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

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Cotswold Olimpick Games

I've still got the lead to rewrite and expand, and Williams's paper about Shakespeare to read through, to see if there's anything relevant to be added, but otherwise I think this is just about there now for GAN. What do you think? Malleus Fatuorum 19:54, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

PS. I dont think the chronology fits this statement at all: "The Games were also alluded to in playwright William Shakespeare's The Merry Wives of Windsor." The Merry Wives, although not published until 1602, was probably written before 1597, way before the earliest date anyone gives for the start of the Games, which was almost certainly 1612. Malleus Fatuorum 20:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

PPS. Congratulations on the Eagle. Malleus Fatuorum 20:04, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Looks good to me. I'm sure I read that the Merry Wives was re-written at some point, and that Shakespeare may have met Dover. Parrot of Doom 22:26, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll check on whether the Merry Wives was rewritten later or not. I've also read the story that Shakespeare met Dover, but I'm almost certain it's apocryphal. Just need to find someone who's written a book or paper saying that. Malleus Fatuorum 22:49, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

An easy pass for Eagle then. I'm still waiting on a book written by the daughters of Morris, that's supposed to be quite enlightening. Hopefully I can go a bit further and get it to FAC. I'm not sure if any comic articles are at FA... Parrot of Doom 22:29, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there are any comic FAs, so the Eagle would be a great first. Malleus Fatuorum 22:58, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Yep, I just feel it needs a bit more "glue" to stick it together, if you know what I mean. I've also been working on Tobacco smoke enema, I just need to find a few sources on quackery and I think it'll be ok. Parrot of Doom 23:23, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Sicko! Malleus Fatuorum 23:38, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I think I've sorted out the confusion over The Merry Wives. There were several editions of the play published, but the reference to the Games didn't appear until the First Folio edition, published in 1623, seven years after Shakespeare's death, so nobody's sure who wrote that bit. I've about done what I can with the Olimpicks now, so after I've rewritten the lead I think it'll be ready for a tilt at GAN. Malleus Fatuorum 17:08, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- Are you certain you don't want a mini Dover biography in there? I don't think that Robert Dover (Cotswold Games) is really that notable an article, it'd be far better integrated into the main article. That way, if there's anything to be said about his religious tendencies (Ben Jonson fell under suspicion for hanging around Robert Catesby IIRC) then we might be able to say something more about the politics of the day. Parrot of Doom 17:18, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
  - On reflection I think you're right. I've just looked at Robert Dover's ODNB entry again, and only one of its five paragraphs are about Dover, the rest is about the Games. As for that Robert Dover (Cotswold Games) abortion, I think the best thing to do with that is to turn it into a redirect; it's almost entirely about the Games anyway. Malleus Fatuorum 17:29, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
    - That's what I was thinking, in a similar vein to Hindley and Brady. I'm reasonably sure, given what I read in Williams (and apologies for not getting back to that yet) there's a fair bit to be said on the background to the whole thing. For instance, Williams talks a bit about pagentry, and the Puritanical view toward it, and of course James's view as well. Maybe Dover recognised this, and saw the games primarily as a means of boosting his standing at court. That of course is just guesswork on my part, but I'll read into it a bit more next week. Parrot of Doom 17:32, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
      - I've had a good read through Williams myself, but she's mainly focused on the Shakespearean connection, which seems highly improbable to me. You've reminded me though; Dover had no standing at court, he was just a country lawyer. Dover's connection to the King was via Endymion Porter, who had an estate nearby and was a member of King James's court. Dover met Porter when he did some legal work for him, and it was Porter who obtained from the King the clothes that Dover wore at the Games. I'd meant to mention Porter, but forgot about him until now. Malleus Fatuorum 18:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
      - Trying to do anything on wikipedia is like dragging a ball and chain behind you.[1] Malleus Fatuorum 19:01, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
        Nah I think he has a point, but its one that can easily be countered with a good argument. I don't see there being a problem. Parrot of Doom 19:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
        
        By the way I'm thinking of moving Tobacco smoke enema to Tobacco enemas, as there are two distinct applications of sticking the leaf up the bum. What do you think? Then I think I'll try my hand at GA, I've more or less exhausted the sources I have. Parrot of Doom 19:18, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
        I think I'd be inclined to leave it as it is; more impact that way. Malleus Fatuorum 19:27, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Nominated at GAN now. While I was looking through some old sources I came across this. Given the fuss that wife selling caused last April Fool's Day, could you even begin to imagine what a furore that one would cause? :lol: Malleus Fatuorum 15:23, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Terrace has adopted an entrenched position, and so have I. Maybe the best option now is to withdraw the AfD and to propose a merge of the two articles? Maybe after giving Terrace a little more time to see what other material he can come up with? Malleus Fatuorum 21:30, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Rookwood/Turpin

Since you agree the pictures exist and were inspired by Rookwood, why remove the statement of the fact? The statement followed naturally after the similarly-inspired Colnaghi reference. It seems to me perfectly legitimate to refer to them in this article, and an omision not to. Or else delete Colnaghi, but be consistent. At least Cruikshank made a bluelink. Eebahgum (talk) 15:18, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Well I don't have a direct citation to the fact (and I'd need to know which editions of the book Cruikshank's illustrations appeared in), but I also didn't particularly like the way you worded it.

I guess in the end though, I didn't really think it necessary to mention it. Cruikshank's illustrations were made at Ainsworth's behest, they were for Ainsworth's book only, and therefore I didn't think they were particularly relevant to Turpin. Colnagh gets a mention because he drew the Turpin pictures independently of Ainsworth. I've tried to find copies of them, without success. Parrot of Doom 15:40, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure they are drawn by Martin Colnaghi? Colnaghi and Co. were art dealers from the mid 18th-century until they were bought up a few years ago. Martin Colnaghi was running the company in 1834 when they published six lithographs of Turpin's life by Edward Hull, so unless you have a source that says he was the artist I suspect it is these that are meant. Yomangani ^talk 16:19, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

You can see a couple of them far away and out of focus here. Yomangani ^talk 16:20, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah ha, that's why I could never find them. That must be what the author in the citation meant. I'll update it next week, if someone doesn't beat me to it. Parrot of Doom 16:36, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

In fact its easy enough, I'll do it now. Thanks for the tip. Parrot of Doom 16:38, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for reply. I take your point, and 1834 does pre-date Rookwood. My copy of the book is in the 'Waverley Book Company' Collected Ainsworth, late 19th century, which includes pulls from real Cruikshank plates including an illustrated title page (Undated) for a George Routledge edition, London and New York. My volume includes a series by Cruikshank and another by Sir John Gilbert engraved by Dalziels, both to illustrate the novel. Both include Turpin subjects (the frontispiece is again Hornsey Turnpike, Gilbert). The relevant Cruikshanks, which must I think be from an early edition if not the original, include (a) Tom King, Jerry Juniper and D.T. in 'The Arbour at Kilburn', (b) 'Ill let 'em see what I think of 'em' (DT on Black Bess in full career, under pursuit), (c) 'The Hornsey Gate' (leaping the Turnpike), (d) 'Turpin's flight through Edmonton' (leaping the cart), and (e) 'Death of Black Bess' - (in my copy: there may be others for all I know). The Gilberts also include leaping the cart and Turpin talking to Barbara at the Gibbet (when he pauses in the Vale of Belvoir). There's a statement by Ainsworth in the introduction saying that Turpin was the hero of his boyhood, that his father often told him of Turpin's exploits, that he knew the road where the robbery at Hough Green was committed, that the stories were an inspiration to him, and that he had already (before Rookwood) made a song about the ride to Hough Green. I know you won't want to see all this go in the article, so I am noting it here for your interest - maybe it will be of use somewhere else! Anyhow, all the best, Eebahgum (talk) 21:20, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

That sounds like useful stuff that could be added to Ainsworth's novel, Rookwood. Malleus Fatuorum 21:38, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure we could add a little of that, certainly a ", illustrated by Cruikshank, "? Id do it now but on a mobile phone its difficult Parrot of Doom 23:25, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Um, do I know you?

Wow, you sure do have a knack for making a person feel bad about themselves. Thanks a bunch. Herostratus (talk) 08:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

How you feel about yourself is not my responsibility, but when you leave snide and threatening remarks on the talk page of an editor whom I consider an online friend/acquaintance, you can bet I'll comment on it. You're an admin, act like you deserve the responsibility. Parrot of Doom 09:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

"More harassment like this and I might change my mind." Sounds like a "vague threat" to me (smart to refactor the "You're" part out of the "disgrace" part, BTW). Oh, the drama... Doc9871 (talk) 09:18, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh I've no compunction about saying things as they are, I just didn't want you to think I was saying it about you, Doc. Parrot of Doom 09:28, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Hahaah! Very clever... ;> Doc9871 (talk) 09:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Paul the Octopus

Hi Parrot, I think the article is already too old to submit for DYK, having been started on June 30th, but if I am wrong please feel free to nominate it. Best wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 16:36, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Depending on how cheeky you're feeling, you could stick it under the section for 4th of July as that's the last day of the five-day expansion period. It might not work, but it's worth a go. Nev1 (talk) 16:39, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, as Nev1 says, give it a go. Parrot of Doom 17:15, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

You should suggest this to User:Mbz1 who is the person who asked me to clean it up in the first place. One big problem is that right now the article is not stable, there are too many radical edits going on. That means it may well be disqualified on that basis. Frankly as a malacologist I personally am not too interested in trying to make this into a DYK, until Skeptical Inquirer publishes something on it that demolishes its credibility as a supposed case of clairvoyance (about human sports no less!) in a marine invertebrate. (To be completely honest I find this whole stupid idea rather damaging to science, and more or less out of place in an encyclopedia. As a joke, or a hoax, or a case of Clever Hans effect, then yes it has some appeal, but as a serious story, no, definitely not.) Invertzoo (talk) 21:41, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I have some sympathy with that. Right now, it's little more than a tabloid newspaper report. Malleus Fatuorum 22:01, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Well I looked through the edit history and picked the biggest contributor, which was you. It struck me as a nice little article, quite intriguing, and perfect for DYK. I think the issues you mention could be very easily sorted out, it just depends if you want to try and nominate it. If you do, I'll help out. It would have been perfect as a 1 April DYK - how do those work Malleus, is it the usual rules, or does Raul stash a few unused DYK's away for that day? Parrot of Doom 23:14, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

There's a separate discussion set up for proposed April Fools' DYKs IIRC. Malleus Fatuorum 23:17, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:April Fool's Main Page/Did You Know Yomangani ^talk 23:29, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually Mila -- User:Mbz1 -- wrote a whole version of this article which ended up having to be merged with this one, as this was the pre-existing article on the subject. I was only trying to fix the article up because of her request to me about her version of it. Anyway, one thing that a DYK article definitely needs to be is "stable", which means that no major editing is going on with it. Today the article got 9,000 views and it felt as if about 4,500 people edited it (OK that's an exaggeration). Many of the people editing it seemed to be trying to edit to make it look as if that the story is 100% valid, whereas I think all of the journalists were reporting it as a tongue-in-cheek, humorous thing. I am a scientist and a skeptic, and I would not want to be associated with this article unless sources could be found that would balance it by questioning the validity of the idea of a clairvoyant invertebrate. At the very most this is a case of the Clever Hans effect, and it is more likely just to be a conscious hoax (perpetrated by using an older staler clam in one box than in the other) the predictions being actually those of the keeper or the PR guy at this company. Invertzoo (talk) 00:21, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

However, if someone else decides to try submitting it, then it is their responsibility. I personally feel the article as it currently stands is hardly suitable for Wikipedia in the first place. Invertzoo (talk) 00:24, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Well I've tidied it up a bit, and it now has a few days protection from anon IP edits, so it should be easier to keep track of what's going on. There's a bit of scientific analysis at the bottom, if there's any doubt as to who is doing the choosing then we'll need to find a reliable source discussing exactly that. Personally, hoax or not, I think its hilarious. Parrot of Doom 12:41, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

It does look a bit better this morning. Yes, the idea of a psychic octopus is very funny, but really Wikipedia is not the place for humorous items like this, unless it can be made completely clear that this "oracle" was carried out for entertainment purposes only, and is not supposed to have any real validity. Unfortunately there are plenty of people gullible enough to believe that this is a real phenomenon, and writing up on a serious encyclopedia like Wikipedia tends to endorse its apparent validity, unless some additional skeptical viewpoints can be found to balance the article more. Best wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 13:29, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Christ, its hard to keep up with the amount of idiocy that article seems to attract. I've done my bit, I think I'll unwatch it now and leave it to fall apart. Parrot of Doom 18:15, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Comfortably Numb

Parrot, do you happen to have a copy of this book handy? The Pink Floyd article is using page 79 as a cite for something I don't think is correct. It states that Pink Floyd were refered to as such, at the time of the release of the Arnold Layne single. It states that they dropped the "the", from The Pink Floyd "sometime in 1967". I'm almost positive that they called themselves "The Pink Floyd" on the cover of Arnold Layne, and subsequent releases, at least through More, in 1969. I believe that 1967 is about the time that they stopped calling themselves "The Pink Floyd Sound". If you have time to look into this, I would appreciate it. All the best-Mk5384 (talk) 06:43, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I hope you didn't take offence last week, when I again, reverted the "rock opera" statements. You're certainly a knoweledgeable contributor, and the last thing I wanted was to have another row with you, but those sources truly did not meet WP:RS. I hope that this does not become a divisive issue. Best-Mk5384 (talk) 07:17, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Think Parrot's right; compare the covers of Apples & Oranges (1967) and It Would Be So Nice (1968). – iride scent 12:32, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Quite possible. It's also possible that they had already dropped the name, but it was used in error, when More was released. I'm intrigued by this now. I hope I can get to the bottom of it. Thanks!Mk5384 (talk) 17:34, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks like we lost this one

[2], which is strange, because there's lots more to say about either Hindley or Brady. Ah well. Malleus Fatuorum 19:08, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Well it isn't the end of the world. I tried to have Tom King (highwayman) deleted since he was nothing more than a fictional construct, and entirely non-notable, but failed there also. Thankfully it isn't linked from Dick Turpin, and if I have my way it never will be. Parrot of Doom 19:23, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Trouble is, I feel almost under an obligation now to try and turn it into a decent article, but that'll have to wait. After a week or so, the Cotswold Olimpick Games still hasn't been reviewed at GAN, so I've been spending some time reviewing everything ahead of it in the queue. I feel so sorry for those nominators. :lol: Malleus Fatuorum 19:55, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

You're complaining after only a week! I've had some of my articles at GAN for months! Its why I often don't bother, and go direct to FAC. I review the occasional GAC but I think I'm a bit too picky. I think my own writing has improved significantly in the last six months or so, I'm revisiting some of my older articles and groaning at the lack of quality. Parrot of Doom 19:59, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

In fact you should go for FAC, its easily there. Parrot of Doom 20:13, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I think we probably all look back on stuff we did in the past and think "Did I really write that? What was I thinking?" On the other side of the coin though, I've sometimes looked back on stuff I've written, and forgotten about, and thought "Wow, that's great, who wrote that?" I didn't take the Games to FAC because I wasn't sure about the Shakespearean connection, but which I thought needed to be covered. I'm feeling more confident about that now, so FAC it is. Malleus Fatuorum 20:59, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm still quite chuffed with my trio of 18th-century weirdos, Mary Toft, Elizabeth Canning, and Cock Lane ghost. I just wish I'd got to Daniel Lambert before Iridescent nicked it :( Parrot of Doom 21:46, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm fucking pissed off now. It's been at FAC for over an hour, and nobody has commented! Why can't these bloody reviewers get their act together? Malleus Fatuorum 22:46, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

(I suppose I probably ought to add for those born without a sense of humour that I was joking; I've even reviewed one or two FACs myself.) Malleus Fatuorum 22:50, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

FYI

[3] I added you as an author. If you believe somebody else should be added, please do. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:52, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind thought, but since I took it from my watchlist its become a bit of a disaster zone, and I'd now rather not be associated with it. Parrot of Doom 21:37, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Nice

I love the note at the top of your page. I've been 'in trouble' before for calling people idiots and fools, don't dare think what would happen if I used fuck and shit more often. Good on you though, I hate how we have to be civil to people who aren't civil in the first place. -- Jack?! 02:05, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Not enough people know the meaning of the word. If I tried to get my way by threatening you, or inventing things that didn't happen, I couldn't then object if someone accused me of incivility, and yet too many people here do. Parrot of Doom 07:09, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Been thinking

I've been thinking over the last few days, dangerous I know. But I wonder, who is of more benefit to this project, the civility police or their targets? Answers on a postcard please. Malleus Fatuorum 20:02, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Can the postcard have a rude picture on the front? Parrot of Doom 20:06, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Only if it's one of Donald McGill's. Malleus Fatuorum 20:09, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Aww, what about Thomas Rowlandson? I've had him in my sandbox for ages, I think I'll sort him out next. I want to see a front page article with willies. Parrot of Doom 20:11, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

In all seriousness though, the civility police have a role to play but its a far less important role than they imagine, and in my opinion they'd do this project a much bigger service if they simply got down to reading books and writing good articles. Parrot of Doom 20:21, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh definately the targets, there wouldn't be a project without them. They're watching

I prefer this Parrot of Doom 20:44, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

How did you manage to find that picture of John? Malleus Fatuorum 20:58, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Now you've done it. I can hear the klaxons... Parrot of Doom 21:02, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

They can bring it on. I'm beyond caring. Malleus Fatuorum 21:11, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Out of idle curiosity, I followed the above link and found this. Note the line from John, "Sorry for the confusion. I don't deal in veiled threats or the like". That made me guffaw, he obviously has a short memory. Parrot of Doom 21:15, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

haha I see you're already there :D Parrot of Doom 21:16, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

John is what he is, something I hope I will never become. Malleus Fatuorum 21:25, 10 July 2010 (UTC)}}

Toilet paper orientation

Seems like you've got competition in the shit stakes :) Richerman (talk) 23:40, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Jesus, is that seriously an article :) Parrot of Doom 07:33, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not even the most ludicrous. – iride scent 07:47, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I know I have a leaning to some of the more strange articles here, but those aren't even interesting :/ Parrot of Doom 07:49, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

It gets worse - It's been given a B rating and it made it onto the front page yesterday as a DYK. Richerman (talk) 00:18, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum

The comment I took offense to isn't the one he made on his talk page, but one he made elsewhere, in which he unequivocally called me a 'liar' - he's removed my first objection to it from the discussion on his talk page, which confuses the context of the entire conversation there. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:13, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I have removed nothing, so perhaps you are indeed a liar. Malleus Fatuorum 01:21, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I assume FisherQueen is referring to this edit (I assume some text got lost in an edit conflict; it happens). Time for everyone to let this drop. Sometimes it's best just to move on. That goes for admins and normal editors. Nev1 (talk) 01:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Just venting a little steam

I think that FAC needs a new rule, that reviewers commenting on an article ought to consider reading it first.[4] Malleus Fatuorum 13:18, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

That's almost as irritating as people who comment on your FAC but whom don't bother to reply. Parrot of Doom 14:01, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I just took a look through your Eagle FAC, and saw the minor storm in a teacup over the italics in the article title. I think there's a bit of a misunderstanding on display there, as I pointed out in my support (I had bugger all to do with the writing of this article, so I felt entitled to offer an opinion on it). The MoS does indeed say that article titles ought not to be in italics, but the title isn't in italics; it's just displayed in italics. The reason for the MoS's prohibition of italics or other markup/special characters in article titles is because they would make it difficult for a reader to type in the article title, or difficult to store the article title in a database, neither of which apply in this case. Malleus Fatuorum 13:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that. It doesn't look as though the objector will return soon, I've asked on his talk page and he's edited since then, but not that FAC.

I'm not long off finishing Robert Catesby, I just need a bit more "modern view" to describe how charming he apparently was, etc. Next on the agenda is Hanged, drawn and quartered, which I think I'll start from a blank sheet. I'm off to the library to order a few books. Parrot of Doom 13:21, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Good luck with that. I'm toying with the idea of going back to workhouse, but I haven't quite got the motivation for it yet. I keep looking at capital punishment in the United Kingdom as well, shaking my head, and walking away from it. Malleus Fatuorum 13:32, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Hah, every time I go into the library I have them ordering the oddest of books. I'm bound to have a red mark against my name soon. Oh and the charges have gone up, by 50p! Scandal! Parrot of Doom 19:05, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

V for Vendetta

Finally watched it, just finished on BBC Three. Great ending, only a shame it wasn't the real Houses of Parliament. Malleus Fatuorum 22:41, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

'tis a very good film (although I wish they'd shown Fawkes killing himself, instead of being killed, at the start). I think my favourite line was "Beneath this mask there is more than flesh, beneath this mask there is an idea Mr Creedy, and ideas are bulletproof." Excellent scripting. Parrot of Doom 22:38, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Strangely enough, that was my favourite line too. Malleus Fatuorum 00:08, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Tobacco smoke enema

Hi PoD, just in case you didn't notice, I left a few comments at the GAN. Sasata (talk) 20:27, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Saw it thanks, long weekend at work so I'll address tomorrow. Parrot of Doom 22:38, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Robert Catesby

I'll take a closer look through later, but I noticed a few things so far.

Lead

"In 1601, Catesby took part in the Essex Rebellion but was captured and fined, after which he sold his estate at Chastleton". The "but" doesn't really work here. The selling of the estate seems unrelated to what went before, but wasn't Catesby forced to sell his estate to pay his fine?
- That Catesby sold his estate to pay the fine seems to be something that Fraser is happy to mention, however Nicholls says that this may just be coincidence and that to infer as such would be premature. Fraser doesn't really offer any evidence to support her proposition so I've played it safe.

"Early in 1604 he began to recruit friends to his cause, including Thomas Wintour, John Wright, Thomas Percy, and Guy Fawkes." If I recall correctly though, Fawkes and Catesby had never even met before, much less were friends.
- I'll change it to suit.

"Described variously as a charismatic and influential man, as well as a religious zealot ..." Doesn't quite work. Did anyone describe him as a charismatic religious zealot, for instance?
- Not in the same sentence, but yes, Fraser, Haynes, and Nicholls have all said that he was a charming individual, easily able to persuade those around him to do his bidding. IIRC its Nicholls who says he became a zealot, and Fraser who said that he may have "returned to the church in its more fanatical form".

"As a warning to others, his body was exhumed and his head exhibited outside Parliament." We weren't told that his body had been buried.
- I've looked but haven't been able to find it yet. I think they would have been buried very quickly (disease etc), and then a few days later, once the orders came up, exhumed.

Failure and death

"Catesby and Percy were reportedly dropped by the same lucky shot." It wasn't really lucky for them. Not sure what this lucky shot was though. The same one that killed Rookwood?

It was a lucky shot on the part of the man who fired it, whose name is known, but I didn't include it because it wasn't really that important. Remove "lucky"? Parrot of Doom 19:37, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I was just pulling your leg about "lucky". What wasn't clear to me was what "the same lucky shot" meant, as it suggests that it was the same shot that killed Rookwood. Perhaps something like "Catesby and Percy were reportedly dropped by one lucky shot"?

Ah I see, I'll think about re-wording that then to make it clear that the bullet didn't hit three people. The only source BTW that I've been able to find about Catesby being buried is here, so I think I'll add that now. That he was exhumed is indisputable so I doubt anyone will object to its age. Parrot of Doom 19:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Early stages

Should "Allhallowtide" (currently a red link) not point to Halloween? Malleus Fatuorum 18:57, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not sure. Is it the same thing, an Americanism, the old word for it? Or is it an older form of the holiday now celebrated today? I wasn't sure but was surprised to find a redlink, so just left it for someone else. Parrot of Doom 10:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
  - I've just checked with the OED, which says that Allhallowtide is the season of All Saints. The 31st of October, when the meeting took place, was known as All Hallow Eve, the present Halloween. So Allhallowtide doesn't look right anyway.

Further recruitment

"...he asked Catesby what support for the Catholics would be forthcoming once the King had been killed." I notice sometimes when talking about James it's "King", other times "king".

Monteagle letter

"received an anonymous letter while at his house in Hoxton," I think we need to say just a little more about that letter. After all, Monteagle wouldn't have sent just any old anonymous letter to Salisbury, and the letter did clearly warn Monteagle to stay away from Parliament, as "they shall receive a terrible blow this Parliament".

OK, I'm done, another nice article. Good luck at FAC. Malleus Fatuorum 11:08, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much for that, hopefully there wasn't too much for you to do. I agree about the Monteagle letter so I'll add a bit there. Parrot of Doom 11:15, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

BTW do you know anyone that does infoboxes? I was thinking of a Gunpowder Plot FT, and it would be nice to have a Gunpowder Plot infobox. That way we could have plot-specific entries, like "conspirator number x", "invited on (date)", etc. It will take me some time but I see no reason why all the plotters shouldn't be at least GA. Parrot of Doom 11:31, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- Infoboxes are child's play; just copy one you like and change whatever you don't. I've amended quite a few. Malleus Fatuorum 11:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
  - I want mine with a paisley background and feathered border. Parrot of Doom 11:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Ping

FYI – iride scent 10:20, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Cock Lane ghost will have its day I'm sure, but I reckon the next 1 April article will be that nuclear rocket park in the US (can't remember the name). I have Tobacco smoke enema at GAC but I don't feel I'll get it to FAC, through a lack of sources. Wife selling was protected on the day, God that was a pain. Parrot of Doom 10:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

As is the way with encyclopedias ...

... my efforts to get Belle Vue up to snuff have led me into some fascinating and neglected areas. I was surprised to find, for instance, that there was no article on Jacko the Clown, perhaps one of the last in the line of traditional English clowns, who starred at Belle Vue for 30 years, and even more surprised to read about his partner, Little Billy, who also didn't have an article. But then when you look deeper you find that there's almost nothing on most of that kind of stuff, and what little there there is, like the article on perhaps the most famous recent clown of all, Coco the Clown, is pretty dreadful. I mean, I'd rather read about Joe Boganny's band of acrobatic dwarves than I would about some minor league American footballer who played one season for Smallville after college before getting a proper job. And the venues; why do we have so little on major variety halls like the Bristol Hippodrome. And why is there almost nothing decent on British comics (your excellent article excluded)? Who was the clot that said there were no new articles left to write? Malleus Fatuorum 21:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I often wonder at the same thing. Elizabeth Canning only came about because of Mary Toft, just a brief mention of her case and I had to have a look. I never imagined that so much could be written about her. I have Flying Dutchman on my watchlist, and just look at it :( Then you see The Clink and slowly shake your head, Man in the Iron Mask, Popish Plot. The list is almost endless, remember how Dick Turpin and Gunpowder Plot looked before we sorted them out? They were a disgrace. I can't wait to get hold of Hanged, drawn and quartered though. That should be good, and the language will be no-holds-barred. Parrot of Doom 21:46, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh and seeing as you're in an article creating mood, have a go at Anne Vaux, someone has to :) Parrot of Doom 22:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll take a look at Ann when I'm done with Belle Vue, which has turned out to be a bit of a monster. I want to get up to 75 new articles, so that I can be seen to have refused the autoreviewer "right". I think I'm up to 52 now. Malleus Fatuorum 00:47, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

PS. Jeez, The Clink really could do with some work. I remember visiting it some years ago, killing some time before my train home; it deserves better than that. Malleus Fatuorum 00:56, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

... and as for The Flying Dutchman, that's truly dreadful. I wouldn't even be sure where to start with that. Malleus Fatuorum 01:04, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I've taken so long to get back re the Belle Vue guidebook. My email server's now sorted out, but it's left me with a gob of emails to sort out before I can download to my PC, some dating back to the beginning of June! Hopefully won't take too long though, as 95% are obvious spam. Anyway, looking at the back end of the queue I can see two emails with attachments from you re Belle Vue. Does that sound right? Malleus Fatuorum 23:48, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, those are the ones. If they don't work or something, or if an archive is missing, let me know and I'll resend them. Or I may just upload them here anyway since they're out of copyright. I did a similar thing on Dick Turpin. Parrot of Doom 14:45, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I can tell you now, you'll have a nightmare of a time with The Clink. There's a reason Slim and I have both avoided it despite it being smack in the middle of our areas of interest (it's virtually equidistant from Ayres Street and the Marshalsea); the string of nonsense churned out by the London Dungeon style "museum" occupying the site is thoroughly poisoning the well. (Anyone see the flaw in "Opened in the 12th century, it was originally used for the detention of religious non-conformists, both Protestant and Catholic"?) At least Shakespeare's Globe are open about the fact that they're a modern speculative recreation on a different site; you'll look in vain in anything published by the Clink Museum that mentions that they're not the original prison, but two floors of a 19th-century warehouse that happens to be in the general area of the former Clink. And don't get me started on the nonsense teenagers-in-black cult that's grown up around the former Clink burial ground. – iride scent 00:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Are there no high-quality sources on the prison? I'd be surprised if there wasn't, prisons, punishment etc, it must be a fairly crowded niche for publishers. Parrot of Doom 14:45, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeeees, but… The gaol itself didn't have a particularly interesting history (it was a lock-up for rowdy drunks in a red-light district, not the Saaf Lunnon equivalent of Newgate or the Tower; the "proper" prison for the area was Marshalsea). What makes it of interest is the way in which, being the local lock-up to the old Globe and Rose Theatres, it was name-checked by Shakespeare and co, and thus made its way into popular culture as "the" Tudor/Stuart gaol despite its relative insignificance. From experience with Alice Ayres, Daniel Lambert etc that kind of story is a bugger to tell, as you're effectively weighing the value of different pop-culture sources and trying to filter out what's true and what's a Well Known Local Fact with no actual evidence. – iride scent 15:01, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

In fairness to the Clink Museum, it's a business so it's got to attract people. Places with world renown such as the British Museum don't need to be gimmicky, they can go for more traditional displays, and while The Clink is well known there are a lot of museums and tourist attractions in London to compete with. They might get some funding from the council, but other sources of money need to be found as councils want such sites to be self-sustaining. So sometimes you get the spooky stuff exaggerated. For example, Leicester Guildhall has free entry, but Leicester City Council runs tours round their haunted sites (of which the Guildhall is one) and looking at the price of the tickets they may make a tidy sum from it. The Guildhall is also supported through being rented out for events such as wedding receptions if I remember correctly. I've never visited the Clink myself so don't know what it's like, but the job of museums is to get people interested in history as well as to inform. So a balance between entertainment and education has to be found, and it's not always to everyone's taste.

The museum website does say "The Clink Prison Museum is built upon the original site of the Clink Prison" right at the start on the main page. The reader perhaps isn't beaten over the head with the fact, but then they want to know about the prison rather than the museum. Any idea when the museum was opened? If you're really that concerned about their publications (probably just a guidebook if anything), I'd recommend finding something published before it was open. Nev1 (talk) 18:02, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I've not been in there for some time, but AFAIK the "museum" is a London Dungeon type amusement complex (plastic skeletons, waxwork torture victims and resting actors made up as lepers) rather than an actual museum. To put its general insignificance into context, the length of articles in The London Encyclopedia are generally a good guide to how much there is to say about a place and how notable it is; their entry on the Clink is less than half the length of the next page's entry on Cock Lane Ghost. (It also dates it to 1509, rather less Ye Olde Historick than the "12th century" claimed on the museum website.) – iride scent 21:30, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Re the conversation about clowns above, you may be interested in Silly Billy. I've left Billy Barlow (clown) as a redlink as I found the sources about him to be somewhat confusing but made a start with stubs on Sam Cowell and Song and supper room, which seem to be part of the background. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:11, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm working my way through the Gunpowder Plotters right now but that sounds quite interesting. Parrot of Doom 14:45, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Featured Article

I was going to congratulate you on the sterling work you've done on the Eagle (comic) article over the past few months, but I now see you've also reached FA status – which is amazing news. It is such an improvement on the old article – well-written, and all that an encyclopedia article should be. So, congratulations, Parrot! – Agendum (talk) 22:02, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your kind words. It was a pleasure helping to write it. I just wish there was a bit more info on its second incarnation, but one can only go with what's available :( Parrot of Doom 23:16, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations! Sorry I didn't comment on that one; knowing nothing about the comic itself, nor any of the conventions for comic articles as to what is and isn't included, I thought I'd only make a mess of things if I stuck my nose in. – iride scent 23:26, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again. I get a particular pleasure from improving articles like this. I love the Eagle comic anyway so this one was even more interesting, but taking articles like Dick Turpin from this is something I really do enjoy. Parrot of Doom 23:32, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

John of Brittany, Earl of Richmond

Thanks for the review, care to have another look? Lampman (talk) 01:20, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I was too slow there. Thanks for the pass! Lampman (talk) 01:22, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Pink floyd the division bell marooned.ogg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Pink floyd the division bell marooned.ogg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:45, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Pink floyd the division bell marooned.ogg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Pink floyd the division bell marooned.ogg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 14:14, 30 July 2010 (UTC)