User talk:Parrot of Doom/Archives/2011/December

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.

Edit toolbar in vector

Special:Preferences → Editing → "Show edit toolbar"

FYI, there's also a "Exclude me from feature experiments" thingy under "Appearance".

If you don't use vector, this won't help, obviously. There is no "hidden comment" button under advanced/the whole edit toolbar in vector.

HurricaneFan 25 20:08, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty certain there was once a "hidden comment" button, and that I used it regularly. I don't know what vector is, but if its the line of blue buttons, it used to be much longer than it is now. Parrot of Doom 20:32, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Sticking my nose in in case you still have this problem ... Vector is the new default skin. One of the problems with it from my point of view is that it hides a lot of things - like most of that line of blue buttons - in hard to find drop-down menus. The old default skin was Monobook. Go to preferences and see which is checked. You can then choose which skin you want to use - there are about 10 of them and you can keep on switching until you find the one you like best. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:35, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip but it hasn't solved it. I've always used monobook and only in the last few weeks has this issue raised its ugly head. Parrot of Doom 22:42, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Wish You Were Here

Pink Floyd is a British band. I have reverted your "synthesizer" change. Cheers Mlpearc powwow 22:44, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Robert Christgau is an American citizen and writes in US English. So I will change it back, thanks. Parrot of Doom 22:45, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Don't you just love Wikipedia. "The bike shed should be blue ... no, red ... purple would be better ...". As it happens though Wish You Were is probably my ~~favorite~~ favourite Floyd album. Malleus Fatuorum 23:33, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

It's a good album but I'm afraid some of the screeching guitars do my head in. If it's instrumental stuff you like, I can highly recommend the album that this is off. Parrot of Doom 00:11, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I do prefer instrumental stuff, but I guess that much of our nostalgia is connected with the events in our lives. I will be forever grateful to Procol Harum for providing the backdrop to my loss of virginity with Whiter Shade of Pale for instance ... probably too much information. Malleus Fatuorum 01:38, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Valid use of alternative account?

This is a courtesy notification as I believe you are peripherally involved in the following AN/I thread.

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at WP:ANI regarding Valid use of alternative account?. The thread is "Is Sleuth21 using an alternate account properly?".The discussion is about the topic User talk:Iridescent. Thank you. --Senra (Talk) 14:14, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The discussion isn't on ANI - it's on AN, at WP:AN#Is Sleuth21 using an alternate account properly? --Redrose64 (talk) 14:59, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Radio

hello,

you said you know a method to hear removed radio documentaries on BBC Radio 2, didn't you? It might be useful. And can you send me "The Atlantic Story" documentaries? Thanks.--♫GoP♫_T ^C _N 20:04, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot to reply to this. It's taking a while to get as not many people are sharing it, but I'll get it eventually and let you know. Parrot of Doom 21:36, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Parrot of Doom/Archives/2011. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Heavy admins

Re: One day, I'm sure, all that's left here will be a clique of admins and a claque of their sycophants; the rest of the world will have moved on

You're still here. And you used to love the heavy admins - you even set them on people yourself. Where did it all go wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.253.48.190 (talk) 11:47, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Geldof wall.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Geldof wall.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 06:17, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Point of clarity

Sorry to bother you. I felt so strongly on a recent injustice that I made my first ever ArbCom statement today. I stated that I was uninvolved. Indeed I was not involved in the incident in any way. However, does interacting with MF, as I do on occasion, mean that I should declare mostly uninvolved or involved? If I need to change my statement, is it OK to re factor? Thank you in advance for your time --Senra (talk) 20:47, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I haven't got a clue. I tend just to say what I think. Parrot of Doom 22:13, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Parrot, what's wrong with original research? Surely the best of all? Chorlton Bloke (talk) 18:19, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:OR Parrot of Doom 19:24, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I do beg your pardon Parrot of Doom. Does that win an answer? Chorlton Bloke (talk) 21:05, 24 December 2011 (UTC) Ah, beg pardon again, checked out WP:OR. As far as I can make out, church registers do not fall into the classification of original research as they are checkable by anybody with a mind to.Chorlton Bloke (talk) 21:27, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

The thing is while good original research is of course encouraged in the real world, on Wikipedia readers don't know editors from Adam. So that the readers can trust what they read, there is a policy of adhering to what the sources say and avoiding introducing our own research or conclusions. Nev1 (talk) 21:33, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

But when our own research relies on contemporary newspaper articles and church registers, ie sources, surely that is sound and allowable? To quote from the relevant Wiki page "The term "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists" I'm to believe that newspapers and church registers aren't reliable published sources! Chorlton Bloke (talk) 23:36, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Church registers are primary sources and are therefore to be viewed with suspicion. Look, I'm not saying that your edits were bad (they were pretty good actually) but when we start including things like "look at the parish registers for more information", that isn't strictly encyclopaedic. If you want to include data from parish registers, it's best to write "according to the parish registers, blah blah blah". We can't take them as reliable, only secondary sources can really do that. Parrot of Doom 23:40, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, so parish registers are out without tooth and nail detail. The Manchester Courier is surely encyclopaedic enough? And that, in umpteen years of researching is the first time that I have heard that primary sources should be viewed with suspicion!Chorlton Bloke (talk) 23:55, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

It may be encyclopaedic but as it's an old secondary source it shouldn't be taken as totally reliable. If you've researched for years I'm sure you'll be aware that primary sources often contain errors. Parrot of Doom 23:58, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Primary sources often contain errors unlike pure secondary sources, like census transcriptions riddled with errors? And newspapers old secondary sources! So really your saying that as the whole page is based around Wright-Proctors secondary account none of it is reliable and should be deleted!Chorlton Bloke (talk) 00:07, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

I think I'm saying that if you have nothing constructive to add then you should go and play somewhere else. Parrot of Doom 01:05, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Commenting on the writing of others

I just noticed this edit where you respond to a comment by Colonel Warden by pointing out a nearly 2-month-old version of an article he started and which Malleus and others rewrote. In that comment yesterday you called Colonel Warden's writing primary school level. I remember this article from the talk page discussion here. The rewrite was an excellent one. Without getting into whether it is acceptable to label other people's writing like that with no warning that the topic is changing, what I can't understand is why you felt the need to dig out a page version from 2 months ago to make that point in a discussion here and now, throwing it in as a gratuitous insult? That is a rather petty and dubious debating tactic - rather than engage with what Colonel Warden said, you threw an old diff at him and insulted his writing. How would you feel if someone did that to you? Carcharoth (talk) 18:58, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure if Colonel Warden is offended by it, Colonel Warden can say something himself. I have a low tolerance threshold for trolls. Parrot of Doom 19:42, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

You are rather missing the point. After looking around, I see Colonel Warden was aware of the initial discussion, as shown by his comment here (the 'critics abound' bit). But it depresses me that there are all these tensions boiling below the surface, instead of people working together. I mean, in what 'collaborative' universe is it acceptable for one group of editors to snigger on each other's talk pages about how rubbish an article is? That's a game of one-up-manship, not collaborative encyclopedia editing. But as you failed to answer the question I posed about how you would feel if the same happened to you, I doubt you would be able to empathise with that. Anyway, in case you still don't get it, the point is not the initial discussion (embarrassing as that was for all of those participating) but the way you felt it acceptable to wave a link to the old page version in Colonel Warden's face nearly two months later? Were the initial comments not enough that you really had to do it again? Carcharoth (talk) 20:59, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

You're the one who's missed the point, which was about the incredibly poor standards at DYK. Warden was trolling, I issued a retort. If he has a problem with it then let him deal with it. Parrot of Doom 21:55, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I think you were both trolling. If you were serious about dealing with poor standards at DYK, you would do more than just point out one article (and then use an old version of that article as a needling point months later). If you worked for a whole week to improve (or assess) articles that went through DYK, and then presented a report at the end of that week (rather than hand-waving impressions), then I'd take that claim about the DYK standards more seriously. Until then, what you are saying is no more or less than what others have said in passing without actually doing anything about it. If it is too much for one editor, get a group of editors together to drive up standards. Carcharoth (talk) 22:19, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

There's too many brooms up my arse already, thanks. Parrot of Doom 22:36, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. As a courtesy (in case you wish to comment there), I'm pointing out that I've mentioned this example on the talk page of the evidence page of the arbitration case on civility enforcement that was opened recently. I'll probably be mentioning other examples involving other editors, and I'm going to let them know as well, but this example (having discussed it recently) was the first one to come to mind. I know (from discussions elsewhere and the notice at the top of your talk page) that you have a particular approach to civility on Wikipedia, but one of the reason I've focused on this is because it is (in my view) an example of incivility that isn't immediately obvious and has become rather pervasive recently (those who are excellent content contributors throwing insults around about the writing skills of others). Carcharoth (talk) 11:00, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I think the wider argument over Malleus's contributions is silly. To my knowledge, nobody has been driven away by his comments. I think it would be extremely difficult for anyone to argue against the position that his contributions here are a net positive—a huge net positive. His correction of my writing has significantly improved my grammar and I very much doubt I'm the only one.

Malleus says what he thinks, and although I don't share his zeal in highlighting the obvious backslapping that goes on between some admins, I tend to agree with most of what he says, and I absolutely concur with his notions of civility. He's asked people not to bother with the arbitration case, and I'll therefore respect his request. Parrot of Doom 12:07, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Looks like you've found another new friend there PoD. With respect to the arbitration case it's pretty easy to see which way the wind's blowing, so it wouldn't make any difference what you, me, or anyone else said anyway. Let them have their pound of flesh. Malleus Fatuorum 12:20, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

PS. At least we got away with Gropecunt Lane, one of our finest offerings I think. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 12:28, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm ignorant of Carcharoth's record as an admin but I recall that he's helped me improve articles at FAC, so I have no animosity toward him. What I find hilarious about the Warden thing is that after you spent a deal of time improving "his" article, he saw fit to troll your talk page. That's the kind of incivility that bothers me.

I occasionally check Gropecunt Lane to see if there's any new source material, but nothing obvious has appeared so far. Parrot of Doom 12:30, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the no animosity comment. I've already stated on Malleus's talk page that it is possible the case will not go the way he thinks it will, but it is his choice and those of others not to comment there. I know he thinks arbitration is a farce, and it is not by any means a perfect process, but there is an opportunity there to have your views heard. Well, not so much yours (views from the peanut gallery, including mine, rarely gain traction), but Malleus (as one of the named parties) has the opportunity to show during the case that he is capable of being reasonable (rather than the caricatured view that might be built up). That would count for a lot. But it is his choice. The other side of the coin is that he might get so frustrated he would get blocked during the case, and that wouldn't be good. Anyway, I'm trying not to spend too much time on this, so will get back to other matters now. Carcharoth (talk) 13:35, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration is a farce and about as far removed from encyclopedia writing (which we are here for) as one can get. I think some people take it way too seriously. I'm opretty sure a lot of casual outsiders would laugh at the "formality" of the process. I'm not saying Carcharoth that some arbitration cases aren't neccesary but I just think the way it is handled is too bureacratic and top-down, the "giving evidence" part is really distasteful. I'm not going to mention "taste of his own medicine" but lets just say I can remember several occasions where Colonel Warden has slated my own work (or lack of it) at AFDs etc and articles ended up being kept. Given that we are all volunteers it is not very nice whoever it is directed at.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:09, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I was more puzzled than offended by PoD's criticism as I'm not sure what text he had difficulty understanding. My impression is that that issue was mostly about the faction-fighting between FA and DYK. Anyway, it was off the topic of MF's block and so did not merit a response there. So far as MF is concerned, I wish him well and my point was to persuade him that he is not being victimised, as numerous adults in the real world are chastised for using bad language. Warden (talk) 14:51, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I see a great deal of bad language on most talk pages and forums. I'm not shocked by it because of the tough school I grew up in but I know certain people who would be. I've seen people say far worse things in general speech in forums on here. Its not as if the problem is confined to Malleus. no it isn't a good idea to call people a cunt but certain passionate people are prone to snapping every now and again, myself included, especially when some holier than thou individual sticks their beak in and tries to make you feel worse. Malleus in my opinion is a net positive for the site and blocking him would make the site worse off in the long term in terms of good articles. You notch up how many articles he has copyedited. I don't think we can afford to lose him regardless whether he swears at people every now and again. I heard Jimbo say a few months ago "civility" standards are more important than anything else. I thoroughly disagree. Content is more important and readers really couldn't care less about editor "discipline". It would be different if the comments were relentlessly racist or deeply xenophobic or offensive. Editors who are pretty productive shouldn't be excused but banning them for the occasional outburst in my opinion is absurd. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:22, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Long time reader, first time poster =P Malleus and Parrot are the only people on WP whose talk pages I have on watch, and the only people on WP whose opinions I actually give a monkey's shit about. As for this whole drama, if I was forbidden from using "fuck" or "cunt" in every day speech, I'd have to stay in bed all day because I wouldn't be able to string together a single sentence. Warden, adults aren't "chastised" in the real world for swearing - chastising is what Conservative parents do to their 5 year olds for talking at the dinner table. The whole concept of "chastisement" on a global internet site is not only fucking ridiculous and twee, it is also patronising. Still, I shouldn't be surprised, too many fucking cunts on WP think this is a 4th form classroom. And we all know what kind of tossers the "prefects" were there. Keristrasza (talk) 19:21, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I already provided some examples and here are three more from recent news reports:

Warden (talk) 00:54, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

You missed one. Parrot of Doom 02:46, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

The first item (Swear and you'll be arrested) was a response to that story - the police pushing back against the judge's ruling in that case. That's rather like the history of the MF blocks. A constable nicks MF for his breach of the peace and then a soft-hearted judge lets him off again. But now the matter is going to appeal and we shall see how it goes... Warden (talk) 08:04, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Seasons greetings...

		Happy Holidays
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:25, 21 December 2011 (UTC)