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

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

Dark Side

You mass-reverted my edits to the Dark Side article, saying that "All these points are already sourced". Not only is that not the case (what's the reference for the release data of Meddle, for instance? Or the use of Musique concrete?), but you also removed unrelated edits such as the date template and use of <blockquote>. So I've reverted you. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 08:40, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that anyone will require a citation for the release date of an album, its hardly likely that anyone will find such a point at all contentious. The Musique Concrete text is, as I recall, unsourced, so I apologise now for that; that was text originally in the article when I started improving it, but I never thought it worth bothering with. I've removed some of the Mabbett citations as they are already sourced, if the citation isn't at the end of the sentence it will most definitely follow the relevant line of text within the paragraph. The ones I've left alone for now are those that require a login, or that are sourced from the now deadlinking Rolling Stone source, which I'll try and fix later on. The Mabbett book needs page numbers btw. Parrot of Doom 09:18, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Any use?

Is this any use to you? [1] --J3Mrs (talk) 08:10, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Possibly, thanks, I think however, that Brittania is sometimes viewed on here with a little scepticism. No idea why. It does, however, help me tie a few things together, so thanks :) Parrot of Doom 09:11, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Because it's a tertiary source, like wikipedia, and we're supposed to be relying on secondary sources. Malleus Fatuorum 14:13, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Barn star

SpecialBarnstar.png Secret star
Yay! This user was the first to find the hidden point in a Wikipedia template....Moxy (talk) 17:53, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Guy Fawkes

... anyway, this is really why I came here. My overwhelming impression is that there's way too much detail on the Gunpowder Plot, to the extent that it overwhelms Fawkes's biography, which this is obviously supposed to be. I think we ought to trim that back quite a bit, focusing on Fawkes's role and fate, instead of trying to give a potted history of the Plot. What do you think? I could try to knock up a condensed version in a sandbox if you think it's worth a try. Malleus Fatuorum 14:13, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I've been snipping bits here and there, removing names that aren't important, etc. Father Gerard can disappear. I think a large part of the trial can also go, the "digging a shaft" bit can be snipped as well. Parrot of Doom 14:17, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
I've chopped it a bit more, and moved a few bits around. Apart from the Legacy section I think it's looking pretty good now. I'm wondering if we could justify moving the last part of that section (geographical features names after Fawkes) to the in popular culture subarticle? Obviously the Milton et al stuff could be trimmed as well ... in fact I'm thinking that probably about half of that section could be moved out. Malleus Fatuorum 16:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Feel free, I've really only shuffled the legacy section around, most of what was already there still is. Parrot of Doom 17:06, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
OK, I'll have a go at that this evening. What are your intentions with this? FA? GA? Malleus Fatuorum 18:22, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Dunno, what do you think? I just wanted to get it into shape really, but if you think its worth a punt at FA then we might give it a go? It's certainly GA-worthy. Parrot of Doom 18:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
I think we could nominate it at GAN now, but we might as well go the extra mile and try for FA. The biggest stumbling block is that Legacy section, which I'll try to sort out this evening. I've got nothing at FAC right now, have you? (I noticed your pail closet GAN, can't see you having too many problems with that.) Malleus Fatuorum 18:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Nah, nothing there. I've been a bit lax with the editing lately, nothing much has taken my interest. I still have a few sandboxes to clear as well. There are a few interesting online sources for that legacy section, particularly if you google books the rhymes you'll find some things. Parrot of Doom 18:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm going to move all of that verses stuff out, with maybe just a one or two sentence summary. I'm struggling as well with finding something to capture my imagination enough to do more than just tidy it up a bit. Malleus Fatuorum 19:26, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
If you two could do with a hand, let me know - I'd be happy to take any tasks you fancy throwing at me.
Incidentally, when I view the page it shows me that I last edited it zero seconds ago - which is lies! Lies, I tell you!
Incidentally (2): PoD - before I departed these shores for a lengthy wikibreak, you were - I think - about to embark on an RfA - I gather that never happened?
Cheers, TFOWRpropaganda 18:44, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Absolutely zero interest in becoming an admin. There are too many bad eggs, and if I did a good job I'd still make enemies. All I want to do here is help create good articles. Parrot of Doom 18:48, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough, and perfectly understandable (sadly). TFOWRpropaganda 18:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Take a look through and see what you think TFOWR. With the exception of the Legacy section, I think it's just about there. Malleus Fatuorum 19:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Hah, I took a look at Ainsworth's Guy Fawkes article and thought "this is well-written, I wonder if Ottava was involved with this?" Then I clicked the history. Obviously my crystal ball only half-works! Parrot of Doom 19:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Ottava started it off, as one of his Ainsworth series, but I've been working on it bit by bit since then. The idea was that we'd work on the Ainsworth novels together, but well, you know. Ainsworth was a gigantic figure in 19th-century popular literature, the equal of Dickens in his day, but with very few exceptions his stuff hasn't stood the test of time. Malleus Fatuorum 19:49, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, he's directly responsible for most of the mythology surrounding Dick Turpin, so in a way his influence is still felt :) Parrot of Doom 19:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
By the way did you ever get around to watching V for Vendetta? Parrot of Doom 20:37, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
His influence is still felt with The Lancashire Witches (there's a redlink that really ought to turn blue) as well, the only one of his books never to have been out of print, and which is probably responsible for the tourist witch trade in Pendle. A friend has offered to lend me a DVD of V4V, so I might eventually see it soon. I saw you deleted that "the only man ..." quote from the article. I have half an idea it was a line from an 18th-century pantomime about Fawkes, which I'm trying to research now. You were right to take it out though, until we can properly source it. How many Fawkes/Gunpowder Plot articles would we need to get a good topic? (I could check myself, I know, but I can't be bothered. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 21:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Minimum of three articles I think. So that's Gunpowder Plot as the main article, and then 2-3 conspirators beneath that? Catesby would be one, perhaps Digby, or Tresham another? Parrot of Doom 21:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
So Guido plus Catesby, say, would do it then? With those two done it ought to be fairly easy to bump off the rest anyway. Fawkes is the difficult one I think, because everybody knows something about him, or thinks they do. Malleus Fatuorum 21:48, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
They'd both have to be FAs. I think Digby would be a good one, he seems exceptional in that he was tried separately, and was viewed by his contemporaries as a bit of a gent, who'd had a bit of bad luck. Well, I'd call having your knackers chopped off and then your guts pulled out and roasted in front of you, a bit of bad luck indeed. Parrot of Doom 21:54, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
He was a Catholic, he deserved it. Digby sounds like a good choice, but obviously we'd have to do Catesby as well I think. It would seem strange not to include the leader of the conspiracy. Tresham is interesting as well, because obviously not all of his fellow conspirators trusted him, so he'd probably be next after Digby. Malleus Fatuorum 22:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Hmmm, I'm detecting some latent resentment there. I have a few friends, ostensibly ex-Catholics, who feel the same way :) Thankfully I was never subjected to the indoctrinations while growing up. The mystical sky-fairy never got his claws into me. Parrot of Doom 22:32, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── They say there's no such thing as an ex-Catholic, only a lapsed Catholic. Malleus Fatuorum 23:22, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

  • The Gunpowder Plot says that Fawkes got his watch from Keyes (Discovery section), but Fawkes's own article says that it was Percy who gave him the watch. Malleus Fatuorum 23:41, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Percy left the watch with Keyes, who passed it to Fawkes. Sorted. Parrot of Doom 08:05, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm not convinced that the rhymes are strictly relevant to Fawkes. Unless there are more explicit verses, I say we should remove those. They seem more relevant to Wikisource. I've also searched and searched the internet for anything that specifically says that Milton's Satan was inspired in part by Fawkes, but have been entirely unsuccessful. Parrot of Doom 11:08, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
I think you're probably right on both counts. The verses clearly ought to be in the Guy Fawkes Night article, not here. So far as Milton's Satan is concerned, I think the truth is more subtle than what's currently being said. In fact, in Milton's first epic, In Quintim Novembris, Fawkes and Satan both appear, which would be a little strange if Satan was meant to be Fawkes, or vice versa. I've found a source that I think explains the relationship better, but it's also made me wonder whether Milton's stuff is really relevant to Fawkes, as opposed to the Gunpowder Plot itself. I'm inclined to think now that it's not. One thing I think we need to try and find an explanation for though is why it is that Fawkes is probably the only one of the 13 conspirators that most people could name. Malleus Fatuorum 12:30, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
(agree on the rhymes etc stuff) Well the early records state that Catholicism in general was the enemy, and not any particular person. I think Fawkes is so well known because he was the one who ended up on the bonfire. The ODNB entry says that in 1790 The Times related a story of kids burning a "Guy Vaux", I tried a few days ago to find it without success, I'll try again. I'll take a guess and suggest that Fawkes ended up on the bonfire because he was the one caught in the act. Parrot of Doom 12:40, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
There might also be something to be said about James Gillroy's obsession with Charles Fox, whom he regularly drew as "Guy Vaux". I suppose, however, that its more relevant to Gillroy or Fox than it is to Fawkes. Parrot of Doom 13:46, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
  • OK, I'm done. I've added the bit to Legacy I wanted to, so I guess we just wait now. It looks like a pretty good effort to me in any event, so well done whatever happens. Malleus Fatuorum 22:13, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
To see this arch-bigot, this heart-whole traitor, this pale miner in the infernal regions, skulking in his retreat with his cloak and dark lantern, moving cautiously about among his barrels of gunpowder loaded with death, but not yet ripe for destruction, regardless of the lives of others, and more than indifferent to his own, presents a picture of the strange infatuation of the human understanding, but not of the depravity of the human will, without an equal. There were thousands of pious Papists privy to and ready to applaud the deed when done: there was no one but our old Fifth of November friend, who still flutters in rags and straw on the occasion, that had the courage to attempt it. In him stern duty and unshaken faith prevailed over natural frailty.
William Hazlitt (1821)[1]

I'm trying to find the original but it doesn't seem to be online on a reliable source. Loads of his stuff is, but not this (that I've found). There's a small section of it in Fraser's book, but I wanted the whole quote, and some kind of commentary on it. Parrot of Doom 22:15, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually I found it, but it says that its authored by "Elia". Not sure what's going on here, I'm tired so I'll read it tomorrow. Parrot of Doom 22:22, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Ahhhh... Parrot of Doom 22:28, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Strange how it's so often a surprise when you find the information you're looking for in wikipedia. Malleus Fatuorum 22:36, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
  • We've got a problem with a couple of the images in this article, mentioned in the FAC. The most serious appears to be the one showing the two signatures, which I'm guessing must have been cobbled together by someone from the two images on the National Archive web site, here. That's what the description seems to suggest anyway. The problem is that the National Archive claim copyright on all the images on their web site unless they specifically waive it, which they haven't done in this case.[2] Shall we just drop it from the article? Or does copyright not apply because only a very small portion of the original images has been used? Malleus Fatuorum 17:59, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Upload it to en-wikipedia (not commons) tagged as {{pd-art}}. Provided it's a photographic reproduction of a work on which the copyright has itself expired, it's free-use in the US and thus permissible to be hosted on Wikipedia. – iridescent 18:24, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
I've just sorted out the sourcing and copyright on the other image, File:Gunpowder Plot conspirators.jpg, which came from the National Portrait Gallery interestingly enough, so hopefully that one's OK for now. I've never been that fond of the signature image anyway, so I wouldn't mind losing it. There are a few other images that could be got from the NPG, including one of the execution, which I think would be better anyway, and at least for the moment Commons accepts images from there as being out of copyright. Malleus Fatuorum 18:44, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
I think the signatures are pretty important and would like them to remain, if possible. They're good in that they're the best visual indicators of the degree of torture he suffered. I don't believe they're in copyright, the National Archives website will just put a "we own everything" page up, as pretty much everyone else does. The execution image is fab but I prefer the signatures when we're discussing only Fawkes. Parrot of Doom 19:53, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm easy either way. The copyright status of the signatures image hasn't come up at the FAC yet anyway, and perhaps it won't. I was just being pre-emptive. The only image problem we've had so far was the sourcing of the plotters, which is fixed now. Malleus Fatuorum 20:02, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Hopefully there won't be too much wrong with it, and hopefully it'll get plenty of support. I've had a really shit day at work and need to relax.... Parrot of Doom 20:05, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Have a beer. I'll be opening one soon, so I expect I'll be abusing someone in a drunken rage in a a couple of hours or so. Hope so anyway. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 20:07, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

The Final Cut

I left an edit summary for each, so instead of simply saying that you disagree with everything, please tell me where I am wrong, and why. Thank you.Mk5384 (talk) 18:22, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok then. First, its the 10th studio album, not the 12th. Secondly, most sources agree the album is often considered a de facto Waters solo effort. Third, what has been "mentioned just now" in the lead is irrelevant, please read WP:LEAD. Congratulations on removing cited text and invalidating statements made in the lead. Fourth, "Bring the Boys Back Home" was included on The Wall, but the album would have included the version released on the film. Fifth, "Waters a socialist at heart" is cited from Blake pages 294 to 295. Sixth, the songs were certainly from The Wall, but not the album. Seventh, there's no reason for this edit. Eighth, ninth and tenth, I suggest you read Rock opera. I am therefore reverting your edits as they are entirely incorrect. If you have a problem with this you can take it to the article's talk page. Parrot of Doom 18:35, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Piper at the Gates of Dawn, A Saucer Full of Secrets, Ummagumma, Obscured By Clouds, More, Atom Heart Mother, Meddle, DSOTM, WYWH, Animals, The Wall, The Final Cut. 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12. Which sources consider it a de facto Waters solo effort. I know that it's a de facto Waters album, but that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. It says Pink Floyd on the cover. The album didn't include any version of "Bring the Boys Back Home", because it was on their previous album. (You know; their 11th. Claiming that Waters is a socialist at heart because someone wrote it in a book is absurd.Mk5384 (talk) 18:47, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Obscured by Clouds and More are not considered by this project to be studio albums. Look at the bottom of the article, count them. De facto - "for all intents and purposes" - read page 239 of Schaffer. Even the other members of Pink Floyd dissociate themselves from the album, especially Gilmour, who relinquished his credit as co-producer. Read the article " Under its working title Spare Bricks, it would have featured new music or songs from Pink Floyd The Wall that were simply re-recorded for the film such as "When the Tigers Broke Free" and "Bring the Boys Back Home", respectively". See that - "would have" - "re-recorded for the film". I couldn't care less if you think that an author claiming that Waters was a Socialist is irrelevant, that entire section of the book concerns Waters' reaction to Thatcher's invasion of the Falklands, and his reasoning behind abandoning Spare Bricks and instead creating The Final Cut, and he goes on to speak in detail on the matter. Parrot of Doom 18:57, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Why in the world would Obscured By Clouds, and More not be considered studio albums? That's exactly what they are. Because their both film soundtracks? They are not compilations, and they are most certainly studio albums. An author claiming that Waters is a socialist does not make it true. An author proving that Waters is a socialist is a different story. Claiming that The Final Cut is a de facto Waters record is like claiming that A Momentary Lapse Of Reason, and The Division Bell, are, de facto, not Pink Floyd albums. No serious fan of The Floyd considers these to be genuine Pink Floyd albums, but you can't say that in an encyclopedia, any more that you can say that The Final Cut is a de facto Waters album. The Spare Bricks project was shelved entirely. The Final Cut never would have included these songs. At the time of the recording of Dark Side Of The Moon, The Floyd were working on an album to be titled "Household Objects". These pieces were scrapped, and they were no more a part of DSOTM than the songs you mentioned were a part of The Final Cut.Mk5384 (talk) 19:21, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't know why they're not considered studio albums, and I don't care. The fact is, that's the view this project has taken. If you want to argue about it, go to WT:ALBUM.
For fuck's sake I'm not having this argument on three pages. Please go to the article's talk page. Parrot of Doom 19:23, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


I've replied to your comment on my talk page, at my talk page, here. I realize you're having a rough time, but don't take all criticism as "mudslinging"; it's not. Other editors you're dealing with, are having a rough time too. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 14:57, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


This says Blake too, is it useful?[3]--J3Mrs (talk) 19:43, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, it seems to make a few assertions which are at odds with what is stated by Fraser and Haynes, so I'd say....probably not very. Sorry :( Parrot of Doom 20:09, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Don't be sorry it's not a problem, I'm not very good at helpful but I think if Fraser says her name was Edith Jackson, that would be her maiden name, therefore I don't think former is required. --J3Mrs (talk) 20:38, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
The Brittania article was very useful—not as a source—but as another thing to read which helped send me in a few directions I wouldn't otherwise have considered. The article is better for your help, so please don't be modest. Parrot of Doom 20:41, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
The Brittania article also gives Blake, the ODNB gives Jackson, I wonder if it would be appropriate to cover all bases and say Edith Jackson or Blake (as sources including his old school, differ) [4]
I've come across some sources that call her Edith Jackson-Blake, which just seems ridiculous to me. As I said on J3Mrs talk page, it seems highly implausible to me that Fawkes would lie to his interrogators about every personal detail except his mother's maiden name. I think we should go with Edith Blake, perhaps with a note to say that some (naive?) sources give Edith Jackson, the name he gave to his interogators. What's irritating is that Fawkes's baptismal record still exists, which would obviously solve the problem, and I've even found an image of it online, but it's too small to read. Malleus Fatuorum
It is readable here [5]. It's the 3rd record down in the picture on page 2. Readable, yes, but decipherable? Looks like Jackson in the second line IMHO. At være eller ikke være (talk) 01:52, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps then it might be best to truncate her name to Edith, since everyone agrees on that, and move any discussion of her surname into a footnote, for the bottom of the page? Parrot of Doom 22:56, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
You should apply for a UN diplomatic post immediately PoD, that's a very good idea. I only wish I'd thought of it first. Malleus Fatuorum 23:07, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK for 1910 London to Manchester air race

Gatoclass (talk) 12:04, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

GA vs FA

I noticed you withdrew an article from GAN because you want to nom it for FA? That's great, but you might want to do both, since there's a shiny prize for going New-DYK-GA-FA. :) - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 14:42, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

You're not allowed to have an article at FAC and GAN simultaneously. Malleus Fatuorum 14:49, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Meh, I've already got one of those :) Parrot of Doom 15:03, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Ah, then no worries. Just thought I'd point it out just in case. Good luck! :) - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 15:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
I'd be more impressed with new-FA, cut out the middle man. Malleus Fatuorum 17:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Agree with you (Malleus). The trouble with WP:FOUR—as someone (cough) pointed out when it started—is that it encourages this kind of "rack up the stars" thinking, without consideration for the impact on the (dwindling) reviewer pool of duplicating the review process for no reason. See at the top of WP:GA where it says "Good articles are articles which are considered to be of good quality but which are not yet, or are unlikely to reach, featured article quality"? It's there for a reason. – iridescent 17:41, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Over the last couple of years, the articles I've taken to GAN have been those I've been unsure about, or didn't intend to take any further. Admittedly some I did subsequently take to FAC, but that wasn't my intention when I nominated at GAN. Trafford Park, for instance; I'm perfectly happy with that as it is, and I have no intention of developing it further. What I've also found though, is that when you're working with another editor, particularly PoD, and Ottava as well to a degree, then an article can develop far quicker than you'd thought possible. So what started out as an effort to get to GA, very quickly becomes "why don't we just take this straight to FAC instead?" The Peterloo Massacre was a very good example: start to FA in three weeks. Malleus Fatuorum 19:49, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Ooops! I've just looked at Trafford Park again, and I see that the Governance section needs to be updated to reflect the recent election. Bugger. Malleus Fatuorum 19:56, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, one of the things I enjoy most from working with you Malleus is how you rearrange the words I've typed, and which I thought weren't bad, into something much better. Hopefully you're having to do less of that as time goes by, as I learn from my mistakes. What I most enjoy from this project however, is learning. Its a revelation how much easier something is to learn, when you're reading and writing about it. :) Parrot of Doom 20:12, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Your efforts have become quite impressive PoD, even to me, who's not easily impressed. It's a truism, but nevertheless true, that you learn something best by having to explain it to others. Malleus Fatuorum 20:23, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
PS. One of the things I've always tried to is exactly what you describe, "rearrange the words". It's very easy to completely rewrite something as I would have written it, but that takes away the voice of the author. Malleus Fatuorum 20:29, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Indeed. I shared a trip on Sunday with a bloke I work with often, and was telling him about the air race. He laughed his head off when I told him about the boy scout bit. Everyone I've told about our favourite rabbit woman has also pissed their sides at the story. It just makes it all worthwhile. The downside is that it makes improving town and city articles that much more boring, and I really want to improve Bury at some point. Parrot of Doom 20:25, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
J3Mrs and I and working on town articles, well she is really, I'm just nudging her along by being scary. We've got a pretty good template for town articles, so I think they're now relatively easy to write. Which is why I'm thinking of trying my hand at a maths article soon. I mean, how hard can that be? Just got to create 75 new articles first, so that I can refuse to have the autoreviewer right. Malleus Fatuorum 20:35, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
I find maths articles hilarious. You get reviewers at FAC saying "can we please link 'thatched roof'" or similar, as its a "difficult subject", and yet when you look at a maths article they're so utterly incomprehensible to the layman that nobody dares to challenge them :) Parrot of Doom 20:44, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
You're right, but you haven't seen one of mine yet. Who knows, I may break the mould. Malleus Fatuorum 20:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Speaking of articles that weren't intended to be taken further than GAN (and that have had the words rearranged by Malleus), do the pair of you think it's worth taking Halkett boat to FAC? It's short but as far as I can tell there's really nothing else ever been written on the things, and some of those images really are jewels in the crown of England's glory and deserve a visit to the main page. Besides, it might be nice to interrupt the flow of Buckinghamshire railway stations. – iridescent 20:50, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Looks good to me, its certainly worth a punt. If we could get the tiny Gropecunt Lane through, I'm certain you can get that article through - and we had much less to go on with prossie place. Parrot of Doom 20:57, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Given it a go. Want to place a bet on how long it'll take for the first "oppose, too short"? – iridescent 21:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Sandy is pretty good at spotting retards, I think. Parrot of Doom 21:39, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
My real dread/hope (depending on how one looks at it) is that it flushes out someone who knows of a book that's been written on the things. I'm fairly certain that nothing other than Pain's 2009 paper has ever been published in Britain, but there may well have been something written in Canada on the things. – iridescent 21:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I think I said after the GA review that I'd have taken it straight to FAC in the first place. I think Pain is pretty reliable, so I wouldn't be too worried. Malleus Fatuorum 22:05, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

"Where is the Stromness Museum", PoD? Have you been possessed by the ghost of Fifelfoo all of a sudden? – iridescent 22:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
If I had, I'd be opposing due to the use of SI units in a British article :) Kilometres indeed! Parrot of Doom 22:26, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
I did think that at the time, but the source definitely says "15 km", not "9 miles". I suspect Halkett actually just said "from Kew Bridge to Westminster Bridge" (the course of the trial, according to the NMM), and Pain's just taken the distance between the two. Of course, he may well have worked in km, particularly if he was planning to market the things abroad; the French seem to have had some interest in them. (Verne has the party riding in Halkett boats in The Adventures of Captain Hatteras, with no explanation as to what they were, which implies that he assumed a French audience would recognise the term. Of course, he may have been deliberately using specialist jargon to sound knowledgeable.) – iridescent 22:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Four Award

Four Award.svg Four Award
Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work from beginning to end on Carrington Moss.

Wow, new to FA in just over two weeks! Great work! LittleMountain5 23:43, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Difficult not to laugh really, as you copied most of it from my Chat Moss. I am of course joking, but I don't know of a smiley that says "that's the best laugh I've had all day". No reflection on Carrington Moss, which is of course an excellent article. Malleus Fatuorum 23:59, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Pfft, who went out and recorded the birdsong, eh?  :) Parrot of Doom 11:32, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


Well, we did it. One down, 12 to go. Malleus Fatuorum 13:14, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

heh, I can't see much being written about Thomas Bates... Parrot of Doom 14:38, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
... then it'll probably be a pretty easy article to write. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 16:45, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Having been in a reflective frame of mind for the past few days, I thought I'd try and put together a list of those articles I've created, like you have on your user page. But what a pathetic offering it is, after three years of hard slog. I thought that I might be able to, in some small way, justify my presence here by creating the article on Thomas Bates, but I see that some bastard has beaten me to it! I'm doomed just to be a fixer-upper, not a content creator. :lol: Malleus Fatuorum 19:43, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
BTW, have you noticed that we've now written 10% of the Yorkshire project's FAs? Malleus Fatuorum 19:45, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Go on the Times archive, and do searches for "Bizarre", "ghostly", "strange", etc. You'll find loads of stuff. I'm still trying to find out what a person was doing while he "cries sticks" (as in Elizabeth Canning). There's also a lot of missing info on here about early ideas of human conception. Also, have a look at books like this. There are loads, and loads of things that people have forgotten, which would make great articles.
Doesn't surprise me about Yorkshire, they don't even have electricity up there. Parrot of Doom 19:49, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Never fear. I've found Manchester's 18th-century equivalent of Mrs Beaton, and there's lots more where that came from. You're right though, so much has been forgotten. Malleus Fatuorum
  • Sorry, I meant to get back here much sooner. Great article, congratulations to both of you! I'm still on the hunt for a good candidate article to work on, if you have any suggestions? Cheers, TFOWRpropaganda 10:44, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
If you're looking for a bizarre character from English history, I started to work on Almeric Paget about three years ago but abandoned it with just the shell of the article in place. Wikipedia is sadly lacking in articles on ennobled Nazi massage-parlour owning cowboys. – iridescent 10:52, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
There's also Grub Street, which I got a bit bored with and left, after a fair bit of work. Parrot of Doom 10:54, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! TFOWRpropaganda 11:00, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

About File:Paulhan landing at didsbury 1910.jpg

File:Paulhan landing at didsbury 1910.jpg is in the public domain; it was published before 1923, thus qualifying for {{PD-1923}}—US public domain, and as Flight claimed copyright with no specific attribution to the photographer (who likely was one of its staff/member of the Royal Aero Club), it could be considered to be a work by a corporate (anonymous) entity, thus {{PD-UK}} (if stored on Wikipedia) or commons:Template:PD-UK-unknown (Commons) for public domain in its country of origin (United Kingdom). After saying that, I would like to encourage you to upload the original size of the photo. I would have done it myself, except that I am on a long period away from my principal computer that has my image editing tools (Paint does a terrible job...). A fine article for this image! Jappalang (talk) 09:26, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

That's certainly encouraging; the articles in that publication contain lots of superb photographs (albeit a few generations of quality lost) that would fall under the same licence. I thought when I uploaded it, however, that I should play things safe. After all, I don't know if Flight was published at that time in the US. Its a British publication. Parrot of Doom 09:28, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
The {{PD-1923}} tag (public domain in US) applies to any material published before 1923, whether in US, Singapore, or UK. They are "safe" to be uploaded to Wikipedia (US server) and used in full glory. However, if an editor desires to upload such material to Commons, he or she has to ensure that the images are also public domain in their "country of origin"; i.e. for anything published in UK, it has to be public domain in both US (via PD-1923 or some other stuff) and UK (per UK copyright laws). Jappalang (talk) 09:44, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
I guess I'm just a little bit uncomfortable using the PD-1923 tag in the UK, as the article's author may have died only in the last few decades. Parrot of Doom 09:48, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

A fascinating piece of film

I thought you might be interested in the following email I was sent recently - the film is really worth a look. Richerman (talk) 01:49, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

San Francisco, 1906

This film was "lost" for many years. It was the first 35mm film ever. It was taken by camera mounted on the front of a cable car. The amount of automobiles is staggering for 1906. Absolutely amazing! The clock tower at the end of Market Street at the Embarcadero wharf is still there. (I'm also wondering ... how many "street cleaning" people were employed to pick up after the horses? Talk about going green!)

This film, originally thought to be from 1905 until David Kiehn with the Niles Essanay Silent Film Museum figured out exactly when it was shot. From New York trade papers announcing the film showing to the wet streets from recent heavy rainfall & shadows indicating time of year & actual weather and conditions on historical record, even when the cars were registered (he even knows who owned them and when the plates were issued!).. It was filmed only four days before the quake and shipped by train to NY for processing.Amazing but true!

Great historical film worth watching.

Click on:

What an extraordinary film! And if that was the original soundtrack then I'll be doubly amazed. :lol: Malleus Fatuorum 02:09, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Its fantastic isn't it? Have you seen the old film found in the Northwest though? Shots of Blackburn, etc? There was a documentary about it a few years back. Parrot of Doom 07:51, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Great stuff. I think I remember seeing that documentary. Almost brought a tear to my eye, watching the first ever film of Manchester United, taken in 1902. Malleus Fatuorum 12:25, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
If you want a football-related mission against a deadline, Roy of the Rovers could do with a good cleanup (see Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests#World Cup). Mr is absolutely right; it's embarrassing that Wikipedia's alleged focus on popular culture can celebrate countless anniversaries of indie bands, ZX Spectrum games and Simpsons episodes, but hasn't anything fit-for-purpose for the event which is certain to draw the biggest television audience of all time. – iridescent 2 19:44, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
PS Did the Man United films always run for four minutes longer than the other films for no apparent reason?
I have the eagle comic on my watchlist, Dan dare and the mekon comes first :) Parrot of Doom 22:02, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm watching Rupert Bear, so I guess that means I'm not as high-tech as you, but he makes me feel safe. As a kid, my favourite comic was the Wizard, but we don't seem to have an article on that strangely, only one on one of the characters it featured, Wilson the Wonder Athlete, which was way before even my time. The comic was a bit unusual I guess, because it was mainly words, hardly any pictures at all. Malleus Fatuorum 22:55, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Roy of the Rovers certainly needs a lot of tlc; if it was taken to FAR today it wouldn't stand a chance. It's strange that so much of wikipedia's football coverage is so poor, but I have tried to help in the past, as with the abortive effort at Manchester United F.C., stymied by the intransigence of the article's owner, and this FAC I tried to help get over the line. Malleus Fatuorum 23:08, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
I never got into Rupert Bear, in truth I always found his adventures in The Express to be a little bit...scary. It was as though what remained unsaid in each strip was more important than what the characters were saying. Maybe I had a nightmare about him as a child, and it weighs on my conscience. Now Dan Dare and Digby, they were proper adventurers. With their friends, Dr Peabody, Hank, and that Treen traitor whose name slips my mind. Ahhh, Dan Dare and the Red Planet, brilliant stuff. I have a few of the Dan Dare annuals from the 80s and 90s (the compilations of the 50s comic strips), they're worth a small fortune now. Parrot of Doom 23:01, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
I've got quite a few Rupert Bear annuals, signed by Alfred Bestall. No idea what they're worth today, but they cost a bloody fortune 10 years ago. Malleus Fatuorum 23:31, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
    • ^ Cite error: The named reference Fraserp349 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).