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

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

This seems like a really important topic

Just been watching a BBC Four programme on the Eclair (camera). Malleus Fatuorum 01:55, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Given its role in the destruction of standards on television, Sony HVR-Z1 is probably more deserving of attention. I suppose one day I should work on Camera operator but as the years go by I find myself with less enthusiasm for the job than I had when I started. It's difficult to compete with 20-somethings who don't have mortgages and who'll work for no money. Parrot of Doom 09:18, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Slavery was abolished in the British Empire 60 years before the ship canal opened, so rather unlikely. Malleus Fatuorum 23:05, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I thought perhaps his point was something related to the Lancashire Cotton Famine, which affected Lancashire quite badly. Parrot of Doom 23:31, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Just seemed to be a usual us vs. them re Manchester-Liverpool to me. I've never seen anyone claim that either support for or opposition to slavery was a factor in building the ship canal. Malleus Fatuorum 23:48, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

If you have the time (and of course the inclination)

Is there any chance you could produce a map like you did for the Moors murders based on [1] this? Please don't be afraid to say no if you're too busy or not interested. Malleus Fatuorum 20:32, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

... but before you do any work have a read of the peer review and see if you think such a map is necessary. I'm not so sure it is. Malleus Fatuorum 22:18, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I have a booklet with a map in it from a trip along the canal but I am not at home until tomorrow morning. I could email it when I'm back if you thought it would be useful. There is also a quote from Punch about "Manchester on Sea" but I can't remember what it said exactly. --J3Mrs (talk) 22:27, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Is it better than one I linked to? We've already got the Punch cartoon of Manchester on Sea in the article, although I suspect there may be copyright issues with that at FAC; is that what you're thinking of? On an only slightly tangential subject, after having been forced to investigate the history of the Manchester Ship Canal Railway to find out when it closed (30 April 2009), I think that probably deserves its own article if anyone has the enthusiasm for it. Where's Iridescent when you need him? Malleus Fatuorum 22:36, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
As the cartoon is from 1882 surely it's well out of copyright? Richerman (talk) 22:42, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Very likely, but the licence is claiming "life of the author plus 70 years" and we don't know who author was. Let's say that the author was 20 years old in 1882, therefore born in 1862. Let's further assume that he lived to be 100. In that case the copyright wouldn't expire until 2032 if I've got my arithmetic right. Malleus Fatuorum 22:53, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
It does say on the page it was taken from 'rights expired' if that helps - see link on commons page. Richerman (talk) 23:01, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
But will that convince the copyright Gestapo? Malleus Fatuorum 23:03, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Probably not (sigh!) - only time will tell. Richerman (talk) 23:07, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
You're safe with that one. The artist is Edward Linley Sambourne (died 1910) Yomanganitalk 23:23, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
"Who is that masked man?" Malleus Fatuorum 23:38, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Nice one! Oddly, his name seems to be back to front on the picture. Richerman (talk) 07:24, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps someone has reversed the image? Malleus Fatuorum 22:16, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
The image is reversed from the plate. It's not unusual for artists to sign the plate the correct way round which means it is reversed on the print (either because they are lazy or through affectation). The caption and other lettering is the right way round. Yomanganitalk 22:54, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
I can probably do it (I did the River Irwell graphic also), I just need to check what software I've got on the computer. Parrot of Doom 22:45, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Possibly but as its 50 miles away I can't say for certain, but I think there was also a map of an original proposal to use more of the Mersey. I'll send it to you in the morning and you can decide, yours might indeed be better.--J3Mrs (talk) 22:47, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Should be possible to extract from open street maps no? Other wise sheet 4 of the new popular edition 1/4 inch to the mile OS maps would show it and they are in the public domain.©Geni 00:41, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
  • On the subject of trains and trams and things, have you ever heard of the Stretford Gas Tramway? It certainly used to pass the Bird in Hand pub here in Urmston, although that box has recently been nicked. There's another box in Stretford, near the library, here. Parrot of Doom 23:06, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
    • There was a gas tramway in Trafford Park, which at the time was in the Borough of Stretford, might that be the one? Malleus Fatuorum 23:09, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
      • The box in Urmston was clearly marked "Stretford Tramways". I plan to investigate the Stretford box tomorrow, weather allowing. Parrot of Doom 23:11, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
        • It'll be interesting to see what you discover. My own (limited) research into the area of gas trams for the British Gas Traction Company led me to believe that they really weren't all that practical. Malleus Fatuorum 23:15, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
        • You know, I've walked past that box in Stretford hundreds of times and never noticed it. On a related subject, when I moved back up to Manchester from London a few years ago I was tootling about on my bike and I stumbled across one of the sulphur burners that were used to create artificial fog to protect Trafford Park during the Second World War. It was somewhere not too far from Sale Water Park, but I've never been able to find it again. Maybe it was an illusion? Malleus Fatuorum 23:29, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
          • There's all kinds of stuff hanging around. Here's the box. Here's an old gas lamp partially intact after close to a century of neglect. The reason it's still there is the bridge it served fell down years ago, and the farmer has put a barbed wire fence across the right of access (naughty). Parrot of Doom 14:00, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
            • Unfortunately the Hardy & Padmore logo doesn't tell us much, except that the box is made of cast iron.[2] Malleus Fatuorum 17:03, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
              • You must have good eyes, I could only make out Worcester. Parrot of Doom 20:43, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
                • Not so good. I had to blow up the logos on the left and right sides and then put together what I could read from each. Doesn't seem to have anything to do with Stretford Tramways though. Malleus Fatuorum 22:14, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
                  • I agree, too dissimilar to the one that used to be in Urmston. Parrot of Doom 22:31, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
                    • I was reading (your?) and other's postings on Urmston.net, and I have to say like many others I find it quite shocking that the box was nicked, no doubt for its scrap value. I expect that now we've drawn attention to the Stretford box it'll disappear as well. Malleus Fatuorum 22:37, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
                      • It was very disappointing. The thieves would have gotten very little for it, maybe £20? I'd seen it loads of times and kept promising myself I'd take a picture of it, but the sun always seemed to be on its back, rather than its front. Parrot of Doom 23:07, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Your opinion dosent matter

just because you like coming under Greater Manchester dosent mean anybody else does.go and ask the populations of bolton and bury where they live,and i bet you anything right now they ll all say lancashire.and i dont need to move anywhere as we are already in lancashire.if you want to be part of Manchester,you move further south. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.194.42 (talk) 11:06, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Take your childish prattle elsewhere. Parrot of Doom 11:17, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Wow! - another shining example of the failure of British education. Richerman (talk) 12:57, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm tempted to ask Trafford for a rebate on my council tax, as it's very clear that the GM education budget has been mis-spent. Malleus Fatuorum 13:05, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I had to suppress a little chuckle

Yet another reminder that unless you're constantly vigilant everything you do here will end up as gloop.[3] And the price to pay for standing firm against the gloop is screams of "ownership" from the unwashed. Malleus Fatuorum 00:21, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

What amazes me about this place is how few editors there are who are prepared to roll their sleeves up and sort something out, properly. You're one, Nev is another, Peter Vardy is unimpeachable. I spend half my time arguing with people over relatively minor points. Parrot of Doom 13:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Can't argue with you there. Far too many just complain that "somebody" should fix "something". Malleus Fatuorum 13:23, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

ANI

Your IP buddy appears to have forgotten to let you know that you're being discussed at ANI.[4] Malleus Fatuorum 17:19, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Now the article appears explicit in stating that the sentence applied only in England and Ireland, and not Scotland or Wales. That is why I left the lead ambiguous, because in everything I've read I can only be certain that it applied in English territories. I wonder why I bother wasting hours of my time when any idiot can just pop along and make a mess of things. Parrot of Doom 17:32, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
I wonder how you all manage to work on that article in the first place--I don't have the stomach for it. I'm glad I live in a much more civilized place, where such and other inhumane punishments only occur(ed) in works of fiction. Drmies (talk) 17:35, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
I did not protect the current version out of personal preference. It just happened to be the version the article was on when I protected. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:51, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
No matter, Drmies has thankfully restored the correct version of the article. Whether or not the IP's changes are valid can now be debated, and my blood pressure has the chance to drop a little. Parrot of Doom 17:53, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Reaper, I hope my rationale finds favor with you, but we should probably continue this, if it needs continuing, on the article talk page. Parrot, the best of health to you. I'm still slightly ill from reading the article. Drmies (talk) 18:05, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

How can Bolton and Bury be in Manchester

I dont see how Bolton and Bury can be in Manchester,when they have their own seperate councils,Bolton council and Bury council,not Manchester city council.also we do not rely on Manchester for anything,we only rely on Greater Manchester for police and fire services,but its still not Manchester.Greater Manchester was never a county as the local government act of 1974 states the traditional county boundaries of Lancashire,will not bel altered,and they havent,so i cannot for the life of me understand why wikipedia states it as a county when it is not.If people on here want to be part of Manchester,which is also in Lancashire by the way by all means move to it,but do not expect us in towns such as Bolton,Bury,Rochdale,Oldham and Wigan to do so as well as we do not,thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.8.126.226 (talk) 18:49, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Bolton and Bury aren't in Manchester, and nobody has claimed that they are. They're both in the metropolitan county of Greater Manchester, as is Manchester itself. I really fail to see why you find this so hard to understand. Malleus Fatuorum 18:53, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I know nobody has claimed they are,but what i fail to understand is why do you consider it a mass crime to mention that they are both still in The Historic County of Lancashire,as is Manchester itself.The Government say they are in Lancashire,so if the government say so,then why cant you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.8.126.226 (talk) 19:00, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Where's the proof to back up your assertion? Nev1 (talk) 19:04, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
My proof? go onto friends of real lancashire,association of british counties,county watch,gazetteer of british place names.theres my truth,im trying to keep civil,but i must admit i nearly said the f word then.and i meant proof not truth ha ha
As a matter of simple logic, if the county is historic then it no longer exists; the present county of Lancashire does not have the same boundaries as the historic county. I note as well that the Bury article already has in the lead the straightforward statement that the town was "historically a part of Lancashire". Where does the government say that Bury is now in Lancashire rather than Greater Manchester? Malleus Fatuorum 19:08, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
None of those are government organisations, so that doesn't back up your claim that the government says Manchester is now in Lancashire. Nev1 (talk) 19:10, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

it mentions on one of those websites about the towns and cities i mentioned still being in Lancashire,i cant remember which website it is,so youll have to go from them all,but i am positive,in fact ill put money on it,that they are still in Lancashire,and that it does say that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.8.126.226 (talk) 19:15, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

But none of them are official. Do you have anything to back up your assertion that the government says Manchester is in Lancashire or was it bluster? Nev1 (talk) 19:20, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Well if it comes to them,neither is wikipedia.it is known though that they are all in Lancashire,Mancunians are argumentive some say greater manchester some say Lancashire but in Bolton and Bury they are very Lancastrian. The Queen is also duke of Lancaster and Bolton,Bury and Manchester are all in the duchy and county palatine of Lancashire.

Wikipedia doesn't use itself as a source, it demands reliable references. They're the [1][2] you see in articles. So far you've comprehensively failed to provide any but, oh ok, as it's "known" that Manchester's in Lancashire I'll go and rewrite Wikipedia to satisfy your opinions. Nev1 (talk) 19:27, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Fortunately most people I know in Greater Manchester accept the changes and have moved on into the 21st century. Of course there is an affection for the historic county but that's all it is.--J3Mrs (talk) 19:31, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

probably they accept its greater manchester because you live in areas like salford,trafford,stockport or manchester but if you go north to where i live in places like bolton,bury,wigan,oldham and rochdale everybody says Lancashire and will not have anything to do with manchester.if you want to be your own little rubbish area called greater manchester thats fine,but do not drag us into it as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.8.126.226 (talk) 19:33, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I really don't think you understand how Wikipedia works. I suggest you read WP:V and WP:RS. And improve your grammar. Nev1 (talk) 19:36, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

i really dont think you understand how counties work mate,and stop referring to all the towns as manchester,as one of your ever so brilliant editors have already said.Bolton and Bury as well as surrounding towns are not in Manchester,my what a misleading lot you wikipedians are,you really are.you are filling peoples head with utter crap and its about time you stopped now.

also,i dont seem to able to find articles which mention that greater manchester is Lancashire nev1.you ve let me down omg what a balloon head.wikipedia you can take your useless crap about greater manchester and shove it up your big fat a***.

Nobody has claimed that Bolton or Bury are in Manchester. They are both in Greater Manchester. Next you'll be telling us that Liverpool isn't in Merseyside, or that Kendal isn't in Cumbria. As I said before, take your childish prattle elsewhere, I'm not in the mood. Parrot of Doom 19:43, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

i forgot to tell you lot as well a letter come through my letter box this morning and on the letter it said my house number,street and Bolton,Lancashire on it,so shut yer cakehole.and also liverpool is in merseyside but is also in Lancashire parrot of doom just the same as our 2 towns are.kendal is in cumbria but is in the historic county of either cumberland or westmorland.so shown up again.parrot of doom im proud of being a lancastrian why cant you be?you probably support scummy united as well,you support where you come from im from Bolton so i support Bolton,your from Bury so you should support bury and im not a**** if your not in the mood tough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.8.126.226 (talk) 19:47, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

This produces amusing results. And yes, the post office will do their best to deliver mail regardless of what you write on it. If you write your house number and street and a correct BLx xxx postcode and "West Yorkshire" it'll still reach you (though maybe slightly slower), but that doesn't mean Bolton is in West Yorkshire. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:21, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Why is only faux Lancastrians and Yorkshiremen who seem to exhibit this curious reluctance to join the 21st century? To the south of Manchester places like Sale and Altrincham were once in Cheshire, but no longer are. Stretford, where I live, was once in Lancashire, but nobody I've ever spoken to still thinks it is. It matters not one whit what county I tag on to any address so far as the Royal Mail is concerned, as Demiurge says, or even whether I include a county at all, thanks to the magic of post codes. Malleus Fatuorum 20:34, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on List of people hanged, drawn and quartered. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

  1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.144.17 (talk) 23:11, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Don't ever post on my talk page again. Parrot of Doom 23:26, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Hey there, the IP editor raises a valid point. I've semi-protected the article for the time being to stop the edit war, however both of you could be blocked right now. The edits the IP editor is making do not appear to be vandalism. I'd encourage you to discuss this with them and remain civil when doing so. Hersfold (t/a/c) 23:33, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
I couldn't care less, if someone wants to block me they can go right ahead, it won't change anything. Vandalism or not, the IP's edits are incorrect, and I will not allow such glaring errors to exist in articles in which I have a heavy involvement. And as for civility, please read the notice at the top of the page, else I really will say something worthy of complaint. Parrot of Doom 23:36, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) You don't seem to have grasped the whole picture Hersfold. Sure, you would be within a strict interpretation of your rights to block PoD, but you ought to look a little deeper than just counting reversions. Have you, for instance, noticed how many AN reports this IP has started today? Malleus Fatuorum 23:41, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Aye, but I also see incivil comments, apparent ownership issues (which according to the header above I'm also not allowed to mention, that's good for a collaborative environment), and an unwillingness to work with what appears to be a (perhaps misguided yet) good faith editor. I am not blocking him as yet, and in fact took the action I did so I wouldn't have to; however, continued refusal to collaborate will certainly not help. Hersfold (t/a/c) 23:46, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
You really need to wake up and smell the coffee Hersfold. Malleus Fatuorum 23:55, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Yet another editor who thinks that intensifiers are automatically incivil, and who thinks that an unwillingness to allow obvious errors to remain in an important article is a sign of ownership. Please take your veiled threats elsewhere, perhaps to someone who considers them to be meaningful. Parrot of Doom 23:57, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Sigh. The IP has brought you to WP:WQA, see [5] Connormah (talk) 23:47, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
He's brought me nowhere, since I have no interest whatsoever in posting there. Still, its more dramahz for him. Parrot of Doom 23:57, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Thought so, just thought I'd give you note. Best, Connormah (talk) 00:01, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
No problem, thanks for the heads up. I haven't laughed that much in ages. Parrot of Doom 00:03, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Nobody with any sense would go anywhere near the WQA children's playground. God knows, ANI is bad enough, where there are supposedly a few adults. Malleus Fatuorum 00:06, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

DAvid Starkey

Thanks for the work and updates and general clean up! Much appreciated. Alexandre8 (talk) 01:25, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I haven't quite finished yet (I haven't even gotten to the racism comments) but hopefully it presents a more informative view than before. Parrot of Doom 06:24, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I want to add my thanks too. The need for balance/neutrality is hugely important for topics like these. Teppic74 (talk) 18:51, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

About Gunpowder Plot

I wanted discuss which is the fact and which is the truth. I didn't know it is not the Wikipedia way. I'm sorry for being like troll. I don't meant it. I figured I don't fit in Wikipedia. I quit. Thank you for Gunpowder plot page.--K84 (talk) 07:21, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

The Division Bell

I think The Division Bell is of FA quality, consider taking it to FAC. 50.17.45.35 (talk) 03:36, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure it is, by Floyd standards it's a fairly mediocre album and has therefore received little critical attention. Parrot of Doom 17:17, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Mediocre album? Are you kidding? 107.20.67.82 (talk) 18:59, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
No. Parrot of Doom 19:10, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't understand what you mean because The Division Bell is one of favorite albums of Pink Floyd. Anyway, back to topic. What's the problem of that article? 107.20.67.82 (talk) 22:41, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
The problem in my opinion is that the album isn't good enough to have received the necessary critical coverage that would be used as source material to raise it to FA quality. Albums like A Momentary Lapse of Reason and The Final Cut are different in that the former was the band's first album post-Waters, and was therefore written about extensively, while the latter, although it received poor reviews, was the catalyst for the band's implosion. The other Floyd albums don't need explaining. If any Floyd album article here deserves FA-status, it'd be The Wall, but I'm not inclined to do anything with it right now, I have other interests. Besides which, I think I've done more than enough with Floyd articles, I think it's someone else's turn to do the hard graft. Parrot of Doom 22:49, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Sorry for butting in. I agree that The Wall is probably a better candidate, far more critical response, . I might try and assist in a month, but have a GOCE drive coming up in September.
I also agree about The Division Bell. After all, four of the tracks are co-written by Gilmours wife - not saying that she shouldn't get credit, but it sounds more and more like a Gilmour album than a PF one each time I try and listen to all of it. It is the only PF album that gets 2 stars in my Media Player, closely followed by AMLOR at 2.5. Chaosdruid (talk) 00:34, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't think that quality of an album has anything to do with the status on Wikipedia. 107.20.67.82 (talk) 01:50, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Double spacing

Kindly let me know what precisely you meant by this edit summary?

As I write articles I find it helpful to use double spacing at the end of a sentence. It was how I was taught to type, but it makes an almost illegible screen full of gibberish slightly more readable. Therefore I would prefer it if people did not remove that double spacing, especially when to do so serves no useful purpose that I can see. Parrot of Doom 14:53, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
I've disabled the line in the script that removes double spaces, and I've run it on the article again. Hope this is addresses your concerns. Cheers, --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 02:02, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
That's very kind of you, thanks for your help :) Parrot of Doom 17:51, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Manchester Ship Canal

PoD, do you have access to The Times archives? Might be something there on the 1884-85 events. Mjroots (talk) 21:11, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes I have access, I've been looking for a quick summary so I can fill in that minor blank, I'm not sure a contemporary report would do that, but I'll check anyway. I think the article is very good, it just needs a bit more of the politics explaining. Parrot of Doom 21:13, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
I take it you have a library card then. That's a good thing, because it should also give you access to the British Library archive of C19th newspapers. A veritable gold-mine of a source. Mjroots (talk) 21:43, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
I do indeed. I found it most useful writing 1910 London to Manchester air race. Parrot of Doom 22:28, 26 August 2011 (UTC)