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

What do you think about these Choudary refs?
Hi Parrot, Did you fully listen to the video that was attached as a reference? In the video Choudary acknowledges that one of the murderers was a regular attender of his former group, and he also brought up the term "Security Covenant". Please check out this ref which I probably should've also used as a supporting ref as well: Choudary's idea of a "Security Covenant" I am planning on reinserting this with the better ref, unless you can give me a good reason why I should not?

Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 12:40, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

PS: What was there not to believe about the Mail article about Choudary's family being ushered into police protection over this? The Mail article even had photographs of them being ushered into police protection. Are you saying that you believe the Mail article could've been a fabrication? Might you be being a little bit "overly protective" of this article? True, this is a biography article, but that should not prevent Wikipedia from publishing properly referenced facts about the subject matter. Scott P. (talk) 13:21, 2 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I watched the video, not only did you link to a copyright violation but your edits seem to have introduced original research "In another interview regarding this attack he used the term "Covenant of Security" which appears to be a special legal standing which he seems to posit applies only to British Muslims". But the main issue is that every time he appears in the news, a flurry of editing activity takes place on this article, usually along the lines of "lets write paragraphs and paragraphs of material about what he just said in the news", without any real attempt to weigh such material against what's already in the article.  We know what he stands for, what he says, who he supports - so why on earth do we have to keep adding extraneous text?


 * Also, you accused someone of murder. The man is innocent unless proven guilty, so there's absolutely no way that's going to stand. Parrot of Doom 16:20, 2 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for watching the video. You make some valid points. I agree that the term "alleged" should preface the term "murderer", despite the fact that these two men have already openly admitted to, and been photographed in the process of the murder. In light of these facts, I wouldn't fully agree with your claim that my failure to use the term "alleged murderer" instead of "murderer" would amount to a "liable" in this case.  Still, using the term "alleged murderer" is generally good Wikipedia practice in all cases until so decided in a court of law. Also, this "flurry" of editing activity does need to be monitored carefully.
 * It appears that you may not have yet had a chance to review the second reference that I linked to above. This is critical in my opinion. Choudary is reported In this reference as having the fundamental premise underlying all of his teachings that all Muslims ought to currently consider themselves as being in a "state of war" against Britain and the US. To me, if true, this seems to be highly significant and worthy of inclusion in this article. According to this reference, Choudary's use of the term "Covenant Of Security" is merely a thinly veiled reference to his fundamental belief in this. Please review this reference link that I gave you above. I would like to know what you think about it. By the way, regarding the link to the video, what copyright violation are you speaking of? Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 18:22, 2 June 2013 (UTC)


 * PS: Still awaiting your reasoning for your earlier deletion of the Mail reference by an earlier user referring to the police protection of Choudary's family. Did you delete this because you believe the Mail is an unreliable source, or something else?Scott P. (talk) 19:24, 2 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't wipe my arse with the Daily Mail. It is a wholly unreliable source. Parrot of Doom 19:25, 2 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, I think my arse would somehow survive such an encounter… :-), However despite the fact that they are a bit "sensationalistic", they are a major award winning newspaper, and generally such "sensationalistic newspapers" are not regarded as entirely unreliable sources in Wikipedia. Bottom line: do a Google search on "Choudary family" and "police protection" and you will see multiple sources for the same event.  Does that change your mind any? Scott P. (talk) 19:38, 2 June 2013 (UTC)


 * What I would like to do in the article is, rather than simply deleting such references, if they are clearly true facts, then I would like to try and rework them so that they are better. For example changing the ref to the Mail to perhaps some other publication that you find to be of a higher grade. Also, while technically your deletion of the reference to Choudary's Pakistani/British status was correct, along the lines of the original intent of that user, if it is okay with you, I would like to include a reference to the fact that Choudary is indeed of "Pakistani heritage", but correcting the original "sloppy reference" which you rightfully deleted, with a "proper reference".  Comments? Scott P. (talk) 19:54, 2 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The only time I'd use the Daily Mail as a source would be if I was writing an article about the Daily Mail. And even then I wouldn't trust it.  Only the Mail and Sun print the story.  The Mail probably just took some images of his family with the police (if they are his family, they're all masked) and invented their own story.  That's what newspapers like them do - create stories to sell newspapers.


 * Mentioning his heritage should be done in context. If it adds to our understanding then fine, but if it's just "he's of Pakistani heritage" and nothing else then I don't see what that offers.  Everyone has a heritage, unless Choudary's helps explain his views then I don't see how it's relevant. Parrot of Doom 21:00, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I feel like trying to reason with you is like a cat trying to chase its own tail. Okay I will continue to allow you to delete these significant points with your questionable logic. You don't like a paper, a jihadist's family's recent heritage is irrelevant, a jihadist's stated belief that all Muslims are at war with Britain is irrelevant, etc. etc. You can keep the article however you want. Bravo, you win. I give up. I'm not exactly sure what you feel you are gaining by your insistence on "your way" despite whatever the reality of the situation might be. The article suffers, and so too those who are trying to improve it. Your choice. Writing in Wikipedia does not have to be a continual "test of wills". It can sometimes be a great synergistic experience where people build upon one another's work, rather than always feeling the need to contest one another. [User:Scottperry|Scott P.]] (talk) 10:13, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * You're exactly right, I don't like the Daily Mail. But you seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that because Wikipedia says it's the encyclopaedia anyone can edit, you can write whatever you like without complaint.  Fortunately, some people are actually interested in maintaining some kind of standards.  Choudary's article isn't brilliant, but it's certainly a lot better than it would be if edits like yours weren't reverted. Parrot of Doom 15:52, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Violation of 3RR at Anjem Choudary article
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. OrangesRyellow (talk) 09:52, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I have reported the matter at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring.OrangesRyellow (talk) 10:08, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * for 24 hours. I'm sure discussions can take place at the talk page.  BencherliteTalk 10:23, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * You're confusing edit warring with protecting a contentious article. Parrot of Doom 11:54, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm sure you rather that I protected the article than I started blocking people... particularly as the wrong version happens to be the version that you last edited... BencherliteTalk 12:11, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry Bencherlite I wasn't referring to you chap. Parrot of Doom 12:27, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No problem. BencherliteTalk 13:39, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Anjem Choudary
Hm I am seeing a pattern the above user violates 3RR himself and yet blames you :) I agree fully his ethnicity is mentioned so many times I cant help but think Oranges is some sort of a pov warrior Manofwar0 (talk) 18:22, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Barton Swing Aqueduct
I decided to do a bit of work on the Barton Swing Aqueduct, but I'm increasingly beginning to think that the original stone aqueduct deserves an article as well. Any thoughts? Eric  Corbett  22:03, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Coultershaw Beam Pump
Hi - I am putting together an article on the Coultershaw Beam Pump but am slightly confused by the technology. I see that you have previously commented on Talk:Beam engine so I hope you don't mind me asking you for advice. Can you explain (in simple terms) the difference between a Beam engine and a Beam pump? I had originally linked to the latter in my draft introduction, but this re-directs to Pumpjack which is a "nodding donkey" type of engine. Also, the Beam engine article starts by saying "A beam engine is a type of steam engine" whereas the one at Coultershaw is operated from a waterwheel. I am rather confused. Thanks for any help and advice. I have also posed this question to User:EdJogg and User:Andy Dingley who also commented in that thread. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 07:17, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * See User talk:Andy Dingley for answers! -- EdJogg (talk) 13:02, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I'm not particularly knowledgeable on the subject. There's a derelict beam pump in situ in Radcliffe, Greater Manchester, which had been largely forgotten.  I managed to get it a Grade II listing and got a local society to perform a site investigation.  That's about the extent of my knowledge.  I'd guess that a beam engine has its own exclusive power source, whereas a beam pump is powered by whatever its pumping? Parrot of Doom 18:49, 7 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Surely the "beam" prefix has nothing to do with how the engines are powered, but how they're designed? A beam pump, for instance is just a beam engine used for pumping, usually water out of mines. As an example, the hydraulic engines that operate the Barton Swing Aqueduct were originally driven by compressed steam produced by two Lancashire boilers, but are now powered by electricity. They're still hydraulic engines though. Eric   Corbett  19:29, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Assuming you (PoD and Eric) are still in Manchester, you have arguably the world's leading experts on 19th century engines on your doorstep, who in my experience are generally very happy to answer questions. (If you go, you may also notice that the text of their exhibits on the Manchester Small-Scale Experimental Machine and the Liverpool & Manchester Railway seems somewhat familiar, but let's AGF and assume that's a coincidence.) – iridescent  19:48, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If the text is similar I'll take that as flattery; it's difficult to improve on perfection. Eric   Corbett  19:53, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Nick Griffin question
Hey Parrot. I know we can't stick everything in the Nick Griffin article but calling Nelson Mandela a murdering old terrorist is notable right? Thanks ツ Jenova  20  (email) 08:46, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Not particularly. If, however, a more reputable publisher reported on it, placing the comments into some kind of context, then I'd change my mind.  Beware of publications that cite "fury" at Twitter comments. Parrot of Doom 17:39, 10 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Well i didn't really look into the matter much to see that it was via Twitter. It was just the first thing i saw on the watchlist when i logged in. Admission of being dopey... Have a nice day Parrot ツ Jenova  20  (email) 08:58, 11 June 2013 (UTC)


 * No problem, it's just the sort of thing we have to watch out for. Stories are often manufactured just for sales. Parrot of Doom 14:55, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Recruitment Centre
{||}

Blocking Warning
In view of your persistent vandalism, you are being closely watched. Any more abusive or warring edits, and you will find yourself blocked. In view of your record, this may be permanent. Please take heed of this friendly, but final, warning. 212.121.210.45 (talk) 12:50, 11 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Have the school holidays started so early? Eric   Corbett  13:36, 11 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Take your warning and shove it where the sun doesn't shine, sunshine. Parrot of Doom 14:54, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

His editing of Anjem Choudry’s page radiates of censorship. Are we sure Parrot of Doom isn’t in the cult of Islam?. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.105.111.52 (talk) 03:28, 16 June 2013 (UTC)


 * If such a cult existed, I am dubious that it would accept parrots as members. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:20, 16 June 2013 (UTC)


 * When you say "we", do you mean "bigoted idiots who don't know what we're talking about"? Parrot of Doom 23:35, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Choudary Telegraph article
Just a quick one. The claim of "Choudary strongly believes in the primacy of Islam over all other faiths, and the implementation of Sharia Law, in its entirety, in the UK." is completely uncited in the article. The link to the Telegraph article at least attempted to paraphrase his words "He also wrote that everything would be "sound" and "put right" if Sharia law was introduced in the UK, adding: "Islam is undeniably the only real solution for Britain's problems.". As such I think it's a very much valid "source" and I doubt you're going to get a much better reference to his viewpoints other than from the horses mouth itself. Alternatively, a citation for his demands for Sharia and Islamic Caliphate would be ideal at that point. Any idea about the quality of the Clarion Project btw?  Koncorde (talk) 23:56, 16 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not of the opinion that it's a contentious claim. A brief look at some of his interviews supports that sentence. Parrot of Doom 07:25, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * That's fine, but we are making the claim yet have not provided a citation for it at all. Given it is a somewhat principle claim by the man I think it's probably one of the most important things that we clearly and accurately source. Koncorde (talk) 10:12, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Main Page appearance: hanged, drawn and quartered
This is a note to let the main editors of hanged, drawn and quartered know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on July 7, 2013. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director or one of his delegates (,, and ), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. You can view the TFA blurb at Today's featured article/July 7, 2013. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

To be hanged, drawn and quartered was from 1351 a penalty in England for men convicted of high treason, although the ritual was first recorded in the 13th century. Convicts were fastened to a hurdle, or wooden panel, and drawn by horse to the place of execution. Their remains were often displayed in prominent places across the country, such as London Bridge. For reasons of public decency, women convicted of high treason were instead burnt at the stake. The severity of the sentence was measured against the seriousness of the crime. As an attack on the monarch's authority, high treason was considered an act deplorable enough to demand the most extreme form of punishment. Over a period of several hundred years many men found guilty of high treason were subjected to the law's ultimate sanction. This included many English Catholic priests executed during the Elizabethan era, and several of the regicides involved in the 1649 execution of Charles I. Although the Act of Parliament that defines high treason remains on the United Kingdom's statute books, the sentence was modified in the 19th century and became obsolete in England in 1870. The death penalty for treason was abolished in 1998. UcuchaBot (talk) 23:03, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I'll be out of the country working on 7 July, if anyone's around on that day I'd appreciate it if you could keep an eye on this article? Parrot of Doom 20:42, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Watched. I feel your (upcoming) pain. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:53, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Me too. Eric   Corbett  20:59, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Will do. Hchc2009 (talk) 21:10, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * It's on my watchlist already, and if I'm free on 7 July I'll make sure to help look after the article. Nev1 (talk) 21:17, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I can predict what's going to happen. Lots of "corrections" insisting that "drawn" means the extraction of the victim's entrails, not being drawn to the place of execution, followed by demands that the article be renamed Drawn, hanged and quartered. Should be fun. Eric   Corbett  21:26, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That blurb needs a complete rewrite before it goes live, as nowhere does it say what H, D & Q actually is. While English (and most Scottish, Irish and Welsh) readers will have at least some idea, the concept will presumably be completely alien to someone in Singapore, South Africa or any of the other far-flung English speaking places where Wikipedia has readers. 92.41.242.0 (talk) 21:46, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks guys, your support means a lot. FYI I'll be in Sweden filming European Rallycross (I'm doing the whole championship hence not much activity here).  I agree about the blurb, it's not good enough right now. Parrot of Doom 21:51, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * As for the argument about the meaning of the word "drawn" (in this context), when writing the article I read so much about this that my head began to spin. I share the opinion of Ian Mortimer (historian), mostly because he seems to be the only person who's studied the matter in any detail but also because it makes complete sense. Parrot of Doom 22:01, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The actual law is pretty clear what "drawn" refers to: "the judgment required by law to be awarded against persons adjudged guilty of high treason shall include the drawing of the person on a hurdle to the place of execution, and, after execution, the severing of the head from the body, and the dividing of the body into four quarters". 92.41.242.0 (talk) 22:14, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Re the blurb, I deliberately wrote it so that it did not include a description of what the punishment involved, to limit the number of complaints about running this article on the main page. (In similar pre-emptive fashion, the blurb for "Mr. Hankey, the Christmas Poo" didn't include the words "a talking and singing lump of feces wearing a red hat"). Those who want to know about what this "most extreme form of punishment" was can click through to the article. Those who would rather not think about such things can read the blurb without getting too upset, I hope. However, if people think I'm wrong about this, then tell me.
 * And, POD, if you would rather the article runs on another date, I'm more than happy to accommodate such requests (one of the reasons I try to schedule as far in advance as possible). Much as I know your life (and that of Ealdgyth and Eric, for example) would be improved if I never selected any of your many FAs as TFAs, unfortunately I have to use them from time to time to balance out the mushroom articles ("too many mushrooms" being the latest complaint, for those who missed it) BencherliteTalk 22:21, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I understand your reasons but I think you were wrong to do so. Those who complain about such items being on the main page rarely have a logical argument to support their views and if we change our ethos to suit their beliefs, we risk doing the same for those offended by other topics, such as religion, nationality (Ireland, for instance), etc.  I think we should be completely neutral and just present facts.  Besides which, nobody has a right not to be offended.
 * I think I'd mind articles I've edited being TFA a lot less if, as some believe they should be, they were automatically protected from IP vandalism. Parrot of Doom 08:01, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree there should be more detail of what the punishment involved. One of the arguments sometimes used by "those who complain about such items being on the main page" is to say "I wouldn't want my children to see such things mentioned". A counter-argument to this is to look at how such historical matters are covered in material that is aimed at young children. So we look at the hugely successful Horrible Histories franchise, and we find its website includes more detail on the nature of the punishment, in a shorter piece of text, than our blurb. In a section entitled "Fun Stuff", next to a section entitled "Games", accompanied by bright colours and cartoon rats. Of course.


 * (I was about to say I'm sure Horrible Histories wouldn't go quite so far as mentioning more gruesome deaths, such as the monarch allegedly executed by red hot poker up the rectum, but actually it seems they might do.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 10:39, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * POD has already added a sentence describing the punishment into the blurb. On reflection, I think in this instance I was being over-cautious. BencherliteTalk 10:43, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Understandable, given the difficulty of keeping everyone happy, especially our rather wide (and sometimes quite odd) readership. Thanks. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:47, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

The Dark Side of the Moon
A remark about capitalization has been made. Drmies (talk) 18:14, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I noticed. As a general rule, I think it's better to stick with what the sources say than what people think the album says. Parrot of Doom 18:46, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah. So you're part of the "reliable sources" Gestapo of Wikipedia also... Welcome to the club. Drmies (talk) 19:22, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid so. I understand where that editor is coming from but the instant we start letting the album dictate what we write, rather than the sources who've written about the album, we're in trouble. Parrot of Doom 22:43, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Ian Brady
This hunger strike thing is beginning to look rather odd. Maybe he's only on hunger strike between 9 am and 5 pm? Eric  Corbett  22:57, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed it does, the hearing finishes soon so we should be able to incorporate any such doubts with ease. Parrot of Doom 07:29, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Date issue
For Robert Catesby, the removal of Nbsp in date strings is part of the fixes that were performed because the non breaking space is not required there, but is preferable for a range separated by an endash. It is specific times that should contain nbsp to prevent line breaks from throwing it off. Anyways.. I just updated the template, not going to worry about the matter. In the accessdate line it is unusual to have nbsp in that template. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 12:56, 30 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Sometimes I think I should just write articles that have only words in them, because whenever I try to adopt any of the standards defined in the various guidelines here, a few months later they've changed beyond all recognition. Parrot of Doom 15:39, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It is fine, they can stay, its a style matter. If it helps you or another editor, its not a problem. I don't want to step on anyone's toes. I just updated the template as all the dates were fine. Though not all changes are bad. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:49, 30 June 2013 (UTC)