English passport is simultaneously English, British and a UK citizen. His melanin content shouldn't have anything to do with his nationality. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 01:04, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "an English passport".....


 * I'm not getting anyone into a "PC pickle". This is a real-world view . Not my fault. --Jza84 | Talk  11:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * When I referred to the "pickle" I wasn't actually referring to you individually, I was speaking in general terms in that it's a bloody stupid way for a country's bureaucracy to go. If they spent less time trying to catalogue people and more time on things that are actually important then thing would be a lot better. I used the term "English passport" as an easy way to describe it so I didn't have to type a lot, also it helped with the alliteration. :) And yes I see from that PDF that indeed the UK is going to be subjected to another imported Americanist Political Correctness philosophy. Why the hell do people not understand that when minorities want equality then that's what they should get. Everyone should be equal, there should be no delineation based on colour tone, and that includes general descriptors. I despair sometimes, I really do. It's one thing to have golden arches everywhere but quite another to have to describe a black guy as African-English. ...wanders off shaking head and grumbling in grumpy old man mode... --Fred the Oyster (talk) 13:01, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Momentary Lapse of Reason
I'll have a look if I can locate sources commenting on the music and will post what I find here (if anything):
 * has a little material on "One Slip" (incl. Gilmour's collaboration with Manzanera) (interview also available here on the guitarworld website), "Sorrow" and "Signs of Life" and other tracks on the album. (This book has searchable previews on google books and amazon.) -- JN 466  03:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * (with preview in amazon) has a useful November 1987 review of Momentary Lapse by Douglass MacDonald on pages 135ff. Also a description of "Dogs of War" on p. 204, a bit on "One Slip" on p. 247, etc. -- JN 466  11:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Some of it cited, unfortunately, from a Pink Floyd fanzine. Its rather gushing in its praise of what is ultimately a rather weak Floyd album, and simultaneously dismissive of Waters' solo efforts.  The article is, at the moment, slightly Floyd-centric.  I'd be concerned that by including this, it would turn into an attack on Waters.  The Dogs of War stuff is interesting though, I'll see what I can do. Parrot of Doom 13:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually the stuff about individual songs is rather good, so I've included it - thanks very much for that :) Parrot of Doom 14:17, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Good, glad you found it useful. I think the collaboration with Manzanera is still worth a mention; at present, we only have him in the credits for that one song. But yes, basically it's a Gilmour solo album. -- JN 466  02:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * As for the fanzine-derived stuff, I thought it might be possible to extract some of the technical descriptions of the songs, minus the POV. For example, if I recall correctly, there is some mention of Signs of Life as an instrumental with blues elements, it notes the presence of sax player Tom Scott in Terminal Frost, etc. Reporting things like that does not tout the songs as brilliant (which they're not), but it might give the reader some idea of what they are like. On the other hand, I can understand if you feel the quality of the source is a bit iffy. One good review describing each of the songs would obviate the need to go to a source like that. -- JN  466  14:12, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Unless they're a professional reviewer, I'd rather not. It would be building the article on weak foundations.  I'm sure there are reviews of the album out there (Rolling Stone is missing for some odd reason), they'll be found one day. Parrot of Doom 15:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed; that's what I meant. One comprehensive, professional review from a music magazine ... -- JN  466  18:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If it's of any use, there is a 2-star rating in The New "Rolling Stone" Album Guide, p. 637. -- JN 466  19:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The Rough Guide to Pink Floyd has quite a detailed write-up of the album, including Gilmour's quote that both Mason and Wright had practically lost their musical ability when recording began: "Both Nick and Rick were catatonic in terms of their playing ability at the beginning. Neither of them played on this at all really. In my view, they'd been destroyed by Roger. Nick played a few tom-toms on one track. Rick played some tiny little parts. For a lot of it, I played the keyboards and pretended it was him. ..." I think that quote has been printed a lot, and would be worth featuring. -- JN 466  19:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Would you like a job as my private researcher :) More excellent stuff, and I've added some of it to the article.  Thanks.  In case you were unaware, I'm working on getting all the Floyd studio albums to GA/FA.  The Division Bell is at GAN now, I have Piper at the Gates in my sandbox, and then I only have Saucerful, Ummagumma, and AHM left. Parrot of Doom 23:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC)