User talk:Parrot of Doom/Archives/2011/January

We're both unarmed
I've had a few encounters today at WQA and ANI, and they've confirmed my belief that the only fair society is one in which all citizens are equally armed. I can't see much of a future for us if we can't get guns. Malleus Fatuorum 02:29, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "It is absurd to divide people into good and bad. People are either charming or tedious." Oscar Wilde. Parrot of Doom 02:40, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * For the avoidance of doubt that isn't a comment on you! Parrot of Doom 02:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I can be either charming or tedious, depending on my mood. Now, about those guns ... Malleus Fatuorum 02:44, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The thing about guns is, those who tend to own them, tend to get wounded or killed by them. Parrot of Doom 02:46, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Warning regarding your Revert activity
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful, then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. 99.141.243.84 (talk) 03:11, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Machine Head
Nice to see your attention to the article. I'll try to pitch in as well. J04n(talk page) 01:16, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a great album, I was disappointed to see there wasn't much on it here. It shouldn't take long to sort that. Parrot of Doom 01:18, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

"Comfortably Numb"
Re this: What I wrote was what the article about the song says (albeit without a source) ... I think we need to be a little more specific. I am finished with my copyedit and will be posting my overall thoughts at the peer review soon (in the interim, thank you for the vandalism reversion and, as it were, backup). Daniel Case (talk) 22:38, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Every so often I revisit articles I wrote a while back, running through them to correct the poor grammar. I think you've probably done a better job than I could have, its nice to have somebody else look at things.  I might revisit it one day and expand it to FAC, but not right now.  I'm reminded that I still have a few Floyd albums to get to GA. Parrot of Doom 22:46, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I just have to share this
I've often seen the civility police here on wikipedia claim that infringements like asking someone to fuck off from one's talk page would not be tolerated in a working environment, and I've just as often seen them ignore the fact that much worse goes on in academia. Which is presumably one of their "professional working envirionments", and one that's particularly relevant to wikipedia.

Last night I watched a BBC programme on the Ya̧nomamö people of South America, and in particular on the crisis that's developed in anthropology as a result of various claims and counter-claims about what anthropologists actually did while living with the natives. The least offensive claim was that one had invented his data, but others ranged up to another being accused of pedophilia because he married a girl who looked no more than about 11 in her photograph to bartering steel tools in return for sexual favours including masturbation and anal sex. Curiously the wikipedia article mentions none of that though. Malleus Fatuorum 21:11, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Sounds fascinating. Is it on IPlayer?  The only bit on the BBC web site that leaps out is here, with the sub-headings "GUINEA PIGS UP THE CREEK.  Post categories: Back Stories".  Mr Stephen (talk) 22:21, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It is, here. Well worth a watch. Malleus Fatuorum 22:51, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Ooh, ta. Mr Stephen (talk) 23:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm in a hotel room at the Brum NEC right now, wirelessly-tethered to my mobile's 3G connection, so can't watch the programme. I would say however, that anyone who thinks that profanity has no place in the workplace probably doesn't work at all. Parrot of Doom 23:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Although while I would add that asking people to feck off isn't really a problem, cursing them is! Parrot of Doom 23:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Hanged, drawn and quartered
Perhaps there are more than the two options being discussed on the talk page. Couldn't Jones' essay be used as a proxy, for example something along the lines of ? Basically, I'm suggesting removing Jones' analysis and sticking to the points she directly references. I think the crux of the problem isn't that Jones is "wrong" or unreliable, which would be a crude assumption to make on the fact it's an undergraduate essay alone, but that as it hasn't been peer reviewed it's not Wikipedia's definition of reliable. If the direct use of Jones is minimised it should be less controversial. Otherwise I'm not sure I can see a way round the lack of peer review, but as you point out on the talk page it is paradoxical that newspaper articles are generally accepted without so much as a murmur (perhaps that's a discussion for another day). Nev1 (talk) 18:28, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Purely from my point of view there are several problems here. The first is that I'd much rather go to the sources that Jones used, then use her essay.  That's no different for me than it is for anything else I write, I've often tracked down sources used in ODNB entries for instance, and used those instead.  I've been trying for a long time but actually getting those sources is difficult - my local library, whom I have to pay to order from, has had no success.  The second is that by and large people seem to be concerned only with the fact that it's an essay written by a student.  We know nothing more of her than that.  We can't presume that she is or is not an expert, she could be a 50-year-old historian, she could be a 20-year-old nobody, but nobody can answer that right now, and we can't point to the dearth of Google Scholar entries with her name because for all we know she might not have published anything before now.  I'd much rather judge a source by its content, and Jones's essay seems to me to be very well written, with a good selection of citations.  The fact that it's published in a compendium of other essays judged excellent by the university surely lends weight to its quality.  I ask anyone to read it, I'm quite happy to take for granted that Jones is clearly knowledgeable on the subject.


 * But I'm faced with people who rather than try and improve the article themselves by finding alternative source material they feel would meet WP:RELIABLE, would rather just delete it and leave it be. That's what frustrates me more than anything - driveby tagging, deleting, etc, based on a set of rules which apparently are immutable.  And based on those same rules, they'd be perfectly happy to leave in an article a paragraph of text written by, for example, a Daily Mail journalist, when that journalist almost certainly would have no knowledge of the subject.  In my opinion they'd be much better off asking themselves if they should be spending time deleting material from articles which are plainly crap, than from an article that to me is now half-decent.  And finally, on the point of edit warring - I simply will not allow one editor who decides on their own that the material should be deleted to get away with it.  If a consensus is formed with proper discussion of the source (and not "wikipedia says this so you're wrong I'm right") then I certainly won't go against that. Parrot of Doom 21:35, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I guess the difference between this essay and a Daily Mail article is that the newspaper article would be subjected to some degree of editorial control, whereas the degree of scrutiny of this student essay is unknown. Yes, I know we're talking about the Daily Mail, but seriously, would you ever cite a Mail article as a reliable source? Malleus Fatuorum 21:42, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Never, but many do, and I'd put money on it receiving less attention than this matter. I guarantee that when I eventually find the source material I'm after, not one of these editors will do anything but criticise something about it.  Its disheartening to be judged by people who pick and peck at this and that, rather than scrub an article clean and make something of it.  You should have seen the article before I started on it Malleus, it was hopeless, full of all kinds of nonsense from sources that are almost certainly unreliable, and yet how much of a fuss was made about that?  None.  Nada.  Maybe I should cite things only from geocities websites. Parrot of Doom 21:46, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I see this kind of issue as being a bit more complicated than perhaps some others do, with several dimensions. If asked the bald question "Do you believe that student essays should be considered reliable sources?" then of course my answer would be "No", as I'm quite sure yours generally would be as well. But I tend to look at sources differently depending on what it is that they're sourcing. If something is self-evident then I don't demand the highest quality sources, or perhaps even any sources at all. If it looks a little less obvious then I'll want to see a better source. That the blatantly obvious is not well-sourced troubles me not one whit. I haven't followed this dispute though, so I've got no idea what the material is in this article that's relying on that student essay, I'm just commenting generally. Malleus Fatuorum 21:59, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Pretty much just her opinion on the ritualistic nature of the punishment - and I've qualified most of that with "according to". It isn't a perfect solution but I'm happy with it for now, until I find those extra sources. Parrot of Doom 22:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, "ritualistic" eh? You're whetting my appetite. After my self-sacrifice at Maggie's article (I actually met my wife on a demonstration against Maggie when we were both students) I may join you there. I've long felt that wikipedia's articles on methods of execution and torture are rather poor by and large. In the meantime, don't get yourself blocked; I can already see some guns being cocked. Malleus Fatuorum 22:15, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Big guns have a nasty habit of backfiring. I'm only edit-warring with someone as stubborn as myself, but at least I have a well-reasoned argument to point to.  Parrot of Doom 22:21, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The big guns only count reverts, they don't much care what's being reverted. Take care. Malleus Fatuorum 22:25, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Bridgewater Canal
I haven't got the energy or enthusiasm for an FAC push, but if it gets close to the wire I'll help out. Good luck. Malleus Fatuorum 17:17, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it needs a fair bit of restructuring which I'm going to start this week, and I also think the Bridgewater Trustees section is far too big - that needs hiving off to its own article IMO. Parrot of Doom 17:42, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You're making me feel guilty about this now. Malleus Fatuorum 18:02, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:RSN
You've been mentioned at WP:RSN. 72.5.199.254 (talk) 20:28, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Wow, do I win a hat? Parrot of Doom 20:33, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No, just a headache. Malleus Fatuorum 21:10, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * BTW, I (and a few others, notably John and Geometry guy) have done quite a bit of work on Maggie over the last few days, and she's now back at GAN. I've frankly been amazed at how little argument there's been about the fairly radical changes that have been made to the article's structure, almost none in fact. Malleus Fatuorum 21:16, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That's good news, to be honest I'd assumed that it would be watched by a load of ex-miners, salivating at the thought of her death. Love her or loathe her she was one of the most important 20th-century UK politicians. Parrot of Doom 22:01, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thatcher probably managed to piss off pretty much everyone during her time as Prime Minister, but she was undoubtedly a world statesman. I remember going on a demonstration against her myself, although mainly because the NUS put on a free bus with the promise of evening entertainment for those who managed to avoid arrest; in the end the police dispersed us, citing some ancient law about gatherings of no more than three people within one mile of a royal park, or some shit like that. But I give her full credit for having the balls to send a task force to the Falklands. She's one brave lady, and she deserved better than what she had here, and better even than what we have now. Malleus Fatuorum 23:07, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

(ec) It's considered common courtesy to inform ones colleagues when they're mentioned. Your response is noted.72.5.199.254 (talk) 21:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Aren't you discussing the source, not the "colleague"? Malleus Fatuorum 21:17, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The RSN asked why this was even being brought up, I don't believe they could even fathom it being presented on the talk page, let alone included in an article. As there is only one editor on Earth that has supported its inclusion - he was the only diff I could produce. So, that's why his name came up.72.5.199.254 (talk) 21:36, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I do hope you're not peddling the same rubbish on the noticeboard above. While some may enjoy being told an embellished story, most are a little more sensible.  In other words, stop lying. Parrot of Doom 22:03, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The discussion at WP:RSN is readily linked. If you're serious about resolving the issue, and it was you that suggested it be brought up there, then "discuss". Ignoring all attempts at resolution won't make your position any better should you just be waiting for the page to be unlocked so that you can resume your edit war. You are already on record dismissing attempts to talk - ignoring RSN and the talk page discussion will be brought up later should you edit war again.99.141.243.84 (talk) 23:30, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm "on record" over being unwilling to discuss the matter further with you, because despite my best attempts to have a reasoned discussion with you I don't believe you've taken any notice of the arguments I've put forth. That quickly became very boring although I like how you keep saying that this edit war is mine, while casually ignoring your own participation, and I'm also enjoying watching you make a fool of yourself by suggesting that I'm so entrenched I won't discuss the matter with anyone else.  I said a long time ago that I'd rather use the sources that Jones used, and not her essay, but I've had a difficult time getting hold of them, and frankly I've spent enough money ordering books from my local library to indulge myself in this hobby.
 * I don't particularly care what the outcome of the debate is as I just wanted to improve the article from the nonsensical mess it once was. As long as a debate is held I'll be happy with that.  I can rest easy knowing that whatever the conclusion is, at least I work to improve articles here.  I'm not going to take any nonsense from the likes of you for doing that. Parrot of Doom 23:52, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, you've chosen to not listen to anyone that has refused your demand that they disprove the Original Research. Here's the ref supporting my statement:{1) As it stands now, the WP:RSN has rejected your claim that the student essay you added is a usable source on Wikipedia. 99.141.243.84 (talk) 00:31, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I love it when people think that I don't know exactly what I wrote. In case you missed it in my last edit summary, take your bullshit and clear off. Parrot of Doom 01:05, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've offered an alternative opinion at the RSN debate, but no doubt it will be ignored. Malleus Fatuorum 01:08, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm just amazed at all the fuss. One can spend hours writing half-decent articles and create barely a murmour, but woe betide you if you dare to cite the opinions contained in somebody's essay. Parrot of Doom 02:27, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * To be fair, a whole section based on a student essay was always going to be problematic, even though I think its content is perfectly reasonable. I'm sure we can do better than that. Malleus Fatuorum 02:35, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * More problematic apparently than entire articles based on MySpace sources... Parrot of Doom 10:46, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Just the way it is. I'm struggling a bit though, as it doesn't seem to me that the citations can be right. There's a large section in the middle of Robbing of honour cited to Jones pp 83–84 (citation #32), a significant chunk of which discusses the opinion of Kastenbaum, who Jones doesn't include at all in her footnotes. How much of that section is attributable to the essay anyway? Malleus Fatuorum 16:05, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * IIRC everything between citation 23 and 33 (I mean their position in the text) is Kastenbaum, but it's been a while since I read any of it. Parrot of Doom 16:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * So just about the only thing being cited to this student essay is the quotation in the quote box? Malleus Fatuorum 16:25, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Bugger! I see that the article's been locked. Malleus Fatuorum 16:27, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Citations 17, 23, 31, 32 and 34 are all directly attributable to Jones. How much of that material is cited to other authors in the essay, I haven't checked. Parrot of Doom 16:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I won't be performing further administrative actions on the article after accusations of bias, but at least I'm now allowed to have an opinion. Below is an analysis of where and how Jones is used and some suggestions:
 * 1) High treason was the most egregious offence an individual could commit, seen as a direct threat to the king's right to govern. Attempts to undermine his authority were viewed with as much seriousness as if the accused had made a direct assault on his body, which itself would be an attack on his status as sovereign.  As such an attack could potentially undermine the state, retribution was considered an absolute necessity, for which the ultimate punishment was required.
 * 2) Each dismembered piece of the body was later displayed publicly, as a warning to others.
 * 3) The sentence of hanging, drawing, and quartering punished the guilty traitor via his body. Although gruesome and cruel by today's standards, the practice was a logical legal mechanism that reflected complex conceptual understandings of the time. It magnified and inverted the crime perpetrated on the integrity of the king by mutilating and completely destroying the physical body of the traitor. Various steps involved in the penalty worked to stamp the authority of the monarch on the criminal and to purge the threat by marking the dishonour of the condemned.  Central to this punishment was the understanding that the physical body and individual were inextricably intertwined even immediately after death. Therefore, it followed that the penalty should operate by targeting the body.
 * 4) According to history student Maeve Jones's essay on high treason, each step of the procedure marked a rite of passage and the "progressive robbing of honour from the offender". Dragging was a form of transport usually reserved for carcasses and other low-value goods, and served to humiliate the offender.  Removing their clothing stripped them of their social status.  Several purposes were served by the criminal's mutilation.  In the case of Hugh Despenser the Younger, his hanging was punishment for theft: "that you are found as a thief, and therefore shall be hanged".  For being a traitor, he was quartered, and for being an outlaw he was beheaded.  For coming between the king and queen he was disembowelled, and his organs burnt.  In the opinion of Professor Robert Kastenbaum, Hugh's mutilation (presuming that his disembowelment was post-mortem) was a reminder to the crowd that dissent was not tolerated.  The corpse became so unrecognisable to them that any compassion was unlikely, and even in the afterlife, God might no longer want Hugh—a view which lingered for centuries, exemplified by the controversy surrounding the dissection of corpses for anatomy.  Quartering the corpse might also remove any prospect of funereal support, as relatives had to wait until the spiked remains had decomposed before they were allowed to bury them.  Since relatives were normally responsible for taking care of a recently departed family member, denying them a funeral in this way spread the traitor's shame onto his family.
 * 5) Jones writes that the evisceration of an offender while conscious did not just mark his public disgrace; the intimacy of the executioner's method also highlighted the offender's submission to legitimate authority. The burning of his organs may have been a supplementary form of torture, a method of prolonging his agony.


 * References


 * Comments
 * 1) This seems to be one of those straight forward points in student essays that aren't usually referenced as it seems so obvious.
 * 2) This point is referenced to Abbott 2005 as well as Jones, so would seem uncontroversial and doesn't seem to be problematic here.
 * 3) In the essay the first two sentences are referenced to J. A. Sharpe, “Last Dying Speeches: Religion, Ideology and Public Execution in Seventeenth-Century England,” Past & Present 107 (1984), 146-147. As such, I suggest changing that part of the citation to, referenced in . This method is used in academic sources when the author is unable to access the original source for whatever reason and should be fine for Wikipedia. The rest of that paragraph is Jones' conclusion, the bit about inversion of the crime and magnification Evans is referenced earlier in the essay to David Brandon and Alan Brooke, London: the Executioner’s City (Thrupp, England: Sutton Publishing Limited, 2006), 7, and Michel Foucault, Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. Alan Sheridan, trans. (New York: Vintage Books, 1979), 9.
 * 4) The point in the first sentence is referenced in the essay to Richard Evans, Rituals of Retribution: Capital Punishment in Germany 1600- 1987 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1996), 102. So I think something similar to what I suggest above can be done here. The bit about dragging in the essay is referenced to the same part of Evans 1996, and John Bellamy, The Tudor Law of Treason (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1979); John A. Laurence, A History of Capital Punishment (New York: The Citadel Press, 1960), 187. The bit about clothing is referenced to Bellamy 1960, 205-206. I searched the document for Hugh Despenser and Professor Robert Kastenbaum but was unable to find mention of either. On the issue of spreading the shame of the traitor onto the family, that's referenced to Ruth Richardson, Death, Dissection, and the Destitute, second edition, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 16-17.
 * 5) The bit about conciousness and submission is referenced to Michel Foucault, Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. Alan Sheridan, trans. (New York: Vintage Books, 1979), 13.

While the essay itself may not have been peer reviewed, many of the key points referenced in the Wikipedia article are effectively using the essay as a proxy for other sources such as Foucault or Evans. I think just tweaking the references (ie: retaining Jones as the other sources are unavailable currently, but noting Jones cites these sources) would help allay a lot of the concerns. Nev1 (talk) 16:42, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * That works for me. I still want to get some of those sources so may be able to expand on the points above, at some stage.  I doubt that "Each dismembered piece of the body was later displayed publicly, as a warning to others" even needs a citation, its perfectly apparent that body parts were displayed so remind people not to mess about with authority. Parrot of Doom 17:47, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * That sounds like a great way out. I apologize for gratuitously getting involved in the matter than failing to follow up with solutions. Blame Maggie. Nev1, I really don't think you did anything terrible and the solution above seems like one I would support. I'll follow up in article talk. --John (talk) 04:29, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've done so. PoD and Nev1, I need both of you to assent to copying the last bit of the above to article talk. Is that ok with you? --John (talk) 04:47, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure. Parrot of Doom 08:44, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Dooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooom
Assume you're same chap as on Pistonheads. Be quite a coincidence otherwise. Egg Centric (talk) 19:41, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It would indeed. I prefer it here, its slightly less Daily Mail. Parrot of Doom 20:54, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

AN/I Discussion on your edits opened.
Your edit warring and refusal to use talk are now at AN/I.99.144.243.116 (talk) 22:51, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

The Dark Side of the Moon
Hi! Your article is now a featured article on the italian Wikipedia, too. Thank you, and congratulations! ^^ --BMonkey (talk) 13:51, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the credit should go to you BMonkey, since you've obviously done a lot of the work there. Well done. Parrot of Doom 15:15, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. But imho, I have to give credit to the original author of the article I translated. Bye! --BMonkey (talk) 22:05, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program is looking for new Online Ambassadors
Hi! Since you've been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, I wanted to let you know about the Wikipedia Ambassador Program, and specifically the role of Online Ambassador. We're looking for friendly Wikipedians who are good at reviewing articles and giving feedback to serve as mentors for students who are assigned to write for Wikipedia in their classes.

If that sounds like you and you're interested, I encourage you to take a look at the Online Ambassador guidelines; the "mentorship process" describes roughly what will be expected of mentors during the current term, which started in January and goes through early May. If that's something you want to do, please apply!

You can find instructions for applying at WP:ONLINE. The main things we're looking for in Online Ambassadors are friendliness, regular activity (since mentorship is a commitment that spans several months), and the ability to give detailed, substantive feedback on articles (both short new articles, and longer, more mature ones).

I hope to hear from you soon.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 01:56, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I doubt it. I do this as a hobby and to learn about things in general, but I have no interest in teaching students for free.  They can pay me, of course.  Besides, wasn't the person who gave me the Awesome Wikipedian barnstar guilty of mucho plagiarism? Parrot of Doom 08:25, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Just a little bit; it was close paraphrasing. But that doesn't really detract from the fact that Rlevse contributed a lot to the community and put a lot of thought and love into recognizing good work that other Wikipedians were doing.  Being an online ambassador isn't so much about teaching students for free, as giving them a warm welcome and helping them have the same kind of good experience that a lot of Wikipedians have, learning and getting feedback from each other.  It remains the teachers' jobs to do the teaching. Cheers--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 14:30, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've no problem with giving any new editor a "warm welcome", but my priority here is creating half-decent content. Thanks for the invitation but it isn't something I'm interested in. Parrot of Doom 18:05, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Just a word of thanks.
Hey Mr Parrot Of Doom, I'd just like to say thank you to you for writing a decent article on Nick Griffin. I'm impressed at your ability to defend someone you don't agree with in the interest of making an encyclopaedia and not a propaganda page. A lot of people like to complain, but can't be bothered to take the time and enormous energy of writing a detailed wiki page in the first place. Hats off to you. All the best. Alexandre8 (talk) 15:20, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the kind words, however, I don't seek to defend or support Griffin, I merely want to present the facts in a neutral fashion. Hopefully I've managed to do that. Parrot of Doom 19:03, 30 January 2011 (UTC)