Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:00, 7 February 2010

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 - Dec 2008 - May 2009 Archive 5 - May 2009 - July 2009 July 2009 August 2009 September 2009 October 2009 November 2009 December 2009 January 2010

This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.

Cock Lane

You are probably aware of this : Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates#April_Fools, but just in case, as your name was tapped out in a series of ghostly scratchings (or mentioned by MF which amounts to the same thing). Yomangani 18:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Thou art not my fanny! Parrot of Doom 19:21, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid I slightly lost my rag in the discussion Yomangan links to above after seeing another editor plonking on wife selling. The scope for double entendres in the blurb for the ghost would satisfy even Kenneth Williams though, so I'd probably opt for that anyway. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry too much about people with absolutely no discernible sense of humour. By the way have you seen the state of April Fools' Day? Horrific. Parrot of Doom 19:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure it would be possible to make an article out of that, as opposed to a series of lists. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)--Malleus Fatuorum 19:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Funny how one thing leads to another ...

... I guess that's the way of encyclopedias though. While researching this I came across an astronomer who has fairly recently claimed that the green children of Woolpit were actually extra-terrestrial visitors. I think that "Earth's first extra-terrestrial visitors may have arrived some time during the 12th century" trumps Scratching Fanny. Admittedly though she does have the advantage of already being an FA. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 00:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

So...

Came here to tell you to put the little barnstar on ice as it seems Tom, Dick, and Harry have minute issues to hyperbolise on Rumours. I also realised you'd replied to my message when I didn't have your talk page on my watchlist. I would just like to say I'm really sorry if you feel I messed up your changes. It wasn't intentional. I decided to ce it myself one day without seeing who'd edited or the changes made. I wasn't trying to revert. If you still feel there are changes to be made, drop a line on any relevant talk page like before in the FAC. Cheers. PRB88 (T) 22:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Its only the prose in my opinion that needs sorting. Everything else is fine for me. Parrot of Doom 22:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, comment away and I'll sort it out. If you don't want to do it on the FAC, just write on my talk page. PRB88 (T) 22:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd be here all day doing it. It isn't any one thing, but really, the article just doesn't quite flow. Its a whole load of great facts that just need a bit of word-glue to make them of interest. I'd just sit back a little and trust that other editors, while they may not be in possession of the source material, might help turn a superbly competent but slightly soulless Honda S2000 into an exciting, noisy, and slightly scary TVR Chimaera. That's what's missing I think, the precise grammatical details will settle down quickly enough. Parrot of Doom 22:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Nice analogy. I did want a TVR, but after being battle hardened by lots of FACs (including contrasting views about the same thing from different editors) I just write Hondas these days. It seems most people want a predictable, safe encyclopedia. I'm often told to remove even the most minute of flourishes, usually by the same people. It's sad I know, but I just don't see the point of going beyond reliable and competent. Cos someone will complain, especially if they're finding fault with a well-made, unbreakable piece of engineering already. PRB88 (T) 23:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

You stick to your flourishes, and tell anyone that doesn't like them to go hide in their 1.1 Nissan Micra. This is coming from one of the main contributors to the rather filthy Gropecunt Lane, and the less-filthy but still naughty Cock Lane ghost. There's nothing wrong with making prose more engaging and enjoyable, so long as the same facts are dispensed into the brain of the reader. The people who usually complain about such things hail from the 13 colonies, and have unfortunately suffered unduly from their want of a monarchy.

BTW I used to own a Chimaera, and I want another. I also want a new piano, a new roof for my house, and a carbon-fibre framed road bike though, so it may have to wait. Parrot of Doom 00:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

You know it's funny, at school, TVRs were the only cars everyone could agree on buying if they came into some cash. Hopefully, the company'll get fully back on its feet. And yes, the Yanks definitely crave a monarch, as seen by the ridiculous numbers I have to bump into en route to work and back. PRB88 (T) 17:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

RSN thread

Hi, as someone who churns out a lot of quality articles in this field, could you have a look at Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Musicnotes.com? It's about the current practice of using sheet music published online by Alfred Music Publishing to describe song details like tempo, key, arrangement etc. --JN466 00:12, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to look at it. --JN466 09:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Parrot of Doom 10:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Queen (FYI)

I failed Queen's GAN earlier today. The article seems to have deteriorated rather than improved over the last week or so. Thanks for spotting that dodgey GA review and doing something about it. I'm like a mother hen when it comes to GA. :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum 17:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I got about two sentences into the lead and thought...wtf? Maybe new users should be prevented from reviewing GAs... Parrot of Doom 17:57, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

And so it should have done. My attempts at sorting it were met with some rather strange comments. At least I managed to sneak a load more {{cn}} tabs in anyway! Fred the Oyster (talk) 17:59, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I like Queen. I may have a stab at it one day, but certainly not before I'm done with Floyd. Parrot of Doom 18:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

To be honest I have no idea why I started on that article. I've never liked Queen and it's cutting into my Floyd tracks copyediting. I suppose I just can't resist putting grammar and punctuation etc right. Fred the Oyster (talk) 19:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Virginia & Blackbeard

Got your note about your work on Blackbeard. Unfortunately, the sources I have been using focus on the periods after 1776, and I don't see anything useful about Governor Spottswood. However, it does sound like an interesting subject and I will keep my eyes open.--Kubigula (talk) 15:46, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for replying. Parrot of Doom 21:34, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Nick griffin matriculation.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Nick griffin matriculation.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 01:50, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Nick griffin matriculation.jpg

The fact that Griffin was in Cambridge is no doubt an important part of the article, but we really do not need a non-free image to display the fact. Just talk about it in the article. What he looked like while in Cambridge or during this ceremony is not at all important to the article, and so we do not need to use a non-free image to illustrate it. J Milburn (talk) 12:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. If you have a problem with it, discuss it first on the article's talk page. Don't remove it again unless you receive enough support there to do so. It isn't your place to make such arbitrary decisions on articles with which you have no prior involvement, and I'm not at all impressed with your behaviour. Parrot of Doom 12:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

What? I'm not allowed to remove a non-free image that doesn't meet our policy because I "have no prior involvement"? How about we actually discuss the file in question, rather than throwing around strange accusations? J Milburn (talk) 13:08, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't meet Misplaced Pages policy in your view, and as far as I know I'm not required to agree with anything you say. That you think the image has no rationale belies your lack of involvement in the article, or knowledge of the subject. It's ironic how those who claim to hold some kind of high ground are the ones who most often start throwing the insults around. Parrot of Doom 13:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Erm, ok. Why don't you educate me. Why does what he looked like at 18 matter? Why do we need to go against our general rule of "free images only" in order to show that? J Milburn (talk) 13:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Why on earth would I want to discuss the matter here? That was a rhetorical question by the way. Parrot of Doom 13:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I thought you may want to discuss the matter as you have chosen to edit war over the issue, and apparently feel certain that the image meets our policies. Why would you not want to discuss it here? I've created a thread on the article talk page- perhaps you'd be willing to explain it there? J Milburn (talk) 13:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Where have I edit warred? You're an administrator, you're the one who is supposed to know the hard and fast rules here. Parrot of Doom 13:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

You have forced the image back into the article several times, while literally refusing to discuss the issue, and just throwing around accusations and making up rules. There is now a thread on the talk page, as you requested- can we please discuss the actual issue there? J Milburn (talk) 13:50, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

It is you who removed the image and kept nominating it for deletion, and it is you that refused to discuss the matter before doing so. I restored, three times—and with two requests to discuss the matter on the article's talk page—the stable version of the article.

You appear to have a twisted view of reality and Misplaced Pages norms, and I'll thank you to stop peddling your bollocks here. I don't really care if the image stands or falls, but I do care about people who come here inventing lies to support their bullshit. Parrot of Doom 14:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)