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

hello! i'm from Siberia. Russian Federation.

Have you read this?
There's a See also link from Guy Fawkes Night to West Country Carnival, from which I quote: "Guy Fawkes is the character most associated with the plot to blow up the Houses of Parliament, however the instigator was Jesuit priest Robert Parsons from Nether Stowey, a short distance from Bridgwater. Parsons and his colleagues Edmund Campion and Ralph Emerson were Catholics, who wanted to put an end to the Protestant monarchy and parliament of the day, in order to put an end to Catholic persecution. In 1580, they were discovered attempting to garner favour with northern-English based nobility in the English Mission, and were then associated with the failed Spanish Armada of 1588, both plots to replace protestant Elizabeth I of England with catholic Mary Queen of Scots. After the deaths of Campion and Emerson, Parsons continued to plot to restore Catholic power in England, and hence his last ill-fated attempt against parliament and King James VI on 5 November 1605."

Do you think that might be a deliberate hoax or just a gross misunderstanding? Malleus Fatuorum 05:32, 7 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Either of those or it's a fringe view so disconnected with reality that I've never read of it in any of the literature I've used. Parrot of Doom 08:18, 7 July 2011 (UTC)


 * It's partly attributed to Antonia Fraser, page xv. Malleus Fatuorum 18:42, 7 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll have a look. I've just had my back bedroom completely replastered so everything is hidden in piles of junk right now. Parrot of Doom 20:23, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Star Trek V at FAC
I've renom'd the article and if you have the time would appreciate further comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Star Trek V: The Final Frontier/archive2. Thanks, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 14:49, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I certainly will. I'm sorry I didn't get a chance to look at it beforehand but I've been busy both IRL and here. Parrot of Doom 17:58, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Bonfire night
You might or might not be interested in this.--J3Mrs (talk) 10:30, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Number of Issues Eagle Comic 1950 to 1969
Hi I'm not familiar with this process of communication but I am hoping this message is going to Parrot of Doom. It seems you have changed my editing about the number of issues of Eagle comic between 14 April 1950 to 26 April 1969. I based the 987 number of issues on the information I have after looking at the issues I have in my possession. I am reasonably confident in this number. Rather than argue about the number, why don't we compare sources and see which number makes the most sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cutaway-researcher (talk • contribs) 12:38, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I took my figure from Frank Hampson's obituary, which claims the comic was halted nine issues short of its 1000th edition. The trouble is, you changed one number and left others unchanged, you gave no rationale for your change, added no citations, and made the article inconsistent. Parrot of Doom 17:57, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thinking further about this, I have another book for this article but haven't yet had the chance to browse it. I'll see what that has to say. Parrot of Doom 23:05, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree a citation is necessary. I could have cited my own collection of Eagle Comics and related research, but that seemed both self centred and inappropriate on something I am commenting on. Steve at Bear Alley seemed a knowledgeable source and the blog had stated the number of issues as 987, so I blogged him for comment. Steve's response was:


 * Citing your own collection would probably count as WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH which is very much frowned upon here. It might seem simple to look at the issue number of the last comic but a more knowledgeable author might (I emphasise might, only as a possibility), point out some curious numbering discrepancy.  That's why we use WP:RELIABLE sources for these things.  I agree it definitely needs further investigation, I'll try and pull out the book I have (Tatarksy's latest) to see what that says, but my house is in a state at the moment. Parrot of Doom 08:34, 8 July 2011 (UTC)


 * "The number 991 is the number of weeks Eagle ran for (first published by Denis Gifford, I believe). However, that doesn't take into account the strike in 1959 when Eagle was off the shelves for some weeks. The total number of issues is easily derived from the volume numbering: vol 1 no 1-52, vol 2 no 1-52, vol 3 no 1-52, vol 4 no 1-38, vol 5 no 1-53, vol 6 no 1-52, vol 7 no 1-52, vol 8 no 1-52, vol 9 no 1-52, vol 10 no 1-45, vol 11 no 1-53, vol 12 no 1-52, vol 13 no 1-52, vol 14 no 1-52, vol 15 no 1-52, vol 16 no 1-52, vol 17 no 1-53, vol 18 no 1-52, vol 19 no 1-52, vol 20 no 1-17.


 * That's (14 x 52) + (3 x 53) + (1 x 45) + (1 x 38) + (1 x 17) = 987."


 * This can be view at http://bearalley.blogspot.com/2008/04/eagle-authors.html


 * A more authoritative source is Cliff Wanford's Eagle Collectors Handbook.  Unfortunately I do not have a copy and do not know anyone who does.


 * I would appreciate your advice and help in making the article consistent.


 * Cutaway-researcher (talk)

Do you have an estimate of how long it will take to check your references?
 * Cutaway-researcher (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:19, 11 July 2011 (UTC).


 * I just need to find the book. It's here somewhere, the house is like a disaster zone right now as I've had one room completely replastered.  Parrot of Doom 12:44, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Do you know the title of the book - have you liked for other sources such as a local Library or a central library?

Cutaway-researcher (talk) 04:14, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I contacted Daniel Tatarsky. He did not know the number of issues but referred me to his latest book. As it is not in his latest book we are back to where we were before.

You have the information from Frank Hampson's obituary, which states the comic was halted nine issues short of its 1000th edition. The limitations on this are 1) He left Eagle in 1961 - 8 years before the end - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Hampson. So his intimate knowledge ended there. 2) The obituary was written by a Newspaper Columnist not Fran, so it falls into the category of hearsay.

The 987 number of issues is an assertion by me. This is the number I have continually received in response to my enquires. But it needs a citation from a credible source, preferable one that has some detailed information such as the number of issues per volume. I searched for such a source and  I found the Grand Comic Database. This is a website and organisation that collects, validates and publishes, via the web, information on comics from around the world. It shows information about the Eagle Comic in two series 1950 - 1958 (455 issues published)(see http://www.comics.org/series/27103/) and 1959 - 1969 (532 issues published)(see http://www.comics.org/series/56321/). The total (455 + 532) is 987.

This is both solid and transparent. Solid because all information is edited/vetted before it is added to the database. Transparent because information is show on the website without any necessity to login to the site. There is a provision to dispute information on the website.

Information goes down to the Volume and Number level. The aggregated number can only be changed by changing the Volume and Number information.

I welcome any comments you have. I will be amending the number of Eagle Comics on the website on Monday.

124.171.27.51 (talk) 07:20, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Featured Article promotion

 * I like the juxtaposition of the congratulations message, with the image of the prostitute having a big piss. Parrot of Doom 17:31, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I got a picture of a columbarium. You got off lightly. – iridescent  17:40, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * My favorite part is picking a good image! [[Image:Emblem-fun.svg|25px]] – Quadell (talk) 18:43, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Damn Quadell, you beat me to it....congratz BTW....Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:52, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Ship Canal for GAN?
What do you think about taking the Manchester Ship Canal to GAN? There are still a few bits that need either citing or chopping, but I think it's getting close. Malleus Fatuorum 21:53, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

PS. Congratulations on steering the Ladies through FAC. Malleus Fatuorum 21:54, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I'll have a read through, but the first paragraph seems to be confused between river navigation and navigation canal.  Not sure how to fix that. Parrot of Doom 22:11, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The whole thing needs another look through. When I started on out rewriting it God knows how long ago now I only really got as far as the History, hardly touched the bottom half of the article at all, which is where I think there's still some work to do. Malleus Fatuorum 22:16, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree. That main infobox image is rubbish as well.  I'll have to see if I can get a good snap of a ship coming down, from Warburton Bridge.  There's a website I've used that tracks ship movements... Parrot of Doom 22:23, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * This one? Malleus Fatuorum 22:50, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * That's the one. Parrot of Doom 22:54, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Transport
Doing peer reviews do you only cover transport in Lancashire or elsewhere as well? Simply south...... improving for 5 years 18:20, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Erm, I'm not quite sure what you're asking. I assume you're doing peer reviews, in which case I don't limit my editing here to one particular location, but it's probably true to say that most of the transport articles I've been involved with are around the Northwest. Parrot of Doom 19:56, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm considering requesting one on an article I've improved on: List of Docklands Light Railway stations. Simply south...... improving for 5 years 20:01, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

What we write here can have surprising consequences
I was bumbling about in the Stretford article and mentioned in passing a traditional local dish called Stretford goose, which actually contains no goose at all. And lo and behold one of my local pubs starts to offer it on its menu. Isn't life strange. Malleus Fatuorum 23:20, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * heh, at least you didn't include Cock ale in the article :) Parrot of Doom 11:35, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Blackbeard undo
About your Undo, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Blackbeard&diff=439227698&oldid=439225002

The section I removed made no reference to Blackbeard. It would be much better to have that section in some generic Pirate article. Why you say "Don't be silly" ?

Stephanwehner (talk) 07:42, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Just a guess, but I'd say that the edit summary was suggesting that you were mistaken. Which you were. Malleus Fatuorum 07:46, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * How was "the edit summary [..] suggesting that you were mistaken"? The summary was really short. But more importantly, how was I mistaken? Stephanwehner (talk) 08:50, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * You don't think placing Teach within the context of piracy and views around the activity is worthwhile? Because it seems to me that's what the section you removed does. Nev1 (talk) 12:27, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes that's right. I think it is not worthwhile. Based on your reasoning the section should be part of every article about the various Pirates of the region / time. Example: John_Fenn_(pirate); see also Pirate and Category:People_executed_for_piracy  Stephanwehner (talk) 17:52, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well you seem to be in a minority here, the context is an important part of an article for a reader who knows little about the subject.--J3Mrs (talk) 18:22, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Minority or not, I'm not reading any substantial argument here. As far as I can tell none of the posters here have looked at the deleted section, noticed the heading under which it is placed, nor read other articles about other Pirates which are available on wikipedia. I started this discussion to find more clarity about the rather thin Edit summary "Don't be silly".Stephanwehner (talk) 00:03, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Using an unimpressive 300-word article on Fenn as a model for a well-written, properly researched article on Teach is a backwards way of thinking. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to educate and inform, clearly providing some background information assists in understanding Teach. If you strongly believe this not to be the case you must gain consensus before removing it again. Nev1 (talk) 18:37, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * That's a threat? Stephanwehner (talk) 23:56, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Don't be a prat, of course it's not. Gaining consensus is policy, and without it you're simply not going to get anything done. Nev1 (talk) 00:08, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I see, now insults follow. I wasn't going to do anything like "removing it again", nor did I mention that I was going to. Anyway, I pointed to the Fenn article as one where the I think the same section would make the same sense ("providing some background information assists in understanding"). Duplications like that don't make sense to me: hence removal. Stephanwehner (talk) 00:28, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


 * "Why you say "Don't be silly" ?" - because you were, and are being, silly. Parrot of Doom 11:36, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

More shit
With your interest in all things scatological you want to watch this - there is a passing reference to gong farmers in it and the second half is mostly about the history of the flushing toilet. Also, have you seen the article sewage farm? What an abomination! Is the definition in the lead correct? I always thought sewage farm was another name for a sewage treatment plant Richerman (talk) 12:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe the term is more generic these days. I'm pretty sure that no sewage farm ever spread raw sewage on its fields, the waste was treated first. Parrot of Doom 13:05, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I watched that programme on the history of the bathroom the other evening, very good. As for that sewage farm article, well, words fail me. Malleus Fatuorum 16:54, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I just watched it, not a bad programme but it skipped right past the pail closet. Anyone who's none the wiser, having watched that, will now presume that flushing toilets were the norm. Parrot of Doom 18:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Need some help

 * Hi! I need some help regarding an OGG file.

I uploaded the but for some weird reason I received the message "This media file may meet the criteria for speedy deletion." Can you re-upload it please?

Later edit: the file was deleted from Wikipedia. Here's the new location of the OGG file to upload. Deepblue1 (talk) 20:35, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Was it uploaded under a fair use rationale? IIRC, if you upload such a file and forget to insert it into an article, a bot arrives and tags it for deletion.  Or you may have missed important information, such as the owner/author, licence, etc.  I don't think it's appropriate for me to upload files I know nothing about so you should give it another go. Parrot of Doom 21:57, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, it was uploaded under a fair use rationale. Also I inserted into an article.


 * Here are the Summary & Licence used:
 * {{quotebox|

Licensing:
}}

It seems Wikipedia rejected my "Non-free audio sample" tag. I wonder what went wrong... Please try to upload the file. Deepblue1 (talk) 22:07, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


 * It's a copyrighted piece of work, you should therefore upload it to Wikipedia, and not Wikimedia Commons. See the "Upload file" link in the toolbox on the left side of your screen. Parrot of Doom 22:11, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks! It worked! Deepblue1 (talk) 22:35, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Anytime. Parrot of Doom 22:36, 31 July 2011 (UTC)