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

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 December 7, 2010. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/December 7, 2010. 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! Tbh®tch^{Talk ©} Happy Holidays 06:03, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Daniel Lambert (1770–1809) was a gaol keeper and animal breeder from Leicester, England, famous for his unusually large size. He was a keen sportsman and extremely strong, on one occasion fighting a bear in the streets of Leicester. He was an expert in sporting animals, widely respected for his expertise on dogs, horses and fighting cocks. In 1805 the gaol of which Lambert was keeper closed. By this time he weighed 50 stone (700 lb; 320 kg), and had become the heaviest authenticated person in recorded history. Unemployable and sensitive about his bulk, Lambert became a recluse. In 1806 poverty forced Lambert to put himself on exhibition to raise money. In April 1806 he took up residence in London, charging spectators to enter his apartments to meet him. Visitors were impressed by his intelligence and personality, and visiting him became highly fashionable. After some months on public display Lambert grew tired of exhibiting himself, and in September 1806 he returned wealthy to Leicester, where he bred sporting dogs and regularly attended sporting events. Between 1806 and 1809 he made a further series of short fundraising tours. In June 1809 he died suddenly in Stamford. At the time of his death he weighed 52 stone 11 lb (739 lb; 335 kg). It took 20 men almost half an hour to drag his casket into the trench, in a newly opened burial ground to the rear of St Martin's Church. While others have since overtaken Daniel Lambert's record as the heaviest person in history, he remains a popular character in Leicester. (more...)

I should point out that Iridescent has about a million edits to this article, but in his userspace. Mine were only minor copyedits. Parrot of Doom 22:45, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

BNP - Fascist

Do you think the labelling "fascism" to the "BNP"'s page is just? You seem to be able to keep even the most radical of people in form with wikipedias non bias policy what is your opinion of the BNP's labelling here? Alexandre8 (talk) 00:14, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't really agree with the labelling of anyone or anything unless it comes via a quote. I also don't agree with the whole "left-wing right-wing" thing, as its largely meaningless. Parrot of Doom 08:15, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

How long are the 'miles' quoted?

Hi,

The article 1910 London to Manchester air race has several instances of the term 'mile'. It could be a nautical mile or a statute mile but none of the instances states how long the 'mile' is. Mosnum says:

• "Use nautical mile or statute mile rather than mile in nautical and aeronautical contexts."

Are you able to state which 'mile' any of them are? Lightmouse (talk) 16:45, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

No. Parrot of Doom 17:05, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Other editors may be able to answer the question. However, you removed the questions from the article with the summary:

• Undid revision 403030362 by Lightmouse (talk) altitude was in the hundreds, what do you think it was?

Can you explain what you meant? Lightmouse (talk) 17:15, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I removed them because its pointless tagging each and every instance, to satisfy a style guide that isn't particularly relevant to this article. The flights were made in the earliest days of aviation, only hundreds of feet from the ground. You should try reading the sources to understand the context of the reports, and the distances used, instead of needlessly drive-by tagging articles in this fashion. I estimate that about 1 person in the world is interested in such things, and it isn't me. Parrot of Doom 17:44, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I think that the bike shed ought to be purple. That FAC doesn't catch these critical issues is a serious indictment of the entire process. Malleus Fatuorum 17:49, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

This is what I'm dealing with here. "Either do as I say, or I'll delist the article" - I wonder sometimes about the priorities of such people. Parrot of Doom 18:22, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Delisting isn't something that Lightmouse can do, and I really don't think that an FAR on such a minor issue would be sympathetically received. I'd be almost certain that the distances mentioned in the reports were regular miles, not nautical miles, as the pilots were navigating using regular maps, and following railway lines. Nautical miles are really only relevant when navigating using latitude and longitude. But of course that's what passes for original research here, even though I prefer to call it common sense. Malleus Fatuorum 18:32, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I prefer to call it irrelevant tbh. It may be of interest on a technical document, or to the Guinness Book of Records, but on an encyclopaedia entry? Parrot of Doom 18:57, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I still don't understand your summary:

• Undid revision 403030362 by Lightmouse (talk) altitude was in the hundreds, what do you think it was?

Can you explain what you meant by referring to altitude? Lightmouse (talk) 19:32, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Hundreds of feet, if they were lucky. Parrot of Doom 20:06, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Let me get this straight. You removed the text:

• <!-- nautical or statute? -->

and your summary is

• Undid revision 403030362 by Lightmouse (talk) altitude was in the hundreds, what do you think it was?

which you say means:

• Hundreds of feet, if they were lucky.

I don't understand the connection. How you got from <!-- nautical or statute? --> to feet? Lightmouse (talk) 20:19, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Have you read the article? Do you really think that the aircraft possessed the ability to measure nautical miles, or that the sources distinguish between the two? I very much doubt they did, but more to the point, you're the only person who seems to care. Rather than inserting multiple instances of hidden code and expecting others to fill them in, why don't you spend your time actually finding the answers yourself? Or is that too much to ask? Parrot of Doom 22:29, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

You're changing the subject. Your removed edit summary said:

• altitude was in the hundreds, what do you think it was?

and your clarification of that was

• Hundreds of feet, if they were lucky.

How does that relate to nautical miles? If you made a mistake, or you don't want to answer the question, just say so. I don't mind, I'm just trying to understand what you wrote. Lightmouse (talk) 22:40, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

No, I think you're trolling my page and I'll thank you to go away now. Parrot of Doom 22:46, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

You're mistaken, a troll is somebody trying to provoke. I'm not trying to provoke, it was you that reverted a good faith edit. It would have helped me understand why if you provided an informative explanation (see wp:rev). I see no connection between the question 'are the miles statute or nautical?' and the response altitude was in the hundreds. It seemed a surreal exchange so I thought you were making an important point. I see now it was probably just a mistake. No worries. Try to stay calm. Lightmouse (talk) 23:10, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

A Momentary Lapse of Reason and The Division Bell

I'm fairly sure we've discussed this before, so I'm only going to say it once. There is not a rationale, and adding material to an article when there is no rationale is something I've seen people blocked for. Stop it. Please take a read of our non-free content criteria, and please respect them. J Milburn (talk) 17:33, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

You must need a new pair of glasses, there is a rationale for both files. What you meant to say was "I don't like this rationale so I'll therefore declare that none exists", which is nonsense. Go to the article talk page and discuss it there, because I will continue to revert any changes you make until you do so. Parrot of Doom 17:36, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh and take your pathetic threats and shove them where the sun doesn't shine, I'm really not in the mood for this. Parrot of Doom 17:36, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Right, last warning. Do it again, I will block you, whether or not you're in the mood for it. I'm not going to edit war with you over this. There is not a rationale. Not just not one I like, there isn't one there. J Milburn (talk) 17:37, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

You're a disgrace J Milburn, and a liar as well, but go ahead and block me if you like—I couldn't care less. Parrot of Doom 17:40, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Threats from the annointed like Milburn are the engine that's driving wikipedia to its inevitable demise. And the sooner the better as far as I'm concerned. I love the idea, but I despise the implementation. Malleus Fatuorum 17:41, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

J Milburn has now made four or more reverts to an article, but of course he has his own get-out clause since his opinion is obviously infallible. As a lowly editor, however, were I to do similar, I'd be subject to a block. Nice, isn't it? Parrot of Doom 17:50, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Don't give him an excuse to block you. The arseholes seem to get off on blocking anyone who's a better content contributor than they could ever hope to be. Malleus Fatuorum 17:52, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

PS. If Milburn has breached 3RR then it's an automatic block; just report him at WP:3RR and it's job done. Admins have no special rights. Malleus Fatuorum

There's a get-out clause in that policy with regard to copyright violations. What is annoying is that Milburn hasn't offered any reasoning - ever. All he says is "there's no rationale", despite there clearly being one, and BAM - remove the file. No explanation, nothing. Presumably the ANI sycophants would all leap to his defence so it'd be a waste of everybody's time. Parrot of Doom 18:01, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I've reported admins for 3RR before now and had them blocked. They're not special where content in concerned. Malleus Fatuorum 18:04, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

There was no rationale for that use, and a rationale is required by the NFCC. This whole thing got very nasty very quickly- despite the fact this wasn't a difficult issue. I'm sorry I had to threaten to block you, but the option of blocking has to be open for those who repeatedly ignore policy, as you very clearly seemed to be doing. There's a reason there's a "get out clause" with regards to the 3RR, and that is that people frequently will edit war to keep content that does not meet the NFCC, and there has to be some "protection" for those who are working to keep up standards. Malleus, you assume that because I happen to be an admin I'm some kind of scumbag- we've always got on well enough in the past, have we not? I believe I've defended you in the past, and I certainly have respect for your article work- I hope you have respect for mine. As an admin, I'm certainly not "special", but when I'm editing to ensure that articles are policy compliant, it's nice to at least have some support. J Milburn (talk) 18:48, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

"There was no rationale for that use" - stop lying, one exists, just one you don't like. The "difficult issue" here seems to be between you, and the truth. Don't post on my talk page again, I have no time for liars and bullies. Parrot of Doom 19:05, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate you asked me not to post, but I'm trying to explain the difference so that we don't have this kind of problem again. Non-free content criterion 10c notes that you need a separate, specific rationale for each use- the rationales on the image pages were, at the time, for the use in the article on the band, not in the articles on the albums. There was no rationale for the uses we were discussing- one exists now on each file page, as Floydian copied one across, but at the time, what I was saying was correct. I have certainly not deliberately lied or bullied, and I'm sorry if you feel I have. J Milburn (talk) 19:18, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

In which case why did you not simply explain that in the first place, instead of threatening a block? Or why didn't you fix it yourself? I retract my "liar" statement and I apologise to you for that, but stubbornly repeating the same line while threatening to block users ignorant of obscure pieces of bureaucracy isn't helpful. Parrot of Doom 19:23, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I see now that the distinction isn't as obvious as I thought, so I apologise for that- I thought I was being clear, that's something I'm definitely taking note of for next time. On a related note, Floydian just copied across the rationales that are now being used, he said he would leave it to someone like you to fine-tune and make sure they were specific and clear. It'd be a shame for articles as good as these to be ruined because of sloppy rationales. The rationales exist mostly so that the necessity of the files in the article is clear to those who review them, and to limit disputes about files not meeting the NFCC. J Milburn (talk) 19:31, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Why do I need to be defended? Only because wikipedia is run by administrators corrupted by the "for life" status of their position. I am right far more more often than I'm wrong. Malleus Fatuorum 19:12, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

There are problems on Wikipedia, I do not deny that. If you feel I can improve, I am honestly all ears- as an intelligent person and a strong contributor, I value your thoughts. All I was meaning to say was that the fact I have admin buttons does not automatically make me the villain of every piece. J Milburn (talk) 19:18, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Nor does it make you the hero. Threats only work with children and the insecure, and PoD is neither. Malleus Fatuorum 19:30, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I defend my threat to block- PoD was repeatedly violating policy, though I fully accept now that my explanation of the policy could have been stronger. It is sometimes necessary to threaten to block people in order to stop them from doing something they should not be; if that fails to work, then blocking is the last resort. J Milburn (talk) 19:34, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion your defence is indefensible. You ought to have explained the issue to PoD, editor to editor, without threatening to wield your big hammer. Still, who cares. Malleus Fatuorum 19:39, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I think J Milburn knows that now and hopefully he'll bear it in mind in future. I'm happy with how this has been resolved. Parrot of Doom 19:46, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

So I can put my blood pressure monitor away now? :lol: Malleus Fatuorum 19:53, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As am I. I appreciate your comment here. I think we've all learnt something from this, and I think the encyclopedia has benefited. On the subject of bullying, it certainly wasn't my intention, and my comments were by no means meant personally. I hope there are no hard feelings. J Milburn (talk) 19:52, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

None here, but unfortunately there has been more than one instance of an admin posting on my talk page with vague threats of blocks, over matters that are based purely on opinion and "getting my own way via threats". I know that wasn't your intention, I appreciate your gesture and I've mentally removed your file from the "bad admins" drawer to the "good admins" drawer :) Parrot of Doom 20:12, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks :) J Milburn (talk) 20:20, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

dark side of moon vocal snippet

Hi, what source are you referring to when you revert this edit? The quote given here doesn't match the quote on the Wikipedia page on GGitS, which I believe to be authoritative.Jeffrw (talk) 22:49, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

See John Harris's book on the subject. Parrot of Doom 00:41, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Before I schlep out and acquire Harris's book, have you checked that the citation is correct? I'm referring to the faint female dialog at 3:33 in GGitS. I've searched the Harris text using the Google Books search facility. The phrase "I'm not afraid of dying" does not occur in the text. On the other hand, the general internet consensus, a Mojo magazine article, and my own ears believe the phrase to be "I never said I was frightened of dying." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffrw (talk • contribs) 03:41, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah I see now where you mean. I've checked and no, that line isn't in Harris's book, to be honest I'm not sure who put it there because I doubt (although I may be wrong) I would have simply asked the reader to view another Wikipedia article. Its hard to keep track of those articles as often they're subject to high traffic, so I don't quite know, but I'm sorry I reverted your change. What I suggest is that you add the source from the GGitS article to the DSotM article, and change the quote that way. Parrot of Doom 09:00, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I followed your suggestion. I also separated the Puddie Watts quotes into their own sentence, because my source covers both her quotes, whereas the Harris book covers neither. Jeffrw (talk) 19:08, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Eagle

Did you hear "Eagle: The Space Age Weekly" on Radio 4 today? Richerman (talk) 23:20, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately not. Was it any good? Parrot of Doom 23:45, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

You can listen to it on iPlayer here. AD 23:54, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I've just been listening to it, it's pretty good. I either hadn't realised or had forgotten that Dan Dare was supposed to have been born in Manchester. Malleus Fatuorum 00:06, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm listening to it now. Factually it's no different than the article. Annoyingly I tried some months ago to generate some interest in a 1910 London to Manchester air race radio programme, to no avail. I'm beginning to wonder if I also mentioned to someone that I'd expanded the Eagle's article... Parrot of Doom 00:19, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I did wonder if the wikipedia article had anything to do with it. Richerman (talk) 00:22, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

In fact it follows the article's structure very closely indeed. Parrot of Doom 00:23, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah well, you know what they say about imitation. Richerman (talk) 00:31, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Pink Floyd Barnstar

		The Pink Floyd Barnstar
		This award was added recently, and seeing as you've made countless contributions to Pink Floyd articles, promoting them up to GA and FA status, It looks like it's well-deserved in my opinion. Happy Christmas. Friginator (talk) 00:29, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Friginator. I've actually taken Pink Floyd off my watchlist, I'd like to say that I had a good reason for doing so but in truth I simply can no longer be bothered with it, its too much hard work to constantly have to check and recheck sources every time someone makes a change. I'm keeping the album articles on my watchlist though, I still have a few left to do, and they're much easier to keep an eye on.

I might make a new year's resolution, only to work on articles about people, places and things that nobody has ever heard of. It would certainly make for a quieter life. Well, so long as they don't include measurements... Parrot of Doom 11:22, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Robert and Thomas Wintour/GA1

Hey, I've offered a review of the article and placed it on hold. There are a few things I've noted that may need to be fixed, but I'd be more than happy to promote once they have been dealt with. J Milburn (talk) 20:50, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. I don't have any plans for FAC just yet, my face starts to twitch whenever I think about the Gunpowder Plot, I still need counselling after writing about it for so long :( Parrot of Doom 22:49, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

You've been nominated for an award

here. I'm up for two. :lol: Malleus Fatuorum 21:09, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I was trying to think of some incredibly witty statement regarding WR, but the TL:DR version is that they're all bitter eejiots. Parrot of Doom 21:58, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Some are, but not all. I think that wikipedia very much needs WR, as there are so many truths that can't be told here. The price for that is the amount of bollocks on WR, but perhaps that's a price worth paying. Malleus Fatuorum 22:04, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Meh, they can award me whatever they like. I'm having far too much fun playing bargain games in the Steam sale :) Parrot of Doom 22:07, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I've also resurrected my old Amiga 500, and have about 50 games sat waiting for me to rediscover :) I can't get the 512k expansion to work though :( Parrot of Doom 22:08, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

By a curious coincidence I've been trying to play an old PacMan game that I used to just love. But it's so fast even on the slowest of PCs I've got now that it's impossible. Enjoy your nostalgia trip. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 22:13, 29 December 2010 (UTC)