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

Elizabeth Canning
I suggested Elizabeth Canning for TFA, please improve the blurb ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:31, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I will have a look at it later, right now I'm snowed under with work. Parrot of Doom 16:55, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:FOUR RFC
There are two WP:RFCs at WP:FOUR. The first is to conflate issues so as to keep people from expressing meaningful opinions. The second, by me, is claimed to be less than neutral by proponents of the first. Please look at the second one, which I think is much better.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:18, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Mellotron
Hi, some advice requested. It's rare I'll describe an article as "total crap" but this one fits the bill. If I hadn't been chipping away at it for the best part of a year, it would still be a load of fancruft and original research, completely devoid of anything resembling an inline cite, let alone something reliable. I'm going through sourcing bits and it's like wading through treacle. I'm tempted to go to extreme measures and remove everything unsourced, then rebuild it from the ground up. You must have had a similar experience with the Floyd FAs - does this approach work, or does it just irritate lots of people? Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)   16:46, 21 August 2013 (UTC)


 * My advice, when an article is so bad, is to ignore what's there and start your own. Chances are there'll be no main contributor to a poor article, so after a couple of days of your "I wrote a new article, is it ok to replace this with that?" question going unanswered, just copy it across.  I'm sorry I can't help with it, I'm massively busy with work and real life stuff, but good luck anyway and thankyou for trying to improve it.  With the Floyd articles I just jumped right in and tore them to shreds.  I had a few complaints to begin with but when those people saw what I intended to do, they changed their minds. Parrot of Doom 23:33, 21 August 2013 (UTC)