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

The Man in the Moone

Thanks for taking a look at The Man in the Moone. I was starting to get a little bit anxious that it might drop off the bottom of the list because of a lack of reviewers. Apparently there's not much interest in ancient science fiction, but then the number of reviewers seems to be in terminal decline anyway. Malleus Fatuorum 19:24, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

No problem. The notifications thing is a load of crap, do you know how I get the orange bar back? Parrot of Doom 22:04, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Someone's written a script there's a link to on my talk page. Malleus Fatuorum 22:13, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Next, push adverts and "sponsored posts" will be appearing on my talk page. I was perfectly happy the way it was, why do people have to fiddle? Parrot of Doom 22:20, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

You can also hide the Facebook notification thing altogether by putting: #pt-notifications{display:none !important;} into your common.css page. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:21, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I imagine the developers had the very best of intentions, but they didn't half cock it up. Which seems to be a common factor with software "upgrades". Malleus Fatuorum 22:41, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid that may as well be written in Chinese. Parrot of Doom 22:38, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Just go to your preferences and copy that into your common.css. It's not rocket science. Malleus Fatuorum 22:41, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok I've done that (I think) and the notifications thing has gone, so that's all good. Is there something similar I can use to get rid of editors who create extended article talk page arguments when I revert their messing around with citations? Parrot of Doom 22:45, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Ah, that's a fish of an entirely different colour. I think you need to be an admin for that. Malleus Fatuorum 22:49, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I know that The Man in the Moone isn't up your usual alley so to speak, but thanks for reading through it and of course for supporting its promotion. It became a bit of an obsession for me, so I'll be glad to see it done and dusted and then on to other things ... that'll probably equally become obsessions for me. Malleus Fatuorum 16:51, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

No problem, recent events forced me to consider if some reviewers at FAC know what they're on about. As someone who often confuses arse and elbow, I thought I'd join their ranks. Parrot of Doom 19:52, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Sometimes all it takes is for someone to come and look at an article with a fresh eye. As I said to someone a while ago, the trick with FAC is to be prepared to bend like a tree before the wind, while all the while ensuring that the article that comes out of the process is at least no worse than the one that went in. Malleus Fatuorum 20:09, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Eagle (comic)

Congratulations on taking this article to FA Status. An important article on the history of British children's comics. Well done! Try not to take any notice of the criticisms – there seem to be a lot of Johnny-come-latelies who appear to specialise in criticising the work of us old hands! – Agendum (talk) 14:05, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the specifics, but the trend seems to be for an increasing number of "you haven't included my favourite factoid, how could this article possibly have got past the FA reviewers?" Malleus Fatuorum 19:29, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

One of the benefits of working with sometimes obscure subjects (ok, often) is that not many people know enough about the subject to complain... Parrot of Doom 19:54, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I think the Halifax Gibbet remains one of my favourite obscure topics. Might even have made a good April 1 candidate. Malleus Fatuorum 20:27, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Agendum, it was a pleasure getting Eagle to FA. Parrot of Doom 19:31, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Henry Garnet

Hi, in the light of this and that, are you sure it was a judgement that the english justice may be proud of? If not, do you consider worth mentioning the circumstances of high religious intolerance and bigotry reigning in this country at that time that influenced the verdict?--Quodvultdeus (talk) 10:06, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

He was judged guilty, he's guilty in law. Otherwise you might as well claim that Ian Huntley is an "alleged" murderer. Parrot of Doom 10:13, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Rumours

Well, they have released the 35th Anniversary Box Set Edition, and this inevitably leads to new reviews and ratings for the album. Since, we are in a new era for critics, when it comes to music, about all of them provide ratings with the new reviews. This leads me to create this, which I want to know what do you think of it, and how should we go about incorporating it into the article as it presently exists. So, what should we do with this new material for this classic album with respect to this new major re-release.HotHat (talk) 06:33, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry Hothat, I saw this post a while back but I'm snowed under with work. I will try and read what you suggest but my personal preference is to place most of the emphasis on reviews made at the time of the album's release. Parrot of Doom 22:09, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to you let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You do not need to participate; however, you are invited to help find a resolution. The thread is "A Momentary Lapse of Reason". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 20:06, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

ANI

Per your notice at the top of this page, I realize you don't want this, or wish to participate, but I am required by policy to notify you.

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Gaijin42 (talk) 20:05, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I closed it. He didn't even request any administrative action or describe an incident. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:38, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

And it got reopened. How boringly predictable. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:49, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Black Kite closed it. Killing the intellectually undead is difficult. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:42, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

It was nothing I haven't seen before, except I was pleased to see other content contributors weigh in and agree with my point, which is that experienced editors shouldn't be so lazy that they expect everyone else to tidy up after them. Parrot of Doom 11:06, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

your point is indeed fine. Article degredation is a problem. The solution however is not edit warring and blatant rudeness and incivility. 13:44, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

It can be, and it is sometimes, but neither is the solution running to Mummy at ANI. Eric Corbett 13:47, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

No, the solution is for people who understand what a problem it is to come down like a tonne of bricks on those who don't. I note with mild interest that you haven't spoken to Mabbet about this matter, or do you consider "Get off your high horse", "as your edit summary arrogantly proclaimed" to be civil? Actually, don't bother answering, I've repeatedly exclaimed my interest in improving articles only, beyond a few editors I work regularly with, the social aspects of this website hold little interest for me. The whole idea of enforced civility is, to those who live and work in the real world, insulting nonsense. Parrot of Doom 16:05, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Don't you begin to get the impression that we've been wasting our time here? I certainly do. Eric Corbett 00:30, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I am unsure what you are talking about re the edit summaries. I did not say that, so perhaps you have confused me. I certainly understand and sympathize with your POV, but the policies and guidelines you are blatantly ignoring are no less important than the ones you are attempting to enforce. Incivility and edit warring will lead to a bad encyclopedia just as quickly as an inconsistent citation style. Attempting to get you to work within those policies is not a "social aspect". You are very right, you cannot enforce civility, but you can ban incivility. Collaboration is a prerequisite for a project of this size. If everyone worked in the manner you claim is appropriate, the project would have fallen apart long ago.Gaijin42 (talk) 03:34, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Give it a rest Gaijin42, nobody cares what you think. Eric Corbett 03:39, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

No, you didn't say those things, but if you'd looked through more edit histories than mine, then perhaps you wouldn't accuse me of being confused. The short answer is that in more than one way you haven't the first clue what you're talking about. Parrot of Doom 08:37, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Hugs

CarrieVS has hugged you! Hugs promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better (and hopefully wasn't meant as an invasion of personal space). Spread the WikiLove by hugging at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Hug others by adding {{subst:Hug}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

We've not met (Hi, I'm Carrie, nice to meet you, etc) but I can guess from the message up there that you've had some testing times on Wikipedia. I am happy to say that you are absopositivolutely wrong to say that contributions aren't valued. I edit Wikipedia but I also use it almost every day, and I don't know what I'd do without it (presumably whatever I did before it was invented). I cannot be the only one. Your contributions are absolutely valued. Even if there's a few people here, as there are a few everywhere, who are hard to deal with. (Ask me about the time I breached someone's human rights!)

Anyway, you sounded like maybe you needed a hug. CarrieVS (talk) 21:05, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you CarrieVS, I don't particularly need a hug, I'm just no longer willing or able to work with people who have no appreciation of the time and effort I put into certain articles. Parrot of Doom 22:04, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I could give you a barnstar or something, but I guess you'd like that as much as a kick in the pants. Well, that ANI thread is over, and it looks like the consensus was that such rough edits shouldn't be allowed in an FA. FWIW, I thought you were no less than your usual bitchy self in tone, but your behavior in edit summaries and on the talk page was impeccable. That makes it easy for nominal uberpeckers like myself to put an end to a thread/t. Happy days Parrot, Drmies (talk) 02:54, 23 May 2013 (UTC)