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

Lead vocals on PF song Run Like Hell from The Wall
You seem to contribute a lot to PF articles, so I suppose you are knowledgeable on the subject. I noticed you undid an IP's addition of David Gilmour as lead vocalist on this song. However, the WP article on the song Run Like Hell states that Gilmour sings lead in the 'Run, Run' section of the song. Now there is contradicting info in related articles. Which one is correct? Thanks and regards. 94.226.153.60 (talk) 17:03, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I tend to keep things simple and just copy whatever is written on the album's sleeve. I'm fairly sure this is what I did with The Wall. Parrot of Doom 18:03, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Although thinking about it, I don't know if those details are included on the sleeve (I've just cycled 100 miles and am too tired to go looking for it today). Waters certainly sings lead vocals, and Gilmour the "run run run" section, but I wouldn't consider the latter to be a lead vocal. Parrot of Doom 18:17, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Do you think the ship canal is ready for FAC?
As the title says. Nice work on Flixton BTW. All I've got is Nevell's Archaeology of Trafford, which you've obviously got as well. Malleus Fatuorum 23:03, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * There's an obvious gap somewhere around the bill's passage through parliament, reasons for rejection, passage , etc; I think that needs resolving. I need to do that map as well, and the infobox image is rubbish, that definitely needs to go.  Something like this would be a good replacement IMO, I'll email the guy to see if he has any that could be used here.
 * There are some good, usable historic images around. This is great and the artist died in 1906, This is probably ok too. Parrot of Doom 07:56, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The article's first section says "a ship canal was proposed..." - was this Hamilton Fulton who proposed it? I ask because of this. Parrot of Doom 13:28, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think so, and the source doesn't say so. Hamilton Fulton's plan was submitted to the Chamber of Commerce in 1877, but this section is talking about the proposers behind the Manchester Ship Canal Committee. There's a preview of the source on Amazon here. Malleus Fatuorum 22:59, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Here's a report of 1870 on Fulton's proposal for a ship canal. This explains a little why Fulton's later plan was rejected, and a bit more history besides. Parrot of Doom 13:03, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Nice additions, but I've got a bit of a problem with changing "Bill" to "bill"; a bill is what you get in a restaurant, or from your gas supplier. Malleus Fatuorum 20:40, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Ah, I thought it was just like King Eric, vs the king, who was called Eric. I've got a bit more to add, and I've just sorted a new infobox image. Parrot of Doom 20:42, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


 * That's a really nice image, I like it. Malleus Fatuorum 20:58, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, the Flickr user who owns it has loads, his photostream is quite interesting. I'm done adding things for the night, if you want to wave your magic wand over that section to tidy up my guff :) Parrot of Doom 21:11, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Recent events have prompted me to ask you this question. We've worked together on quite a few articles over the years now, some of them quite sensitive, like the Moors murders and the ongoing wife selling nonsense. Can you think of any occasion when we fell out over some editorial or content decision? Malleus Fatuorum 21:20, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Disagreed sometimes, but fell out? Not ever, as I recall.  I've read your articles and you obviously know what you're doing.  I presume the reverse (in the last year or two certainly) is also true.  Mutual respect. Parrot of Doom 21:23, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


 * It certainly is true, else I'd be on your tail at FA/GA, as you no doubt would be on mine. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 21:40, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I like your Public campaign addition, very nice. It's been obvious to me for a while that there was no rational reason behind the construction of the canal, although that's just OR on my part of course, and perhaps even a conspiracy theory. Malleus Fatuorum 23:34, 8 September 2011 (UTC) at there


 * Hah, I saw that discussion. I think conspiracy theorists are generally nutcases, but how is it that some people can be so against them that to even mention the fact they exist, and have been discussed in reliable sources, is inappropriate?  It seems to me that some of those people think that to mention them is to validate them. Parrot of Doom 06:38, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Pardon me for barging in, but I think that is a stupendous point PoD. To mention a topic is not to endorse it; we're a neutral resource and we don't take sides, just report what the sources say. When the BBC, respected aviation writers, or the US Government itself all discuss an aspect of a topic, it becomes notable. Indeed as I think HJM pointed out, to suppress (or appear to suppress) a particular POV may give more comfort to the supporters of the POV than to report on it dispassionately. Anyway, nice point; I may use it if I decide to stay involved with this exhausting and generally unrewarding subject area. Cheers. --John (talk) 06:50, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I took the liberty of quoting you here, I hope you don't mind. Thanks again. --John (talk) 07:20, 10 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The MSC had a fleet of tugs as it wasn't possible to turn large vessels that didn't progress to Manchester. There's a little fleet of them kept at Eastham Lock. I don't know whether you think this is useful but there is a pic of a couple of the present ones here. I had a trip along it earlier this year but it wasn't the best day for photographs except for reflections of cloudy skies.--J3Mrs (talk) 07:41, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually I'm wondering how ships turn around today now that Manchester Docks are closed, as they clearly aren't dragged backwards down the canal. Malleus Fatuorum 22:44, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


 * A minor point, but the infobox lists the constructor as the engineer. Is that correct? Parrot of Doom 10:37, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh another thing, Ship Canal House might be an image worthy of inclusion. I'll try and get down there next week. Parrot of Doom 14:34, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

"A large meeting of the working classes, attended by several local notaries including the general secretaries of several trade unions, was held on 13 November at the Free Trade Hall in Manchester." Do we really mean "notaries"? As opposed to "notables"? You may already have noticed that I increased the text size and added a few more locations to your map. Malleus Fatuorum 22:44, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Those notaries are dangerous buggers - see Cola di Rienzo! Johnbod (talk) 23:14, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That article is full of phrasing that ought to raise suspicions. Quite a bit seems to have been copied from here, for instance. I realise the book was published in 1836, hence not a copyright issue, but I don't share the rather lax view on plagiarism that so many others seem to do here; I regard it as dishonest. Malleus Fatuorum 23:26, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No doubt - I haven't really read it, relying on Wagner's opera on him as my main source of information - I'm sure that is even less accurate. He definately was a notary though - I saw a book about famous notaries once, oddly enough in the waiting-room of some unfamous ones. Johnbod (talk) 23:33, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Is there a name for the medical condition that impels editors to fix every article they read? Malleus Fatuorum 00:17, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It hits different people different ways Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_September_10! Johnbod (talk) 12:44, 10 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Ah yes, notables not notaries. Also the map ain't finished yet boyo, still lots of rivers, streams, canals etc to go in :)  But I thought I'd upload the first version so I didn't waste time making a map nobody liked. Parrot of Doom 19:56, 10 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. But could you make the text bigger then? Malleus Fatuorum 20:00, 10 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Sure, no problem. I'm using a similar style to the map on River Irwell, which I also created.  I figure it'll make more sense that way. Parrot of Doom 20:02, 10 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Which is the most important railway, the original Liverpool to Manchester over Chat Moss, or the later CLC line through Urmston? I can do both. Parrot of Doom 20:29, 10 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't know to be honest. Malleus Fatuorum 21:01, 10 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll add both then. My reasoning is that the map should show some of the other routes into Manchester.  For that reason I probably won't add motorways as it'll just complicate matters.  I have the T&M canal to add, those railway lines, the rest of the Mersey, a bit of the Irwell, locks.  I might even colour code Trafford Park or the two cities. Parrot of Doom 20:51, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Your addition of the external link to fish stocks in the ship canal has prompted a question in my mind. Do you think we'll be expected to deal with the flora and fauna in and around the canal? Do other canal articles cover that? Malleus Fatuorum 23:18, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Depends, is there much to say about it? Certainly the Irwell was about the filthiest river in the UK, and I bet the Mersey wasn't that far behind it, which means that the ship canal would have been turbid.  The canal has certainly stopped fish moving up and down the Mersey and its tributaries, but then again there are lots of weirs on the Mersey and Irwell that do the same thing. Parrot of Doom 19:06, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * There's almost certainly something to be said about the nature reserves that have been created as a result of the canal's construction. Woolston Eyes, Moore Nature Reserve.  There may be others. Parrot of Doom 19:18, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Seems to be never ending. :-( Malleus Fatuorum 19:52, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Nah, I'm happy the animosity between Liverpool and Manchester is explained. I think some things need to be cut, like the "features on the banks" section.  The environmental impact could be linked to the owners' plans for the canal in a section of its own.  Other than that, and perhaps some of the points I raised on the talk page, I think it could be ready to go in a couple of days.  It's your baby though so the nomination is up to you. Parrot of Doom 20:09, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * We'll nominate it jointly as soon as you feel happy with it. Malleus Fatuorum 20:15, 17 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll add stuff here as I find it. Parrot of Doom 19:51, 17 September 2011 (UTC)


 * page 245, pollution, Port Sanitary Authority
 * Pomona Island
 * pollution

I've made the nomination at FAC, so we'll see how it goes. Malleus Fatuorum 23:02, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

A compliment
Having been forced to defend a few of the Manchester computers articles earlier I once again came across the Small-Scale Experimental Machine article, for which you took the lead image. It's terrific! Malleus Fatuorum 20:13, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I really want to get Commodore PET sorted out one day, but source material is sadly lacking. I've been looking for PETs on Ebay, many of them are vastly overpriced.  I was prepared to pay £200 for one recently but someone else outbid me by £6 - that was a cheap one as the monitor had a collapsed frame (very easy repair).  One in perfect working condition recently went for about £350!  Mind you, considering that my dad paid about £500 for a new one in the late 70s, I suppose it isn't that expensive.
 * The computer articles are quite shocking, but I think more than anything they're articles that demand expertise. Most computer people on Wikipedia I would imagine are programmers, not electronic engineers. Parrot of Doom 20:17, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but my view is coloured by own experience. Computer articles don't require anything beyond basic electronics expertise. Like many in the 1970s I built my own computers, that was the easy bit. Getting them to do anything useful was rather more of a challenge. Malleus Fatuorum 20:50, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * In the 70s my dad built a rudimentary tank battle game for me and my sister. Monochrome display, two controllers, and two tanks to fire shells at oneanother :)  He got the circuit from one of his electronics magazines. Parrot of Doom 21:40, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Probably Electronics Today International. It was a great source of circuit diagrams, one of which I'm particularly fond of: a sensor that triggered a camera flash whenever there was a loud noise. I was then and still am interested in the bollocks surrounding ghosts and hauntings. Malleus Fatuorum 21:50, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

FAC comment
I'm pretty sure the discrepancy between three or four railways between Manchester and Liverpool comes from counting railway companies, not routes. The route through Ditton Junction was operated by two separate railway companies, as I said at the FAC.

Which seems to be going OK so far; that peer review looks to have been very worthwhile. Malleus Fatuorum 17:52, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * That sounds very likely to me, railway [line] is synonymous with railway company. I'm still trying to find a reliable source for Trafford Road Swing Bridge being shut, limiting the length of the canal.  Which leads me to another question - is the canal length, as quoted, its original length?  Ships can't get to Pomona now, so is the canal shorter?  Narrowboats can still get there.  It's all a bit confusing. Parrot of Doom 17:56, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * PS. I'm having a crisis of confidence over capitalisation. I noticed you had "bill" early in the article, so I changed every subsequent occurrence to match after checking my dictionary to see what it did. Same with "act". But then we have "Act of Parliament", which I suppose could be considered a proper noun so is probably OK, but more worryingly we have "Parliament". Can you see any justification for capitalising "Parliament"? Malleus Fatuorum 18:00, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Re Trafford Swing Bridge, that it can no longer swing is one of those annoying things that everyone who lives nearby knows must be true, as there are no traffic lights or barriers on the approach to the bridge. Malleus Fatuorum 18:06, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * ... the Trafford Road swing bridge no longer swings. The 100-year-old structure, which spans the Manchester Ship Canal, has been permanently open to traffic using the road since 1992.  Mr Stephen (talk) 19:46, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry Stephen I missed this post - do you have that source in front of you, and if so, could you add it to the article? I think in the short "Route" section. Parrot of Doom 20:37, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Many thanks Stephen, that's a nice addition. Can I ask you, do you have online access to an archive?  The MEN site only goes back as far as 2000. Parrot of Doom 20:19, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Sometimes ... I don't know how complete it is, but it seems to go back to at least 1983.  Mr Stephen (talk) 19:28, 23 September 2011 (UTC)


 * John changed the capitalisation in the lead. I admit I'm not skilled enough to know what's appropriate so I'll leave it to those in the know. Parrot of Doom 18:07, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Ah, OK. Well as it's not capitalised in my dictionary I'm not about to argue over it. I think I'll downcase "Parliament" on the same basis. Malleus Fatuorum 18:10, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * BTW I just discovered the Uni of Salford's Flickr photostream. It has some tasty compatible images in there, like this. Parrot of Doom 18:17, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Is page 6 of this any use?--J3Mrs (talk) 18:35, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Probably not. I just wondered if the bit past Trafford Road is technically still a canal, now that it is no longer used for its original purpose. Parrot of Doom 18:56, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I always thought that the limit of the canal was Woden Street footbridge (image here); wouldn't that be the case whatever its navigability? Mr Stephen (talk) 19:19, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That's correct, however only ships able to get under Trafford Road Swing Bridge are able to get that far, since the bridge is now fixed. Parrot of Doom 19:55, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * BTW, this report also says three railway lines. Parrot of Doom 19:24, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Workhouse
Make whatever changes you think are needed, you don't need my approval. If there's anything we don't agree on we can discuss that later. Malleus Fatuorum 20:44, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

... what I mean is, this isn't my article, it's our article. Malleus Fatuorum 21:05, 23 September 2011 (UTC)


 * BTW, have you seen this? It could only happen in Ireland. Malleus Fatuorum 21:10, 23 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes I saw that. I thought it had been decided that spontaneous combustion was most likely down to the slow burning of the body, using body fat as a fuel source?  I remember seeing the pictures in Unexplained (my favourite "grown up" magazine as a child). Parrot of Doom 21:21, 23 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I think for now, I'll just read it as a layman and offer my thoughts. Before I go hacking it to bits unnecessarily, that is.  I think though that with an article that covers so much time, you might want to create a modern view section or something similar (probably every article I've written has one of those, I'm biased!), the article begins with a modern historian's view, and that sits a little bit uncomfortably with me. Parrot of Doom 21:39, 23 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm open to any and all suggestions. Originally the article started off with a summary of the various Poor Laws, so at least it's now better than that. Malleus Fatuorum 21:43, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

You
Are pointed and ungracious. I'm not impressed at all. Say what you want after this but sarky edit fixes are cruel. Ceoil (talk) 21:01, 24 September 2011 (UTC)


 * These are the three edit summaries you find objectionable? "no, we're going back in time here" - you changed the timeline of that part of the article, an obvious mistake I corrected.  "prefer this way, more ambiguous" - I see nothing sarky about that, either.  I do prefer the article that way - your change wasn't reflective of the source used, which is more ambiguous than your edit.  Finally, "they were perfectly able to afford to demolish them" - is absolutely correct.  If you must know, the railway companies' objections were that high-level bridges would necessitate them spending money on locomotives and extra things to pull their loads up the new inclines.  They were being obstructive because the canal was an obvious competitor - this type of behaviour was absolutely typical of railway companies.  The issue of these bridges had nothing to do with the ship canal company's finances.


 * Rather than make edits based on guesswork, if you're not clear on what is meant by what you read, perhaps you should ask first? What you shouldn't do is come here bitching when someone corrects the mistakes you've made.  Believe me, if I wanted to be sarky, you'd know about it. Parrot of Doom 21:34, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Or in other words fuck off, Im a smug cunt who knows better than to deal with the likes of you. Ask you if I can c/e an FAC? Get lost. There are ways to deal with helpful strangers that you have not got the hang of yet; enjoy that. I wont be talked down to, espically in retrospect when you are rationalising, and using phrases like "Rather than". I have an impression, and am gone. Ceoil (talk) 21:45, 24 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I didn't say you needed permission to copyedit an FAC. What I meant was that if that if you aren't sure what something means, instead of editing it and changing its meaning entirely, perhaps you should first ask?  You introduced three errors into the article, and I corrected them - and only them.  I didn't swear at you, I wasn't sarcastic, "pointed" or "ungracious", and I'm certainly not a "smug cunt".


 * You come to my talk page making baseless accusations, call me all kinds of names and then flounce off in a huff? Jesus, some people.  Review the article, don't review it.  Edit it, don't edit it, I don't care.  Just don't presume I'll be impressed by anyone chucking their toys from the pram as spectacularly as you just have. Parrot of Doom 21:58, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * dude I was the one supporting the FAC and trying to help. You are the ice queen; no thanks, its already perfect; feck off. See what I mean about sumg. Ceoil (talk) 22:14, 24 September 2011 (UTC)


 * If you're expecting me to apologise or something, you'll have a very long wait. You're behaving like a child.  Unless you have something constructive to say, don't post here again.   Oh, and stop reverting the article, the changes you made are improvements. Parrot of Doom 22:20, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thats about all I expected as a responce from you, as I say I have an impression. As a word of advice, be nicer to clueless but trying editors in future, talk, encourage and work with them; it will give results and will be rewarding. And leave you bitterness at the door. As you prob realised by now; nobody gives a fuck. Ceoil (talk) 22:24, 24 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Second time Ceoil - stop editing my talk page. I no longer have any interest in anything you have to say. Parrot of Doom 22:30, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Ive supported the article, and its a sincear and detched vote, I was actually in support mode from the nom on. Its a typically stong page from you. I do respect and actually follow your work here, perhalps I got defensive. I found your edit summaries a bit hurtful, and lashed out. Ceoil (talk) 23:05, 24 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Kiss and make up you two? 23:37, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * As long as there are no tongues or under the shirt business, whatever. 23:42, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry for acting like a pre madonna last night POD, I always thought you are a fine editor, and maybe I should grow thicker skin. The article is typically stong and as I said in the FAC, very readable and engaging. Ceoil (talk) 13:22, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Ceoil has sent me a very nice and apologetic email about his actions last night, which I put down to a bad mood, or too much drink, or a combination of both. I'm happy to say the matter is now forgotten. Parrot of Doom 21:05, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * How can you have too much drink? Malleus Fatuorum 21:10, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That's probably what I asked myself on New Year's Eve in Bolton, 1990. I found the answer that night. Parrot of Doom 21:12, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I like both of guys and have huge respect for you as editors - but just gotta say this: PoD there's a reason Ceoil's edits are full of spelling mistakes and it sure as hell has nothing to do with "too much drink". Think about it, think how hard it might be to consistently produce the quality of work he does, and think about whether saying he was drunk (on a public website) was constructive. In the time I've known him he's supported 3 FACS - 2 were yours, one mine. Truthkeeper (talk) 11:32, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I wasn't referring to his spelling mistakes, I was referring to his behaving so out of character. I view being drunk as something to be admired, not embarrassed about.  Anyway, like I said, it's water under the bridge and I hold no grudges. Parrot of Doom 14:13, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

A pathetic thing, I know
This is one of my early endeavours here, a pathetic thing I know but surely it could be made into a GA? Along with Chorlton Water Park? They're both important elements of the flood defences in the Mersey Valley. Malleus Fatuorum 00:27, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Not as important as the Mersey though, whose article is in bad shape. Richerman! Parrot of Doom 10:08, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah but... when I worked on the Irwell article I was working just across the road from the Salford Local history library and they had a drawerful of newspaper clippings about it. Not the case any more but I could have a look at the Scousers' river I suppose. Richerman (talk) 10:16, 27 September 2011 (UTC)