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

Dark Side of the Moon
You are probably right about my edit(s) not resulting in an improvement. However, I think it is important to be accurate about the incomplete lack of long instrumental work, and failing to correct in some manner the sentence preceding the one I was inserting makes the lede paragraph inaccurate (regardless of whether the entire article does provide correct information). I will open a new section on the article's chat page and try to do a better job of making the needed change than I did with my first attempt. I am sure that musicians and lovers of the album in question would agree that voice as instrument is not non-instrumental. Whether it is some kind of half-way is probably a matter of differing opinion, but non-mention is a slight, however mild in context, to the 5th track and its method.Julzes (talk) 19:54, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately your proposed changes constitute original research and, as they were limited only to the lead section of the article, fell foul of the guidelines at WP:LEAD. Parrot of Doom 20:03, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Your objection was on grounds of original research? Well, the simple movement of material around that I just did (which I think in terms of content is the same as what I did in the first place) cannot be accused of that. Because there were no references? Are you sure you are talking about my edit? My edit is primarily about correcting a sentence in the lede by making room for the voice as an instrument. That almost seems like an opinion matter where I'd be pretty confident of a win.Julzes (talk) 20:42, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No, my objection was on the grounds of original research and formatting of the lead. And I've reverted your most recent changes, since they are clearly inappropriate for what is, after all, a simple summary of the article. Parrot of Doom 20:48, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I had to undo because you have not considered the talk page and I have not considered fully your objection either.Julzes (talk) 20:51, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * DSotM is a featured article, if you want to make significant changes to it then it is you who must first discuss the matter. I will continue to revert whatever changes you make until you or someone else convinces me your arguments are sound. Parrot of Doom 20:55, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

'Be bold' is policy regardless, and you do not own the article or have the right to the notion that changes have to be convincing to you. Edit something else for a while. Please. You have already convinced me that you won't listen. Why should I speak directly to you?Julzes (talk) 21:10, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm going to have to ask you to fuck off now. Parrot of Doom 21:11, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I do prefer the article's talk page.Julzes (talk) 21:23, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I've decided to block you for edit warring at the aforementioned page; you made well over 3 reverts. Also, I've noticed, which is incivility (and well over the line). I've blocked you for 31 hours. You are welcome to appeal through the standard procedures.

Also, I've pulled your rollback flag, since you used it a few times in the edit war. --Rschen7754 23:36, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Good luck explaining how blocking someone when disruption is no longer possible is anything but a punitive measure. And good luck explaining how telling someone to fuck off is a case of "clear disruption, personal attacks, harassment or outing".  In short, you're a fucking disgrace. Parrot of Doom 23:49, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Welcome to your first block. You'll find that the others will follow much more readily now, until you get pissed off with the whole business and decide to do what everyone does in the end: bugger off. I've always had in my mind the image of the ancient knight in Monty Python's Holy Grail, guarding what was essentially just a lump of wood. Malleus Fatuorum 00:41, 13 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The haughty manner in which this block was applied tells me everything I need to know about its wielder, especially the manner in which rollback was removed. I'm not a child, in fact I'm almost twice his age.  Rschen can go fuck himself. Parrot of Doom 07:56, 13 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Could he? Depends on the age of consent in whichever backward state of America he lives I suppose ... btw, did you know that the Vatican has the lowest age of consent in Europe, possibly the world, at 12 years of age? Malleus Fatuorum 09:41, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * PS. As you know, I've been where you are now many times, but you really have to experience it to appreciate how it feels. From my own experience I'd say that there's one golden rule, and that's let them go screw themselves; begging for the block to be lifted, apologising for stuff you don't agree you did ... is simply demeaning. Which of course is the intention, and probably gives a 15-year-old kid like Rschen a hard-on. Malleus Fatuorum 09:50, 13 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh I won't be asking for the block to be lifted, believe me. The day I go with a begging bowl to some self-entitled god-bothering American civility warrior will be the day I immolate myself next to a garden shovel, in front of a sign that says "Use shovel to extinguish flames". Parrot of Doom 10:03, 13 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Good, that saves me a job then. Because as sure as eggs is eggs, if I saw you making an unblock request I'd hunt you down and immolate you myself. Or alternatively I'd invite you for a pint and try to return you to your senses. Fuck 'em I say. Malleus Fatuorum 10:08, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Rschen's blocking finally measures up to his contributions to discussions, after reading and understanding written English, which has been negligible in my experience. His biological age, which may or may not be over the bright line of 18/21, doesn't matter.
 * In football, a referee who went around (aping an American referee in baseball or basketball) looking for fouls to call, and disrupting the game (because of an inability to understand his limited place), would be told to "fuck off". Americans have difficulty understanding that they should let the players play. Nobody but an idiot enforces all the rules, as Saul Alinsky noted. Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  11:56, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * A page protection would have been sufficient to stop edit warring. A warning or yellow card was of course an option. A block was a bit much, especially considering the featured article status. Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  12:32, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree, but unfortunately when venom follows venom, it completely strips me of the ability to persuade the blocking admin. I have always made myself available to anyone requesting that I ask another admin to reconsider an action, but if the well is poisoned, there isn't much I can do.  The block was within the letter of the policy here, even though I agree that other options are better suited to the situation.  Now that it has degraded into ad hominem observations, my persuasive abilities are likely inadequate for the task.  In the future, I would offer my talk page as a first and final stop.   Dennis Brown  -  2&cent;   &copy;  13:13, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, Dennis, as impressed as I am in your self-confidence that you'd have been able to persuade the blocking admin, I hope you'll accept that sometimes it is important to draw an admin's attention to why their actions were a long way short of what was needed in the situation. So if you no longer believe that you can influence Rschen to reconsider his hasty actions, then perhaps you can join with those who feel they may at least give him cause to reflect on why it may be a bad idea to repeat them. Cheers, --RexxS (talk) 19:14, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "A bad idea to repeat them?" No, actually I think from Rschen7754's perspective, he's gotten everything his five-year-old brain wants. He's gotten the other kids to stand with their noses in the corner without so much as a slap on the wrist from anyone else. If anything, this kind of decision just reinforces that he can parade around throwing wrenches into the gears of this site and get away with it. Friginator (talk) 20:06, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I did put my money where my mouth was, and approached the admin on their talk page (as did others) and participated at a discussion on this very topic at the Village Pump, adding my concern to a thread that Dr. Blofeld started. I can't do much about this block at this time (which is technically within policy), but I am focused on the bigger problem that led to it.  What I would love to see instead is 50 exceedingly polite people voice their concerns on the talk page of any admin who blocks too aggressively with established editors.  This is completely impossible to dismiss or ignore and would actually be more effective as you are giving them no ammunition to attack you with.  Ghandi was on to something.  It isn't easy to be so disciplined, but it is much more effective, I can assure you.   Dennis Brown  -  2&cent;   &copy;  20:02, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

How are these blocks "technically within policy"? The blocking admin protected the page and then 30 minutes later said "I've decided to block you for edit warring at the aforementioned page; you made well over 3 reverts" Blocks are not supposed to be punitive - they are to prevent disruption. The edit war was stopped 30 minutes previously but the admin clearly decided because there was an ongoing heated argument between the two editors that he'd punish them for their earlier edit war. PoD had told Julzes, in rather colourful language, to stop posting on his talk page. Julszes didn't ask the admin to stick his nose in, I doubt if he would have posted on this page again, so these blocks weren't stopping disruption but were clearly punitive, which is against policy. The whole notion of blocks not being punitive is a complete fiction anyway as they are of varying lengths depending on the "severity" of the supposed offence. If they weren't punitive they would all be of the same length - long enough to calm down the situation - and longer ones would only be given out to those who carried on causing disruption after first block Richerman ''   (talk) 21:18, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That's an interesting analysis of block lengths, which hadn't occurred to me before. The thing I've always found strange though is that the longer you've been here the more savagely you're treated. IP editors get away with murder, but a simple "fuck off" from one of the rather few editors who actually contribute something of value here results in a deliberately demeaning block. Malleus Fatuorum 21:38, 13 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Rules only apply to those who aren't capable of enforcing them Richerman. For instance, there's a "rule" that says that blocks are preventative, not punitive.  Admins are required to follow the rules, are they not?
 * I could say a lot more on this subject but, instead, I'll just point people in the direction of the number of articles I've dragged out of the mire and into some semblance of order; sometimes collaboratively, very often on my own. Then I'll suggest that the trigger-happy admins and their sycophants who think that my presence here is disruptive and my language unhelpful, the people who doubt my commitment to improving this encyclopaedia, ask themselves a simple question: what the fuck were they doing, while I was doing that? Parrot of Doom 21:42, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * There are far too many people on here who seem to get a buzz out of wielding a bit of power rather than contributing useful content. I went to the "in the news" pages for the first time a couple of weeks ago to get the Transit of Venus, 2012 article featured in the ITN section. The nomination had already been made by someone else but it was vociferously opposed by some idiot who professes an interest in astronomy but thought the event was too unimportant. I jumped through various hoops to get the article included only to find out that he seems to spend all his time on there opposing nominations. Believe it or not, he opposed the nomination for the death of Ray Bradbury because he wasn't to sure who he was and, having looked him up, couldn't think of anything else he'd done other than Farenheit 451. Then, when I looked at his user page I found he'd been on wikipedia since 2008 and had produced one article, which was a stub and is tagged as having no references. He's also made "notable contributions" to a grand total of eight other articles. It's perhaps just as well I didn't find all that out until after the event or I probably would have been blocked myself for incivility by now. Richerman ''   (talk) 22:14, 13 June 2012 (UTC)


 * See now, this is the kind of nonsense I now have to deal with. Apparently I'm to blame because I didn't canvass the opinions of those who might be sympathetic to my view.  I despair. Parrot of Doom 11:25, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for inviting me back.
Now, please do tell me where editing out another person's words from an article's talkpage has an exception including words that criticize your behavior in editing. And, no, the block you received did not occur because of your incivility in word choice. At least I do not believe this to have been the case. In my opinion, it merely made your block a bit longer than mine.Julzes (talk) 11:41, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:FORUM and I have not claimed my block was due to incivility. Now fuck off my talk page, I didn't invite you back.  In fact I'd rather shove wasps up my arse than waste my time talking to you. Parrot of Doom 11:44, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I have just read through some of this and I am so sorry that someone who was only looking after a featured article should be blocked and then harrassed. Like MF, you have such a wonderfully graphic turn of phrase, I'm glad you haven't gone too as I would miss it. J3Mrs (talk) 12:56, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I should say I had no idea so many people would read this page (either by watching it or, as is likely, through Malleus's page), and I'd like to thank those who agree that my block was inappropriate. Parrot of Doom 14:14, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree too. I have written this new essay which was inspired by, and indirectly honours, your forthrightness. But it also offers a suggestion for a more passive-aggressive approach, which I hope may suit some people. Regards, Bishonen &#124; talk 15:18, 14 June 2012 (UTC).


 * I prefer the honest and direct route, the trouble is that many people (Americans tbh) just don't get what the average fuck, off means. Parrot of Doom 17:02, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't go that far. As an American, I find both you and MF distinctly refreshing. Intothatdarkness (talk) 22:18, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Parrot, I should stalk you more--I would have known earlier. Congratulations on having a block log now. FWIW, I fully understand your edits and am not sure I understand why a block was issued after protection, and I know I'm preaching to the choir. As an old, fatherly figure (ahem), I have advice to offer of course, but I'll keep that to myself for now. I will toast you later this evening. Best, and I'm sorry all this happened, Drmies (talk) 16:54, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * As I've always said, a block won't change the way I do things here. I've just created 65kb of entirely new article in under a fortnight, so long as crap articles about fascinating subjects exist, I'll be here. Parrot of Doom 20:04, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Now that the administrators have become emboldened, I'd bet a pound to a penny that your second block comes round way faster than your first. There's obviously a massive culture gap here though, but I really fail to see why it's supposed to be us that changes rather than the Puritans. It struck me quite forcefully last night, while I was watching a comedy programme called Live at the Electric, on BBC Three or Four I think. It ended with a spoof rock band singing a song with the chorus "You can take your admin job and fuck it in your ear", which the audience quite happily joined in singing. As I said, why should we be expected to revert to a state of childishness simply to appease a few Puritanical Americans. Why don't they fuck off if they don't like the way that adults sometimes talk to each other? Malleus Fatuorum 11:41, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * This is exactly what happens when children who don't write articles are given authority. Bollocks to them, let them come and block me.  More than 300,000 people looked at Wife selling Malleus, we're the ones doing it right, not them.  Thatcher won't be around much longer, just imagine how many people will go to look at that. Parrot of Doom 12:38, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm certainly glad that we did the work on Thatcher to get it back to GA, and I'm still pleased with what we did with the Moors murders, as Brady surely can't have much time left either. It seems to me though that working on top-end content like that is part of the 3RR problem though. When Randy from Boise and his school mates decide that it's imperative that Guy Fawkes discusses the significance of V for Vendetta, or some feminism warrior decides that wife selling in 18th-century England was a sexist practice, how many administrators are equipped to be able take a view on whether the article is being improved or degraded by such additions? As opposed to just counting reversions? What we're really being asked to do is to sit back biting our tongue while we watch our hard work being slowly degraded to the kind of grey goo typical of 99.99% of Wikipedia articles. And that's just something I could never do, no matter what the cost. Malleus Fatuorum 12:52, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That's exactly why I reverted Julzes's edits, as I felt they were tripe. Rschen obviously spent his 40 minutes or so looking through my talk page history and arguments in places like ANI, rather than looking at the article's history and its sources.  So much for disruption - lock the article, block the two editors for being naughty, make a longer block on one for saying naughty rude words, and remove "privileges" for good measure.  What a cunt. Parrot of Doom 13:02, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Rollback isn't much of a privilege. Even when I had it I hardly ever used it, and I've certainly never missed it; Twinkle is so much easier. IIRC I asked for rollback to be removed as an act of solidarity with WebHamster after it was taken from him because he allegedly misused it once. Strange how one mistake by an non-administrator has to be punished, whereas administrators bumble along fucking up for years and years, supported by their admin mates. Malleus Fatuorum 13:15, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * What's "rollback"? I apparently have it but have no idea why or what it's for. J3Mrs (talk) 13:20, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It allows you to undo a series of edits made by a user, rather than just the most recent one. Malleus Fatuorum 13:24, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds too complicated for me. Q2 What's Twinkle? I'm beginning to feel rather disadvantaged here :-( J3Mrs (talk) 13:29, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Rollback is handy for dealing with vandalism, other than that, it is not very helpful. I seldom use it.  Twinkle is a script/tool set that makes automated edits possible, such as tagging articles, and other tasks that use templates.  Twinkle is quite handy.  WP:Twinkle   Dennis Brown  -  2&cent;   &copy;  13:35, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I read that but unfortunately am no wiser. I'll stick to writing where I half know what I'm doing. J3Mrs (talk) 13:55, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Try it out, it's really very useful. Just go to My preferences/Gadgets and click on Twinkle. Malleus Fatuorum 13:59, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Twinkle will just add more drop down boxes in your interface, making it much easier and faster (and consistent) for tagging articles for speedy delete, prod, blpprod, AFD, maintenance tags, giving editors notices or warnings, reporting violations to admin boards, welcoming users, etc. It is very unobtrusive and just occupies a TW drop down tab next to your current Page - User - Read - Edit menu.  I resisted for a long time, but now couldn't image living without it.   Dennis Brown  -  2&cent;   &copy;  14:10, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hee,hee - I think you just confused the lady even more. To use rollback is simple - when you look the history of edits on a page the last one will have 'rollback' next to 'undo'. If you click on that it will undo all the edits that editor has just made and just leave a standard edit summary saying their edits have been reverted. It means you don't have to go back undoing them one by one, but it's only to be used for obvious vandal edits. Richerman ''   (talk) 15:01, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but was more referring to Twinkle. I'm fully capable of thinking clearly, but it sometimes gets lost on the way to the keyboard.   Dennis Brown  -  2&cent;   &copy;  15:12, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Not to worry, I did as MF suggested. I now have Twinkle but no idea what to do with it hey-ho. (Richerman, you are indeed a mindreader) Dennis, thank you but you obviously don't know that I am somewhat challenged about anything technical. J3Mrs (talk) 15:20, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

When you view an article's history now you'll see a rollback option as well as the usual undo. Clicking on that will revert the article back to the state it was in before that editor touched it, very useful sometimes. And whenever PoD want his talk page page I'm sure he won't be backwards in coming forwards to tell us all to fuck off. Now, I must get myself mentally prepared for England's match against Sweden later this evening by consuming a life-threatening quantity of alcohol. Mañana. Possibly. Malleus Fatuorum 15:46, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm better with football than computers, I even understand off-side but I think anaesthesia by alcohol is possibly the best way to watch England, the world's most difficult and frustrating team to watch. J3Mrs (talk) 15:55, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * There's soccer tonight? Good, nice quiet roads for my daily bike ride. Parrot of Doom 16:58, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Lucan
If you'd like an updating of 1970s money to modern equivalents, I could offer you something like I've done at Marshal Foch Professor of French Literature. I used just to use inflation but got Fifelfoo to improve my comparisons and I agree with his approach now. It might help indicate the scale of the earl's financial problems - he ran up the equivalent of £780,000 of debt in one month?? (And I thought my wife went over the top with her credit cards from time to time...) Let me know; no problem if not. BencherliteTalk 15:02, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much, feel free to do that if you're confident it'll pass through FAC unhindered. The calculations would also have to apply to the bankruptcy section too. Parrot of Doom 17:20, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll have a go tomorrow and run it past you here before I add it to the article. If you're not a fan, I'll remove my oar. Pip pip. BencherliteTalk 17:34, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Go for it. So long as its correct I don't mind.  If anything I'm glad someone has said there isn't enough detail in the article, usually it's the other way around! Parrot of Doom 19:27, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Lucan footnotes

 * On leaving the army in 1955 Lucan joined a London-based merchant bank, William Brandt's Sons and Co, on an annual salary of £500.


 * Losing the court case proved devastating for Lucan.... the earl ran up debts of around £50,000.


 * As Lucan's bankruptcy proceeded, in August 1975 his creditors were informed that the missing earl had unsecured debts of £45,000 and preferential liabilities for £1,326. His assets were estimated at £22,632.[118] The family silver was sold in March 1976 for £33,732.


 * Footnotes


 * References

What do you think? BencherliteTalk 14:37, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think that RPI is the best calculation basis for these conversions, and certainly share of GDP isn't; that's only appropriate for capital projects IMO. For Lucan's annual salary of £500 in 1955, for instance, I'd say you should be using average earnings, which gives an equivalent of £27,100 as of 2010 according to measuringworth.com. Malleus Fatuorum 15:01, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I have to say I have absolutely no idea about any of this, so I'll leave it to those that have. The formatting looks ok to me though. Parrot of Doom 15:27, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * And I'm now wondering what to do, because I checked with Fifelfoo (who I thought was the go-to guy for such things) about using GDP conversions for a 19th-century wage at User talk:Fifelfoo and he (and a talk-page stalker) agreed with my note. So I think I will not bother trying to add conversions to the (already excellent) Lucan article because clearly it's going to be more awkward to get agreement than I thought, particularly as it wouldn't make sense to update the silver sale price using average earnings IMHO and so we'd end up with a mish-mash of indices and explanations.  I don't want to cause PoD any headaches... BencherliteTalk 22:43, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * No problem, thank you for spending time having a go anyway. Now, if you still want to help I need a decent photograph of 46 Lower Belgrave Street in London :) Parrot of Doom 22:47, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm in London but my camera isn't, and although my iPhone has a camera it's probably not good enough for your purposes... But I do have a London library card with at-home access to the Times and Guardian archives, if that's of interest. (Incidentally, you switch between "the Times" and "The Times" in the article in question, and I know that there's one reviewer around here somewhere who always points out that it's "The Daily Telegraph", nothing less...).  BencherliteTalk 22:53, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * And our article on Earl of Lucan says that the baronetcy he holds/held is of Castlebar, Co Mayo in the Baronetage of Nova Scotia, not baronet of Nova Scotia. Perhaps you could double-check your reference? BencherliteTalk 23:07, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * We already do that ("end up with a mish-mash of indices and explanations") in the Gunpowder Plot article, for instance; see notes 5 and 6, and it's never been a problem. It seems obvious to me that we should use average earnings when discussing the present-day value of a 1955 salary, so I'm rather surprised that Fifelfoo agreed with using proportion of GDP. Malleus Fatuorum 02:07, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


 * This is why I'm wary of these things, I confess to not understanding them so I can't defend their inclusion in the article. Parrot of Doom 08:12, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Rollback
Hi. I've had a look at your content contributions, and I noticed that you did not have Rollback ability enabled. I think you're a contributor who could make good use of it, so I have enabled it for you - if I've made a mistake and you do not want it, please let me know and I'll remove it again. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:10, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "Eee's not a good contributor, eee's a very naughty boy!" (see last archive) Parrot of Doom 09:24, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * One heated (but well-intentioned) incident after three and a half years of trouble-free use of the facility resulted in its loss? I doubt a consensus would disagree with my restoring it to you. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:41, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * My thoughts exactly, but try telling that to the blocking admin. Parrot of Doom 11:39, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

re: Wish You Were Here (Pink Floyd album)
You initially weren't happy with the sources, so an additional reliable source was cited which does support the changes. Yet for some reason you reverted that as well. Did you even bother to read it? The information is accurate and properly sourced.Freshfighter9talk 18:31, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It helps to use edit summaries when you're making such changes, but the citation you've provided now does reflect what you wrote, so I apologise for reverting your last edit. However, the material you've added is more about the Immersion box sex so I'm going to shorten it by removing Mason's quote. Parrot of Doom 19:50, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Here's a quote you may recognize: "good-faith content editors can only put up with so much nonsense before they begin to question what good, if any, they're doing here." Take care. Freshfighter9talk 20:33, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I thought I apologised but you're obviously not interested, in which case neither am I. If you continue to add irrelevant material to a Featured Article, if you continue to use poor-quality sources and incorrectly-formatted citations, I will revert you.  I couldn't give a shit about being reported, so do whatever you like.  I'm not in the mood. Parrot of Doom 20:41, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Here's the problem: you claim that you're now OK with the material being added, and you claim the sources now meet with your approval.... but then you go ahead and revert everything anyway. Not a great way to avoid conflict, in my opinion. At any rate, you are now in violation of the 3RR rule, and will indeed be reported, whether you're in the mood or not. Violations of the rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Enjoy your day off. Freshfighter9talk 20:48, 24 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I didn't "revert everything anyway". Now fuck off and make whatever report you want, I don't give a shit. Parrot of Doom 20:52, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Fuck off???? Classy. Your complete lack of civility is going to make the admins' job easy. Enjoy your suspension. Freshfighter9talk 21:45, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Shove your civility nonsense where the sun doesn't shine and don't post here again. Parrot of Doom 22:04, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

The Dark Side of the Moon
On the main section, I have replaced "it is Pink Floyd's most commercially successful album and one of the best-selling albums worldwide." by "it is Pink Floyd's most commercially successful album and the second best-selling album worldwide." which I think is more accurate. The source is here : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_albums But anyway, you've removed it, may I know why ?

Have a nice day. 196.217.207.174 (talk) 09:01, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Because Wikipedia isn't considered a reliable source for such things, and also because when I looked into this a few years back, I found conflicting information on which albums had sold the most. Parrot of Doom 09:06, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Parrot of Doom is correct here. The surges of interest in Michael Jackson and Whitney Houston following their deaths means there's a good chance Bad and The Bodyguard have overtaken DSOTM, and that the figures Wikipedia is using don't yet reflect those spikes in sales. "One of the best-selling albums" is definitely true and avoids arguments. 78.151.148.216 (talk) 11:24, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Parrot of Doom, for reading my message and answering it before all. I must admit that I agree with your answer. Sales are definitely very hard to consider and to evaluate, even with reliable sources. I believe now that "one of the best-selling albums" is appropriate. Have a nice day. 196.217.213.132 (talk) 13:39, 29 June 2012 (UTC)


 * No problem. Sorry I was a little brusque in my reply but I've made that reversion about 20 times I think...  The moment we find a definitive source I'd be happy to see the article updated. Parrot of Doom 19:21, 29 June 2012 (UTC)