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

3RR
Please see Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring. Warden (talk) 19:08, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Why don't you go and do something useful? Like never post here again? Parrot of Doom 19:12, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Regardless of how you feel about Colonel Warden, I think it would be helpful for you to comment at WP:ANEW.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:27, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Bbb23 but I'm not at all interested in stroking Warden's ego. By the way, the vandalism reversion was a misclick, which is why no warning was left on the user's talkpage. Parrot of Doom 19:41, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * That's probably fine. At this point, the report looks like it will be rejected. Another admin and I have both commented along similar lines. If no one else comments or closes it, I will do so. I'm just giving it a bit more time.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:46, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for keeping an eye out, Parrot. I'm with Bbb on the niceties of niceness, but to each his own. I wish they would just protect these articles as a matter of course. I don't need all these useless edits by nobody editors clogging up the history of this fine article. Drmies (talk) 19:53, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I completely agree. The editors who make improvements while an article is TFA are very much in a minority. Parrot of Doom 20:15, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Main page appearance: Eagle (comic)
This is a note to let the main editors of Eagle (comic) know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on February 17, 2013. You can view the TFA blurb at Today's featured article/February 17, 2013. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director or his delegates, , and , or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you can 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:

Eagle was a seminal British children's comic, first published in April 1950. It was founded by Marcus Morris, an Anglican vicar, who felt that the church was not communicating its message effectively. He was also disillusioned with contemporary children's literature, and with Anvil artist Frank Hampson created a dummy comic based on Christian values. Morris hawked the idea to several publishers, with little success, until Hulton Press decided to take it on. Following a huge publicity campaign, the first issue sold about 900,000 copies. Featured in colour on the front cover was the comic's most recognisable story, Dan Dare, Pilot of the Future (pictured). Other popular stories included Riders of the Range and P.C. 49. Eagle also contained news and sport sections, and educational cutaway diagrams of sophisticated machinery. Amidst a takeover of the comic's publisher and a series of acrimonious disputes, Morris left in 1959; Hampson followed shortly thereafter. Although Eagle continued in various forms, a perceived lowering of editorial standards preceded plummeting sales, and it was eventually subsumed by its rival, Lion, in 1969. A relaunched Eagle ran for over 500 issues between 1982 and 1994. UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 1 February 2013 (UTC)


 * As the parish magazine The Anvil isn't mentioned in the blurb it seems a bit obscure to refer to Hampson as "Anvil artist" - could the word "Anvil" be removed in the blurb? Also when I first read that sentence it sounded as if Morris was disillusioned with children's literature and Frank Hampson. To me, if the comma was moved and another one added it would be clearer i.e. "He was also disillusioned with contemporary children's literature and, with artist Frank Hampson, created a dummy comic based on Christian values". However I don't want to change it myself as that's the way it's written in the article. What do you think? Richerman ''   (talk) 12:55, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree there's no need for Anvil so that can go. I'm not sure I agree about the "and" matter but I can certainly restructure the sentence to avoid any ambiguity. Parrot of Doom 15:44, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Grave robbery in the United Kingdom
Lord Roem ~ (talk) 08:02, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Skyhook
Just to let you know, your picture of the Skyhook at Trafford Park is up for Featured Picture status on Commons. Cheers  Del ♉ sion 23  (talk)  18:31, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Hah, and to think I shot that with a cheapo crappy lens on too :) Parrot of Doom 19:13, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I guess it's a diamond in the rough! haha. Still a great snap. Looks well on the way to being featured. Good luck :)  Del ♉ sion 23  (talk)  01:11, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Grave robbery in the United Kingdom
Hi POD. I listed Grave robbery in the United Kingdom, but am not sure where to put it in the WP:GA categories. Do you have any suggestions? AIR corn (talk) 08:30, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Biology and medicine? Parrot of Doom 08:50, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Under History of medicine? AIR corn (talk) 10:37, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. Parrot of Doom 16:01, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

John of Brittany, Earl of Richmond
Hi POD. I've been working from two IP addresses in early 2013 to add some confirmed and sourced material to this article. My efforts are a broader project on the Duchy of Brittany. I had stumbled trying to understand the historic link of Brittany to the Earldom and thence the Bretons relations to the Kings of England. I decided to address my knowledge need by opening up a new project on the Earl of Richmond. And from there I decided that understanding the history of John of Brittany would be central to the Earldom and Dukedom projects. That's background and sort of intro. Could I ask you please to consider an updated review of John of Brittany in the hopes that the new work brings it to a higher level grade ? Also if you have suggestions you can write them here or on my own talk page under John of Brittany. Many thanks if you have time to consider this request. 71.167.64.218 (talk) 17:01, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Provided you've stuck to the basics, decent sourcing, general coverage, well written, etc, then there's no need for an updated review. You might try listing the article at WP:PR, or if you feel brave, at WP:FAC. Parrot of Doom 17:59, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Erroneous edits
Please review As best as I can tell, there is no justification for (e.g.) this. Please explain on my talk. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:20, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll explain it here - you're changing the album chronology to include albums not created from new, in a studio. So I've reverted your changes.  And you also removed a lot of double spacing from articles I wrote - I didn't include that double spacing because it looks nice, I included it because it helps me see what's in the edit window. Parrot of Doom 09:06, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with PoD, and a previous discussion is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pink Floyd/Archive 3. I don't mind which or the other we go with, as long as we go with consensus. PoD, who was responsible for getting Dark Side of the Moon to FA status, usually reverts for a very good and justifiable reason, and I would strongly recommend you revive the above discussion if you wish to try and alter consensus. As you are an experienced editor, Koavf, I am disappointed with your contributions here, as I expected you at least to file a new talk page discussion. Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   09:28, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Consensus The consensus is that album infoboxes include all albums, not just studio albums. Also, why would you remove alt text, captions, microformat data, non-breaking spaces before dashes, etc.? I just can't understand it. Two users having a conversation on a project talk page does not trump all of the long discussions at WT:ALBUM. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:32, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Even so, you should not blind re-revert other people's edits, you should go to talk first. If your edit summary had said "Fix to consensus per WT:ALBUM", instead of the singularly unhelpful "Rv.. (TW)", people would be a bit more understanding. Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   09:38, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay Well, I'll take it for granted that you understand my rationale now. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:42, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Aside Please don't mark my edits vandalism when they are not. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:39, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The rollback vandalism button loads more slowly and that, therefore, was a misclick. You say there's a "long-standing consensus at WP:ALBUM and Template:Infobox Album" but the infobox album only says "generally", and that exceptions are allowed.  This series of articles represents one of those exceptions, as discussed in a link provided above.  You are cherry-picking information to support your argument.
 * Now I'm going to revert your changes again, and should you still object, you should take the matter to the Pink Floyd wikiproject. Parrot of Doom 09:45, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Project Why the Pink Floyd project rather than the albums project? Is it... cherry-picking on your part? Also, you haven't answered why Pink Floyd would be exempt, nor have you explained why you think that you should remove all of the other formatting which is clearly standard. It almost makes me think that you're not interested in trying to improve the article, but owning it. Am I mistaken? —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:50, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I was going to write a sensible response but I see you accused me of article ownership, so I won't bother. Parrot of Doom 14:59, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh I find that hard to believe. If you have an explanation for your actions, it's easy to provide it here. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:42, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you honestly think that someone, after accusing them of WP:OWN when they say up front not to use that as an argument on their talk page, will just turn around and give a rational response? You should count yourself lucky you didn't get this. Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   09:46, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

The Wall.
If you pay attention, it is not unsourced information. I have included a source, and if you look into the genre's of the songs Wikipedia articles a large portion of them are hard rock and progressive rock. I can make the argument that progressive rock shouldn't be listed because it does not have a source. Before you attempt to tell me not to edit the page, please investigate a bit further. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.128.250.175 (talk) 18:35, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The infobox is a summary of the article's content. You might have noticed, if you'd read the article, that nowhere does it mention the genre "hard rock".  Nor, for that matter, does it mention "progressive rock", but Pink Floyd is a prog rock band.
 * Now you can keep sticking tags like this into articles, like sticking post-it notes to people's monitors, but you will be reverted again, and again, and again, until someone finally notices what a minor pain in the arse you're being and blocks you. It's entirely up to you, but I suggest that before you revert again, you take the matter to the article's talk page and discuss it there.  And if you really want something interesting to read (although I doubt you'll bother), perhaps you should read this, which explains the matter in detail. Parrot of Doom 00:09, 23 February 2013 (UTC)