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

Main page appearance

Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on April 1, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 1, 2011. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article director, Raul654 (talk · contribs). If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 00:17, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Fanny scratching in 18th-century London's Cock Lane was so notorious that interested bystanders often blocked the street. It became the focus of a religious controversy between Methodists and orthodox Anglicans, and was reported on by celebrities of the period such as Samuel Johnson. Charles Dickens referred to the phenomenon in several of his books, including Nicholas Nickleby and A Tale of Two Cities, and other Victorian authors also alluded to it in their work. One enterprising resident diverted the crowds that gathered in Cock Lane by allowing them to converse with a ghost he claimed was haunting his home, to which he charged an entrance fee. Fanny scratching eventually resulted in several prosecutions, and the pillorying of a father for encouraging his 11-year-old daughter to take part. (more...)

I hope you've got plenty of aspirin to hand. Just a reminder in case you run out, don't forget that the Asda in Trafford Park is open 24 hours. Malleus Fatuorum 20:47, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I can't go there, I was cycling over the swingbridge recently and was almost rear-ended by some dozy bint, angry at being forced to wait while I cycled around the massive potholes on the bridge. She beeped her horn and gave me the usual hand gestures, so I followed her into Asda car park to remonstrate with her. She wasn't too bad but her passenger, the fattest ugliest woman I've ever seen, and also the chavviest and stupidest woman I've ever seen, was a mouthy ignorant cow. I'm a little ashamed to admit that I shouted across the car park that she was a "fat pie scoffing bitch", before cycling away. Asda does these things to me. Parrot of Doom 20:58, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

BTW I'm not convinced by the article's lead (not the blurb). I keep thinking that the paragraphs are in the wrong order but I can't work out how to fix it. Parrot of Doom 21:00, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I think you gave the game away too early by saying that it was a hoax in the opening sentence. Malleus Fatuorum 21:32, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I think you're right. Oddly enough that part of the article remained virtually untouched from the moment I first came across it, but I liked the wording in the first sentence. I wonder if the angry schoolteachers will descend on Talk:Main_Page as they did for Gropecunt Lane? Parrot of Doom 21:58, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I hope so. Malleus Fatuorum 22:20, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I was a little afraid that the blurb might be a soupçon too short, but it looks fine to me in situ on the main page. Now all you have to do is to repel all boarders. Malleus Fatuorum 00:18, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll probably get threatened with the 3RR stick again. Parrot of Doom 00:31, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Sir, nicely done!--DavidCane (talk) 09:49, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Humor Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		I hereby award you the Barnstar of Good Humor for getting Fanny scratching to be this year's April 1st joke. I'd also like to thank Malleus Fatuorum and Iridescent for contributing their endless cynicism to Wikipedia. You three are certainly quite the triumvirate. Smallman12q (talk) 00:53, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

April 2011

You have been blocked from editing for a short time for your disruption caused by edit warring by violation of the three-revert rule at Cock Lane Ghost. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

The discussion page leading to this block is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#Parrot of Doom. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:41, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Ghostwriter

Sure, Interesting article... I got carried away! Could you possibly link the sentences by meaning, as they seem to be attached fairly randomly!

over and out Amandajm (talk) 11:33, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

As I've written this article almost entirely on my own there are bound to be more than a few areas in which it might be improved, however, you shouldn't presume that just because something seems obvious, it must be the truth. That's why I'd rather you posted any issues on its talk page first, that way I can look again at the source material and work on your concerns. If you make a series of changes without first asking me it takes me a lot longer to work out what's valid, and what isn't. Parrot of Doom 11:36, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, OK. But the first sentence needs to state what the subject is, not just that it attracted attention. It needs rewording. Preferably by you, because you know precisely what facts are relevant. But it does need fixing. I'll leave it to you.

And congrats on putting your interesting article on the front page! Amandajm (talk) 11:44, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there's a requirement to state in the first sentence what the subject is, but to do so is certainly recommended at WP:LEAD. I think it's best to leave editors to decide what works best in each instance, and for this article I'm quite happy that the present wording is ok. For instance, the Cock Lane ghost wasn't a reported haunting, it wasn't a ghost, it wasn't even always in Cock Lane. Stating that the Cock Lane ghost "did this and that" is actually more informative, especially as the article is more about the scandal surrounding the supposed haunting, and not the haunting itself. Thanks for your compliments btw, they're very much appreciated. Parrot of Doom 11:48, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

• Um, I suppose that I ought to point out that this article is on the front page as "Fanny scratching..." Is that exactly what you intended?
• What is the "subject" of the article? Decide on the subject and tell you reader what it is.
• The subject matter in the sentence about the death of the wife and subsequent relationship, needs the name of the man to be the owner of both the "death of wife", and "later relationship". It is a matter of grammatical clarity, and good, versus clumsy expression.

Amandajm (talk) 12:12, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Fanny scratching, yep, that was intentional. It may be toilet humour but things like that are a great hook to get people interested in the subject matter. Last year's 1 April TFA, Wife selling, got over 300,000 views with its slightly unbelievable blurb. The article's subject is the scandal surrounding the Cock Lane ghost and the first line does a reasonable job of addressing that. It isn't perfect by any means but I must admit I did struggle a little with the lead so any suggestions you might have would be most welcome. I'm by no means an expert on English but I'm fairly competent at writing half decent prose, and am happy with that sentence as it stands. For instance, we don't know for certain that Elizabeth was Kent's first wife, merely that he was married to her before Fanny. Parrot of Doom 12:53, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

The day's just about over and I think it went rather well. I was saddened by Raul's censorship of the blurb, but c'est la vie. Malleus Fatuorum 23:11, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

It seems your choice of words was "unfortunate" - do you ever wonder where these people come from? Richerman (talk) 23:32, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

The USA, normally. The viewing figures aren't bad, not as good as Wife selling though. I wonder what caused the difference? A Friday? Or less internet coverage of the main page? Parrot of Doom 01:19, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Fortune had nothing to do with it Richerman, I chose my words quite deliberately. Malleus Fatuorum 02:29, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I know - but it was obviously lost on the writer of that piece. Richerman (talk) 08:55, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't lost on me at all. If you read again what I actually wrote, I was acknowledging the fact that your April Fool worked on me! Best wishes, The Writer of That Piece 14:30, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Just noticed

I just noticed something today that I found quite a pleasant surprise. Bing maps (http://www.bing.com/maps/) now links to wikipedia articles, so if you type in your post code then you'll get a list of articles about places in your area. I expect it's probably been doing that for ages, and everyone but me already knew about that feature, but there you go. Malleus Fatuorum 16:59, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Google Maps has done it for ages. It's a good way of finding out more about some frigid island in the Atlantic that you've never heard of but which has towns and an airport. Parrot of Doom 18:47, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

... and another thing. Have seen that the Commodore 64 has been reborn?[1] Malleus Fatuorum 16:04, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I saw that, I can't help but feel its a clever way to get people to part with their money for something that can be had a lot cheaper elsewhere. I'm still looking for a decent Pet 2001 8K, haven't seen one worth buying yet. Parrot of Doom 17:28, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

A clear winner

After thinking long and hard about a replacement camera, and your comment about how useful the RAW image format might be, and looking through God knows how many reviews over the past week I decided that there was one clear winner: the Panasonic Lumix FZ38. I thought about one of the new mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras, but quite honestly I don't want the hassle of lugging lenses around; I just want something that can give me decent results across the range.

Naturally though, if I don't like it then I'll be blaming you. Malleus Fatuorum 21:59, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Good stuff. I shall expect many WP:GM articles to receive much improved pictures... Parrot of Doom 23:05, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Your edits to Moors murders

... have reminded me that we still need to address all of the issues that Carol Ann Lee brought up. I've still got her book, so I'll try and tackle that. But my new camera has arrived, so I'll be playing around with that for a while. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 22:03, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm taking things easy, something will pique my interest and then I'll be off on one, as usual. I'm busy with work right now though. Parrot of Doom 23:02, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

My view has always been that if work was so great then the rich would have kept it to themselves. There are loads of articles I'd like to finish off, like the Manchester Ship Canal, or workhouses, but somehow I just can't summon up the energy. Maybe we can find one that might re-energise both of us. Malleus Fatuorum 23:10, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I want to expand something I can tie in with the articles I've already done, I think the history of the anatomy act sounds really interesting, bodysnatching for medical research, only the cadavers of murderers between being available for research, even William Hogarth has a fantastic series of plates on the subject. I'd like to sort his article out also. Parrot of Doom 10:39, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Burke and Hare, "the real authors of the Anatomy Act", could do with a wash and brush-up, mainly finding citations judging from a quick look. Malleus Fatuorum 12:26, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

This is good reading, and exactly the kind of thing which interests me. Parrot of Doom 18:36, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

That's excellent, easy to see why it's the kind of thing that attracts you. It would be nice to get a coherent set of articles together instead of jumping around hither and thither as I tend to do. Ealdgyth has her bishops and horses, J3Mrs has her coal mines ... maybe I need to get back to my witches. Malleus Fatuorum 18:45, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Well (with your help) I managed to get a decent topic on the Gunpowder Plot. It was pretty rewarding, and once you have the right books it tends to become a lot easier, but I would mention that it does tend to be a bit exhausting. I still have a couple of priests to add to that topic, and who knows, if people stop mucking around with it I may push GFN to FAC. There's also some fairly rubbish articles to work on, like Pillory, or Death by burning (which is a load of crap). Parrot of Doom 18:56, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Pillory is one that's been on my radar screen for a while, and after William Calcraft I thought I might do a series on English hangmen, but I soon lost interest as there aren't too many of them with a story as interesting as Calcraft's. But that's interesting now I think back, because I got involved with that because of the Manchester Martyrs, whom he hanged in Salford; it's nice when the linked articles are in decent shape, adds an aura of coherence. Good luck with GFN. If a certain you-know-who leaves it alone it should be a dead ringer for at least GA. Malleus Fatuorum 20:10, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Hammers flag

I ensure you, I have created that image. I created the basic flag-image, I made that animation via program Flagimation 1.05 and add transparency via Gif Movie Gear 4.0.2. This all was made at the day which is mentioned in file info.
Niusereset (talk) 21:42, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

And yet you included a logo which is almost certainly the copyright of Pink Floyd, or the artist who created it. Parrot of Doom 21:46, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, without it it would have no sense... It is so big deal I repaint that symbol and made from it an animated flag?
Niusereset (talk) 12:14, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Personally I couldn't care less, but then again I'm not the copyright holder. I imagine if I was, I wouldn't be too happy about people reproducing my work and offering to anyone it under a free licence. Parrot of Doom 17:08, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Well... what would you recomend me to do, when I opened program, created bitmap there, from which then I made that animation?
Niusereset (talk) 21:41, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

You don't appear to understand. You can create it using whatever process you like, but as long as it's derivative of somebody else's work it remains a breach of their copyright. There are places on Wikipedia for this kind of discussion, I suggest you have a look around on Commons and ask there. Parrot of Doom 21:47, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Radio

Hello PoD Yesterday caught the end of this yesterday, thought of you, and then promptly forgot about it. [2]. I haven't heard it all yet as I'm a bit jet lagged.--J3Mrs (talk) 23:01, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Call me paranoid, but that's the second article I've a heavy involvement with which has found its way onto the radio. And this after I went to Radio 4 with a proposal for another article I wrote, citing these two as examples. Parrot of Doom 08:24, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Very strange coincidence PoD. Now I've listened to it I thought it a bit saccharine for my taste.--J3Mrs (talk) 12:26, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:EL

Hi, I noticed you undid my removal of The official Keith Bennett website from the Moors Murderers article. Can you describe how this site passes WP:EL? Thanks in advance. --John (talk) 22:09, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Because it informs the reader about the present state of the search for Keith Bennett's body. "The linked content primarily covers the area for which the subject of the article is notable" Malleus Fatuorum 23:06, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

If you have a few minutes ...

... could you cast a quick eye over this? I started expanding it ages ago, but I'd really like to get it done before I'm chased out of town. I've got no aspirations for FAC, just GAN, and I know that it still needs some work, notably expansion of the Modern interpretations section and a tightening of the link between this and the Salem witch trials, so I'm just asking for a general impression, nothing too detailed. If you haven't got the time or the inclination then no worries. Malleus Fatuorum 21:22, 25 April 2011 (UTC) PS. That goes for anyone else reading this page as well. Malleus Fatuorum 21:23, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

No problem. Parrot of Doom 21:26, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I think the lead needs a bit of work but if you're anything like me you'll leave that until last. Just bits and pieces missing, sentences I had to read two or three times, etc. The "Events" section seems very sparse. There's little or no background on any of those involved, and things just kind of happen - for instance it isn't clear if "wishing the Devil would take her soul" is her unspoken motive, or part of her curse. If Matthew Brisbane was eminent then I'd expect to see a bit more about his background.

This leads into the next section - who came to the conclusion that Shaw was a victim of witchcraft? The lead hints at this. There's a gap between "commission to investigate" and the hearing - I don't think the latter necessarily always follows the former (for instance, Cock Lane ghost). Is it possible to expand on the "several dozen" also accused, as they just appear? "...argued that for them to be convicted of any crime it was necessary for the prosecution to rule out the possibility that the afflictions reported by the witnesses had natural causes" - is a bit wordy. "The minister of Kilallan" - where's that? The bit about James Reid probably belongs in the Executions section. That would make the guilty verdict a bit more dramatic.

IIRC hanging before burning was the usual way of doing things, so it might be better to clarify that, and double check that they were actually hanged, and not just strangled on the stake. I don't think its necessary yet to state they were part of the lass mass execution of witches at this point, maybe place that in the Aftermath section?

The Modern interpretation section is too short - unless you're going to expand it I'd move that text elsewhere.

I think in lieu of more information on the case (which might not be available) the article should contain more historical context. It isn't clear why the girl's symptoms were ascribed to witchcraft, why she accused several dozen of witchcraft and not just the woman who stole the milk (although that might not be known), if the jury could possibly be legally bound by the prosecutor's threat (it sounds unlikely), if witchcraft trials and executions were frequent in that area, and what effect (if any) the trial had on society at large - for instance, this was the last mass execution, was that cause and effect, or just coincidence? Parrot of Doom 07:49, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts. For me, like you, getting the lead right comes last. I'm uncertain now whether I can get this into shape as I've lost access to the one substantial source on the topic I've found (Levack 2001), but I'll plod on with it and see where it leads. One other difficulty I'm wrestling with is that the sources don't always agree on some of the details. For instance, some say the "witches" were hanged whereas others say they were garotted ... maybe I'll do something a little more straightforward and come back to this later. Malleus Fatuorum 13:28, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

If I had to guess I'd venture that they were garotted while tied to the stake, and their lifeless bodies burnt. This was certainly the usual method of death by burning. Parrot of Doom 18:20, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

That would be my guess too. Malleus Fatuorum 23:45, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

HD&Q

Someone has suggested here that HD&Q be TFA for the celebration of William and Kate's marriage. I'm sure you will treat this suggestion with all the respect it deserves, and will agree that an article about a method of execution is quite suited to the wedding theme. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 17:23, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Surely the TFA for that day should be William or Kate's article? If I had any interest in the subject then I'd have made sure that both were at least headed in that direction. Parrot of Doom 18:23, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

You're off the hook

I've had the Lumix FZ38 for a week or so now, and it's terrific, exactly what I wanted. The auto mode is obviously easy to use, but I'm still learning how to use the others. My next project is to build a softbox, so I can take decent close-ups of small objects I want to sell on eBay; the camera has to pay for itself. :lol: Malleus Fatuorum 23:54, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Good stuff. Don't skimp with tripods, buy one that has zero play in the pan/tilt/rotate head. The cheap ones are impossible to bubble up (flat horizon). Download Raw Therapee, nice free application. Parrot of Doom 19:26, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I already had two decent (good enough for my purposes anyway) Velbon tripods, a mini table-top one and a full-size one; I just had to buy the adapter that screws into the base of the camera. I'm torn about filters now though. Is it worth using a UV filter, for instance? I've seen some say that a UV filter protects the lens, and others argue that the lens is coated in any case, so it's a waste of money. So much to learn! Malleus Fatuorum 00:17, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Depends what you're doing with it, if it's always going to be around your neck then I'd say yes, but if you just use it on the odd occasion, or if it will live mainly in the house, I wouldn't bother. You have to be pretty clumsy to scratch a lens but to be honest it doesn't take much, a bit of sand wiped across the front, a brush against a twig, etc. Just keep the lens cap on, keep a spare one stashed in the bag (get one from Ebay not Jessops), and you'll be fine. I have a £450 wide lens whose front element protrudes from the lens body, a filter would cost £100, I take the view that spending a quarter the value of the lens on a cheap bit of glass just isn't worth it. Parrot of Doom 09:02, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

After taking some photos outside this evening while the sun was quite low in the sky I realise that I now need to get a decent lens hood. Will the expense never end? Malleus Fatuorum 21:50, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

A piece of thin card and a bit of sticky tape does exactly the same thing. Unless, of course, you want the expense of a matte box, and french flag... Parrot of Doom 21:54, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Brilliant! You should set up a web site on economical photography. Malleus Fatuorum 23:54, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

There'd be only one point, and that would be "buy a book that shows you how to take pictures" :) I can still take better pics on my phone than some people can with all the expensive gear :) Parrot of Doom 17:25, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

In my psychology days I became fascinated by the rule of thirds, and I was really pleased to find that the Lumix can throw up a grid on the display to help get the composition right. I know this is all just common or garden stuff to you, but I'm still trying to find my feet. Malleus Fatuorum 17:37, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Thirds also works vertically, like this pic I took last year. There are simple rules I try to remember. One, don't think because something looks nice to your eyes it'll look nice in 2D. Two, don't use the zoom unless you have to, use your legs. Three, before you take your picture, scan around the image and make sure there's no Asda bags or other crap that'll spoil it. Four, no matter how good you are, that "wow" shot will have about 100 "meh" shots before it. Parrot of Doom 17:46, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

You've reminded me of something I read in one of the camera reviews. There were a couple of complaints that the zoom made a discernable noise when it was being operated in movie mode. Someone responded by asking whether anyone had ever seen zoom being used in any professionally produced film, as opposed to all the dollying and stuff. As you say, use your legs. Malleus Fatuorum 18:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC)