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

Do you ever look at this list?
WikiProject Greater Manchester/Popular pages. Of course the usual suspects like Manchester United and Manchester City are at or near the top, but guess what's at number 29: Moors murders, with 52,654 views in May! There are a few others in the top 50 that "someone" ought to do some work on, like John Dalton and Harold Shipman. Malleus Fatuorum 14:34, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Life here has taught me that editing popular pages tends to lead to a loss of hair and a raising of blood pressure! Hence sticking to quaint little subjects that nobody knows about :) Parrot of Doom 15:06, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Me too, at least for the moment. Malleus Fatuorum 15:20, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * What I found interesting is the links between all these "great" families. If you go back far enough, they all have ancestors that fought in this battle for that king, and for which they were awarded a huge chunk of land.  Of course there are always the upstarts who make their own money (Robert Peel for instance), but your Heaton Parks and Tatton Parks are always linked if you look far enough into history.
 * I cycle very close to Tatton Park and if you want decent images of anything, let me know. Parrot of Doom 15:35, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a curious thing, but the Tatton family never owned or lived in Tatton Park. I think the name of the estate comes from the nearby village of Tatton, which is probably where the family name comes from as well. Malleus Fatuorum 16:10, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Interesting indeed. I always presumed some rich bloke called Tatton built himself a grand home.  A bit like Philips Park, Prestwich, which was named after the family, and not the area.
 * You know it really is criminal that Philips Park was allowed to fall into such disrepair, while Tatton Park has had money thrown at it. In their prime, they're both beautiful areas.  You can bet that nobody would have tried to put a motorway through ancient forest on a Cheshire park... Parrot of Doom 20:41, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The key word there is "Cheshire". I have to admit here though that I was born in Cheshire. Malleus Fatuorum 21:40, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Well I was born in Lancashire (Bury, 1972) but not everyone can come from a proper county like I did. Parrot of Doom 22:00, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Jean Michel Jarre
I noticed the revert to my editi mentioning Le Mort Du Cygne as an earlier version of Rendez-vous 3. I found your note on the revert a bit puzzling. What did you mean by saying, "you were confident that the source did not suggest that" (paraphrasing, but I think it's close enough)? Both RV2 and 3 seem to come from earlier sources (RV2 from La Belle et la Bête, RV3 from Le Mort, both of which appear on a fairly well-known bootleg, Rarities 2). I don't have a problem with leaving the rev as it is and disregarding my addition, but the choice of words just threw me a bit. ds 23:42, 1 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Illuminatusds (talk • contribs)
 * I meant exactly what I said. I'm fairly confident that the citation which supports that part of the article doesn't say what your edit said, but I admit I haven't confirmed this yet. Parrot of Doom 08:14, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

FA
I'm going to nominate Pink Floyd as a FA and I'm informing you as you are the pirmary editor of it. TGilmour (talk) 15:53, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Star Trek V
The FAC's archived but I'd appreciate it if you could continue your review on the talk page, when you have time, so it can get through a bit speedier the next go-round. Thanks for your great help throughout. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 14:16, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem, will do. Parrot of Doom 16:01, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Moors murders (again!)
In an effort to clear the decks a bit I've gone through all of the points raised by Carol Ann Lee on the article's talk page and addressed them as best I can where I think they have merit; a couple I just don't agree with. You might like to take a quick look through and make sure that you approve. I'll be taking her book back to the library tomorrow, so speak now or forever hold your peace. Malleus Fatuorum 18:04, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sure it'll be fine. I still have the Ritchie book if you need anything clarifying, but right now I'm waiting for GFN to clear FAC so I can get Harris's List ready. Parrot of Doom 20:54, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm quite happy with it, I just thought you might want to make sure that I hadn't buggered anything up. Malleus Fatuorum 22:08, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * PS. I subscribe to a photography mailing list in which I just read this, talking about zoom: "So, with that said, get on out there and make the right creative choices. Decide what’s important and what isn’t. Zoom in, walk, climb, or swim to your subject to get everything in the frame that matters. Don’t spend your money on a new lens. Spend it on a new pair of shoes." Reminds of what you said a little while ago. Malleus Fatuorum 20:37, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep. I've sometimes spent ages walking around a building, looking for the best spot.  Manchester's Town Hall is a bastard to photograph correctly. Parrot of Doom 20:53, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * To take this photograph for the Manchester Liners article I had to sneak into the private car park, climb up a small hill opposite the building, and then post-process it to bring the edges of the building back into something resembling parallel. Yes, yes, I know you'll think it's crap, but it served the purpose. Malleus Fatuorum 21:12, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello again
Hello. Could you tell me what needs to be done to Pink Floyd article to become FA? It is currently being copyedited, so I suppose only Musical style section remains to be written about. Hope you'll help me with that. TGilmour (talk) 19:40, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * While it's do-able—David Bowie made it—I'll warn you that it will be a lot more than just getting the prose style tidy. The new wording of WIAFA 1(c) ("it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature") heavily skews the process against topics which have been the subject of a large number of significant works, and after the Beatles PF are probably the most written-about band in history. – iridescent  19:47, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Completely agree with that, which is why I no longer have any intention of taking Margaret Thatcher to FAC; just too much to read. Malleus Fatuorum 20:59, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Gong farmer
Remember that? As the resident shit expert I thought I'd ask if you have a few moments to glance over it and see what you think. I know there are still a few holes, like the trend for tradesman during the 18th century to offer clearing out services almost as a side-line, and I need to smooth over the transition from digging out cesspits to waste collection. There's an obvious limit though as to what can be said about a job that requires you to climb into a hole full of shit and dig it out with hand tools, so I've got no intentions of going anywhere near FAC with this, but GA would be nice one day. Malleus Fatuorum 19:39, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I've been watching, I can't help but feel that somewhere, some dusty old historian has written something more concrete on this subject. It reminds me that midden closet, surely an important subject, has no article - I might rectify that.
 * It's certainly lacking content but I know how difficult these things can be to pad out. One sentence stood out as a bit lonely - "The foul odour from cesspits was a continual problem, and they had to be cleaned out every two years or so. It was the job of the gong farmers to dig them out and remove the excrement, for which in the late 15th century they charged two shillings per ton of waste removed" - I think you need to say why the odour was a problem, and see if you can clarify how large these cesspits were - a tonne sounds like a hell of a lot.  Also, since pamphleteers and artists were so scathing on matters that the upper classes would rather not discuss, are there no old bits of art, or old publications that rip into the local corporations responsible for maintaining these cess pits? Parrot of Doom 20:37, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Believe me, I've looked. Cockayne's appears to be the most academic of what's available. One striking problem is that "gong farmer" is a Tudor term, but shit needed to be dug up and taken away well beyond the Tudor period. I'm seriously beginning to wonder if this article has the wrong title, and it ought not to be more general, although I'm struggling to think of a better one. I've tried to focus on those whose job it was to actually clear out the cesspits, rather than, for instance take away the buckets from pail closets, and I'd like it to retain that focus if at all possible. It's amazing how difficult it can be to write about shit. Malleus Fatuorum 20:54, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * What about Dan Cruikshank? He's written some excellent books on life in England.  Also, try this (Jstor picks it up as mentioning cesspits). Parrot of Doom 21:44, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, have a look around for references to "house(s) of office", a term much in use during 17th-century England. Parrot of Doom 21:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Good suggestions that I'll check out. But I do want this article to focus on the job of lumping out cesspits with handtools, rather than the broader issue of sanitation. Malleus Fatuorum 22:04, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * PS. As an example of how I'm not against in popular culture in general, just "In popular culture" sections, I think that the Blaster Bates story fits in quite nicely. What's your view? Malleus Fatuorum 22:20, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmmm I think its more relevant to other articles. Looking at his own article, what on earth is a Cheshire accent? Parrot of Doom 22:30, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Well it's staying. :lol: Like Blaster, I was born in Crewe, so I don't see your problem about a Cheshire accent; I heard it every day for years. Malleus Fatuorum 22:35, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Well I don't know about Crewe but my experience of the Cheshire set is that adults call their parents "Mummy and Daddy". Someone here described it as "a camp scouser trying to sound posh" - nice! Actually, as one of the respondents says it varies a lot across the county. Richerman (talk) 06:50, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't think of an area of England with a less obvious accent than Cheshire. Unless "footballer" is an accent :)  Anyway, Malleus have you heard of the elephant part of this?  Seems quite interesting. Parrot of Doom 08:14, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The elephant story sounds quite likely. My first job way back in the 60s was as a Lab Technician in the Zoology dept. at Manchester Uni. On one of the flat roofs there was a dead giraffe from Belle Vue that was being left to rot down so they could retrieve the skeleton, clean it up and reassemble it. I expect they'd removed some of the meat first to get it up there but its much easier to let the maggots do most of the work for you. Richerman (talk) 15:52, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Notification of WP:AN/EW report
Hello Parrot of Doom,

This is an automated friendly notification to inform you that you have been reported for Violation of the Edit warring policy at the Administrators' noticeboard.

If you feel that this report has been made in error, please reply as soon as possible on the noticeboard. However, before contesting an Edit warring report, please review the respective policies to ensure you are not in violation of them. ~ NekoBot (MeowTalk) 19:24, 19 June 2011 (UTC) (False positive? Report it!)

Flixton
Any use?--J3Mrs (talk) 10:54, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * 'tis a bit out of date that one, the Neighbourhood Statistics site and Trafford Council's site both show Flixton ward's western boundary some several hundred yards further east now. Parrot of Doom 11:00, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm rather drawn to old maps as a source of historical information. Must be because I'm getting past my sell by date too. :-)--J3Mrs (talk) 11:05, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Cock ale
Great article - I've suggested an alternative hook on DYK (really a development of your own) which should spur even more interest. :-) Prioryman (talk) 22:42, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've replied at DYK suggestions. Parrot of Doom 22:54, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Cock ale
Hello! Your submission of Cock ale at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! OCNative (talk) 05:46, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Haha, congratulations on yet another great cock/cunt article. Your admirer, Drmies (talk) 03:53, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

The Dark Side of the Moon - reviews template
Pity this Wikipedia project is marred by assholes like you, who are convinced that they always know best. Bye bye for now. 81.83.132.137 (talk) 21:50, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Well that told me, although what it told me may not be what you intended. Parrot of Doom 21:55, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Please respect WP:3RR: You now at 5 reverts within 24 hours at The Dark Side of the Moon. You have been on WP 5½ years; you know better. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:25, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I suggest you look at that users history (who is almost certainly the same user as above), and when you've done so, ask yourself if his edits are in good faith. Parrot of Doom 18:50, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I have given boilerplate warnings to both IPs in question. The edits do seem to me to be in good faith (I have only looked at Dark Side of the Moon, no other articles): the editor was moving reviews out of the infobox as part of the Albums project drive, which you continually revert. I do not see the bad faith in their part on this, what I do see is ownership coming from your side. You could easily have requested semi-protection or opened an RFC, or pursued some avenue other than edit-warring. The edits were not vandalism, so 5 reverts (now 6) in under 24 hours is extreme no matter what. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:00, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * There's little to no interest in these articles as the Pink Floyd wikiproject is dead in the water. I improved most of them from start class to either GA or FA, and was happy to have the reviews in the main infobox.  However, some time ago, the reviews for DSotM were moved outside the infobox into their own section (at least I think it was that album), and following a subsequent discussion (with few contributors) the decision was taken to remove it completely, as the most relevant reviews were already included in each article's prose.  I have asked at WP:ALBUM and the placement or inclusion of these review infoboxes is not mandatory.  That is, they may be removed if not required.  I don't think they're required, so I removed all of them.  That's what the IP objects to, and he's now engaged in serial reversions of anything I do to any of those articles.


 * Frankly he can fuck right off. Maybe a discussion should be held at WikiProject Pink Floyd, and whatever consensus is arrived at I'll respect.  I will not, however, stand for the above IP's childish attempts to bully me into submission, so either block me or not, protect the articles or not, or escalate it elsewhere, because frankly I'm sick to death of working my bollocks off to improve articles to GA/FA standards only to fight stupid battles over crappy little boxes of graphics that only the anally retentive care about. Parrot of Doom 19:10, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Album ratings is for displaying ratings, which are a complement/supplement to reviewers' comments, which is why the template is placed alongside the prose where the reviewers' comments appear. In any case, this is clearly a content dispute and edit-warring in content disputes is unacceptable no matter who you are. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:20, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * You know I posted a long response based on my feelings about this place (given recent experiences with bullying admins and their sycophants especially) but I deleted it before I submitted, because few people will care. Do whatever you like, the bureaucracy in this place leaves a very bitter taste in the mouth.  Those articles exist in their current form only because I decided to do something about them, but hey, what do I know. Parrot of Doom 19:47, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * It's quite clear that the only survivors here can be those who go crying to the admin boards when they don't get their own way, and that there's basically no protection at all for anyone trying to maintain any sort of quality. Sadly I don't think there's anything that can be done about it though. I'd like to be able to sound more positive, but, well .. you know. Malleus Fatuorum 20:02, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Do you really not care about being blocked? I'd rather you weren't blocked as you're a good editor. Can you undertake not to edit-war on this seemingly minor issue? There are better ways to solve such disputes and I am surprised you didn't take them. --John (talk) 22:04, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Are you asking me, as your indentation appears to suggest? Malleus Fatuorum 22:10, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Having spent a good deal of time creating an RFC for one particularly annoying editor, and having noted that exactly nothing seems to have come of it, I have little to no faith in Wikipedia's sometimes stifling levels of bureaucracy. Not to mention that the creation of reports there is a process so unfriendly and so time-consuming (starting a private business in the USSR would have been easier), it makes my head ache to even think about it.  No, I'd rather trust to the trigger finger of an admin to see that actually, I may have a good point.  It may be a minor issue to some but as Malleus has pointed out, maintaining some semblance of quality is an onerous and thankless task. Parrot of Doom 22:22, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. Thanks Malleus for pointing out the error with the formatting. --John (talk) 00:20, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, I'm not an admin or any other type of authority, merely an editor. Though I would prefer to see the ratings template used as a complement to the prose about critical reception, I have never edited any Pink Floyd articles and have no plans to. My issue here is solely with the edit-warring. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:48, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Just to inform you that the ratings-template was not added by me, but by user TGilmour. I just reverted your removal of it for the reason I gave in the edit summary. Best regards. 81.83.128.245 (talk) 18:17, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Heads up - Pink Floyd
Hi

Long time no speak :¬) I think I got waylaid by other things and sort of abandoned the GM project, something I will rectify this year I hope.

Anyway, as the major contributor to the Pink FLoyd article I thought I should inform you about this: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Pink_Floyd

I have left some notes on the talk page for further things to be looked at and thought I had better let you know so you can keep an eye on things there for a while, at least until the FAC.

Hope you are well Chaosdruid (talk) 23:17, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the warning. I removed the article from my watchlist some time ago, as another editor began to make significant changes (based on reliable sources).  I decided that I'd done enough to get it to GA, and left him to it (no hard feelings).  I don't have the inclination to get involved with it again, especially as I have more important things to work on, like Chicken Beer. Parrot of Doom 23:21, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Lol! That is something that I do not think I would drink unless it was a dare for a lot of cash!
 * If you can remember the editor in question that "took over" where you left off could you inform them please? I am not sure about the current goings on as the editor nominating for FA seems a little inexperienced.
 * As for the goings on with DSotM and the reviews box, I have commented on the relevant pages as I think you were treated a little unfairly there. Their edits were against consensus as far as I can see. Chaosdruid (talk) 23:41, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * IIRC it was User:GabeMc who did the rest. I think he's also done a fair bit on Roger Waters so I'm sure he'll already be aware of the situation.  TGilmour seems only to want to see these articles wearing bronze stars, but seems too inexperienced to know how to go about doing it himself.  He's posted on this page a few times lately, unfortunately I've had to tell him the same as I've told you.  Thanks for your support btw, it's much appreciated. Parrot of Doom 23:47, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I too wish to offer my support. It seems you've done a lot of great work and felt embittered about defending the work you've done. I can sympathize with that. Your contributions are major and valuable. I know you and I fell out ages ago (I can't even remember what it was about), but I wanted to say you've got my respect for whatever that may be worth around here. I'm glad the edit-warring report seems to have been closed without blocking anybody. Remember this is a group enterprise and there are many sympathetic ears out there should you ever run into such trouble again. I couldn't have taken any admin action on the last matter you were involved with but I could have asked around or gone to a central venue. Sometimes just a third opinion is enough to break the logjam. Anyway, please let me know if anything like this looks like happening again, if you like. --John (talk) 02:09, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you came here and said something synonymous to "have a nice day", which may have been well-intentioned but which had the opposite effect. It was probably during another period of strife but it's safe to say I've forgotten about it now.  Thanks for your kind comments. Parrot of Doom 07:04, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Parrot, could you make a Musical Style section to the Pink Floyd article? It seems to be the only issue and you are the most experienced user to do this. TGilmour (talk) 00:33, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry TGilmour, I know your heart's in the right place but right now mine isn't. Parrot of Doom 18:52, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Jean Michel Jarre page
Hi! It seems you're the main contributor on Jean Michel Jarre's page. As you can see, I edited the JMJ page. I think it's much easier to read now. Don't worry, except the new structure & some minor edits, all the text is almost the same as before. Deepblue1 (talk) 21:32, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I agree. While the article could stand to be improved, I don't see how creating so many headings makes it any easier to read.  To be honest I think it looks a mess, and I very much doubt the Defence 4 image is available for use. Parrot of Doom 21:55, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) I changed the headings: bigger sections (decades). The page looks cleaner in my opinion. 2) I removed La Defense picture from article. Deepblue1 (talk) 11:29, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

This is what happens next
I'm laughing, but I know I shouldn't be. This is what happens next; you're accused of being my sockpuppet or vice versa, as I've said much the same thing many times before. Malleus Fatuorum 22:28, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't share your resentment over how admins are patrolled and controlled here (although I do sympathise with it), but you're exactly right when it comes to content. Use a rude word or tell someone what you think of them and there's a legion of folk queuing up to offer their opinion.  Try to protect a half-decent article from trivia and fluff, and nobody cares.  Try to bring a disruptive and bullying admin to heel and it's as though an invisibility cloak descends over the affair.  The whole thing stinks, it's as though those who concern themselves with civility and other such nonsense have forgotten what purpose Wikipedia is supposed to serve. Parrot of Doom 22:50, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * They haven't forgotten, they never knew. But you're right about my resentment. A couple of fucked up RfAs can do that to you. Malleus Fatuorum 22:59, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I note how easily you've been blocked in the past. But draw up an RFC about an idiot admin, an RFC on whose basic premise a great many editors agree, and nothing happens.  No blocks, no chastisement, no removal of tools - nothing.  That's why from now on I'm going to focus purely on articles, and nothing else, no matter who comes calling. Parrot of Doom 23:19, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I do what I do because I believe in the idea of free information, freely available. I think you do as well. Wikipedia is a lost cause in the long run unless it makes some radical changes, so my only motivation is the hope that whatever we contribute here will be carried across to Wikipdia Mark II. Malleus Fatuorum 23:28, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Cock ale
The DYK project (nominate) 00:04, 26 June 2011 (UTC)