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

Ambrose Rookwood

I was just looking through the FAC and I saw the discussion re Old Style vs New Style dates. The same thing cropped up here, and I addressed it by adding a note, as you can see. Might be worth doing something similar here? Malleus Fatuorum 14:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think its worth the bother, everyone knows the plot was in 1605, and some know they were killed in what we call 1606. All the modern sources use 1606, none mention the old/new style dates except where the new year is being celebrated. BTW did you notice that someone has bothered to translate GC Lane into French, and to a GA standard? Parrot of Doom 18:43, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Too good to miss?

My Girl's Pussy. Malleus Fatuorum 20:31, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

heh, bit too obvious that one :) I'm sticking with Straw Bears :) Parrot of Doom 22:27, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

It might still be worth an April 1 DYK though. BTW, in my mission to create enough articles to be able to legitimately refuse to have autoreviewer status I've come a rich vein, which is where I found that rather unlikely named song; British big band leaders. I'm surprised as well how few of the films they appeared in have articles, and then of course there's all of those clowns and music hall venues, to say nothing of the forgotten witches ... who was it said that there was nothing left to write about? Malleus Fatuorum 22:34, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Haven't forgotten or lost interest

I haven't forgotten about or lost interest in taking Trafford Park to FAC, but I only got around to scanning the map in Nicholls' book the other day. As I said, it's printed on two facing pages with stitching down the middle, so I've had to create a strip to put the two halves together as seamlesssly as I can to cover up the bit that couldn't be scanned without dismantling the book. Anyway, I've uploaded it to File:TraffordParkMap1906.png now. What do you think? Are we good to go? Malleus Fatuorum 20:28, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm so tired I can barely think. I'll have a look tomorrow. Parrot of Doom 21:09, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks good, I had to search for the seam so a casual viewer will never see it. Is there anything more to be said about the ship canal, particularly Trafford Wharf? I think there's also something to be said for a passing mention of the park's expansion outside its boundaries, particularly alongside the Brigewater Canal, as that's quite significant. Also, I need to get a picture of the railway, I'll do that while the weather's nice. Parrot of Doom 07:48, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I was afraid you might scoff at my amateur graphic efforts. :-) Good point about the park's later westward expansion, I'll add something about Barton Docks later and perhaps Dumplington later. There doesn't seem to be much more to say about Trafford Wharf though really, it was just a wharf, and I don't think there's much if anything else to say about the ship canal. It's a great day for photography, so let's hope you can get a decent shot of the railway ... I can't remember though the last time I actually saw a train running on it. Malleus Fatuorum 15:09, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it does a great job of covering most aspects of the park, so perhaps I'm just basing this on my suspicions but I think more mention should be made of the canal's importance. I think we can discount the value of the Bridgewater, it may have delivered some coal and raw materials but not much else I would have thought. I'm sure there is a book in Urmston library so I'll have a look tomorrow, and get those pics then (weather forecast is good). There's also some interesting stuff about the railway on Manchester Ship Canal. Parrot of Doom 15:21, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

BTW Parrot of Doom 15:24, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. I wish I'd seen that earlier, I may use that instead, as it'll look better at thumbnail size being almost a thumbnail itself. Malleus Fatuorum 17:06, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

PS. The Manchester Ship Canal's railway was quite separate from the Trafford Park railway system, although an agreement was signed between the two in 1898 allowing Trafford Park Estates to make a permanent connection between the two systems. On reflection we could probably say quite a bit about both the Ship Canal Railway and the Trafford Park railways; I'm wondering whether they might even warrant their own articles. Malleus Fatuorum 17:16, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I didn't get chance to get those pics today, I walked nearly eight miles around Mam Tor so by the time I got back to Manchester, the sun was down and I was knackered anyway. Parrot of Doom 21:07, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

No worries. There hasn't been a train running around Trafford Park for years anyway. I've expanded the Transport section with a little bit more about the railway's development, added a new subsection on the park's westward extension into Barton Docks, and added a map. So I think I'm going to nominate this imminently. Malleus Fatuorum 21:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I've read in a few places now that during the BR nationalisation era, the Trafford Park railway remained the largest private railway in the country. I shall try and confirm this. Parrot of Doom 21:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Nice pictures, although with that lovely clear blue sky I'm sure that nobody will believe you took them in Manchester. Incidentally, I'm fairly sure those hook and chain sculptures go by the name of Sky Hooks. Does that ring any bells with you? Malleus Fatuorum 15:45, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Sky hooks is the name I found also, but in the absence of an official source I thought I'd leave it ambiguous. I still haven't managed to get a better shot of that bloody hotel, every time the front is in shade :( Parrot of Doom 15:53, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Here's a ref to Skyhooks, [1]--J3Mrs (talk) 11:40, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Already done mate :) Parrot of Doom 13:31, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

If you don't count the London Underground (nationalised in 1948, but independently of British Rail and never a part of it) then the MSC railway was the largest single non-BR railway after the 1948 nationalisations. The railways owned by the National Coal Board almost certainly added up to more than the MSC, but didn't form a single system. Aside from the London Underground, Glasgow Subway and Tyne & Wear Metro, the longest non-Network Rail railway still in operation today is the West Somerset Railway, although the Docklands Light Railway will overtake it once the extensions currently under construction are completed. – iridescent 16:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Parrot of Doom 16:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Manchester Ship Canal#cite note-47, although I don't know what the exact wording is. I imagine Redrose will be able to provide a source if you prod him. – iridescent 16:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

The MSC railway and the Trafford Park railway were two separate systems under different ownership that just happened to have an agreed permanent connection point. I'm not at all sure how big the docks railway would have been in 1948. Malleus Fatuorum 16:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

• "Trafford Park's southern entrance is marked by this bridge connecting Kellogg's manufacturing plant to its warehouse. " - strictly speaking the bridge is some distance outside the park, which begins once over the canal. Is this worth rephrasing? Parrot of Doom 23:42, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I think it's OK, because the bridge is in Barton Docks, which was the westward expansion of the park beyond the canal. Malleus Fatuorum 23:50, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I forgot to mention btw, I went into the library but they had only one book on Trafford Park (already used in the article), a few books about Stretford etc, but not much that was helpful. What useful info I did find is what I added in a few days back :( I might try Davyhulme library though, they're alright. Parrot of Doom 18:20, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure there's anything much else to be found to be honest. I had a good look around when I expanded the article initially and the Nicholls book seemed to be by far the most comprehensive. Rather than visit the library though, why not just check their online catalogue? Malleus Fatuorum 18:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

They're both only around the corner, a 20 minute walk each should I choose. Urmston's library is very nice but is so large its a bit sparse. Their local history section is, frankly, pathetic. Parrot of Doom 19:11, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

In general I've found the Manchester libraries to have a better local history selection than the Trafford libraries ... speaking of which I've bitten the bullet at last and ordered some books to tackle this abortion. Malleus Fatuorum

BTW, as per Iridescent's comment at the FAC I managed to weave in Man U and the Trafford Centre. What do you think? Malleus Fatuorum 20:09, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Bah, that was on my radar :( I still have another eight plotters to plot though, so it would have been months anyway. I was just on the Manchester libraries website and noted they had a book I want for HD&Q, so I think I'll go down there tomorrow. I think adding the Trafford Centre and Man Utd has been done quite well, I was worried that their inclusion would lead to all kinds of extra flotsam but the way you've done it is perfect. Parrot of Doom 20:12, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

It'll probably take me months to get around to it anyway, so it may still be yours for the picking. I've still got 15 articles to create before I can refuse autoreviewer status anyway. Here's my lastest masterpiece :lol: Malleus Fatuorum 20:16, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes, I read that a condition of Trafford Park's sale was that the show would still be hosted there. I didn't think it worth a mention, however. Parrot of Doom 20:20, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah actually, not the Jubilee show, but the Royal Show. Parrot of Doom 20:26, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that was just a little thing, but this was a major event, with 4.5 million visitors. Malleus Fatuorum 20:51, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Malleus, you are aware that autoreviewer status gives a user no powers whatsoever? – iridescent 20:24, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

What I'm aware of is the ability to threaten to take it away gives administrators a power that they ought not to have. Malleus Fatuorum 20:51, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Trafford Park Photo

The photo is undated and no provenance is known. It was given to me about 30 years ago by a lady now deceased who had connections prewar with Barton Aerodrome. She probably was given it by one of the pilots based there, soon after it was taken circa 1930. There are no marks whatsoever on the back of the photo. I cannot help you further I'm afraid. RuthAS (talk) 11:03, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Ruth. Would it be fair to say then that the photograph belongs to you? If so, all that's required is for you to release it under a PD licence. Parrot of Doom 11:27, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Like shooting fish in a barrel

In my quest to create 75 new articles (up to 60 now) I've discovered the truth of what Iridescent has been saying for ages. Just find a reliable source for a listing of something, anything, like railway stations for instance, and then create an article for any of that are missing. My seam is English composers, of which there are a surprising number without articles.

Anyway, getting bored with that now. When Trafford Park's finished at FAC I'd thought of sticking hangman William Calcraft up. What do you think? By the time of his death he seems to have been pretty much forgotten, didn't even get a Times obituary, but I find his incompetence quite fascinating. Malleus Fatuorum 20:30, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

You still haven't created Anne Vaux :) I could help with that. William Calcraft looks good but aren't there any contemporary drawings or pictures of executions that could be used to illustrate his trade? Maybe we could get someone at b3ta to create an animated gif of him swinging from someone's legs :) Parrot of Doom 21:10, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, how come the erm...Bishops bloke hasn't gotten around to Thomas Becket yet? I would have thought that Becket would have been prime material, his death is quite well known even amongst those who know nothing of history. Its even got a delightful popular culture section...Parrot of Doom 21:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

For the same reason I haven't touched King's Cross station. Some topics have too many people who'll insist something they read in the paper somewhere be included, and inevitably degenerate into shite. Ask Malleus how he's enjoying keeping Manchester United clean. – iridescent 21:21, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I was propositioned by a prostitute outside Kings Cross station many years back. And the answer (from me) was no! Parrot of Doom 21:22, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I've been propositioned by dozens of them around there, as I used to work just up the road from time to time. I remember the first occasion, when a girl looking rather the worse for wear stopped me at about 8:30 in the morning and asked "Do you want to do some business?" I thought she was selling drugs, so I was initially mildly interested, but who wants casual sex before they've even had breakfast? Malleus Fatuorum 22:24, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Some articles are a battle, and you just know they're going to be a battle. Man U was a nightmare, and even now there are still ongoing "discretionary plural" bollocksy discussions. So I quite understand that foxy bloke's reluctance to wade in on Thomas Becket; you could spend the rest of your wikipedia life arguing the toss about how his name should be spelled. I'd forgotten about Anne Vaux though, once I get my 75 new articles racked up she'll definitely be in my sites poor soul. Malleus Fatuorum 22:33, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

As a Flixton lad what do you think of this?

Frances Lennon. I squirm a bit at the later parts of the article, such as "Frances continued to live at home in Flixton until 2008, when declining health forced her removal to a nursing home". That seems altogether too personal and intrusive for me. Malleus Fatuorum 23:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd agree. I really should do something about Flixton, after all I live here, it should be a doddle. It certainly deserves it, with such an old church. Lennon's shop was one of these two. Parrot of Doom 23:33, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

While you're here, would you mind taking a look at the first three sentences of the second paragraph of the Plot section? Something isn't right with it, I keep fiddling but I can't make it make sense. I had it ok before, but I removed a sourcing ambiguity and in doing so made a mess of it. Parrot of Doom 23:59, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

What do you want me to do? Hack at the prose and then you can sort out the citations later? We both know how difficult it is to produce "engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard" prose while having to punctuate it with citations for every phrase. Malleus Fatuorum 00:20, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I must admit the requirement to cite most things can often be completely impractical (we need software that highlights the text cited, when the cite number is hovered over) but I've taken to disregarding cites for the bloody obvious and inserting hidden "not cited in text" notes instead. I've changed that section again, but it still isn't quite right, and I just wanted to see how someone else would approach what's written before cites 8 and 9. I'm getting reasonably good at making things flow together now, but for some odd reason I can't get that bit right. Parrot of Doom 00:26, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I've had a go at it, see what you think. Malleus Fatuorum 01:03, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Much better, thanks. Now why can't I do that? :( Parrot of Doom 07:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Seems that I'm not infallible after all :-(

I can't think now why I thought that having a Notable executions section in old Bill's article was a good idea. Ah well. Now why couldn't I have thought of that? ;-) Malleus Fatuorum 00:08, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes it takes someone not connected with an article to point things like that out. A fresh pair of ears, like Chris Thomas on DSotM. Parrot of Doom 07:38, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Discussion at User Talk:Malleus Fatuorum#Thomas Rowlandson

You are invited to join the discussion at User Talk:Malleus Fatuorum#Thomas Rowlandson. Senra (Talk) 15:08, 11 September 2010 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})

Ping

Since nobody seems to have bothered to notify you. – iridescent 10:47, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Nick Mason!

Hi PoD. Saw your reversion of that IP's comment on Pink Floyd but, wouldn't you know it? [[2]]

I haven't viewed the clip but it looks like a valid reference. Care to integrate it into the page? Careful With That Axe, Eugene ^Hello... 20:51, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure its worthwhile, the question was "could?" and he answered "maybe". Its as non-committal as one could get. Parrot of Doom 21:06, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

mary toft

Hey

Just thought i would point out that mary toft had five children but two died in infancy and she was twenty six when she began the rabbit scam

yours

Jon —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redbullgivesuwind1 (talk • contribs) 13:33, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Red bull added a ref from a Jon Roke, "Mary Toft: The Woman Who Gave Birth To Rabbits", Godalming Museum, which I reverted, and can't find anywhere. [3] Leaving a note here about it in case it's a valid ref. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 13:49, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Please excuse the interruption, but I wonder if this is relevant. It seems to be a blog by a Jon Roke, student. He gives a few additional details and some sources, although many are already mentioned in Mary Toft. -- Jttw (talk) 19:28, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

He uses 18th-century sources, whereas I tended to use modern sources. I know what I'd rather trust. I think the article could probably stand a further copyedit, I'll get around to that one day, but I'm happy it covers all the bases. Parrot of Doom 19:58, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Yo

I note that you and Malleus wrote the Gunpowder Plot article together. I'm currently writing a massive, perfectly referenced and stunning (eventually) biography of Sir Edward Coke, which will without a doubt be as close as I come to a magnum opus. Any chance you have sources on the trial of the conspirators which I could nick and use? Regards, Ironholds (talk) 16:16, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

certainly, give me a few days. Fraser and Haynes are the best two sources, see nicholls also. Parrot of Doom 18:13, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm back home for a few hours. What exactly would you like to know? I could, later this week, look at the article and add what I have on Coke's involvement in the case. It would then be down to you to chop it to pieces. Parrot of Doom 20:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Where would they be without us?

{{GM News}}. Six of the last nine articles promoted are ours. What's everyone else doing? :lol: Malleus Fatuorum 13:43, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Probably three weeks of near-continuous work, like me :) I thought I had a day off tomorrow, and then someone rang today :) Parrot of Doom 21:50, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

22 out of 24 by myself and David, if the two of you want a benchmark to aim for. – iridescent 22:09, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah but you don't have anything like the amount of filth, criminality and depravity that me and Malleus have worked on :) Parrot of Doom 22:12, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I had two cannibals, a serial sex attacker, the fattest man in the East Midlands and a human-pig hybrid. What do you want, blood? – iridescent 22:18, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Meh, I've got a famous English highwayman who shot someone's cock, a scratching fanny on Cock Lane, 13th-century cunt gropeage, a woman who shoved rabbits up her chuff, and a man who tied lit fuses to his hair. One day I'll also achieve my ambition of getting porn on the front page, by getting Thomas Rowlandson up to spec. Beat that. Parrot of Doom 22:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm completely out of my depth here, I see that now. Malleus Fatuorum 22:45, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

In answer to your original question - we just all gaze in awe as the MF&PoD FA machine churns them out. Richerman (talk) 23:21, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Caution on Edit Warring

I know you are an experienced editor, but please try de-escalate your edit warring on The Division Bell and use the talk page to discuss. I am not going to report you for 3RR but someone else might.--Bad edits r dumb (talk) 08:30, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I just read your infobox and I hope I was not "lecturing" you or "fucking with" you, but I did want to bring to your attention that the other editor is repeatedly reverting your edits and that it is starting to look like edit warring.--Bad edits r dumb (talk) 08:35, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not at all sorry for reverting most of this user's edits, and will continue to do so until some justification other than "well I think so despite what the source says" is supplied. It doesn't take long for people to start slinging accusations around, does it? Parrot of Doom 08:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't commenting on whether your version is better or not (I imagine yours is, because you are a gud editor and know wut you are doing); I was just saying that unless you get a third party involved, this guy may keep reverting you and you both might end up blocked. Sorry if it sound like I accuse of something. I will leave you alone.--Bad edits r dumb (talk) 08:52, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

No need to apologise, I wasn't referring to you. Some people confuse an unwillingness to allow an article to be made worse, with ownership; this editor appears to be one of them. I'm not inclined to waste my time with someone who makes changes that conflict with what the sources say, while offering no sources of their own other than "because I say so", and who also makes stylistic changes that threaten the viability of the entire subject one day becoming a featured topic. I'll work with anyone to fix a problem or improve an article but not when faced with such accusations. Parrot of Doom 08:58, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

"No need to apologise, I wasn't referring to you" - actually that doesn't read as I intended. I'm sorry if you felt I was having a go at you. Parrot of Doom 10:44, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) He can't respond, as he's been indeffed as a troll. He seemed to understand.[4] Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 10:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I just read his talk page, why am I not surprised at the snobbery demonstrated by those criticising his posts? I'm all for correct English in article space, but complaining about his grammar in talk space? Some people have no sense of humour, and will shortly I think be issuing block warnings against those writing "lol" or similar. :) Parrot of Doom 11:03, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

He was a quirky guy - I'm sure he'll return in one way or another. Reminded me of an amateur Borat crossed with Jerry Lewis crossed with Andy Kaufman. I wouldn't have indeffed him, but he was trolling: I mean, come on. "Please do not threaten Bad edits r dumb". Weird stuff... Doc9871 (talk) 11:11, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

What it appears to amount to is "I don't like the way you're writing, and am therefore going to block you". If he was engaging in truly disruptive behaviour I could see some rationale for that block, but not simply torkin lik he writin in txt spk. I'd like to know more. Parrot of Doom 11:14, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The 9-subsection AN/I here[5] is a good start, but when he went to the Help Desk to ask for access to any and all CU evidence because he "heard people were talking behind his back", it became pretty clear... Doc9871 (talk) 11:21, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Good God, I'm not reading through that. It appears to be less interesting than Steve Davis. Parrot of Doom 13:02, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Discussion on ANI Noticeboard

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Friginator (talk) 22:27, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I sense several large, scuffy birds, turning in lazy circles high above my head. They gaze down upon me, their beaks twisted in a silent rictus, as they sense another chance to dive down and attack their oh-so-uncivil prey.

Fortunately, I have a cat, and my cat, delightful and soft as she is, takes particular delight in dragging dead birds through the catflap, and eating them in my front room. Parrot of Doom 23:02, 28 September 2010 (UTC) (PS, this isn't aimed at you, Friginator)

I think that the vultures can find something else to pick over.

However, in the interests of constructively defusing the situation, it would help if you would respond on ANI with your perspective on why the combative relationship developed and what you think could be done to avoid unpleasantries in the future.

Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:56, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'll not be joining in another debate about the use of "incivil" rude words, when I've yet again been accused of all manner of bullshit. ANI is blind to such things. Parrot of Doom 20:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)