User talk:Parrot of Doom/Archives/2010/October
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
One of your own: the life and death of Myra Hindley
... has just turned up at my local library, so hopefuly I'll be able to pick it up tom=orrow. Should be interesting. Sadly though the Flying Dutchman stuff seems to have gone missing. Malleus Fatuorum 21:16, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- Good stuff, its always handy to have an new source. The author does sound fairly certain of herself, however. Hopefully it'll have a list of sources at the back. Parrot of Doom 21:17, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Pics
No worries - I wondered why they kept switching back. I'm an editor as my day job and those sort of inconsistencies tend to leap out at me. Wodawik (talk) 09:24, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- oops I forgot all about that. Will sort it tonight after work. Parrot of Doom 13:40, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Pink Floyd GAR
An article that you have been involved in editing, Pink Floyd has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments here . If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. — GabeMc (talk) 23:03, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- Aren't you the lucky one PoD. Where do all these idiots come from? Malleus Fatuorum 23:14, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- Its fair to say the article has some problems, but I'm surprised that someone has taken this step. I could probably fix most of them in less than a day, but currently I'm finding it more rewarding working on Francis Tresham. I suspect it has something to do with the timing of Roger Waters at WP:FAC. Parrot of Doom 23:23, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- That's what prevents me from nominating other articles for FAR - I've only done so on a couple of occasions, and only when the article is really bad. Pink Floyd, as an FA, was one of those. At least with the historical articles practically noone is interested in them, and I don't have to patrol them daily to revert any nonsense. Elizabeth Canning gets a pathetic amount of traffic per day, and yet its one of the most compelling articles I've worked on. Nobody touches it :) Parrot of Doom 23:40, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
BTW, I'm watching a programme on Yesterday called "The Secret History of Pornography", and it's quite fascinating. I don't think I've ever heard so many fucks, pussies, and arses in one hour's mainstream television. The civility police would be incensed. I wonder if it could ever be shown in Smallville USA? Malleus Fatuorum 23:49, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- Considering that the daft conservative bible-bashing yanks are trying to ban children's books like Catcher in the Rye and Harry Potter, I very much doubt it. Mind you this is the same country that produces brilliant TV like Breaking Bad. Its all very confusing. Parrot of Doom 23:55, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
It's a poor start, but at least it's a start. She must have been one gutsy lady. Malleus Fatuorum 21:26, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your interest in the a/m article. I specifically chose to use "mother's brother" to describe the relationship clearly and demonstrate that he was a "blood" relative: Danielle Jones, for example, was also murdered by her "uncle" although he was her father's sister's husband. "Uncle" is in today's usage a vague term. I have reverted your edit. Keristrasza (talk) 12:46, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
- Why is that important? The article doesn't mention anything about the relationship. Parrot of Doom 12:52, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
- Yes it does - it quite simply and clearly mentions that her mother's brother was her killer. I thought I just wrote that above... Keristrasza (talk) 12:55, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
- Her mother's brother who is, in much simpler terms, an uncle. Why is it important to make the distinction? The article doesn't form any judgement, you could also write "maternal uncle". Maybe from now on, I should refer to my sister as my mother and father's daughter. Parrot of Doom 13:45, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
- "Maternal uncle" is equally acceptable. I don't know who's rattled your (parrot) cage this afternoon, but put your wig back on and pull your knickers out of yer arse. IMHO it is important to state the relationship - if the relationship isn't one of the exceptional aspects of this murder one might just as well describe him as "John Maden, unemployed bloke from Cheetham Hill." Keristrasza (talk) 13:58, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
- I'm rattled? You're the one making a song and dance of things, not me. Sand in your vagina? Parrot of Doom 14:09, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
- The perils of living on the coast, I guess. Still better than being shot up your neck of the woods though =P Keristrasza (talk) 14:14, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
- I'm rattled? You're the one making a song and dance of things, not me. Sand in your vagina? Parrot of Doom 14:09, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
- "Maternal uncle" is equally acceptable. I don't know who's rattled your (parrot) cage this afternoon, but put your wig back on and pull your knickers out of yer arse. IMHO it is important to state the relationship - if the relationship isn't one of the exceptional aspects of this murder one might just as well describe him as "John Maden, unemployed bloke from Cheetham Hill." Keristrasza (talk) 13:58, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
- Her mother's brother who is, in much simpler terms, an uncle. Why is it important to make the distinction? The article doesn't form any judgement, you could also write "maternal uncle". Maybe from now on, I should refer to my sister as my mother and father's daughter. Parrot of Doom 13:45, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
- Yes it does - it quite simply and clearly mentions that her mother's brother was her killer. I thought I just wrote that above... Keristrasza (talk) 12:55, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
It's reasonable to include the relationship and "maternal uncle" sounds more natural than "mother's brother" [1]. Nev1 (talk) 14:17, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Glutton for punishment
That would be you that would. Malleus Fatuorum 13:17, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
- I'm more inclined to have Catesby on the 5th tbh, more people deserve to know who was behind it all. Parrot of Doom 13:46, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, what about 31/10? I think the world needs to know more about Cock Lane Ghost Parrot of Doom 22:06, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Barnstar
|
The Original Barnstar | |
| For all of your hard work related to the Gunpowder Plot articles - all of them are their own interesting read - I really appreciate that you've taken time to work on these, I enjoy reading them. Connormah (talk) 22:04, 5 October 2010 (UTC) |
- Thanks very much for the kind comment, I've been scratching my head over some of them, and it helps to know that people appreciate my efforts. Parrot of Doom 22:43, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Happy Parrot of Doom's Day!
 |
User:Parrot of Doom has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, Peace, A record of your Day will always be kept here. |
For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:15, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for the message. Seeing that you (and the others contributors) was on way to the featured topic, I've just created the stubs of plotters with good or featured level. I don't know if I'll continue in this area as I have no knowledge about this event, but I'll try to find some time. Like tears in rain (talk) 13:01, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
- Ok, well if you do and need any help, I'm here. I'd advise leaving the plotters not yet at GA/FA level (Thomas Wintour, Robert Wintour, Thomas Percy, Robert Keyes, Christopher Wright, John Wright (Gunpowder Plot)) as they're basically all in a shocking state. Parrot of Doom 13:06, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
- “Shocking state” is actually what I think about the article in french fr:Conspiration des poudres. I asked for a translation. Cheers. Like tears in rain (talk) 13:11, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Thomas Percy
Hi Parrot! You're doing a great job on Thos. Percy. But I can't help wondering if all the "plotting" bit shouldn't go under the main Gunpowder Plot article (or whether it's duplicating a lot of the matter that's there already). If you're putting all that under Percy, then an awful lot of it should be duplicated in the articles on the other plotters, no? Just a thought... Nick Michael (talk) 21:35, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- There's always going to be a lot of repetition between the 14 articles, but expanding each plotter's article to GA or FA allows me and others to include parts of the story that are too specific for the main article. I think its better to view all the articles as individual works, rather than being a part of something larger. I don't think its possible to write a proper biography of each individual without including the basic elements of the plot.
- I've been trying my best to write each plotter's story from their point of view, including only events which had a direct effect on them. For instance, there isn't much in the main article about Percy's view of James beyond a throwaway comment, but on this one I can use all the source material I have to expand it fully. What I'm trying to do there is hint at the gulf between Percy's expectations of James, and reality. Its a bit like claiming you've won the full lottery, and then realising you've only won a couple of hundred quid.
- I'm not just copying paragraphs and text around (although I'll admit there's duplicated text in there right now WRT to Salisbury and the letter), I'm taking great care to make sure every article is as different as it can be :) Parrot of Doom 21:42, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
I am sorry, I did not mean to offend you or anything, I was just trying to explain that there was a bit of profanity in the sentence. It is my fault for not assuming good faith.--iGeMiNix/What's up?/My Stuff 23:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- There was no "profanity", just a bit of good old Anglo-Saxon plain speaking. BTW, have you taken a look at the top of this talk page? Malleus Fatuorum 00:03, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Nope, it's still going on.--iGeMiNix/What's up?/My Stuff 00:09, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Hooray for ANI and people crying over strong words. Nev1 (talk) 00:14, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, I personally don't care about using strong words when you chat and stuff but when it comes to some dude calling some other dude out, then it might be a problem.--iGeMiNix/What's up?/My Stuff 00:18, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- If Malleus had simply told Cirt "you don't have a clue", it would never have made it to ANI. Using an intensifier doesn't really change the meaning. Being ignorant about something isn't an offence, but because a curse word was used someone ran straight to the drama boards. That says something about an editor, but I'm not quite sure what. Nev1 (talk) 00:22, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- You guys should like make a spam page or something, like on some mad chill forums, where you can just curse all you want and not have a problem there but once it reaches to a talk page, the rules apply again.--iGeMiNix/What's up?/My Stuff 00:24, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Nothing, just giving an idea. lol, forget it.--iGeMiNix/What's up?/My Stuff 00:30, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- It is nothing really, just that one some forums that I used to go, the admins there were really cool and they made a separate forum where they allowed people to be racist, curse each other out, and do w/es without getting banned or w/e. But once people did it outside of it, then the rules applied again and you could get blocked and stuff. I dunno the admins probably did it for shits and giggles.--iGeMiNix/What's up?/My Stuff 01:02, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- I suppose this relates to the appropriateness of swearing. The message is the same regardless of which word was used. I'll agree the point could have been made without swearing, but the point remains the same. If it's incivil to tell someone you think they're wrong then who can honestly say they shouldn't have been blocked at least once? It's possible to be polite yet incivil. Nev1 (talk) 01:34, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not at all offended, its just that I don't see why some people find rude words offensive. Its completely contrary to real life, in which the vast majority of people swear regularly, and for all manner of reasons. Thanks for the apology though, that was far more than I'd ever ask of you. Parrot of Doom 19:27, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
re: parrot of doom. george orwell pointed out, as i recall, in the intro to 1984 something along the lines of brutality in language was to be avoided..which i took to mean swearing. most swear words display aggression or violent/transgressive imagery. when they are not percieved as doing so it is because the perception has become desensitised...and they are rendered as an emotional tic. the increasing prevalence of swearing in supposedly civilised circles does nothing to counter this view, the increasing triteness and agression in civil society does much to support this view. apologies if this comment does not conform to the rules of this place but it seemed the most apt place to reply to the preceding discussion....p.s. just edited this comment and.. while acknowledging parrot of doom is probably fed up with people moaning/lecturing about swearing i hope reasoned discussion is always admissible..and that any errors in a viewpoint can be corrected by mutual education of the reality underlying the faulty perception...in keeping with discovering the true nature of events and their descriptions in an encyclopedia.92.28.205.235 (talk) 00:51, 17 October 2010 (UTC)92.28.205.235 (talk) 01:11, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Roger Waters FAC
We would like your help concluding the FAC for Roger Waters. — GabeMc (talk) 03:28, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- I was thinking of commenting, but then it might put others off doing so. I don't think its FA-ready just yet, it still needs work. I promise you that if you want my help (I'm presuming you do) that I'll help you out on it, but I'm quite certain that won't be before it slides to the bottom of the list and gets archived. Well done, really - well done on the work you've done so far. Parrot of Doom 16:26, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
There is no rationale for that use, and there is simply no way you can claim there is one. Sorry. Do not add the file back to the article unless there is a rationale. That attitude towards our non-free content criteria is disgusting. Sorry to have to patronise you, but your reversion shows a horrendous ignorance of policy. J Milburn (talk) 12:35, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- Oh, and The Division Bell. Not at all acceptable. Desist. J Milburn (talk) 12:37, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- What's disgusting is your attitude that only you're correct, and that your word is therefore law. I'll add the file back as many times as I like, until a consensus is formed that it isn't acceptable to do so.
Congratulations
Congrats on the successful efforts at achieving WP:FA for Francis Tresham! ;) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 01:27, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Strange how selective the Georges of this world can be when identifying incivility
Since you have some experience with writing FAs I thought I'd ask you to help me get up to speed with maybe trying to write one myself, as I've been recommended to do here. I've done a bit of "reviewing", so I have some idea of what's required. Malleus Fatuorum 21:11, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- I think you need to prepare yourself for some very hard work, just like Camelbinky has with his plethora of FA-quality articles. Be warned though, not everyone has the skills he has, and not everyone is so polite. In fact, some people are very rude. I don't want you to be disappointed. Parrot of Doom 21:14, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- Now look what you've done. I think "can dish it out but can't take it" is the phrase. (When was it that "I have social disorders" became a get-out-of-jail-free card, anyway? I seem to see variations of it more and more often.) – iridescent 08:22, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
A friendly suggestion
Can I request that you remove the specific name that you used as a hypothetical example in this RFA. While I am sure you are not refering to a real person I think it would be better to avoid using any name, even made-up, because it is very likely that there are people out there with this name. Maybe "John Doe" or "So-and-so" would work? 7 03:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- In the unlikely event that anyone has the name Tucker Jenkins in real life, they've no doubt heard all the jokes before. – iridescent 06:53, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- Actually no, not at all. I understand Iridescent's point - but regardless of whether someone has heard all the jokes before I don't think it's appropriate for WP to contain a quote like that which, when taken out of context, could be defamatory against a real person with that name. I personally think its very possible that someone has this as their real name. Regardless, I'm not here to start a fight and if you think that I am being overly sensitive then we can leave it at that. 7 08:30, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- My offer to drop the issue was not intended to be an invitation to insult me. 7 09:44, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- Just out of interest, 7, which do you think is more common as a name: "Tucker Jenkins" or "John Doe" (your suggested alternative)? I know that "John Doe" is a US term for an anonymous 'placeholder' character; to the 95% of the world who don't have the privilege of being American, it's just a name. – iridescent 15:18, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
TFA Gunpowder Plot
Something to think about - It's highly likely you could get Gunpowder Plot as a TFA on November 5. You should consider submitting it. BV talk 19:44, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- Its the obvious choice for that day anyway, and so I'd asked Raul on his talk page if he was likely to run it, because before it appears on the main page I'd like to read it through a couple more times to check everything is 100%. He hasn't replied yet. Parrot of Doom 19:53, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- Never mind, I just nominated it. Why not, eh? Parrot of Doom 20:05, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- Nice work you're doing on these articles by the way. Real pleasure to read. BV talk 20:08, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks. I just started Robert Keyes but he was such a minor player, a bit of a nobody really (sorry Robert), hardly anyone has anything to say about him. His article won't be much more than a stub. Parrot of Doom 20:14, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- Nice work you're doing on these articles by the way. Real pleasure to read. BV talk 20:08, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- Never mind, I just nominated it. Why not, eh? Parrot of Doom 20:05, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
DYK problem
Hi, I'm sorry to inform you that John and Christopher Wright is not eligible for DYK again. You may see the comments after your nomination. It's a shame, as it was an interesting hook. Good luck with the good article nomination. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 06:41, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
The Story of Miss Moppet
Thanks for your copyedit to my paragraph on Redfield's article in The Story of Miss Moppet, however I think the copyedit may now mean that the paragraph contradicts Redfield's essay. I have commented on Talk:The Story of Miss Moppet and thought you might want to respond there. It is possible I have misread the article or Redfield. Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:32, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Main page appearance
Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on November 5, 2010. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 5, 2010. If you think that it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article director, Raul654 (talk · contribs). If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! TbhotchTalk C. 02:30, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
The Gunpowder Plot of 1605 was a failed assassination attempt against King James I of England and VI of Scotland by a group of provincial English Catholics led by Sir Robert Catesby. The plan was to blow up the House of Lords during the State Opening of Parliament on 5 November, as the prelude to a popular revolt in the Midlands during which James's nine-year-old daughter, Princess Elizabeth, was to be installed as the Catholic head of state. Catesby may have embarked on the scheme after hopes of securing greater religious tolerance under King James had faded, leaving many English Catholics disappointed. His fellow plotters were John Wright, Thomas Wintour, Thomas Percy, Guy Fawkes, Robert Keyes, Thomas Bates, Robert Wintour, Christopher Wright, John Grant, Sir Ambrose Rookwood, Sir Everard Digby, and Francis Tresham. Fawkes, who had 10 years of military experience fighting in the Spanish Netherlands in suppression of the Dutch Revolt, was given charge of the explosives. (more...)
Congrats on getting the big day! I feel a bit guilty about not supporting, though you weren't short of support of course, but I was only watching the page because I had another horse in the race. It's a bit of a drawn-out palaver there, but I suppose they get the right result in the end. Johnbod (talk) 07:54, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
- Hmmm, based on previous TFAs I'm not sure a congratulations is in order. I may just keep the computer turned off, to keep my piss from boiling up :) Parrot of Doom 09:01, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
- Look on the bright side—you won't be as tied up reverting vandalism on that one, as the poor schmoe who ends up cleaning up after this. Oh, wait. – iridescent 09:41, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
- Oh God. Parrot of Doom 10:36, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
- Raul has said in the past that he'll avoid scheduling multiple controversial TFAs by the same author in quick succession, if they so request, so if you don't fancy a month of "rvv" a quiet word would probably stop it. – iridescent 11:03, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
- Oh God. Parrot of Doom 10:36, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
- Look on the bright side—you won't be as tied up reverting vandalism on that one, as the poor schmoe who ends up cleaning up after this. Oh, wait. – iridescent 09:41, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Any chance someone could remove the serial comma added to the article's TFA blurb, on 5 November? Its here - "Sir Everard Digby, and Francis Tresham". Parrot of Doom 16:53, 30 October 2010 (UTC)