User talk:Parrot of Doom/Archives/2012/July

46 Lower Belgrave Street
I noticed the above thread about Lord Lucan's article, and I noticed the request for a photo of 46 Lower Belgrave Street. I don't live in that area (heh), but I do visit it fairly frequently and will be there this Sunday and would have the time to take a series of photos (hopefully it won't be raining). What sort of thing would you be looking for exactly? I could do shots of the street, of number 46, and of the pub (The Plumber's Arms), where there is (or was last time I looked when having a drink there) a framed description of events that made that pub (briefly) famous. I might photograph that for interest, but probably can't upload that. I can do the pub, street and number 46 though. Would that be useful and is there anything else that might be of interest? Carcharoth (talk) 06:38, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That'd be great! I think the house, individual shots framed for either side of the page?  A landscape shot showing its ground floor front door, railing and window.  A portrait shot from the other side of the street showing the entire house.  72a Elizabeth Street would be a bonus, as would the Clermont Club in nearby Berkeley Square? Parrot of Doom 08:38, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * OK. I'll see what I can do, though it is dreary and overcast as I feared. Elizabeth Street is in walking distance, but if I have the right location for the Clermont Club that looks a bit further away, so will have to wait for another time unless you know someone going past that area. Hopefully things will brighten up when I get the camera out! Carcharoth (talk) 07:11, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't worry about the sun, that often makes things more difficult. It's really just so the reader understands where the basement, the exterior staircase and front door are in relation to oneanother.  I don't know how experienced you are as a photographer, if you're at amateur level then just shoot a gazillion similar shots and I'll choose the better ones. Parrot of Doom 10:19, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Exterior staircase? Um, there was a short flight of stairs from the front door down to the street level, but nothing I'd call an exterior staircase (though I didn't look for any stairs to the basement level). I may not have time to upload the shots this morning, but will do so tonight. It was definitely number 46, unless they have renumbered the houses... (will have to do 72a Elizabeth Road and Clermont Club another time). Carcharoth (talk) 05:53, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Originally the house had a staircase from the street to the basement (which had a separate front door). The new owners may have removed it for security purposes.  Thanks very much for your efforts. Parrot of Doom 08:14, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay. The pictures are in a gallery below (feel free to copy this to the article talk page if that is a better place):

The second and third picture are for context, with the latter including 46 Lower Belgrave Street, just to the right of centre. The street ends at this point, which is why the numbering at left is different, as those buildings are part of Eaton Square. Hopefully the fourth and fifth pictures fit what you were asking for. Carcharoth (talk) 10:16, 30 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Those are very much appreciated Carcharoth, thank you very much for doing this. I'll have a fiddle around with some of them and put the results into the article. Parrot of Doom 09:51, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Glad I was able to help. I noticed the tweaks, crops and changes made (it made them disappear from my list of uploads, I'll have to remember that and get round to doing a gallery in my Commons userspace instead). Image editing is something I should get more involved with at some point. The vertical shot of the house was taken with the camera tilted upwards slightly, which may account for some of the distortion. Carcharoth (talk) 13:32, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Here's a radical idea
Wouldn't it be nice if there was a higher standard of entry before editors were allowed to mess with FAs, and perhaps even GAs? How much time do we all waste in reverting the drip, drip, drip of crap to articles like the Moors murders? We worked bloody hard on that, too hard to let any Tom, Dick or Harry add their favourite uncited crap. Again, and again, and a-fucking-gain. Malleus Fatuorum 19:39, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * What about that thing a while back that prevented automatic changes to important articles? Perhaps that should have been instated on FAs.  Although to be honest, most of the FAs I edited before 2011 need attention I think. Parrot of Doom 22:42, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You mean that pending changes fiasco? It's about to be re-introduced, in December I think. And to be equally honest, whenever I look at an article I wrote I think "WTF were you on when you wrote that?" Malleus Fatuorum 22:46, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It isn't all bad, Wife selling is still excellent. I'm still quite proud of Cock Lane ghost and Hanged, drawn and quartered - despite the unfortunate attention that received.  I fancy trying my hand at the burning of women next, but I'm struggling to find good sources. Parrot of Doom 22:53, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Wife selling is only still excellent because we've so far managed to fight off the WMF gender-related crap. Malleus Fatuorum 23:14, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * To be honest it wasn't a difficult fight since the arguments were quite weak. I'm sticking firmly to morbid, weird and wonderful articles now, they have the benefits of not seeing much traffic and requiring in-depth knowledge that can't easily be found on't'internet. Parrot of Doom 11:44, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

User Philip Cross
Noticed your spat with user Philip Cross on David Starkey talk page. Please keep an eye on him. I've noticed him on several other wikipedia articles too. He seems far from neutral and quite the radical far left activist, nevermind being quite immature-minded. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.116.56.231 (talk) 14:19, 4 July 2012 (UTC) Please consider reporting him with a proposal for a ban on
 * I share your suspicions. Anyone who thinks that balancing criticism of an individual, by citing the critic, somehow makes an article more neutral, has a screw loose. Parrot of Doom 16:18, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Credo Reference Update & Survey (your opinion requested)
Credo Reference, who generously donated 400 free Credo 250 research accounts to Wikipedia editors over the past two years, has offered to expand the program to include 100 additional reference resources. Credo wants Wikipedia editors to select which resources they want most. So, we put together a quick survey to do that:


 * Link to Survey (should take between 5-10 minutes): http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/N8FQ6MM

It also asks some basic questions about what you like about the Credo program and what you might want to improve.

At this time only the initial 400 editors have accounts, but even if you do not have an account, you still might want to weigh in on which resources would be most valuable for the community (for example, through WikiProject Resource Exchange).

Also, if you have an account but no longer want to use it, please leave me a note so another editor can take your spot.

If you have any other questions or comments, drop by my talk page or email me at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com. Cheers! Ocaasit &#124; c 17:27, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism revert
Hi Parrot of Doom, I reverted vandalism in your talk archives here. Hope you don't mind. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 14:33, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Not at all, it's the same dickhead who's been hounding Nev1 for months. Feel free to recommend his block wherever you find him. Parrot of Doom 15:45, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It's strange how these anonymous Is are fawned over, isn't it. If you or I had done even a fraction of what that dickhead's done we'd have been well and truly banned by now, not just subjected to another short block. Malleus Fatuorum 16:35, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * And they wonder why editors leave, truly astonishing.J3Mrs (talk) 16:47, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * A friend asked that I keep an eye open too. ✅. Drop me a note if you need anything. Chedzilla (talk) 01:41, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Would any admin watching this please protect this page forever, so that this silly idiot IP can't keep reverting it? Hopefully he'll then find something more interesting to do, like leave his bedroom and enter the real world. Parrot of Doom 08:15, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It might be worth talking to an admin you know or going to WP:RPP. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 08:26, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * ✅ .. see User:Chedzilla if you need anything else. — Ched : ?  12:53, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Parrot of Doom 13:41, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Richard John Bingham, 7th Earl of Lucan
Hi, congratulations on the FA, I have added it to Law Biographies here, but you might want to move it. We don't seem to have a category for criminal biographies. Graham Colm (talk) 18:10, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * As he's never been tried for anything he's not a criminal is he? Richerman ''   (talk) 18:51, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * He's not a convicted criminal, a bit like the case of John Bodkin Adams. Everyone knows the fucker did it. . Malleus Fatuorum 20:32, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I think I'd recommend putting it in peerage/royalty/blue blood, etc. Parrot of Doom 20:55, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Why didn't I think of doing that :-) Graham Colm (talk) 21:07, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * PS. If someone had told me all those years ago that one day I would wonder what to do with Lord Lucan, I would have thought that they were mad. Ironically, I knew Barry Halpin. During the 1990s, I spent most Christmases/New Years in Goa (to escape the UK winters). He was known as Jungle Barry, for reasons I never understood. He died in 1996 alone in a small, single room near the Baga River. He was cremated in Goa. The semi-resident ex-pat hippies put a couple of ounces of marijuana resin on his pyre. Graham Colm (talk) 21:37, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you imagine spending a few months/years writing a book you believed would make the bestseller section, only to find within days that every newspaper was reporting on what a huge pile of shit it was.


 * Actually I can, it's called FAC :D Parrot of Doom 22:05, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes I can, I have been there. Graham Colm (talk) 22:22, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Irrelevant Info Put Into Wish You Were Here Track Listing Issue
Hi Parrot of Doom, I am here to say that your contributions to the Wish You Were Here track listings issue have been irrelevant. You claim that a book written by Glenn Privey has no mention of the early vinyl version without the tracks in debate. What does that have to do with anything? If this Glenn person wrote a book, so what? Maybe he didn't know about the original vinyl release. You are stating facts that are not relevant to the issue and making it sound like its a big deal. If you have important information on the topic please say it. But irrelevant information is not wanted. LirkMclean (talk) 09:25, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I can at least read Povey's book, considered a reliable source, to verify if something written on Wikipedia is accurate. Considering the depth of research that's gone into his book (it is a huge tome) I find it unlikely that you know something he doesn't.


 * The fact is, if you want to assert that you're correct, you have to do so by citing a reliable source. If you can't do that, your edits won't stand.  And that's the end of the matter. Parrot of Doom 15:49, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Number of Issues of Eagle (Comic) 1982 to1994
Hi,

perfectly happy with the compromise of over 500 issues. possibly the high number came from Steve Holland's Fleetway Companion- - which is excellent but I'm not sure if there are typos or he deliberately puts errors in to catch anyone who copies his data. However 505 is more accurate. I have copies of all 505 issues. Not all issues were numbered but all issues were dated.

Numbered issues are:

1 (27/03/1982)to 3(10/04/1982)

99 (11/02/1984) to 100 (18/02/1984)

127 (25/08/1984) to 158 (30/03/1985)

163 (04/05/1985) to 344(22/10/1988)

The breakdown of total number of issues is as follows:

Weekly issues:

1982 - 1(27/03/1982) to 40 (25/12/1982)= 40 issues

1983 - 41 (01/01/1983) to 93 (31/12/1983) = 53 issues

1984 - 94 (07/01/1984) to 145(29/12/1984) = 52 issues

1985 - 146(05/01/1985) to 197 (28/12/1985) = 52 issues

1986 - 198 (04/01/1986) to 249(27/12/1986) = 52 issues

1987 - 250 (03/01/1987) to 301 (26/12/1987)= 52 issues

1988 - 302 (02/01/1988) to 354 (31/12/1988)= 53 issues

1989 - 355 (07/01/1989) to 406 (30/12/1989) = 52 issues

1990 - 407 (06/01/1990) to 458 (29/12/1990) = 52 issues

1991 - 459 (05/01/1991) to 472 (06/04/1991) = 14 issues

Monthly issues:

1991 - 473 (May 1991) to 480(December 1991) = 8 issues

1992 - 481 (January 1992) to 492 (December 1992) = 12 issues

1993 - 493 (January 1993) to 504 (December 1993) = 12 issues

1994 - 505 (January 1994 including announcement of last issue)= 1 issue

Total issues = 40 + 53 + 52 + 52 + 52 + 52 +53 +52 + 52 + 14 + 8 + 12 + 12 + 1 = 505

not included in the count are:

Eagle Annuals (1983 to 1991) = 9 issues

Eagle Yearbooks (1992) = 1 issue

Eagle Holiday Specials (1983 to 1990) = 8 issues

Best Of Eagle - 1 (Dated May 1988) to 6 (dated October 1988) = 6 issues

Regards Djw300 (talk) 19:13, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * You're a lucky man. My mum decided that I was too old for comics and got rid of them without asking me.  I wasn't best pleased... Parrot of Doom 22:13, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Main page appearance: Manchester Ship Canal
This is a note to let the main editors of Manchester Ship Canal know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on July 19, 2012. You can view the TFA blurb at Today's featured article/July 19, 2012. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director or his delegate, or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:



The Manchester Ship Canal is a river navigation 36 miles (58 km) long in the North West of England. Starting at the Mersey Estuary near Liverpool, it generally follows the original routes of the rivers Mersey and Irwell through the historic counties of Cheshire and Lancashire. Major landmarks along its route include the Barton Swing Aqueduct and Trafford Park. By the late 19th century the Mersey and Irwell Navigation had fallen into disrepair and was often unusable, and Manchester's business community viewed Liverpool's dock and the railway companies' charges as excessive. A ship canal was proposed as a way of giving ocean-going vessels direct access to Manchester. Construction began in 1887; it took six years and cost about £15 million. When the ship canal opened in January 1894 it was the largest river navigation canal in the world. Although it enabled the newly created Port of Manchester to become Britain's third busiest port—despite the city being about 40 miles (64 km) inland—the canal never achieved the commercial success its sponsors had hoped for. Ships often returned to sea loaded with ballast rather than goods for export, and gradually the balance of traffic moved to the west, resulting in the closure of the terminal docks at Salford. As of 2011, traffic had decreased from its peak in 1958 of 18 million long tons (20 million short tons) of freight each year to about 7 million long tons (7.8 million short tons). The canal is now privately owned by Peel Ports. (more...) UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

TFA
Hi Parrot of Doom. Interesting article on the Manchester Ship Canal. At WP:ERRORS, a quibble has come up about the lead sentence; if you (or one of your talk page watchers) get a chance, would you be able to explain there why "river navigation" is the correct term to describe the canal? Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 11:25, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Wigan
The point to the section I created in the Wigan article was to house a piece of information which in no way belongs in a section called "Pie-eaters" and which doesn't appear to be appropriate for any other section.

You should also note that, in your haste to undo my "pointless" edit, you have successfully removed the full stop I added to the end of the sentence. --Pace Hale (talk) 14:15, 22 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I hadn't noticed that piece of trivia and have removed it. I just have a bias against "In popular culture", which is a posh way of saying "trivia". Parrot of Doom 14:32, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Lord Lucan
Looks you're going to lose the rename proposal, but the way you're handling Lady Lucan's objections looks pretty good to me. Far more interesting than the interminable discussions about whether in running prose it should be "The Beatles" or "the Beatles". Of course it should be "the fucking Beatles", not the ridiculous "the fucking The Beatles"! How does it feel to have a peer of the realm on your case? Malleus Fatuorum 21:46, 22 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not that bothered about the renaming proposal (although it puzzles me tbh, who in their right mind thinks that the Light Brigade Lucan is more famous than the vanishing Lucan) but Lady Lucan's objections might be difficult to deal with. I think she's had a hell of a lot to deal with in her life and some people, mentioning no names but the upper-crust lot who played around with the police during the murder investigation, have only made that worse.  So you're left with a woman who's become famous for the wrong reasons and who is isolated from her children, trying to set the record straight from her unique perspective.  You have an author (Moore) who clearly thinks Lord Lucan was the best thing since sliced bread and who, in my opinion, has a problem with Lady Lucan (she even hints that the Countess may have murdered the nanny).  Then you have a police inspector privvy to most of the facts who points out the obvious - if it wasn't Lucan, who was it?  A rabid press hungry for anything they can find (hence the number of mis-identifications), a number of "expert" authors who've published a load of old rope (Jungle Barry for example).  It's all a bit of a mess and frankly I'm a little bit surprised that the list of complaints isn't much longer than it is.  I know authors make mistakes all the time so it's going to be a case of looking at the arguments on all sides and using a bit of common sense.


 * I don't think Lady Lucan is "on my case" so to speak, I think she's had nearly 40 years to think about what happened and just wants to set the record straight, as she sees it. She isn't going to get everything she's asked for, but hopefully she'll be happy that the place most people will come to read about her husband offers the most detailed, unbiased and reliable biography that exists on the internet.  That's all I want, too. Parrot of Doom 21:59, 22 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I recall we had similar issues with the Moors murder article, and I even had them with the Pendle witches. It's impossible to please everyone when you're trying to present a balanced view. But as you say, Lady Lucan has a unique view of events; stuff like her date of birth and where she was born though, I'd give her the benefit of doubt on that. Malleus Fatuorum 22:11, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually she looks like quite a fox in her photograph, but don't tell her I said that, might be treasonable. ;-) Malleus Fatuorum 22:15, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution IRC office hours.
Hello there. As you expressed interest in hearing updates to my research in the dispute resolution survey that was done a few months ago, I just wanted to let you know that I am hosting an IRC office hours session this coming Saturday, 28th July at 19:00 UTC (approximately 12 hours from now). This will be located in the IRC channel - if you have not participated in an IRC discussion before you can connect to IRC here.

Regards, User:Szhang (WMF) (talk) 07:05, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Know your place
If you vandalise any pages again, you will be blocked 86.12.129.2 (talk) 10:14, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Dream on sunshine. Parrot of Doom 10:54, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

You will not be warned again. 86.12.129.2 (talk) 11:23, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I have blocked this IP account for 48 hours for contravening WP:HAR. Graham Colm (talk) 11:32, 29 July 2012 (UTC)