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

FYI

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests#Blackbeard Dabomb87 (talk) 14:44, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the headsup. I guess I'd better get tidying it up. Parrot of Doom 14:57, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Workhouse, again, again ...

I think I've done about all I can with the Religion section, what do you think? I've also added a reference to the Swing Riots, but this is starting to seem without end to me. What else do we need to do? Malleus Fatuorum 23:35, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I read it last night, it looks very good to me. What I'd suggest is that you take a quick look at the books you have to see if the article covers most of the main points they address. If it does, then go for GA? Parrot of Doom 23:38, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I suppose that's got to be the way to go. I'll expand the lead over the next few days and we'll see how it goes at GAN. Malleus Fatuorum 00:04, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

It's up at GAN now; I haven't yet finished expanding the lead, but I suspect there will be plenty of time for that before a reviewer shows up. Malleus Fatuorum 17:19, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

You've both done an excellent job, it's a really interesting bit of social history.:-)--J3Mrs (talk) 17:23, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I just added a few bits here and there and gave Malleus the impetus to finish it, I think :) Parrot of Doom 17:26, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

For "impetus" read "kick up the arse", which I definitely needed. :lol: Malleus Fatuorum 17:33, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I can read between the lines.--J3Mrs (talk) 17:48, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I've just finished the lead, and on reading the whole article again I think it's one we can be proud of, and which will give us a good base for articles on some of the local workhouses and Poor Law Unions. Malleus Fatuorum 18:30, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Hopefully we'll get some movement on MediaCityUK's GAN soon as well. Malleus Fatuorum 18:33, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

It's awaiting my next weekend away. :)--J3Mrs (talk) 19:31, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of the GA review. I just haven't got the stomach for it right now. Malleus Fatuorum 14:35, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

No problem. Parrot of Doom 18:24, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I was just looking through the article again after it popped up on my watchlist, and I'm by no means ashamed of it; I think we've done a fair job. But I'm not in any rush to FAC though, at least not until the story of workhouses in Scotland and Ireland is also covered, if it ever is. BTW, from the Pendle witches talk page I was pointed towards a newish (2010) book on them and their magic, which is quite fascinating. Apparently there's a whole branch of witchcraft based around pin magic that requires proper metal pins as we would know them, but which had to be hand-made in the 17th century and hence were rather expensive for people like the alleged witches. Who was the klutz said that there are no more articles to be written? Malleus Fatuorum 20:41, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I was up near Pendle Hill last week recording Jeanette Winterson for the One Show. Now there's a fascinating woman - good presenter, extremely eloquent and meaningful pieces to camera, and a great laugh. She also told one nosey member of the public to fuckoff, to his face. I had to work very hard to stifle my laughter. iPlayer link, watch from about 1.40 in. Parrot of Doom 20:46, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Good for her. I really don't think the Californians believe that's how the rest of the world speaks. All that "you wouldn't dare say that to my face" bollocks. You bet your arse I would if I thought you deserved it, and so would any other sane and sensible person. Malleus Fatuorum 20:58, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

BTW, the link doesn't work. Is that just because I'm in Stretford and not the lush green fields of Flixton? Malleus Fatuorum 21:01, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Try it now, I fixed it. I hadn't realised Pendle Hill was so close, so if there's a sunny day coming up I may go up there for a walk. Avec camera, of course. How come you haven't gone for GA with Matthew Hopkins? There's a character. Parrot of Doom 21:06, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I somehow lost momentum with dear old Matthew (I can just hear J3Mrs saying "what, again?" in the background), and until I just checked I hadn't realised I was the highest contributor to that article. I may check with User:Edmund Patrick, who I think did most of the heavy lifting, and see what his thoughts are. It's certainly one I'd like to see as a GA. Part of why I temporarily lost interest is that the standard text is such a dense story of "he did this, he did that, then he did something else" that I almost lost the will to live while reading it. Malleus Fatuorum 21:22, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Think yourself lucky you didn't have to read this, one of the most detailed but boring books I've ever had to plough through. Parrot of Doom 23:03, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Guy Fawkes (Night)

Are you beginning to wonder why you ever got involved? :lol: Malleus Fatuorum 11:06, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually no, since I learned a hell of a lot helping to write those articles. I'm wondering why other people (not you) got involved. ಠ_ಠ Parrot of Doom 11:20, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Although I'm getting pretty fed up of the constant sniping and "demands" from people who obviously have absolutely no familiarity with the source material. This is why editors leave, not because someone was rude to them, but because being forced to be on the defensive all the time is demeaning and insulting. And the worst part - where is the bureaucracy that's supposed to prevent this kind of thing from happening? Parrot of Doom 11:44, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

It's not really people (like me) making "demands", it's people (like me) knowing full well that it's less hassle all round to seek your views before trying to make any changes to the article. That's not really intended as a criticism, more a recognition of reality - that is how that article is managed. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:54, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

It's managed like that because with the exception of Malleus, I'm the only person in all this who's bothered to get decent source material from which to help write thirteen (and soon, fourteen) Gunpowder Plot articles. You'd be doing me a huge favour if you'd put your hand in your pocket to buy some of these books, because then you could answer your own questions while making positive contributions to the articles, instead of expecting me to do it for you. Parrot of Doom 12:00, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

No thanks, I'd rather divert my efforts elsewhere. You could treat it as a compliment that so many people are drawn in to your articles that they want to contribute and improve them even further. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:08, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

They are not my articles. Parrot of Doom 12:11, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

No, but you can still take some credit for them. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:17, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

• Volenti non fit injuria is the relevant legal maxim. At this time of year and with many protesters using Guy Fawkes masks too, we must expect a lot of traffic for these topics. Warden (talk) 13:08, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
  • This has been going on for a long time, not just the last few weeks. Parrot of Doom 13:46, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
    • The V for Vendetta mask stuff has has rumbling on for as long as I can remember. And while I have your attention, is the quotation you just reverted actually correct? Specifically "... all or any of them armed with Sticks, Clubs or and kind of weapons...". Should that be "or any kind of weapons" rather than "or and kind of weapons"? Malleus Fatuorum 14:00, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
      • Rushed typing from me I think. Thanks for pointing it out, I've fixed it. Parrot of Doom 14:20, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

A nice compromise.[1]. I'd forgotten that there's a body of opinion in favour of "drawing" as being the method of conveyance to the scaffold. Although in that case wouldn't it have been called "drawn, hanged, and quartered"? It seems a little odd that the most gruesome aspect of the execution wouldn't be mentioned, but then what do I know. Malleus Fatuorum 22:16, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

This is one of the reasons I started on Hanged, drawn and quartered - "The historian and author Ian Mortimer disagrees. In an essay published on his website, he writes that the separate mention of evisceration is a relatively modern device, and that while it certainly took place on many occasions, the presumption that drawing means to disembowel is spurious. Instead, drawing (as a method of transportation) may be mentioned after hanging because it was a supplementary part of the execution.[31]" Parrot of Doom 23:01, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

• The OED gives some examples which seem fairly clear in support of Mortimer, e.g. "After the fassyon of treytours to be drawen, hanged and quartred." (Edward Hall, 1548) Warden (talk) 11:42, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

• I hope both you and Malleus have a good Guy Fawkes Night. It was nice to read the article again. cheers --Guerillero | My Talk 17:15, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Guerillero, I'm off out boozing tonight. Parrot of Doom 17:40, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

The golden age of canals

...about the restoration of Britain's canal system is something you may want to watch on iplayer - see http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01173hf/The_Golden_Age_of_Canals/ Richerman (talk) 22:05, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll take a look at that in a few days. Parrot of Doom 22:14, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Colwidth discussion

Hi there. I've started a discussion at Talk:Blackbeard/Archive3#Changes to colwidth to resolve our disagreement over the column width of the citations on the related article. I've taken the time to measure out the columns at different resolutions, and I'd love some input from you. Have a good one. --Gyrobo (talk) 23:56, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello again. I don't know if you're still involved in the discussion, but I wanted to thank you for your input, and for creating and maintaining the Blackbeard article's content. If you remain opposed to my view, then I apologize for my lack of clarity. Have a good weekend. --Gyrobo (talk) 23:08, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I find your notion that my objection to your edits is based on a supposed lack of comprehension to be pretty damn offensive. Parrot of Doom 20:17, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Re: Hard (song)

Thanks. Look at my latest comment on Sandy's talk page with regard to your assuming good faith comment. I'm just annoyed of keeping on getting knocked down at FAC, it's frustrating. My GANs pass first time, yet S&M (song) has been through three FACs. I was told that S&M is near on perfect, but some reviewers said that the Background section is too short, so it can't be promoted. I actually managed to get one Support on the third time. I can't improve S&M anymore, the prose is really good and so are the references, but there is no other background info, so I don't see how I can expand it, so I have kinda come to a dead end with that one, but I do think Hard could be an FA. Calvin • ^TalkThatTalk 20:57, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

GAC can be pretty tough but FAC is much, much harder. GAC is a few laps around the park with a fitness instructor. FAC is a few weeks training with the Royal Marines. Reviewers at FAC will highlight every little flaw they find—you have to accept that if you want that article to be considered as one of Wikipedia's best. I have some experience working on album articles (see my talk page - significant contributions) so might be able to offer some help. I'm busy for the next couple of days but I'll be free on the weekend I think.

As for a lack of background information, if there isn't anything else to add then that's all you have to say. It's up to individual reviewers to decide if the article works without such detail. Parrot of Doom 21:01, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I do accept that, and I said that on Sandy's talk page, I always take on board what the reviewer says, as I obviously want the article to be passed. If I didn't listen then I wouldn't have had 16 GANs passed. Calvin • ^TalkThatTalk 21:08, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

GAN is a walk in the park compared to FAC. That's just the way it is. Stick with it, listen to what people are telling you, and I guarantee you'll come out the other end with much improved articles. One more thing - FAC is a chance for people to comment on whether the article is deserving of FA status. Reviewers there are under no obligation to do anything but be critical of the articles presented - that's why collaboration with other experienced editors is so vitally important. Parrot of Doom 21:29, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

You reminded me, this I think is my first posting on Sandy's talk page. It regards the failure of my first FAC to be promoted. Sandy can be very helpful. If I forget, remind me this weekend and I'll take a look. Parrot of Doom 21:37, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not saying she is not helpful, but I was annoyed that the nomination was closed after just two days. That was all. Calvin • ^TalkThatTalk 21:51, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Hard c/e

Hi. Regarding this, it is better than what I wrote. But, the song is always a song before a single, so it should say:

"Hard" is a song by Barbadian recording artist Rihanna on her fourth studio album, Rated R (2009).

and then go on to say that it was released as the second single. And there shouldn't be a one sentence paragraph either (the third one), it looks very weak and poor. Calvin • ^TalkThatTalk 18:56, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I've undone a few things. I changed the opening sentence back, because it's a song before a single. I changed some things back like how the sentence about who wrote it was written; there isn't any such thing as additional writers, they all co-wrote. And I changed where you had put the music video sentence, because it made no sense at all to have it in the middle of talking about the songs charting, so I moved it down to the third paragraph, like before, to make more sense and to not make the one sentence third paragraph look so weak. I don't know if you realised, but you had put quite a lot of double spaces in as well! Calvin • ^TalkThatTalk 19:16, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm afraid I'll have to bow out now. If you think the lead flows better as you've left it then I think I'd be wasting my time doing any more. I've spent hours writing articles that I thought were pretty good, but sometimes a fresh pair of eyes can find a million things that have been overlooked. That's the case here, I think. Parrot of Doom 19:43, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I didn't change really change what you had written, but I did change where you put things. I know that by having a one line paragraph in the Lead will be something that the FAC would say is not acceptable. Every Rihanna GA follows the format of, for example, "Hard" is a song by Barbadian recording artist Rihanna on her fourth studio album, Rated R (2009). It was just the opening sentence and the way how you had worded who wrote the song that I didn't like. It wouldn't be like that for the rest of the article. Calvin • ^TalkThatTalk 20:00, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Experience tells me it would be, but anyway, best of luck for the article's future. In its current state it'll never be promoted. Parrot of Doom 22:06, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I have offended you or something? Calvin • ^TalkThatTalk 22:10, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not at all offended, I'm just telling things as they are - that article won't ever be promoted in its present condition. Parrot of Doom 22:19, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah it probably won't be. It was just those few points that I felt shouldn't have changed. I don't understand why it should be said that Rihanna and Jeezy were "additional writers". It doesn't matter how much you contribute, you are still a writer of the song. I don't really care what else changes in the other sections to improve it, but I just wanted those 2/3 points in the Lead to stay the same. Calvin • ^TalkThatTalk 22:23, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

The problem, and I reserve these comments for the lead only (because that's as far as I've read), is that there's little to no order to what's written. You need to begin with the basics and stay focussed on those points. It's a song, yes, but its release as a single (articles on album content not released as singles tend to be rather sparse) is more important as that's where its notability lies. "The song, which features American rapper Jeezy, was the second single from the album and was released on February 19, 2010, by Def Jam Recordings in the United States" just confuses the issue - we already know it's a song, but in the same sentence it becomes a single. Then we mention an album, but we were told about the album in the previous sentence. Then you have this - "Written by Terius Nash, Christopher Stewart, Rihanna and Jay Jenkins, "Hard" incorporates elements of hip hop and features military horns, hissing synthesizers, sharp beats and piano. The song was produced by Nash and Stewart, under their stage names The-Dream and Tricky Stewart" - written by four people, discuss something else, then return to two of those four people.

It's just confusing and sends the reader around in circles, if they can be bothered to read that far. I think most people would just get a bit frustrated and probably click elsewhere as there isn't a logical flow. I hate to sound like I'm blowing my own trumpet, and in truth this was written a few years ago and I'd certainly write it differently now, but look at the much simpler structure of the lead of The Dark Side of the Moon. This is an album about which a wealth of prose has been written, but the lead condenses it all and deals with only the most pertinent points, and it lists them in a logical order that the reader can understand - who wrote it, when they wrote it, why they wrote it, how they recorded it, when they released it, how many it sold, what its legacy was. It's clear and simple and doesn't require the reader to stop and return to a previous sentence as your construction of "Hard"'s writers and producers line does.

Have a look at WP:FA and dig around the music section, particularly at articles promoted in the last year or two. But you should listen to me when I say that if you don't allow experienced editors (I wouldn't call myself a copyeditor) to chop and change things in ways you would never have thought, you'll never be able to get past this FAC problem. Parrot of Doom 22:50, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't put too much effort with this muppet. WP:OWN is too far ingrained in him. My recent changes to his bad grammar just got labelled as vandalism, so any changes you may make will always be reverted. It's a crap song too, I'd stick with Comfortably Numb if I were you and leave this twonk to his own devices. --The Pink Oboe (talk) 23:19, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Because what you added wasn't good. I told you once, but you reverted me. And you are being really rude. And Parrot, I understand what you mean. It has been copy-edited before by someone from the guild. I don't mind if you want to restore your version, but as long as the opening sentence stays the same and the third paragraph isn't just one sentence, I don't mind what you do (or decide to do, if you want to) with the rest of the article. Calvin • ^TalkThatTalk 23:39, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Labelling The Pink Oboe's edits as vandalism wasn't terribly polite either, so if I were you I'd keep comments about other people's rudeness to myself and work on collaborating to improve the article. Nev1 (talk) 23:47, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain that you'd object to the changes I'd make to the article as I tend not to tread lightly - you need only look at the talk pages of some of the articles I've contributed to to see that my changes are far from universally popular. I have something in a sandbox I need to get on with so I'll concentrate on that, but please, just try to think about the comments made at FAC, and my comments here. Parrot of Doom 23:58, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

What I added was better than what was there, it was also more grammatically correct. But like most teenagers your age you are so far up yourself you can't see that. It's no wonder you keep falling at every FAC hurdle, and you not accepting changes by people who may know better than you is going to keep you from ever crossing those FAC hurdles. Your loss not mine. Maybe when you get to our ages you'll see how much of a muppet you are being. --The Pink Oboe (talk) 00:19, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I have read your comments. But whatever it takes for it to be an FA. Just not the opening sentence. S&M (song) has been through FAC 3 times and they didn't have a problem with the opening sentence. Calvin • ^TalkThatTalk 00:08, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Not the opening sentence, no, just the entire article. I'm sorry but that's the truth of the matter. Parrot of Doom 00:15, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

The fact you won't allow the first sentence to be changed shows that you will not do whatever it takes to reach FAC. So welcome to the world of GA for ever more. --The Pink Oboe (talk) 00:22, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

"and appears on her fourth studio album" is not that great, songs don't "appear" on albums, it makes it sound like it is by chance. And why did you put [[Beyoncé Knowles|Beyoncé Knowles's]] ? [[Beyoncé Knowles]]'s is fine. And you spilt up some sentences, making it read like a lit of hard facts. No one ever had a problem on the S&M FACs with the opening sentence. The only thing that is stopping S&M from being promoted is that, on some reviewers opinion, the Background section is too short. Apart from that... Calvin • ^TalkThatTalk 00:27, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

It delineated the artist, as the sentence reads at the moment that it's Rihanna that's on on the album, not the song. The "and" made the sentence flow better, and more accurately. An awful lot of your sentences are worded quite awkwardly and you have a propensity for using too many long sentences which are linked together with out of place indefinite articles. And yes, songs do "appear" on albums. Oh, and stop trying to live off past glories. Just because S&M managed it does not mean this will when different things are being said. You are currently coming across as "but, but, but, Herbert managed it and my work is just as good as his". It tickles me that you really haven't spotted the pattern that's preventing you getting FAC articles. --The Pink Oboe (talk) 00:42, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm getting really annoyed of you being incredibly rude and offensive, and you say about me being immature and "young"? I've just c/e the Lead of Hard. Calvin • ^TalkThatTalk 00:50, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

My heart bleeds for you sunshine, just think on the next time you want to describe one of my edits as vandalism. And whoopy-fuckin' do you've done another edit on your beloved article, go for it Sonny-Jim, you've got WP:OWN stamped all over it anyway, you do what you like I'm not going near it again, and I recommend no-one else does whilst you've got your mitts on it. Have a nice night/day (delete whichever is not applicable}. --The Pink Oboe (talk) 01:23, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

You're so immature. You don't even know me so you can't comment on me or what I do really. I don't mind who edits Rihanna articles, anyone can, as long as it is good, relevant to the article and properly sourced. So don't give me all this WP:OWN crap. Actually, I didn't realise that you are effectively a newbie (only 1,000 edits), so I think you actually have quite some nerve to criticize me. Calvin • ^TalkThatTalk 01:26, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Your response to someone calling you immature is to turn round and say "no, you are"? That sure showed him. Nev1 (talk) 01:32, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Point of order Nev, I didn't actually call him immature, he just thinks I did. --The Pink Oboe (talk) 01:40, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Fair point, I probably should have cheked that myself. Sorry about that. I also see that even though Calvin uses "young" in quotes no one else said that, which makes me wonder what the point of the quotation marks was. Nev1 (talk) 01:49, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) PoD edited it, you changed it back. I edited it, you changed it back. WP:DUCK. Both of us use far better English than you do (not your fault of course, current British education sucks, especially English grammar, as can be demonstrated by your last comment) yet you still feel you know better. And no I don't know you...see, there is a silver lining to this. PS I'm not a newbie, I've been here since 2003 and have a cumulative total of about 30,000 edits. --The Pink Oboe (talk) 01:38, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I didn't change PoD's edits back actually, so that's a fail. I changed some of what he had written around, some of what he did is still there and untouched. I assume you are from America? So you write and speak in the American Dialect of British English, which is a proper language. Hmm, well, your stats say differently; 1,000 edits since November 2009. And no, you think you know better. Wikipedia is about working together, yet it's okay for you to expect me to say "oh, yes, your edits to the article were perfect" but you have a problem with me changing some of it? Pff, such double standards, you can't have it both ways. Anyway, I think it's bad of both us to be arguing on someone else's talk page. If you feel you want to continue this, then you can post on my talk page, but I for one, will not be replying to you here or your talk page, so take your own advice: growing old is mandatory, growing up is optional. Calvin • ^TalkThatTalk 01:44, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Yup it seems you have a handle on everything, and doing such a bang up job of working well with others too. --The Pink Oboe (talk) 01:59, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Main page appearance: Blackbeard

This is a note to let the main editors of Blackbeard know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on November 22, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 22, 2011. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Edward Teach (c. 1680 – 22 November 1718), better known as Blackbeard, was a notorious English pirate who operated around the West Indies and the eastern coast of the American colonies. In 1716 he joined the crew of Benjamin Hornigold, a pirate who operated from the Caribbean island of New Providence. He quickly acquired his own ship, Queen Anne's Revenge, and from 1717 to 1718 became a renowned pirate. His cognomen, Blackbeard, was derived from his thick black beard and fearsome appearance; he was reported to have tied lit fuses under his hat to frighten his enemies. A shrewd and calculating leader, Teach avoided the use of force, relying instead on his fearsome image to elicit the response he desired from those he robbed. Contrary to the modern-day picture of the traditional tyrannical pirate, he commanded his vessels with the permission of their crews and there are no known accounts of his ever having harmed or murdered those he held captive. He was romanticised after his death, and became the inspiration for a number of pirate-themed works of fiction across a range of genres. (more...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 00:04, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Ely, Cambridgeshire

Hiya. Sorry to bother you. It seems likely you are a page-lurker of Jza84 (talk · contribs) who, it seems, may temporarily be awol. Are you able to answer my query posted on his page? --Senra (Talk) 10:24, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Lancashire and PROOVED

Hya me again,i dont want to start arguing but just thought id let you know,ive spoke to Cllr Noel Spencer whos the present Mayor of Bolton and he said that bolton and bury are still in the historic county of lancashire,and that they are only in greater manchester, for police and fire and rescue services.theres your proof,and now so if you dont mind ill just insert into the articles that bolton and bury are still in Lancashire as are wigan,rochdale and oldham.bye,please reply and dont delete,as this only makes you look even more foolish,thanks and bye. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.22.226.231 (talk) 19:53, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Speaking to someone does not constitute "proof" according to our verifiability policy, as additions or changes must be cited to published reliable sources. Also, you may wish to invest in a spell-checker. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:59, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

http://whatismyipaddress.com/ip/86.22.226.231 is also amusing - Country: United Kingdom, State/Region: Manchester, City: Manchester - (sorry if I mentioned this already, this topic seems to go around and around for no good reason.)

If there's still excitement over the postal service treatment of this topic, I'll happily post a letter to my relatives in Bolton with the address listed as Number Streetname, BOLTON, Lincolnshire, POSTCODE... and Mr 86.22.226.231 can tell us whether such a letter will or will not be delivered to the correct address in Bolton. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:56, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

☆ Guidance Barnstar ☆

		The Guidance Barnstar
		I award you the Guidance Barnstar, Parrot of Doom, for taking that extra step and actually demonstrating to the editor that required assistance with sources - how to actually cite sources. Thank you, -- MST☆R (Chat Me!) 10:44, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Adding citations

Dear ParrotofDoom,

Thanks very much for your helpful note about citations. My next question would be, would citations be suitable for citing primary source material? Basically, I am archivist at MGS, and I have some really interesting original material which would amplify the MGS article However, some of this material - e.g. printed school financial reports, has not been cited in secondary printed sources, and is not cited on the MGS website either? What would be the correct form for citing this sort of material, or does wikipedia not really allow for original sources?

Thanks for your help

Rachel Kneale — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.44.42.66 (talk) 11:16, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Primary sources have to be used with care. If I were including such data in an article, I'd probably write something like "According to a printed school financial report of 1950, the sports department spent £xxxx, £xx more than the religious department" - if you see what I mean. Don't draw conclusions from such data, just include the raw figures. Sometimes, primary sources can be contradicted by other primary sources. That's why we tend to rely on secondary sources only. Parrot of Doom 11:36, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I wouldn't be looking at interpreting sources, just stating the data in them. I think for an article about a school, raw factual data from the source itself is pretty reliable. For example, when a report published by the school itself says there were 1100 boys at the school in 1932, and then lists them all, then I don't think that is likely to be unreliable. I guess that is the weakness of wikipedia, the reliance on secondary intepretative sources. Case in point, the MGS article stated that the school had 1400 boys by the 1930s, a "fact" which had clearly been taken from a secondary source, but is completely incorrect! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rachel Kneale (talk • contribs) 14:04, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Blackbeard

Having fun? Malleus Fatuorum 16:16, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Great article but, geez, you seem to have picked a vandal-hot topic! Good luck. ( Myosotis Scorpioides 16:59, 22 November 2011 (UTC))

I think there'd be a lot more "fun" if the article wasn't protected against vandalism :) Parrot of Doom 19:48, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

While people are criticizing one another's edit summaries, I just *have* to link to this diff somewhere, and not at the article, so this page gets elected.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:57, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

It just goes to show how deceitful some here are. Parrot of Doom 16:40, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For kick ass work on DAvid Starkey and getting it a good article Alexandre8 (talk) 20:28, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

No problem. I despise poor quality articles on notable figures, particularly those involved in some controversy. Also, I like Starkey, he's clearly not afraid to speak his mind. Parrot of Doom 20:57, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Personal comments on WP:ERRORS

You seem determined to post personal comments on WP:ERRORS, although it does nothing to advance the discussion at hand. You have had yourr attention drawn to the request at the top of the page to keep discussions there to what is relevant. Quite apart from your apparent indifference to wp:civil, and your evident ignorance of the role of a primary teacher, do you actually have any defence to offer for this comment? Kevin McE (talk) 21:28, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I find it ironic that someone who is supposedly a primary-school teacher could expect others to agree with the poorly-phrased string of gibberish you wrote. If you took my reply personally, then as far as I'm concerned, it was pretty damn accurate.

And don't waffle on about civility to me after you've removed comments you don't like. If you don't like them then ask someone else to get involved. Don't just delete my comments as though they were worthless. Parrot of Doom 21:41, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

This seemingly endless kind of nonsense makes writing anything here such a misery. Was it always like this? Did I just not notice it so much before? I dunno. Malleus Fatuorum 22:01, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

It's why I tend to stick to reasonably obscure articles. I'm getting quite sick of the "I find your criticism of my argument insulting, and therefore incivil. I demand you do something about it" attitude. An admin has just edited the TFA blurb for Blackbeard to remove "cognomen", because apparently, it might confuse and upset some readers. What the hell is wrong with unusual words? Maybe I should start writing in txt spk. Parrot of Doom 22:21, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

The same admin is about to edit the blurb for the Manchester Martyrs to remove the "contentious" word "rescue". You really couldn't make this crap up. I hadn't realised that being on the main page in any category was just the same old same old. Malleus Fatuorum 22:37, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah: nuisance having an encyclopaedia written in a manner that seeks to provide clear information to the reader. Kevin McE (talk) 22:48, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

The "nuisance" is editors like yourself, who criticise without even having read an article, much less understand it. Malleus Fatuorum 22:50, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't commenting on the article, I was commenting on the main page blurb, which you evidently wanted to defend without reading it... Kevin McE (talk) 23:03, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Go and comment elsewhere, perhaps on the talk page of someone interested in arguing with idiots. Parrot of Doom 23:10, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I notice he said he was playing his "admin card" - in other words, "I have the power, I'll do what I like". It's extremely insulting. One wouldn't expect to get angry over the replacement of "cognomen" but the way he's done it, "I'm right, tough shit", is disgraceful. He isn't wielding a mop, he's wielding a clown's lapel flower. Parrot of Doom 22:48, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

We always have to strive to remember that not all administrators are ignorant, arrogant, incivil donkeys; there are a few decent ones as well. ;-) Malleus Fatuorum 22:53, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Sadly the admins ran out of important work to do, like getting through backlogs, so they sent their least qualified forward to engage in capricious content edits outside of consensus powered only by an administrative bit and a cretinous unwillingness to read the sources. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:58, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I recognise I can be as stubborn as hell myself (a failing), but at least I don't have the power to impose that stubbornness on others, and nor do I ever want it. Parrot of Doom 23:51, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

If I ever did, I'd end up like this bloke Parrot of Doom 23:52, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

There's a video of Sue Gardner, the head of the WMF, addressing a WikipediaUK board meeting a few days ago in London. Basically, according to her, Wikipedia started to go down the shitter when it mistakenly tried to focus on quality rather than quantity. And get this: it's absolutely scandalous that not every article can get to FA, somebody needs to do something! Malleus Fatuorum 23:57, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

She didn't say it was a mistake, and she says that the problem that arose was that that's when the adminry & others became too unwelcoming to newbies. Johnbod (talk) 09:42, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps, but she did use that "photocopy of a photocopy ..." of Jimmy's pronouncement on the need to focus on quality to strongly suggest that Wikipedia is now barking up the wrong tree, or at least pursuing quality in the wrong way. I found her belief that quality emerges from a multitude of editors working on an article over time to be a rather charming but completely muddle-headed illusion. Malleus Fatuorum 09:56, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

It's an unfortunate by-product of the quality drive, as far as she's concerned; the drive itself remains a priority, though editor retention is now top. I don't think she has that "belief" & has said so there or somewhere else. Johnbod (talk) 10:28, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Canadians, eh? Parrot of Doom 00:35, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

He's not an admin, & probably doesn't have enough content work to become one. Johnbod (talk) 09:26, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Henry Garnet

That's a remarkable piece of work, and I doubt you'll have too many problems with it at GAN. Malleus Fatuorum 03:07, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, that's about as far as I can take it I think, without buying the source in the further reading section, and adding much more religious background - something which I'm not really qualified to do. Parrot of Doom 11:29, 30 November 2011 (UTC)