Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
] Please ] other editors, as you did here: ]. If you continue, you '''will''' be ] from editing Misplaced Pages. <!-- Template:uw-npa3 --> ''Get civil. Now.'' <font color="#009000">]</font><font color="#03C03C">]</font><font color="#00A550">]</font> 02:23, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
] Please ] other editors, as you did here: ]. If you continue, you '''will''' be ] from editing Misplaced Pages. <!-- Template:uw-npa3 --> ''Get civil. Now.'' <font color="#009000">]</font><font color="#03C03C">]</font><font color="#00A550">]</font> 02:23, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
===December 2009===
] This is the '''last warning''' you will receive for your disruptive edits{{#if:User talk:Malleus Fatuorum|, such as those you made to ]}}. If you ] Misplaced Pages again, you '''will''' be ]. <!-- Template:uw-vandalism4 --> ] (]) 02:28, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Revision as of 02:28, 11 December 2009
There are many aspects of wikipedia's governance that seem to me to be at best ill-considered and at worst corrupt, and little recognition that some things need to change.
I appreciate that there are many good, talented, and honest people here, but there are far too many who are none of those things, concerned only with the status they acquire by doing whatever is required to climb up some greasy pole or other. Increasingly I feel that I'm out of step with the way things are run here, and at best grudgingly tolerated by the children who run this site.
What stuff do you have on the Gunpowder Plot, and Mr Fawkes? I saw a couple of cheap books on Amazon and bought them (The Gunpowder Plot by Alan Haynes, and The Gunpowder Plot: Terror and Faith in 1605 by Antonia Fraser). I've realised that actually, I really enjoy working on these tales of intrigue, murder, ineptitude, and a bit of olde-worlde sillyness goes down well too, so I think I'll focus my efforts on things like this. If you have any material on one or the other, I'd be happy to work with you getting them to FA. Parrotof Doom20:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
I've only got the Northcote Parkinson book, Gunpowder Treason and Plot. I'm thinking that it might be best start with the plot itself? And maybe let the seasonal silliness around Guy Fawkes die down a bit before tackling that? Should be easier to put him in context once the plot's cleared up anyway. --MalleusFatuorum20:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
It'll depend upon the structure of the two books I've ordered (which should arrive in a day or two). Is Fawkes at all notable, other than for the Gunpowder Plot? I'm wondering if he needs his own article. Parrotof Doom20:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
His 1603 mission to Philip II would probably warrant a sub-stub if anyone could be bothered to write it, even had the Plot never happened, so probably yes. 92.11.55.195 (talk) 20:57, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
I'd suggest that we start with the Gunpowder Plot article then, and if by the end it looks as though there is too much detail about Fawkes to fit in there, we look at a separate article? The same question could also be asked of Robert Catesby, and most (I haven't looked at all the articles) of the other conspirators. They seem to all be saying much the same thing. Parrotof Doom21:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
If you want, I can tell you the -true- story about the Gun Powder Plot and the martyrdom suffered by those glorious heroes at the hands of tyrants. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 20:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
The 17th century seems to have been a fascinating time, and certainly the present article doesn't do justice to the Catholicism background, and King James' apparently hardening attitude towards Catholics. --MalleusFatuorum20:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Well I think there's certainly enough interest to assume that improving this article is a good idea. I'm just reading the Fraser book (and the Haynes book when that arrives), and typing as I go, so it's all a little disordered right now. Parrotof Doom20:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
That shouldn't be too difficult with the three primary sources we have between us. Right now I'm working through Fawke's motivations. Its an extraordinarily complex tale. I think this article will end up seeing as significant changes in structure as you made on Moors murders. I have to work through the conspirators as Fraser writes them though, as she has a particularly engaging way of switching back and forth through history. Parrotof Doom21:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
I can do Catesby if you like; he's obviously the lynchpin, and it ought to be easier to see the wood for the trees when he's written up. --MalleusFatuorum21:04, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Go for it. It won't keep me from working on it, in fact it'll make less work for us both. Actually one thing that's a bit lacking is dates. If your source has more dates knocking around, feel free to supplement or replace anything I've written. Parrotof Doom21:23, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
I've made a start on Catesby, but two things now strike me. The first is that the Earl of Essex's 1601 rebellion is key to understanding how events unfolded, so that needs to be mentioned, and the second is that we need to slightly rejig the conspirators section more towards the plot and less biographical. How they met and so on. Strikes me as well that we could usefully give the account a little more impact by including more personal descriptions of the conspirators, like their ages, for instance. --MalleusFatuorum05:21, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I think I'm just about getting to the commencement of the plot in Fraser's book. I think you're correct, its probably easier to let the players fall into place as the plot builds strength. The short biog details can then be included at that point. There are still things which need resolving, like Wintour/Winter for one (Fraser has already said this name change was important but hasn't yet explained why). Parrotof Doom15:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I think we'll have to do quite a bit of reorganising at some point, as I think you said earlier, but as the article dvelops it should become easier to get a feel for that. --MalleusFatuorum15:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
If its at all helpful, the ODNB entries on Robert Devereux, and those involved in the Plot, are pretty darn good, with a huge range of sources. I'm going to continue with the Fraser book before I look elsewhere. Parrotof Doom16:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm more concerned at the minute to try and give a coherent account of how these thirteen conspirators got together; I'm beginning to think that there may well be enough information on at least most of them to warrant separate articles. While you're here, the article presently says that it was Winter's uncle who was the priest executed in 1586, but my book says it was the Wrights' uncle. What do your sources say? --MalleusFatuorum17:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Exactly what the article says, the footnote lists her sources as "Gerard, Plot and Plotters, p. 21; Humphreys, 'Wyntours', pp. 55ff". Parrotof Doom17:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm going to keep adding information to those little biogs as I go, and we can sort it all out along the way. Catesby and Tresham were cousins, through their mothers, and had been raised together (Fraser p110). It was his uncle Thomas Tresham who helped bail Catesby out after the Essex crisis. Fraser postulates that the young Tresham was 'dominated' by Catesby, a hint at the latter's ability to command. Parrotof Doom20:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Fraser says that Catesby may have been educated at University of Douai, or that he might have spent time at Oxford University, Gloucester Hall (now Worcester College), and that if so, he left without taking his degree (presum. to avoid the oath of supremacy). She also says that in 1598 both his father and his wife died, and that the loss of the latter has been attributed to his 'return to Catholicism of his forefathers; to the Church in its fanatical form." Several sources are offered for these assertions, but she does say 'maybe', 'could have', etc. Parrotof Doom21:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I think that there are some biographical details—such as which university Catesby attended—best covered in the conspirators' own articles. --MalleusFatuorum21:46, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree, I just pointed it out because right now the article says "Robert was converted to Catholicism by Jesuits in about 1580", and the two sources used seem to be at odds about this. I mean, was Robert seriously converted to Catholicism aged seven? Parrotof Doom22:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Part of the art with these articles, just as with the Moors murders, is in trying to decide which of the sometimes contradictory claims are the most plausible. Thinking of the Samlesbury witches, I don't find the claim that Catesby was influenced by Jesuits when he was as young as seven all that implausible; Grace Sowerbutts was only 14 when she was persuaded by a Jesuit priest to perjure herself in an attempt to have three innocent women hanged, for instance. As for the phrase "converted to Catholicism", I'm less certain. I can't remember at what age a child is confirmed into the Catholic faith (perhaps Ottava can tell us that), but I'm pretty sure from personal experience that it wasn't as young as seven, although the memory does sometimes play tricks. I guess we have to go with what most accounts claim, and hedge it around as Fraser apparently does. --MalleusFatuorum01:35, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
I think then that we could be a little less specific where the sources are in contention (perhaps explaining so in the footnotes).
I've been integrating some of the biogs into the prose, and think I've not done too badly. It might need your pruning shears, but I thought that we could spread the personal details of each plotter through the 'plot' - so perhaps, when it comes to Fawkes, we could expand on him when the decision is 'made' for Fawkes to be the one in charge of the gunpowder. And for Robert Wintour, when the conspirators flee to Huddington we could then explain that Wintour had inherited that pile and grown up there, etc. It would avoid having an A B C list of things, and would also make a more engaging read (rather than the reader having to wade through thirteen introductions all in one go). What do you think? BTW the Haynes book has arrived now. Parrotof Doom14:19, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
How good are your image hunting skills? If you can find a bigger copy of this, that's the one to use. Its also in the Fraser book but a higher res version must be knocking around somewhere. Parrotof Doom19:42, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Wintour's name is important, because his confession was signed Winter-and he had never done that before. Also, Wintour had been shot in the shoulder, but the signature was steady. Which, Fraser suggests, means that the confession was fiddled with, for the government's own purposes. Parrotof Doom15:17, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
I haven't bothered reading any of it as I've been too busy with the gruesome stuff, but would you be able to tidy up the Bonfire and historical legacy bits, if you can? I'm about to go right through it all again, and fill in the blanks (and correct any assumptions by Fraser) with Haynes. After which, I think I'll get pissed—especially after writing that bit about what happens when you're H,D&Q. (I've seen it on the HBO Drama Elizabeth, but its still fooking scary to think about) Parrotof Doom23:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
I'll try and have a look at them. My favourite section in any article is Popular culture, as you may know. I'm still a bit tied with RL wrting though—nothing so interesting as the Gunpowder Plot though, sadly. On the subject of scary, I was looking at Rack (torture) yesterday. I think if the choice was between the rack and H,D&Q I might elect for the latter. At least, as Guy Fawkes demonstrated, you had a chance with that to end it quickly. --MalleusFatuorum00:39, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Apart from the last few sections, and a couple of reads for grammar, and duplicated text, how do you think this would fare at FAC? Would the reviewers achieve what Guy Fawkes couldn't? Parrotof Doom01:27, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
I would support it at FAC but, as you point out above, it has the word Catholic and it was our attempt to try and bring back our wonderful religion and conquer the evil heathens, so I'm sure someone will complain. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 20:52, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Hopefully Parrot of Doom will get to them later, but if he doesn't then I'll try. I've got RL calling me away for a bit now. --MalleusFatuorum21:07, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
eek! Six more edits and I'm level on with DSotM - and that article took bloody months (this one has taken about two weeks)! I really must get a 9-5 job life! Parrotof Doom00:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Historical subjects are easier to write about, I think. Time gives a perspective, the sources are invariably better ... I'm still agonising over this article I started on ages ago, but can't quite seem to finish. --MalleusFatuorum00:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
That looks like an interesting article, and an even more interesting book. I'm considering my next article to be something about the 1910 London to Manchester air race. It seems like a forgotten part of history but could make for "those magnificent men in their flying machines" reading. Parrotof Doom11:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
I can't help thinking that the whole 'background' section from Liz to James needs a bit of something to 'thicken' it up. There are lots of interesting facts floating around in a rather watery soup, compared to the rest of the plot, and the aftermath, which now I think are rather good. Can your Mr Northcote help out at all? Its difficult with the sources I have, Fraser talks about the background over about 100 pages, and Haynes just rushes through it like a bullet train. Parrotof Doom17:02, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Looking much better now, thanks. Sorry I haven't been much help lately, I've got a cold bronze head from this blasted cold. Annoyingly, my book about Dick Turpin ended up in the wrong library, so I won't get that until Tuesday now. Parrotof Doom22:22, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
I've been a bit distracted as well over the past week or so, after writing off my wife's beloved Toyota Rav4. I think she's forgiven me now though, after we found her a beautiful and fully-loaded Jeep Grand Cherokee over the weekend. What a monster that is! Enough to give Ken Livingstone a heart attack. --MalleusFatuorum23:23, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Well done :) If we'd started a month earlier, we might have beat your record for getting a newly-promoted article on the front page :) Parrotof Doom20:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm quite pleased we spent the time on it. It's an important historical event that every British child will have learned something about in school, and it's no longer an embarrassment. Oh, and it doesn't even mention bloody V for Vendetta once. I notice that Nev1's got his Castlemagnum opus through FAC as well; some good work there. --MalleusFatuorum20:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
One of the nice things about getting an article into shape is that it seems to discourage anon IPs from inserting things like V for Vendetta. Guy Fawkes will obviously now be an easy article to resolve (now I have the material), but I may just take a breather for a few days. I have a busy week next week. Parrotof Doom22:58, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
I've been messing around with maps, seeing what I can build so others can get an idea of who was where in the midlands. I can build an entirely new map based on Rocque's 1790 map of England, which will be extremely close to the roads the conspirators used, or I can simply use the map on the right, with some kind of key. All the important locations are covered there, Catesby's house, Princess Liz, Rookwood, Holbeach House, Habington, The Wrights, etc. What think ye? Parrotof Doom22:59, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
I wondered, does your Northcote book say much about Fawkes being taken to see the King? Both my two books gloss right over it. I feel it could do with a little elaboration, particularly about "blowing the Scotch back to Scotland". Parrotof Doom23:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Not much, no, and nothing about that "blowing the Scotch back to Scotland" bit. It says he was "questioned in the king's presence", and that he admitted his intention to light the gunpowder and blow up the House of of Lords, but "Guy Fawkes would say nothing more and denied having any associates". --MalleusFatuorum23:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
It's that time again...
Are we basically looking good with Mellitus? Longchamp's done at FAC and I was thinking of running the poor little archbishop through shortly. If things are missing, etc. let me know so I don't clog up FAC. Ealdgyth - Talk20:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
No worries. I'm thinking within the next week, not within hours (in fact, I'm off for a family dinner at a very excellent German place so will be out of touch most of the rest of the evening.. yay!) Ealdgyth - Talk21:21, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
I gave your lead a quick copyedit but yes, indeed, it was a sentence. I seem to get a few of those kind of comments regarding my current nominee Ode on a Grecian Urn (Sandy will probably archive it soon because of lack of reviewers revisiting after their statements). Ottava Rima (talk) 19:41, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Hello again Malleus! I see from the above that you already have several articles awaiting your attention, but I was wondering if you would mind adding one to the list? Cleveland Bay is another horse breed article that I have been working on for a while, and would like to take to FAC at some point in the next couple of weeks. Your eye on prose would be much appreciated, as well as catching any American spellings. It's a British breed, and so should be in British English, but I'm an American, and I don't write in BEng all that well :( Thanks in advance, if you have the time! Dana boomer (talk) 21:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Wow, that was fast! Thanks so much for your edits - a look-over by you always makes me feel more confident in taking the article to FAC! Dana boomer (talk) 23:49, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Ahhhh...I didn't see this comment before listing at FAC - I thought you were finished. Oops. Well, I guess I'll just take my licks for being over-eager if you find a bunch more stuff that needs fixing. My apologies for not checking here first. Dana boomer (talk) 02:26, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Hey Malleus, thanks for offering to take over the St Boniface GA. As you can see, Philcha's main concern was an over-reliance on PR (hospital-affiliated/advertising) sources, which I have hopefully fixed by now. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 01:46, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi Malleus. I've listed Bix, and can review the sea snail. I was wondering if you could take a quick look at I Miss You (Miley Cyrus song) and Talk:I Miss You (Miley Cyrus song)/GA1. This was part of the fall out of the LittleMissWikipoo/ItsLassieTime sock incident. I have the impression that the nominator is more interested in the article being listed than whether it is a good article. I've removed unsourced material, but I can't pass my own fixes without a second opinion. Geometry guy20:21, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
While I'm sure everyone does appreciate your great zeal in vigorously patrolling wikipedia for possible junk articles, call me eccentric but I personally feel it shows more courtesy not to mention common sense to wait until someone actually finishes up entering the initial data on a new article before slapping a plethora boxes on it and/or trying to have it speedily deleted. Especially when this means you have just blown away all the editing work the OP has just done . . . . sigh. Thanks ever so CyntWorkStuff (talk) 02:36, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
All you have to do is make a case for notability, which you've not yet done. And btw, nobody appreciates anything that anyone does around here. ;-) --MalleusFatuorum03:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I'm sorry, but I disagree with every edit you made here. We do not use the serial comma, and we use the dot after Mr. and Mrs. Both of these choices are consistent with MOS and are consistent throughout the WP:G&S project. WP guidelines say that you should not change an article's style selected by its creators. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:34, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Where can I find a copy of this project specific MoS of yours? Just looking through the project's one and only FA I see very many MoS errors, including this: "Grossmith quoted Gilbert as saying, "Deer-stalking would be a very fine sport if only the deer had guns" and incorrect use of the {{cquote}} template. Who do I have to ask permission from to fix them? --MalleusFatuorum16:18, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
The project has several FAs. If you really want to spend time eliminating sentence-final punctuation from ellipses, which is not required, feel free. Also, if you want to change quote format, be my guest, as long as when you are done the text and images look nice. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:25, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Malleus, I'd watch out. I happened to run across these individuals because Gilbert happened to model one of his productions off of a Tennyson piece and they did not like my request that information from the text have sources that directly connected the information with the article's subject. They then followed me for quite a while and tried to have me blocked quite often. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:56, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
No worries. I only came across this article because it was a DYK yesterday; I've got no interest in sticking my nose into articles I'm not interested in and where I'm not wanted. --MalleusFatuorum21:01, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Albert Rimmer of Southport
I didn't notice the AfD, but I wouldn't have objected; and I have now heard from the Southport museum that they "do not have any paintings by Albert Rimmer (1825*1870) on display or in their collection. He is not someone we have heard of as a local artist from Southport either. We can only therefore presume that this article is, as you suspected, a hoax."
Ode on a Grecian Urn - I just expanded some and rewrote some things. I decided that I wanted to have as many critics as I could use (now 39). Could you look through the language? Many copyeditors, but I expanded some lately. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:13, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
I whine and whine, but you know, it can never be enough to review. If only I could get 30+ people to look over each of my FACs! Ottava Rima (talk) 22:20, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Bah, Malleus, the Structures section is all past tense. Please stop adding in present tenses. People will just oppose over that like they do all the time for me. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:22, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm concerned with you lowercasing a word within quotes and changing the dashes within quotes. We aren't supposed to mess with quotes in such a way, and I don't care if the MoS demands it, it is not proper as quotes must accurately reflect the attributed source to be legitimate (i.e. free of any plagiarism problems). Ottava Rima (talk) 00:36, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Nope, I checked this with the MoS only yesterday, it's what should be done. While you're here; "He concluded that Keats fails to provide his poet with enough characterization to be able to speak for the urn". Who is Keats's poet? Should this be poem? --MalleusFatuorum00:39, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Everyone seems to think they know better than me recently, which I obviously disagree with. So I wish you the very best of luck with this FAC Ottava. I'm sure it'll do very well without any more of my "help". --MalleusFatuorum00:41, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Well, it isn't really helpful to start making tenses inconsistent and to alter formatting that is directly taken from a source, is it? Ottava Rima (talk) 00:43, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
If you aren't interested, why get so upset and defensive because I pointed out that there was a problem with the action? Obviously, you care about it far more than you should. This is the MoS section, and only the dash is mentioned. I have brought up the problem on that talk page. Furthermore, the section begins "Preserve the original text, spelling, and punctuation" so I don't feel like I am stating anything crazy here. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:57, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
You believe that you're right and I believe that you're wrong. I guess time will tell. In the meantime I'm not interested in continuing with this clearly unproductive discussion. I've reverted all of my changes to your article and I want to hear no more about it. --MalleusFatuorum01:09, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
I pointed out that four things you changed were changed for the worst. You then revert all of the other changes. Yes, that is being spiteful, especially when you say "your article". You cannot say that you did not change a verb in a paragraph that was completely past tense to present tense, and you cannot say that you did not change a verb in a paragraph that was completely present tense to past tense. This removes the consistency within the paragraph. You then reverted it even though I clearly stated that it had to stay that way for consistency. What is the excuse? You know that reviewers always point out when tenses don't all match up in a paragraph and that they oppose over it. You know that I would have to ensure that they are all consistent. Why would you revert, then complain like the above? Is there any reason? Ottava Rima (talk) 03:31, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
I am sorry for calling you spiteful. You made a lot of great changes to the page. I hope you understand that I was not criticising what you were doing. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:04, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
No worries. I think I only moved one paragraph; it seemed to make more sense to me to put the civil parish stuff together, but if you don't agree then feel free to move it back. --MalleusFatuorum14:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Looking for some help
My Biology class has undertaken a project of taking currently existing articles that are stubs and attempting to get them to GA or even FA status. I was wondering if you had any recommendations or any helpful hints that would help us achieve this goal. Thanks!Reddevil1421 (talk) 01:13, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
I need help on making the scotch bonnet article GA. I don't mean to be blunt, but being new to Misplaced Pages there is probably a multitude of problems with the article that I wouldn't address. I guess to give you a starting point, the information on the page seems somewhat lacking. I am finding it difficult to find information or research that would be relevant to the scotch bonnet. A shell is somewhat of an uninteresting object to most people, but I find its existence fascinating. Also, I live on an Island in North Carolina, and I felt this would be an article would allow me to express some local pride. Thanks Reddevil1421 (talk) 01:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Not been a good morning at all.. cold, dreary, I have some birther nonsense being added to Quo warranto and then lots of film additions. I don't have problems with stuff that has some secondary sources to go with it, it's important to note that, and if there had been a play/film done just on Gilbert (or any of the others) I'd not object, as being the main subject of a film, book, etc. is significant, but everyone and his brother that was alive around Becket gets mentioned in Becket works... I do welcome anyone showing me I'm wrong though. Ealdgyth - Talk17:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
That's pretty much my view too. I included plays and TV programmes about the Pendle witches in their article, for instance. There's a place for fictional portrayals, but they need to be in some way substantial, I think. How many fictional portrayals have there been of Billy the Kid or Doc Holliday I wonder? --MalleusFatuorum17:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
You said Ashley Tisdale is "written as a series of loosely connected facts, without any real narrative flow". I don't think I'm able to make a great narrative in this article, since - as stated by myself in the nomination page - English is not my first language. Do you know where I can get any help? I mean, any user who can help me go through the article and try to make it a better narrative? Thanks for your suggestions in the nomination page, btw. My objective is not the promotion itself but make the article the better as possible. Decodet (talk) 00:16, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Do you know any FA about a celebrity (with a similar career to Tisdale's would be good) I can use as an example? I don't have any idea about how to make a good narrative there. Maybe if I have a good example, I can do it by myself. Decodet (talk) 00:28, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
It's not a bad article Decodet, in fact it's quite informative, so you should be pleased with it, whether or not it gets promoted to FA. --MalleusFatuorum00:42, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
I asked you to read the lead, because I rewrote it. I didn't understand what you meant above but are you saying that I should try to rewrite this part: "in the week of February 12, 2006"? Thanks through. Decodet (talk) 01:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Let me be frank. I'd never heard of Tisdale until today, so do whatever you feel needs to be done. Personally I'd be majoring on her chest, but there you go, I'm just a male chauvinist pig. --MalleusFatuorum01:30, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Please do not attack other editors, as you did here: User talk:Coldplay Expert. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. Get civil. Now. ThejadefalconThe bird's seeds 02:23, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits, such as those you made to User talk:Malleus Fatuorum. If you vandalize Misplaced Pages again, you will be blocked from editing. Andrea105 (talk) 02:28, 11 December 2009 (UTC)