User talk:Parrot of Doom/Archives/2010/February

Cock Lane

You are probably aware of this : Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates#April_Fools, but just in case, as your name was tapped out in a series of ghostly scratchings (or mentioned by MF which amounts to the same thing). Yomangani^talk 18:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Thou art not my fanny! Parrot of Doom 19:21, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid I slightly lost my rag in the discussion Yomangan links to above after seeing another editor plonking on wife selling. The scope for double entendres in the blurb for the ghost would satisfy even Kenneth Williams though, so I'd probably opt for that anyway. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry too much about people with absolutely no discernible sense of humour. By the way have you seen the state of April Fools' Day? Horrific. Parrot of Doom 19:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure it would be possible to make an article out of that, as opposed to a series of lists. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)--Malleus Fatuorum 19:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Funny how one thing leads to another ...

... I guess that's the way of encyclopedias though. While researching this I came across an astronomer who has fairly recently claimed that the green children of Woolpit were actually extra-terrestrial visitors. I think that "Earth's first extra-terrestrial visitors may have arrived some time during the 12th century" trumps Scratching Fanny. Admittedly though she does have the advantage of already being an FA. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 00:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

So...

Came here to tell you to put the little barnstar on ice as it seems Tom, Dick, and Harry have minute issues to hyperbolise on Rumours. I also realised you'd replied to my message when I didn't have your talk page on my watchlist. I would just like to say I'm really sorry if you feel I messed up your changes. It wasn't intentional. I decided to ce it myself one day without seeing who'd edited or the changes made. I wasn't trying to revert. If you still feel there are changes to be made, drop a line on any relevant talk page like before in the FAC. Cheers. PRB88 (T) 22:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Its only the prose in my opinion that needs sorting. Everything else is fine for me. Parrot of Doom 22:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, comment away and I'll sort it out. If you don't want to do it on the FAC, just write on my talk page. PRB88 (T) 22:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd be here all day doing it. It isn't any one thing, but really, the article just doesn't quite flow. Its a whole load of great facts that just need a bit of word-glue to make them of interest. I'd just sit back a little and trust that other editors, while they may not be in possession of the source material, might help turn a superbly competent but slightly soulless Honda S2000 into an exciting, noisy, and slightly scary TVR Chimaera. That's what's missing I think, the precise grammatical details will settle down quickly enough. Parrot of Doom 22:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Nice analogy. I did want a TVR, but after being battle hardened by lots of FACs (including contrasting views about the same thing from different editors) I just write Hondas these days. It seems most people want a predictable, safe encyclopedia. I'm often told to remove even the most minute of flourishes, usually by the same people. It's sad I know, but I just don't see the point of going beyond reliable and competent. Cos someone will complain, especially if they're finding fault with a well-made, unbreakable piece of engineering already. PRB88 (T) 23:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

You stick to your flourishes, and tell anyone that doesn't like them to go hide in their 1.1 Nissan Micra. This is coming from one of the main contributors to the rather filthy Gropecunt Lane, and the less-filthy but still naughty Cock Lane ghost. There's nothing wrong with making prose more engaging and enjoyable, so long as the same facts are dispensed into the brain of the reader. The people who usually complain about such things hail from the 13 colonies, and have unfortunately suffered unduly from their want of a monarchy.

BTW I used to own a Chimaera, and I want another. I also want a new piano, a new roof for my house, and a carbon-fibre framed road bike though, so it may have to wait. Parrot of Doom 00:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

You know it's funny, at school, TVRs were the only cars everyone could agree on buying if they came into some cash. Hopefully, the company'll get fully back on its feet. And yes, the Yanks definitely crave a monarch, as seen by the ridiculous numbers I have to bump into en route to work and back. PRB88 (T) 17:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

RSN thread

Hi, as someone who churns out a lot of quality articles in this field, could you have a look at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Musicnotes.com? It's about the current practice of using sheet music published online by Alfred Music Publishing to describe song details like tempo, key, arrangement etc. --JN466 00:12, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to look at it. --JN466 09:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Parrot of Doom 10:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Queen (FYI)

I failed Queen's GAN earlier today. The article seems to have deteriorated rather than improved over the last week or so. Thanks for spotting that dodgey GA review and doing something about it. I'm like a mother hen when it comes to GA. :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum 17:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I got about two sentences into the lead and thought...wtf? Maybe new users should be prevented from reviewing GAs... Parrot of Doom 17:57, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

And so it should have done. My attempts at sorting it were met with some rather strange comments. At least I managed to sneak a load more {{cn}} tabs in anyway! Fred the Oyster (talk) 17:59, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I like Queen. I may have a stab at it one day, but certainly not before I'm done with Floyd. Parrot of Doom 18:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

To be honest I have no idea why I started on that article. I've never liked Queen and it's cutting into my Floyd tracks copyediting. I suppose I just can't resist putting grammar and punctuation etc right. Fred the Oyster (talk) 19:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Virginia & Blackbeard

Got your note about your work on Blackbeard. Unfortunately, the sources I have been using focus on the periods after 1776, and I don't see anything useful about Governor Spottswood. However, it does sound like an interesting subject and I will keep my eyes open.--Kubigula (talk) 15:46, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for replying. Parrot of Doom 21:34, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Nick griffin matriculation.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Nick griffin matriculation.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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 01:50, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Civility note

Please keep your edit summaries civil, please remember that they are seen by multiple editors who would rather not see such comments. Off2riorob (talk) 14:17, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh fucking hell, the civility police have arrived. I'll use whatever language I feel is appropriate, and I'll thank you kindly to mind your business. If people don't like rude words, tough, because those rude words will still be bandied around long after they're dead and buried. Parrot of Doom 14:29, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Music of Minnesota FAR

Hi Parrot of Doom! Your name was recommended to me as a music editor who had some experience with FAs, and so I thought I would drop you a note. Music of Minnesota is currently at FAR (the page can be found at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Music of Minnesota/archive1), and it needs a music expert to check out the content for comprehensiveness. If you're interested, thanks in advance; if not, would you know of another editor to pass me along to? Dana boomer (talk) 15:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

No problem, I'll take a look at it when I can. Parrot of Doom 15:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Nick griffin matriculation.jpg

The fact that Griffin was in Cambridge is no doubt an important part of the article, but we really do not need a non-free image to display the fact. Just talk about it in the article. What he looked like while in Cambridge or during this ceremony is not at all important to the article, and so we do not need to use a non-free image to illustrate it. J Milburn (talk) 12:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. If you have a problem with it, discuss it first on the article's talk page. Don't remove it again unless you receive enough support there to do so. It isn't your place to make such arbitrary decisions on articles with which you have no prior involvement, and I'm not at all impressed with your behaviour. Parrot of Doom 12:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

What? I'm not allowed to remove a non-free image that doesn't meet our policy because I "have no prior involvement"? How about we actually discuss the file in question, rather than throwing around strange accusations? J Milburn (talk) 13:08, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't meet Wikipedia policy in your view, and as far as I know I'm not required to agree with anything you say. That you think the image has no rationale belies your lack of involvement in the article, or knowledge of the subject. It's ironic how those who claim to hold some kind of high ground are the ones who most often start throwing the insults around. Parrot of Doom 13:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Erm, ok. Why don't you educate me. Why does what he looked like at 18 matter? Why do we need to go against our general rule of "free images only" in order to show that? J Milburn (talk) 13:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Why on earth would I want to discuss the matter here? That was a rhetorical question by the way. Parrot of Doom 13:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I thought you may want to discuss the matter as you have chosen to edit war over the issue, and apparently feel certain that the image meets our policies. Why would you not want to discuss it here? I've created a thread on the article talk page- perhaps you'd be willing to explain it there? J Milburn (talk) 13:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Where have I edit warred? You're an administrator, you're the one who is supposed to know the hard and fast rules here. Parrot of Doom 13:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

You have forced the image back into the article several times, while literally refusing to discuss the issue, and just throwing around accusations and making up rules. There is now a thread on the talk page, as you requested- can we please discuss the actual issue there? J Milburn (talk) 13:50, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

It is you who removed the image and kept nominating it for deletion, and it is you that refused to discuss the matter before doing so. I restored, three times—and with two requests to discuss the matter on the article's talk page—the stable version of the article.

You appear to have a twisted view of reality and Wikipedia norms, and I'll thank you to stop peddling your bollocks here. I don't really care if the image stands or falls, but I do care about people who come here inventing lies to support their bullshit. Parrot of Doom 14:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Wrong. I tried to discuss it, here, and you simply weren't interested. As you can tell from the responses on the article talk page, this is actually a fairly black and white (if you'll excuse the pun...) issue- I would be inclined to suggest you familiarise yourself a little more with our non-free content criteria. I by no means have a "twisted" view of reality or Wikipedia norms, I simply have a desire to enforce our policies and explain/discuss the issues with users who disagree with me. In choosing to edit war rather than discuss, it is you who has acted inappropriately, and I really think you need to calm down a little. J Milburn (talk) 18:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

In this instance you are wrong, both for the patronising tone used in your message immediately above and in your view that starting the discussion here was actually starting the discussion. This is PoD's talk page, the appropriate page to start was the article's talk page. I'd suggest two things, the first being that you stop the patronising tone and secondly you keep the discussion on the article talk page and not here. It's apparent even to someone as dense as me that neither you nor you opinion is welcome on this particular talk page. Just a suggestion of course. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 18:10, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Didn't you get the message the last time you posted here? Take your lies, and self-aggrandising opinions elsewhere, I'm not interested in what you have to say. Don't post here again, or you'll really feel the sharp edge of my tongue. Parrot of Doom 18:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

If you don't want to interact with me, stop interacting with me. There are no lies or "self-aggrandising opinions" here, and you really, really need to drop this incivility. If you pissed off, that's fine, but if you're unable to behave like anything but a thug, you really shouldn't be editing. J Milburn (talk) 18:11, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Point of order. You came here, it's his talk page. I'd suggest that it's you who are actively trying to interact with him, giving him no choice in the matter. Now it appears you are flogging a dead equestrian. You will not achieve anything constructive by making any more replies here. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 18:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Milburn, I suggest you stop commenting here and find something constructive to do. It should be clear to you that you are not helping, unless you are deliberately poking PoD. Nev1 (talk) 18:17, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I have no intention to post here again concerning this issue, and so this is the final warning I will give. Please stop your ridiculous sniping and swiping at me. It is completely unwarranted, and generally baseless. J Milburn (talk) 18:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for understanding, now perhaps we can get this situation resolved. Nev1 (talk) 18:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Generally baseless? How about specifically? You have no grounds for issuing a "warning" and it's starting to look like you are considering using your tools in a most un-admin way. As a rough approximation I'd say you've missed the good-sense level about 2 replies ago. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 18:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

FYI ANI

I have opened a thread about your behaviour at ANI here , thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 16:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh for God's sake, how childish! --Malleus Fatuorum 16:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

For some reason this gentleman has targeted PoD for some wikidrama time. It must be a boring Sunday in his locale. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 16:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The only solution I see to this long-running civility nonsense is to split off an American wikipedia from the rest of the English-speaking world, and let them have their own sickeningly cloying and dishonest environment to themselves. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

In the meantime though PoD it probably would be as well to dial it down just a touch, and just ignore the ANI report. Nothing you could possibly say there would make any difference anyway. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps if some users spent more time building good articles, instead of concerning themselves with trivial nonsense, this project would begin to resemble something which can be trusted. I couldn't care less about rude words, they're a part of my everyday vocabulary and if they offend people, well, its a big internet, plenty of other places they can visit. What I do care about, is when people start bending the truth lying and flinging around false accusations, especially when its an admin.

If people want to come here and make those accusations, they should be prepared to bear the brunt of my response—and people like Off2riorob should take care to educate themselves on the matter before preaching some nonsense about a code of conduct I have neither broken, or agree with. Parrot of Doom 17:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Holy fuck, not the civility police, whatever will we do! Nev1 (talk) 18:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I wonder how the civility police decide on what colour the flashing light should be on their vehicles. Red or blue stands just as much chance of offending someone somewhere. Perhaps it should be a nice shade of rose? --Fred the Oyster (talk) 18:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Beige. Difficult to be offended by something so dull. Nev1 (talk) 18:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I think a stronger colour of beige would probably be more suitable. Parrot of Doom 18:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

That would be shit-coloured would it not? Or perhaps bullshit coloured? --Fred the Oyster (talk) 18:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Such fun

Oh what a day. My very own ANI thread, lots of people upset by good old Lancashire language, a friend blocked unnecessarily, and abuse from an admin. And to think, I'd planned to finish the first draft of Blackbeard today. Still, better to concern myself with such trivial bollocks than build content, eh? I feel slightly vain posting this. I'm going to enjoy my bike ride tonight, I plan to pedal the fuck out of the poor thing. Parrot of Doom 19:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

My brother tried that once... she just divorced him :P --Fred the Oyster (talk) 19:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Average speed just shy of 20mph over 45 minutes. I feel better now. Parrot of Doom 21:11, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Gunpowder Plots etc

Hi Parrot of Doom. The text below is rather long but I feel it this necessary to address my point of view.

Regarding the Gunpowder Plot article, my feeling the use of the term 'Conspiracy Theory' is somewhat pejorative here. Basically, the problem with this term is that it what counts as a conspiracy theory is a matter of opinion: an independent observer may well regard the Gunpowder Plot itself as a conspiracy theory, albeit a widely accepted one.

The topic of the Gunpowder Plot is one that I have long thought of as extremely ambiguous. In short, there are two ways in which one can look at this subject. The relevant Wiki article notes, as part of the background, that assassination plots were common in Europe of the later 16th Century. In some ways the Gunpowder Conspiracy is reminiscent of the assassination of William the Silent by pistol in 1584 (which was then thought of a sort of 'infernal machine', like Guy's powder Kegs). There were also assassinations of French Kings in 1589 & 1610, although both these were carried out in a less imaginative traditional manner (as was the assassination of Buckingham in 1629).

There is however, another factor which complicates a modern view of the 1605 plot. The 16th-17th Century was dominated by the hysteria known today as the European Witch craze. Britain was largely unaffected by this problem in the 16th Century, but things changed when King James became King of Scotland. In 1590, James initiated the North Berwick witch trials, thereby kicking off the Scottish witch craze which would last well into the 17th century. In the Berwick trials, James alleged that a group of witches attempted to sink his ship by summoning a storm while he was travelling to Denmark. A number of people were executed as a result, including Francis Stewart, 5th Earl of Bothwell.

It goes without saying that there is some resemblance between the North Berwick witch trials and the claims of a Gunpowder plot against James in 1605. There are also some further aspects regarding the common Elizabethan tactic of entrapment which also make me slightly sceptical of the popular account. Here I should say that I am NOT sure if the traditional view is wrong. Rather, what I am saying is that the issue is more ambiguous than it is presented in the Wikipedia article.

This is why I am opposed to the term ‘conspiracy theory’. The North Berwick witch trials were unquestionably a conspiracy theory (unless you accepted the validity of the Witchcraft claims). The problem is that the 1605 Gunpowder Plot has many of the fantastical elements present in the North Berwick witch trials. James Stuart was known to have had a strong interest in the ideas of Machiavelli, who argued that it was better for a ruler to be feared than loved, including the employment of selective violence by a ruler to maintain order.

Thanks for taking the time to read my thoughts on this issue, Inchiquin (talk) 13:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

This is all rather irrelevant unless it comes directly from a reliable source or two. The common theory regards the nature of the plotters' capture, and Salisbury's theorised involvement (the letter, and the delay in the discovery of the powder). As nobody has ever proven beyond doubt the source of the Monteagle letter, Salisbury's involvement is unknown. None of the sources I've used lend any weight toward the idea that Salisbury invented the plot, merely that he most likely found the gunpowder, but milked it for a bit. That 13 Catholics wanted to use gunpowder to blow up the House of Lords, and then put Princess Elizabeth on the throne, is not a theory—it is a fact. Parrot of Doom 13:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Parrot.

The problem with the Gunpowder plot is that there are very few reliable facts. Much of the evidence relating to the plot is based on confessions extracted by torture.

And as I mentioned earlier, there are numerous similarities between the plot and the North Berwick Witch trials. To be blunt, James was a Machiavellian tyrant, who thought nothing of using a trumped up witch trial to cement his power base in Scotland. As such, I feel it is reckless to discount the likelihood of some involvement of the authorities in the plot. Here I have not even gone into the common Elizabethan practice of entrapment I mentioned earlier. The only 'fact' about the gunpowder plot is that the whole affair is clouded in mystery. My point here is that to describe any criticism of the affair as a 'conspiracy theory' is partisan. There are very good reasons to doubt the traditional view. Inchiquin (talk) 22:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The likelihood isn't discounted, only the extent of it. This article reflects the commonly-accepted view of the plot, and we can discuss theories all day long, but unless those theories are backed up with reliable sources, there isn't much else to say. If I get the time, I'll recheck my sources to see what emphasis they place such things. Parrot of Doom 22:56, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

PoD is quite right, conjecture has no place in the article unless it can be attributed to a reliable source. It seems quite likely that Salisbury knew of the plot, but delayed in exposing it until a politically favourable moment, but rather unlikely that he instigated it. The witchcraft connection I find somewhat tenuous, as the plot was really just another manifestation of the religous turmoil of the time. Are you interested in doing justice to the Berwick witch trials Inchiquin? It's a topic I've had my eye on for some time, and I'd be happy to help. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, God No!

I am not touching another album article for a long while, or till I get bored/inspired. I think I might dabble with something else next. Stay tuned... (and thanks for the help.) RB88 (T) 15:01, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Go look at Talk:Nick Griffin#Irving pic if you feel the scars on your forehead have healed up too quickly. Parrot of Doom 15:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I think I might need a bottle or two of wine before I even start to read and make sense of that. Obscure articles is where it's at these days, preferably one you've created yourself using foreign sources. It's the only combo that will give you piece of mind. RB88 (T) 16:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Those are my thoughts exactly. I don't know why I bothered with Nick Griffin or Anjem Choudary, I'm much happier editing articles where people must have access to the sources, or expert knowledge. I think I'll find me another Gropecunt Lane. Maybe I can find some anatomically-correct images to use for Tobacco smoke enema. That should shock the entire southern half of the US into a state of opprobrium. Parrot of Doom 17:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a great idea to me, let's stick it up 'em! To be serious though, despite the recent nonsense surrounding the image in Nick Griffin's article, which has got way out of hand and is apparently continuing on to even greater levels of stupidity than we saw yesterday, I doubt that anyone else could have done a better job with that article. So give yourself a pat on the back. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:56, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Well thanks for that, its very much appreciated. Its nice to know that some people appreciate hard work. Parrot of Doom 01:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Inflammatory commentary

This This sort of commentary is unacceptable; I'm sure you are aware of what will happen if it continues, so please take a step back and reconsider your approach. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC) Diff fixed. 17:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Its bizarre but not unexpected that you consider my comment to be more important than the problem which it addresses. Take your vague threats elsewhere, perhaps to the page of people who think it appropriate to tell me to go fuck myself with a chainsaw. They might be more interested than I. Parrot of Doom 16:59, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Interesting also that the "go fuck yourself with a chainsaw" comment was removed before that thread was archived. Still, better to censor such comments so that other interested parties can't see for themselves what exactly happened... Parrot of Doom 17:01, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Interesting indeed. That way Roux is allowed to hide his odious posting. What was so objectionable about your "commentary" anyway? It was largely just a quote of what I'd said earlier. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to enrage him further by posting on his talk page but it does seem odd to me that Roux can declare that your only intention on that thread Malleus was to attack him, while ignoring the comment you made on the same thread several minutes before, which doesn't mention him at all. When I point that out, he ignores it and continues as before. I don't think its at all inappropriate to suggest that such a user is lying, even if the only reason he is doing so is to save face. It makes my point very well when that same user, with whom I have no appreciable history, then tells me to insert a chainsaw up my colon. Parrot of Doom 17:17, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Wrong diff - it should've been this. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't feel that this comment is at all inappropriate. It wasn't designed to inflame, it was designed to point out to anyone reading that the user concerned was avoiding the question, and lying. The weight of the response to it tells me everything I need to know. By the way Ncmvocalist, none of this is personal for me (and I presume, you also). Parrot of Doom 17:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Yep, this isn't personal for me - and such extreme incivility would've been refactored in the same fashion, regardless of whom said it, be it before/after a discussion is archived. I am glad it wasn't your intention to inflame. However, others can reasonably interpret it to be inflammatory, and in that sense, inappropriate. Accusing someone of lying can be considered a serious accusation, and serious accusations require serious evidence to begin with - although his response might be satisfactory evidence for you, many others would not readily think so. Reconsidering the choice of words/language you use in the future (be it "lying" or "gutless response") may be worthwhile to avoid extra drama; being more tactful might be a better way of putting it. Something to consider anyway. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:41, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh calling him a liar was a serious accusation I agree, but I don't believe his comments in that thread could be interpreted in any other way. I'm quite happy to stand by my comment. Parrot of Doom 17:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

And in case anyone is wondering what exactly the reply contained: [1] Parrot of Doom 17:35, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The way that blocks are handed out will forever remain a mystery to me, unless the answer is that it's completely arbitrarily at the whim of any passing administrator, which is my current theory. I've been blocked for a week for using the word "sycophantic", yet Roux's outburst merit's only a 24 hour block. I think there's a discernable pattern, and it's not a pretty one. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

"may be worthwhile to avoid extra drama"? You mean like this very encore to yesterday's wikidrama? --Fred the Oyster (talk) 17:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I meant like the extra overreactions, blocks, and other unpleasant stuff that can obfuscate the main issues, in the eyes of commentators and lurkers. If that describes something that happened yesterday, then I guess so (though feel free to point out what happened yesterday seeing I don't know what it is). Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't you think it might have been wiser to familiarise yourself with yesterday's events before coming to any conclusions about who should or should not be warned/sanctioned? When another editor persists with a blatant and demonstrable lie it is hardly "uncivil" to draw attention to that fact. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Of course, but perhaps I wasn't clear in my own comment. In any case, I think it would've been wiser to be specific, than speculate on how familiar I am with "yesterday's events" (more than one wikidrama event occurred, believe it or not, and I'm not sure which, if any of the ones I know, is being referred to by Fred the Oyster). And by the way, I'm familiar with your views on civility, Malleus, and I am aware of how your block log was apparently affected - is that what you're vaguely referring to? Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

What I'm referring to is your comments here are unnecessarily extending yesterday's wikidrama. Given that you linked to that drama I'm not sure how you can not know to what I am referring. I don't think it's prudent for an administrator to isolate a few comments and phrases from a debacle like yesterday, not read the rest of it and then come and give a warning that isn't required, is patronising at best and isn't likely to be heeded. As I said, an encore... yet more wikidrama that serves no purpose other than to be self-replicating. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 18:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

(reply to Ncmvocalist) My block log is a matter of complete indifference to me, except insofar as it serves to demonstrate the endemic corruption in this site's governance. So to answer your question no, it's not what I'm referring to. I'm referring to you inserting yourself into a problem that you have no knowledge of and as a result issuing inappropriate and ill-considered warnings. Roux does in fact have a point; too many administrators are only concerned with damping down fires, not addressing the cause of the fires. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, a mere block log isn't sufficient evidence to demonstrate such corruption. You're entitled to your views, but when you have no way of knowing how much or how little I know about this discussion, it is unwise to pretend that you, as a matter of fact, do. Furthermore, I'm confident that your view about my posting here is not widely held by the community - that is, my posting was neither inappropriate, nor ill-considered. If anything, your conclusions are unsound, Malleus. If you have ideas on how to address the causes of the many fires you seem to be around, I'm sure there will be at least some administrators out there who would be willing to consider them, but you would need to (again) be specific. For example, if you think the cause of the fire in that discussion has not been addressed, making your suggestions to the admin who closed the discussion could be one way forward. In any case, we're done here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

What's very clear is that you think far more highly of yourself than I do. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Let me answer your rather impertinent question that begins "If you have ideas on how to address the causes of the many fires you seem to be around ..." in two ways. First of all philosophically. Are you familiar with the H. G. Wells story The Country of the Blind? Why do you think the villagers felt it necessary to blind the only one of them who could see? Secondly, I see that you have something like 16,500 edits, about 18% of which are to article space. I have over 67,000 edits, more than 61% of which are to article space. I have reviewed well over 400 GAs – about 5% of all GAs – and heaven knows how many FAs. I have had to delist over 140 GAs as a result of the GA Sweeps initiative, not something that is going to win any popularity contest. Need I go on? Now why don't you be a good little administrator and run along and do whatever it is that administrators are supposed to do, preferably somewhere out of my sight. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Rain of blood

Hi Parrot, when the above blows over you and Malleus might be interested in taking a look at an article I've got in my sandbox about blood rain. Hopefully I've not sucked the fun out of the subject. I searched Jstor and got very little, and this is about it. Apart from adding stuff from Red rain in Kerala I'm not sure what more I can add, but since it's an unusual subject I thought it might interest you. It should make a good DYK at least. Nev1 (talk) 18:32, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Looks interesting. I seem to remember reading something about this in the Fortean Times recently, which despite what you might think is pretty well researched. I'll see if I can find it again, but this is OK for DYK as it stands isn't it? --Malleus Fatuorum 19:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

That could be a fine article Nev, I notice you've only just started it so I'll wait a few days before I have a proper look. The sources might also cast light on raining frogs too. By the way if you're bored and fancy something to do, any pointers on Blackbeard would be welcome. I haven't done the Modern view section yet but I think it has the makings of an FA, once a few more sources are in there. Parrot of Doom 19:42, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I can't guarantee being able to add much more apart from the 2001 event, so feel free to jump in. It's easily ready for DYK, but as that will probably be the article's most important 8 hours I want to have it in decent shape (hence the sandbox). For the hook I was thinking of "when Richard the Lionheart was drenched in a rain of blood, considered an evil omen, he refused to stop building his castle where the rain fell, and William of Newburgh remarked that even if an angel had asked him to stop he would have refused?" This is partly because the Château-Gaillard article is in good shape and it was that, along with the Richard the Lionheart article, which prompted me to look for more about raining blood. Unfortunately raining frogs haven't been mentioned in the sources I've read (just a handful of jstor articles), although the sources have mentioned showers of milk, and in one place a shower of silver. Pirates always sound interesting so I'll try to take a look. Nev1 (talk) 20:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that hook is a little bit long, I'd end it at "where the rain fell." I seem to have a million and one things to look at, and I'm away for a few days starting this weekend, but I'll see what I can add. Parrot of Doom 21:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Revolution (vodka bar) not notable?

Hiya, just browsing and came across this article that you have tagged for speedy deletion. I was a bit surprised because it's a fairly major city centre bar chain in the UK. I know there aren't any references in there at the moment but there are decent ones available (e.g. [2], [3], and see [4] for more freely available ones - more behind pay walls). They're on the Sunday Times best companies to work for list [5]. Overall I think they more than meet notability requirements. There could well be an argument to merge Inventive Leisure into the article but that is a separate discussion. Given the above I've removed the tags for now, and if you still have notability concerns I suggest you take it to AfD. Quantpole (talk) 14:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

That's all very well but the articles don't give any reason as to why their subjects are notable. To me, they read like advertisements. Parrot of Doom 14:43, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Well to my mind having a chain of 58 bars and being a floated company is an 'indication of importance'? Slightly spammy maybe but not overly promotional, and not enough to meet db-g11. Quantpole (talk) 14:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Who says they have 58 bars and are a floated company? Parrot of Doom 15:01, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The article on Inventive Leisure, which is a credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source. Quantpole (talk) 15:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you need your eyes testing. Parrot of Doom 15:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

For what exactly? Your mate has just removed the claims. Quantpole (talk) 15:11, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

You know what, ask Jza84 whether he thinks that was appropriate speedy delete tagging, I can't be bothered to discuss this here any more. I'll confine myself to the AfD. Quantpole (talk) 15:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Good. Parrot of Doom 15:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

A couple of things: although Parrot of Doom and I have (a few) shared interests on Wikipedia, we've never met - I mean this in the nicest terms, but we're not mates. I'm not tag teaming here.

I think speedy deletion was a fair option here yes. Articles can always be reconstructed using improved standards after it has been deleted. However, I think it's as equally fair for you to oppose it, and I think you've done so on fair grounds (I'm both ignorant and indifferent to the content of the articles, so you'll have to forgive me if I don't know how important/unimportant they are). If decent articles can be developed as a result of SD, AfD, this dicussion and other actions, then that's a good thing; if they remain as bad as they were then delete them, another good thing. --Jza84 |  Talk  15:20, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

(Responding to Jza84). I agree a decent article can result from Afd, but from SD? Those could have been deleted and I'd never have known about it, and there would simply be no article, which I certainly wouldn't have thought of starting from scratch. It looks awfully like you're saying 'unsourced' is grounds for speedy deletion, but I'm sure you don't mean that.

By calling you two mates I wasn't intending to imply any impropriety. You simply seem to get on well, and I assume you have his page watchlisted, which generally means he's either someone you get on with or is an 'enemy' (and I'm pretty sure that's not the case)! I have no complaints over your removal of unsourced info. Quantpole (talk) 15:33, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed because I raised matters at WT:GM (bottom section) and Parrot responded. --Jza84 |  Talk  15:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

C is for

You have been blocked from editing Wikipedia as a result of your disrespect for the difference between a soft-centered cookie and a hard-baked biscuit. You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired, but please note that biscuit-disruption (including the addition of biscuit pornography), pictures of foot-wide biscuits, or extremely disturbing biscuit-related articles will not be tolerated. – iridescent 18:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Utterly disgraceful. Once again those in charge of Wikipedia have demonstrated that they have not the slightest idea of what constitutes a biscuit, which is clearly an English invention. Next you'll be telling me that a Jaffa Cake is a cake. Parrot of Doom 18:04, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

A cake is soft when fresh and hard when stale. A biscuit is hard when fresh and soft when stale. McVities even went to court to prove it. This kind of lack of respect for the basic biscuitfacts is a symptom of the diseases infecting the defamation machine of Wikipedia and the Kool-aid drinking cultists who fuel it with their bodies. – iridescent 18:11, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense. An Eccles Cake is hard when fresh, as is a Chorley Cake. The cake is a lie. Parrot of Doom 18:15, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry - the milkman was too slow so I sent a wench out to get it for you...

Chaosdruid (talk) 18:59, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Anjem Choudary

Hi,

Was reviewing the above and came across an {{clarify}} tag on a BBC radio interview that Mr Choudary made - I was not sure what was needed. Following a bit of investigation it looks like you added it with this edit can you recall what you were minded needed clarification ? Codf1977 (talk) 16:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Which station exactly. Parrot of Doom 17:10, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Judging by the dates, I think it is the Radio 4 interview as referred to here - not in a position to play the clip right now but when I get a chance I will do so and confirm Codf1977 (talk) 17:32, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I'm out of the country right now so don't have the time to do this. Parrot of Doom 20:53, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Squeezing into a pint pot

These have some additional information on the Bottle Conjuror should you wish to add anything (I can't be faffing around with cites at this hour):

• Modern Enchantments: The Cultural Power of Secular Magic - Simon During
• The Great Illusionists - Edwin A. Dawes
• [6] has an alternative advert from The Gentleman's Magazine

Dudley Bradstreet claimed to be the author of the hoax and later wrote a play on it according to the DNB. Yomangani^talk 01:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok thanks for the help. It doesn't seem that big an article really, I came across it while researching Cock Lane ghost. One of the pictures on the wall in one of the images was of the "Bottle Conjuror" and I was intrigued. Also slightly disappointed that it didn't involve Thai women. Parrot of Doom 17:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

DYK for The Bottle Conjuror

On February 22, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Bottle Conjuror, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 12:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Music of Minnesota

Hi PoD! I'm just dropping by to see if you have any interest in revisiting your comments at the Music of Minnesota FAR, located here. I see that you did a bit of prose work on the article, but not much in the past couple of weeks. On an unrelated note, I read through most of Blackbeard yesterday, and I think it may be the most entertaining yet informative articles I have read on Wiki. I have now turned green with envy at your writing abilities :) Thanks in advance for any further work on the MoM article - your help so far has been appreciated. Dana boomer (talk) 00:00, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry I've not been able to do much on the article of late - I've been a little busy with work and other things, and time has slipped by. I'll have another look asap. I'm a little bit busy tomorrow looking at a 150-year-old beam engine that's in dire need of restoration :) Parrot of Doom 00:02, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Isn't it extraordinary

I've just noticed that a little article I wrote with no great expectations of even being able to find enough to get it to GA has now been translated into Spanish, French, and Hebrew. It's extraordinary to think that all of our hoaxes and misinformation may soon similarly propagate across the face of the planet. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 00:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Careful now, they may even get to the US. Before you know it you'll have the Christians and Creationists sending you to hell! Parrot of Doom 09:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I've always been mildly amused by the eclectic mix of languages Bruce Castle has been translated into. (I suspect the Arabic and Bulgarian versions aren't down to any particular interest in Elizabethan formal architecture or Victorian experimental schools, but rather that B.C. is about 200 yards from White Hart Lane and people coming to watch Mido and Berbatov saw the building and took an interest.) Inexplicably, there's a French version of Hellingly Hospital Railway as well, which for some reason appears to be one of their less successful articles. – iridescent 11:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)