User talk:Parrot of Doom/Archives/2013/September

Elizabeth Canning - TFA appearance

Hello (and I can almost taste the joy in your heart as you read this note), this is just a brief missive to let you know that Elizabeth Canning will be appearing as Wikipedia:Today's featured article/September 17, 2013. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page (note the use of the passive, not saying that you have to do it... ;-) ). If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask me. If the blurb needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. I hope that the TFA appearance goes smoothly. Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 19:59, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

No doubt it needs copyediting (I wrote it some time ago, I'm a little bit better at writing now), although what with work and breaking a couple of ribs (ouch), it'll have to wait until I can spare the time. Parrot of Doom 06:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Main Page appearance: Elizabeth Canning

This is a note to let the main editors of Elizabeth Canning know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on September 17, 2013. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask Bencherlite (talk · contribs). You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/September 17, 2013. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Elizabeth Canning (1734–73) was an English maidservant who claimed to have been kidnapped and held in a hayloft against her will, and who ultimately became central to one of the most famous English criminal mysteries of the 18th century. She disappeared on 1 January 1753, returning 28 days later, emaciated and in a "deplorable condition", to her mother's home in the City of London. After Canning was interviewed, two women, Susannah Wells and Mary Squires, were identified as her supposed captors and arrested. Local magistrate Henry Fielding investigated Canning's story, interviewing several witnesses. Wells and Squires were tried and found guilty; Wells was sentenced to death for theft. However, the trial judge, Crisp Gascoyne, was unhappy with the verdict and began his own investigation. Upon being questioned, some witnesses recanted their earlier testimony, and evidence from others implied that Squires could not have abducted Canning. Gascoyne had Canning arrested, and she was found guilty of perjury at a trial in 1754. She was imprisoned for a month and transported for seven years. She died in British America in 1773, but the mystery surrounding her disappearance remains unsolved. (Full article...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:03, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Million Award

		The Million Award
		For your contributions to bring Guy Fawkes (estimated annual readership: 1,480,000) to Featured Article status, I hereby present you the Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:26, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

The Million Award is a new initiative to recognize the editors of Wikipedia's most-read content; you can read more about the award and its possible tiers (Quarter Million Award, Half Million Award, and Million Award) at Wikipedia:Million Award. You're also welcome to display this userbox:

This editor won the Million Award for bringing Guy Fawkes to Featured Article status.

If I've made any error in this listing, please don't hesitate to correct it; if for any reason you don't feel you deserve it, please don't hesitate to remove it; if you know of any other editor who merits one of these awards, please don't hesitate to give it; if you yourself deserve another award from any of the three tiers, please don't hesitate to take it! Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:26, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Blackbeard's birthplace

The article states that Blackbeard "was likely born in Bristol" but it's unclear whether this means there is some reference to his being from Bristol that is not completely trusted, or simply that Bristol is the most reasonable guess for a pirate of his time and background. This was something that I as a reader wanted to know coming to the article (as I was investigating a claim by someone else that Blackbeard was born in Germany). Hopefully this helps clarify my concerns with the article. Thanks! -- LWG ^talk 14:45, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Basically nobody is certain where he was born, but most modern historians consider Bristol to be the most likely: certainly not Germany. Here's what the ODNB says:

Teach [Thatch], Edward [known as Blackbeard] (d. 1718), pirate, grew up in Bristol, according to most recent assessments. If true, he would have seen the steady rise of successful privateers during the wars with France after 1689. But his initial name and place of origin remain uncertain.

It's also possible, but considered less likely, that he was born in Jamaica. Eric Corbett 17:58, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Yesterday's Canning edits

Were you happy with this edit? It seems to say the opposite of what was there before. Richerman (talk) 17:27, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I reverted it. In truth I don't remember what the source says, but Wikipedia's article on assault seems only to mention simple assault in the US section. I'm pretty sure, however, that theft was far more serious than assault, so I think the sentence is fine. Parrot of Doom 21:52, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

The dark Side of the Moon

Hello. I'm here to justify my edits, and if you have still have a problem with them after I've explained myself (which I really shouldn't need to, all my edits were correct), then I will take the issue to the talk page.

First off, my edits in the Background section were simply correcting spelling errors, grammar, and prose. I don't see why you had to revert those edits.

Secondly, ALL of my edits in the personnel section were taken directly from the sleeve notes. The exceptions were the wikilinks for the instruments, and the added instruments as well. As for any of these, I also fail to see why you had a problem with them. Maybe you can explain yourself? If it's the added instruments, everyone knows Mason played rototoms on "Time", and everyone also knows that Gilmour played pedal steel on "Breathe" and "The Great Gig in the Sky". Akdrummer75 (talk) 08:16, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I still have a problem with them. Firstly, there were no spelling mistakes, as this article is written in English, not American. You removed "French director", which would leave readers wondering who Barbet Schroeder is. You also changed the order of musicians on the sleeve notes. Now I note other people have changed this section from what I originally wrote, but in my defence it's difficult to keep track of every article I've ever edited, particularly on a popular topic such as this one. So I'm going to rewrite that section now, based on the sleeve notes I have (Mobile Fidelity OMS recording). And "everyone knows" is no excuse to vary from a format I'm trying to maintain, which is that these sections should be based wholly on sleeve notes and nothing else. Parrot of Doom 08:32, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I believe it is a standard convention amongst Floyd articles (see Talk:Ummagumma for another example) that the personnel is cited to the original vinyl release wherever possible. The only exceptions are when a notable contribution to the album is not credited (eg: Ron Geesin receives no full named credit on the Harvest vinyl release of Atom Heart Mother). Otherwise everyone and their pet hamster comes along and adds their own original spark of how they think the personnel credits should look. "Keyboards? Why not piano, organ? No wait, piano, Hammond and Farfisa organs? No, let's cite the use to each track!" You'd never get a stable article - stick to what's on the credits. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:20, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. If the credits were good enough for the band, they're good enough for the article. Parrot of Doom 21:53, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Interesting. So some of my edits were correct, as evidenced by you keeping the VCS3 in there, and deleting the rubbish part about Torry singing backing vocals. And then you delete a whole slew of items in the personnel section. Now, the only personnel credited are the ones who worked on the original album. Never mind all the other people who worked on the reissues and remasters. And then you went and deleted stuff that's in the original album. Like the production credits for the band members. So let's see, you reverted all of my edits when in fact some of them were correct, instead of doing a partial revert. Instead of adding citation needed tags, you simply deleted all the reissue/remaster personnel. And then you contradicted your own policy by deleting credits that are in the sleeve notes.

I'm going to restore all those personnel that you deleted (the ones that were there before I came along), and the production credits for Floyd, as well as the wikilinks for the instruments, all of which had absolutely no reason to be deleted. Akdrummer75 (talk) 00:47, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Now then, we come to my edits. First off are the edits in the Background section. This is the first sentence I changed: "The following tour was praised by the public. The new material was performed live, in the same order in which it would eventually be recorded, but obvious differences between the live version, and the recorded version released a year later, included the lack of synthesizers in tracks such as "On the Run", and Bible readings that were later replaced by Clare Torry's non-lexical vocables on "The Great Gig in the Sky".[15]"

That's one long, rambling sentence. I merely split it into two, so as to eliminate a run-on sentence. Like so: "The following tour was praised by the public. The new material was performed live, in the same order in which it would eventually be recorded. However, there were obvious differences between the live version, and the recorded version released a year later, including the lack of synthesizers on tracks such as "On the Run", and Bible readings that were later replaced by Clare Torry's non-lexical vocables on "The Great Gig in the Sky".[15] Run-ons are not exclusive to British English, they exist in the English language as a whole. Also, I changed "included" to "including", and "in" to "on", correcting grammar mistakes. So that didn't need to be reverted.

My second change affected this sentence: "rehearsals began in England on 20 January 1972, but in late February the band travelled to France and recorded music for French director Barbet Schroeder's film, La Vallée." That doesn't even make sense.

"rehearsals began in England on 20 January 1972, but were interrupted in late February when the band traveled to France and recorded music for Barbet Schroeder's film, La Vallée." With my edits, now it makes sense. Also, you ask how people would know who Barbet Shroeder is. They simply click on his name. That's what wikilinks are for. As for changing the spelling of "travelled" to "traveled", I didn't know "travelled" was the British spelling of the word. Except for that minor detail, these didn't need to be reverted.

Now we get to the real issue: the Personnel section. Do you not think being more specific with the instruments is a good thing? Why would you ignore the existence of entire instruments on an album? Not only that, but on Wikipedia album pages, percussion and drums are viewed as two different things. Pink Floyd pages are the only pages I've seen where the drummer is credited with simply "percussion". On every other page, they are credited with "drums", or "drums & percussion". In fact, I've had this disagreement with you before, and the outcome was that you were overruled by other users. Anyways, by your logic, the lead vocals part of the Track Listing section shouldn't exist, as the album does not specify who sings lead vocals on what songs. It simply says "vocals" for Gilmour, Wright, and Waters. As for the order of the musicians, while you may enjoy arguing about something like that, I do not, and so I'll let that slide. The rest of the stuff has already been mentioned above. So, I'm going to add the credits that you deleted. You can add citation needed tags if you have a problem with them, but you had no right to delete them. We can discuss the other edits. Akdrummer75 (talk) 01:55, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not reading all that. I've already explained my rationale, which I think is based on sound reasoning. If you don't like it, complain elsewhere. Parrot of Doom 07:32, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

(stalking) I'll give this a go.

1. "rehearsals began in England on 20 January 1972, but were interrupted in late February when the band traveled to France and recorded music for Barbet Schroeder's film, La Vallée." Well, the problem with that is that a layman reader who doesn't know Pink Floyd well will read that and assume that they were rehearsing all the way through January and into February. Not an unreasonable assumption, but I happen to know (via Povey and elsewhere) that that's factually incorrect. I've trimmed this down to something simpler.
2. "Do you not think being more specific with the instruments is a good thing?" No, for reasons I stated above. Unless you have an impeccable source like a track sheet from Abbey Road, it will probably be wrong. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:13, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Parrot, you are completely disregarding WP:NOCITE, which states that if an unsourced edit is not harmful to the page, then you're supposed to add citation needed tags, and not just delete the edits. My edits were not vandalism, and so were clearly not harmful to the page. You also deleted credits from the personnel section without getting a consensus on the talk page. If you delete those credits again, you will be in violation of WP:CON. Finally, you reverted edits that were correct (instrument wikilinks), violating WP:PRESERVE. I urge you to read the explanation of my edits I've posted, and quit breaking the rules. Akdrummer75 (talk) 02:23, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure you think those links are very impressive but I really don't care about any of them. I've said my piece, you've said yours. If you still have issues, take them elsewhere. Parrot of Doom 18:06, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Resurrectionists in the United Kingdom

Any thoughts about that article running as "Today's Featured Article" on October 31? Imzadi 1979 → 20:29, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

All I can think about is the damage that TFA tends to do to articles. The decision isn't mine, but I've experienced my fair share of TFAs and I don't look forward to them. Parrot of Doom 22:18, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

OK, just thought that I would ask. I've had 2 TFAs, and nothing was really changed in them. I'm just trying to see what options there might be for something that would tie into a Halloween-esque theme for a TFA, that's all. Imzadi 1979 → 01:02, 28 September 2013 (UTC)