User talk:Parrot of Doom/Archives/2013/April

Please stop
Reverts and rudeness I'm trying to assume good faith here, but I don't understand why you want to make articles less accessible to the blind. Can you explain that please? You should also understand that your edit summaries are neither helpful (because I cannot understand why you are doing what you are doing) nor civil. There is no apparent justification for ignoring the manual of style in these instances and you won't give one, so what am I supposed to do here? Please respond with tb on my talk if you write back here. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:20, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't raise false arguments, I'm not intentionally altering anything to make an article less legible for blind people. I'm simply restoring text you keep removing without discussion.  You're attempting to impose your own stylistic variations on an article to which you've had little input, and I'm not going to stand for it.  Whether you like my edit summaries or not is of little relevance to me, but perhaps you should heed their advice.


 * And stop removing double spacing from this article. I put it there for a reason, not because I enjoy using my space bar. Parrot of Doom 19:45, 6 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Also, you keep changing the album order for this article, which buggers up the chronology for every other article in this series. Pack it in. Parrot of Doom 19:47, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Do tell How is the text to which you're reverting an improvement? —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:46, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Go and entertain yourself somewhere else. Parrot of Doom 21:38, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Resurrectionists in the UK
It really doesn't get much better than this. Malleus Fatuorum 22:59, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I saw, it's a very nice thing for him to say. I'm always very cautious of saying so in a review though, as I'd like to remain "neutral".  It's why I never pester people for responses.  The odd thing is, I think there's more to be said on resurrection, I just haven't had time to get the other source I want... Parrot of Doom 23:52, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You're too hard on yourself. Nothing is ever perfect, or even finished. Malleus Fatuorum 23:55, 6 April 2013 (UTC)


 * That's why resurrection is so important. With an infinite number of attempts available, something approaching perfection is so much more likely to be attainable. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:00, 7 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, I thought infinity wasn't realistic considering entropic decay? Parrot of Doom 22:13, 7 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Surely you haven't forgotten that there's an infinity of infinities? Malleus Fatuorum 23:06, 7 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not arguing with you, just curious. In what sense do you see "a handful of" as being more specific than "a few"? Malleus Fatuorum 14:24, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The number of digits. I just think handful is a better word; in the context of later history, where thousands of bodies were anatomised annually, "a few" could be anything from 10 to 100. Parrot of Doom 14:32, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I suppose "a handful of" does carry an implication of "a very few". Malleus Fatuorum 14:45, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't normally revert you but I'm a bit attached to that phrase. Parrot of Doom 16:32, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I'll say nothing of "wherefrom" in that case. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 16:34, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The whole article is just a ruse to use that word :) Parrot of Doom 16:40, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I think I'm beginning to know you too well. Malleus Fatuorum 16:42, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * BTW, having seen the sound and fury surrounding Thatcher's death I'm becoming more concerned than ever about what's going to happen to the Moors murders article when Brady dies. But maybe by then Wikipedia will have come to its senses and got rid of the daft idea of "anyone can edit"? (Which was never true anyway, as WebHamster isn't allowed to edit, Ottava Rima isn't allowed to edit, Peter Damian isn't allowed to edit ...) Malleus Fatuorum 16:45, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Which is why I'll be asking for full protection, should it happen any time soon. I got two days work out of Thatcher's death, well paid too :)  Hopefully another day next week.  I'm not a big supporter of her but I'd rather have Thatcher than any of the wishy washy PR men of the current crop. Parrot of Doom 18:44, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I'd certainly rather have Thatcher than the odious George Galloway, or the slimy Ken Livingstone. Malleus Fatuorum 19:52, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

You just have to suck it up and put on the best face on it you can. All the review processes seem to me to be collapsing, and increasingly less fun. FAC has long suffered from the law of diminishing returns, the wait at GAN means that that by the time the review starts you've forgotten all about the article, and PR seems to be all but moribund. Malleus Fatuorum 23:42, 14 April 2013 (UTC)


 * He obviously hasn't read the article properly, and is instead just picking out random bits for criticism. Anyone who doesn't understand a simple phrase like "substitute gibbeting with dissection" deserves no more attention.  His last point about anatomists delegating grave robbing to resurrectionists just proves that - the preceding few paragraphs explain that medial students paid for their lessons in corpses. Parrot of Doom 09:57, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Retired
I can't take it any longer. I spend countless hours of my time attempting to create valuable articles, only to be accused of plagiarism by people who haven't the first idea what they're talking about. Thanks to everyone on the GM Wikiproject for helping me learn so much, and anyone else who's contributed to my understanding of history and humanity. I absolutely will not waste my time trying to create something of worth only to have people throw extremely offensive insults in my face. Parrot of Doom 13:31, 17 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I understand where you're coming from, but I hope you'll reconsider. Maybe not straight away, but one day in the not too distant future; I'm starting to see tumbleweed blowing down the main streets of the once mighty GM project. Malleus Fatuorum 15:28, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * If you're still reading this page, would you let me help in pushing your resurrectionists article over the line at FAC? I think DrKiernan's objections could be easily dealt with, and it would be a shame to chuck it all away after the work you've put into it. Malleus Fatuorum 16:54, 17 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm extremely sad to read this. I've enjoyed reading your articles and have read what you put up with. I really hope you don't go permanently.J3Mrs (talk) 17:52, 17 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Having calmed down a bit now (it's the first time I've been incandescent with rage over comments made here), of course I haven't retired. But I will have little more to do with that FAC and for the foreseeable future, I will not be presenting any more articles either there or at GAC.  FAC should be about checking the facts, ensuring the writing is of good quality, proving the subject is fully covered.  It should be about ensuring that if it ever appears on the front page, it's probably the best online article on the subject, anywhere in the world.  Opposes based upon nothing more than "I don't understand what this word means" shouldn't ever see the light of day.  I have reviewed a few articles at GAC and FAC and have never opposed based on my personal preferences.  People should be left to write in whatever style suits them; so long as it's clear and understandable, other editors should respect that choice and move on.  And claiming that because a few sentences are closely worded to the source material while ignoring the fact that there are only so many ways one can say something (I will not edit a sentence to avoid this if the outcome is a less clear or badly-phrased article), the author is plagiarising material, is orders of magnitude more offensive than the worst excesses of the civility police.  That the person who said that then claimed that my anger was "nothing to do with me mate" just makes it worse.  Of course, if those interested in reviewing the article had bothered to check its history, they'd find that there were/are several sentences with hidden notes that express my concern at passages which are very similar to the source.  It's nothing new, I've done the same in other articles.  I mean, if Bob opened a shop in 1960 and sold fine clothing, what would it take for a sentence on the same, here, to be acceptable?  "A man named Robert (shortened to Bob) in 1960 stocked a shop he had just opened with clothing that some people judged to be of a fine quality." - is that what's expected?  Good luck ever getting that from me.  Readability is far, far more important than concerns about close phrasing on short, factual sentences.  Otherwise, I wouldn't spend hours of my time reading every word of a book.  Why bother, when I can just copy and paste?


 * The article can stand or fall on it's own merits; unless someone points out history I've missed, or source material of value, or other errors that impinge on our readers' ability to learn from it, I shall make no further comments at the review. And I certainly will not redact anything there - I meant what I said and my views have not changed.  I'm here to learn, and help others learn.  Anyone who implies that I'm in this just for digital rewards can literally go and fuck themselves. Parrot of Doom 12:34, 18 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm obviously glad to see that you've reconsidered, but let me speak frankly. I think you're cutting off your nose to spite your face in refusing to deal with what are after all pretty minor points, and if you won't address them then I fully intend to. Malleus Fatuorum 13:43, 18 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Perhaps, but if the reward for so much work is to be accused of plagiarism, in future I'd rather not bother. Parrot of Doom 09:49, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I can understand that, but to give up so close to the finishing line ... Malleus Fatuorum 11:39, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Glad you're back and were only incandescent. MF has a point, if only to prove the beggars wrong.J3Mrs (talk) 13:11, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Just FYI
Hey, PoD, I saw your post on VP, and just wanted to let you know what the deal was: I removed the " " tags in your monobook.js, which were causing the problem. Those tags aren't needed on that page; you just put the importScript right in. :) Also, there was some CSS mixed in with the JS; Wikipedia (and most other things, really) doesn't like it when one mixes one's programming languages. Cheers! Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 13:35, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I just randomly removed something and it started working. A bit like someone who randomly moves a wire under a car bonnet and it starts up again.  Surprisingly, there doesn't appear to be an "idiot's guide to monobook.js" page around.  I'd write it myself but as you can see, it'd be a laughing stock... Parrot of Doom 13:36, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

And now for something completely different
I've been reading a lovely little book on the Victorian workhouse by Trevor May. Something I hadn't realised was that the Diseases Prevention Act of 1883 (something else we don't have an article on) effectively allowed workhouse infirmaries to operate as private hospitals and not just for paupers, which by the turn of the century many of them were doing. So added to the points you've already made about how the inmates felt and the disposal of the dead for dissection the article isn't quite as complete as I'd once thought. Wonder what else I've missed? Malleus Fatuorum 15:28, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry I haven't done much work on that Workhouse stuff (I haven't forgotten). Lots of work (yay, money) has gotten in the way.  Plus, things like this and this (not me pictured) have taken up my time.  Mind you, I did get two (very well paid) days work from Maggie's death, so it's not all that bad.


 * There really is a lot to say about how keen paupers were to stay out of the Workhouse and I think it's all to do with public health (anatomy), shame and stigma. Parrot of Doom 15:35, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Yeah there's still some work to be done, you're right.
 * BTW, I don't know if you've noticed yet, but your Ressurectionists in the United Kingdom article has just been promoted. Despite your best efforts. ;-) Malleus Fatuorum 15:49, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Nick Griffin
Hey Parrot. Why did you remove "Griffin revealed their address and encouraged protests and violence". Every citation in that section and the talk page mentions this. His original tweet specifically encourages protests at their home and a threat so why remove it? It is directly applicable to that section and in no way a BLP violation. Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 15:07, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Their addresses would be a matter of public record, hardly something he could reveal, and I think it's only the opinion of certain news outlets that he encouraged violence. It's a lot to infer from a few short tweets.  Basically, the whole thing was a bit of a storm in a teacup and resulted in nothing happening.  Compared to other, more important topics, like his QT appearance, it doesn't seem to merit anything more than a couple of sentences. Parrot of Doom 15:21, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * It wasn't a storm in a teacup at all. If the same thing had actually resulted in a protest or indeed violence then Griffin would be directly responsible. He clearly did encourage protests and gave out their address to help do just that. It's in every citation provided. The reason i'm pushing for that part to be readded is that it is the controversy and without it the section is hardly notable or encyclopaedic. I've already been to RFC for something similar over the Daily Mail, where the result was to mention what the controversy actually was and i don't doubt this would be the same. Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 15:25, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I realise you don't like the admin related options and neither do i. But this is an issue of censorship and not copyediting. Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 15:28, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Well that's your opinion and, I might add, one which is very carefully avoided by some news editors. Ifs and buts are one thing, but nothing happened.  Here's what the BBC reported - "The Brampton address of Michael Black and John Morgan, who won a ruling that they had been discriminated against by a B&B owner, was seemingly published.  The tweets on the MEP's account also appeared to call for a demonstration outside."  And here's what the Guardian said - "appeared to urge his supporters to demonstrate outside their home."  Notice how careful they and other news outlets are to avoid accusing him of doing anything other than posting tweets.  I think we should adopt the same degree of caution. Parrot of Doom 15:32, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Then by your admission the section can be readded but reworded to "Griffin appeared to reveal their address and encourage protests and violence"
 * I'm going to reread the tweets but that's along the same lines. Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 18:23, 20 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I've admitted no such thing and will support no such wording. Parrot of Doom 06:58, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Nelson1342.gif
Hey, PoD, I was going through the speedy deletion category and found this, and honestly I'm not sure whether it's PD or not. As the license tag thingy alludes, it appears to have been published in 1986. Looking at the Wikipedia public domain page, it says that, if the image was published without a copyright notice and hasn't since been registered, the image would be in the public domain, which is what the uploader claims. Now, I would be a little surprised if it hadn't been published without a copyright notice, but do you happen to have any more direct proof of that? Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 14:35, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Since when did copyright owners have to assert their property rights? It's for the uploader to prove it's a public domain image.  It looks very much like a scan of a newspaper and I very much doubt it's in the public domain. Parrot of Doom 15:39, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Apparently before March 1, 1989, which is when the US adopted the Berne Convention, it was a requirement for copyright holders to assert their rights on publication, so anything published before that date without a copyright claim is public domain. (This is all my readong of PD.) Sounds crazy and stupid to me, too, but that's the law, I guess. Anyway, I'm not personally knowledgeable enough about copyright stuff, so I'm probably just going to leave it, tag intact, for someone else to look at. My instinct would be to delete, but I'm wondering if an FfD or something would be better, and as I've been called out on it not too long ago, I'm trying to rely less on my instinct when it comes to CSD. Thanks! Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 16:00, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, nevermind, that's (true but) irrelevant. Since the image was presumably first published in the UK, and I don't believe the UK has that same requirement, it's not PD. I'll delete it. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 16:07, 29 April 2013 (UTC)