Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Gunpowder Plot/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 18:38, 3 December 2009.

Gunpowder Plot

 * Nominator(s): Malleus Fatuorum, Parrot of Doom 17:32, 21 November 2009 (UTC) 

I am nominating this for featured article because the Gunpowder Plot is an important part of English religious and political history. Every child knows the name of Guy Fawkes, not so many know that he was only a part of the story. Religious persecution, political backstabbing, conspiracy, murder, torture, gruesome executions, explosions—what more could you ask for? Parrot of Doom 17:32, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment There are citation needed tags in the article. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:38, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Gone - one is probably not citable, the other will be sorted in due course (I've hidden it for the moment) Parrot of Doom 17:42, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Technical comments --an odd name 20:20, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No dab links or dead external links.
 * All images have alt text. Double-check that map alts and diagram alts, or nearby text, describe what they are trying to show, and not just their appearance.
 * How about this? Parrot of Doom 00:47, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Alts look good. --an odd name (help honey) 01:14, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Why does the infobox use a Month Day, Year date? All other dates are consistent Day Month Year for text and ISO style for refs.
 * Fixed. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:26, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Images check out. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:52, 24 November 2009 (UTC) My CoI prohibits me from working on content related to the article, but I will check the images. There were 4 concerns. Feel free to strike through the concerns or leave a note after when they are addressed. Images: File:GunpowderPlot.jpg - check. File:Darnley stage 3.jpg - check and a FP, so, definitely has it all verified. File:James I, VI by John de Critz, c.1606..png - you could put it into a fancy box but all of the info is there. **File:Gunpow1.jpg - might want to add year (circa 1605) to the info and checks out. File:Eliz bohemia 2.jpg - info checks out. File:John rocque house of lords gunpowder plot cropped.jpg - info checks out. File:Capon map of parliament.jpg - info checks out. File:House of lords and princes chamber.jpg - info checks out. File:Gunpowder plot parliament cellar.jpg - info checks out. File:Monteagle letter.jpeg - info checks out. **File:Fawkes arrest2.jpg - needs year. File:A Torture Rack.jpg - info checks out. File:Robert Cecil, 1st Earl of Salisbury by John De Critz the Elder (2).jpg - info checks out. File:Guy Fawkes confession.png - info checks out. ** File:Hindlip hall.jpg - needs year (find the original publication, link provided next). 1901 edition to verify that it is PD. File:Edward coke.jpg - iffy, has a year, but no real verifiable source of the year. NPG may have a copy of info on it? **File:Henry Garnet (1555-1606).jpg - needs year and possible author information. File:The execution of Guy Fawkes' (Guy Fawkes) by Claes (Nicolaes) Jansz Visscher.jpg - info checks out. File:Bonfire4.jpg - info checks out. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:02, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Replaced File:Fawkes arrest2.jpg Parrot of Doom 21:22, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Added what I could find to the Coke image Parrot of Doom 21:31, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Clarified the Hindlip Hall image - I'm willing to bet that the image is well out of copyright. The hall burnt down in 1820 and this may well be a derivative of an earlier image Parrot of Doom 21:35, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Changed the Garnet image Parrot of Doom 21:40, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments Mostly there, but some prose needs work, which I see Malleus is on. "The new King received an envoy from the Catholic Albert VII of the Southern Netherlands.[13] This country, which had for the previous 30 years been a battleground between English-supported Protestant rebels and Catholics" needs rewriting - he was the Habsburg Viceroy of 1/2 a country. Link Dutch Revolt or Eighty Years War. Since there is so much background, the wider context of religious assassinations of political leaders should be mentioned: in France Gaspard de Coligny, (1572), Henri III, (1589), and later Henri IV, (1610); in the Netherlands William I of Orange, (1584), and in Scotland the Regent James Stewart, 1st Earl of Moray (1570) Not to mention the more obscure Michael the Brave (1601) in Romania, on behalf of the  Habsburgs.  I'm not saying these Catholic assassinations, and some other attempts and successes, were connected, though many people did, but the wave of assassinations led to a great reduction in public appearances by, and access to rulers, including James, that had profound effects. Johnbod (talk) 00:58, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll admit my knowledge of 16th-17th-century politics is very sparse. I'd appreciate any help you have to offer on such a thing, I can only really work with the sources I have.  There is already more than 60kb of prose, so care needs to be taken here. Parrot of Doom 01:06, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I've done Albert & the Netherlands, perhaps clumsily. I'd forgotten he had eventually been made "co-sovereign" of the Netherlands with his wife, but no kingly title. Numbering Habsburg archdukes is a silly nob-squad affectation, imo. I'll look for refs on the trend for assassinations & its effects; that may not happen this week. Johnbod (talk) 10:52, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I've not found anything to add here so far, & wouldn't withold support on this, but I do think the wider context needs mention pp 227-9 here are the sort of thing. Juan de Mariana should be mentioned. Johnbod (talk) 23:15, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that such detail would be more suited to inclusion in this article Parrot of Doom 23:50, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It's hard to see why "detail" on the issue of assassination belongs in the more general article. Actually it's not detail, of which the article is already full, but context, missing from the current background sections. Johnbod (talk) 00:01, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Its context that isn't really mentioned in either of the two sources I've used in the article, and it isn't mentioned in the ODNB's entry on the story and its participants. If they don't see fit to writing much (if anything) about it, I'm not inclined to think that it belongs here, in a much shorter version of the story.  The context in which the Gunpowder Plot was set was basically Catholics not happy that their new ruler wasn't about to reverse the severe restrictions that Elizabeth I had imposed - and that's given a prominent position, as is the European position on the replacement of James I.  Those other assassinations may be relevant to Catholics and European History, but they're not really worth mentioning here unless there is an explicit connection. Parrot of Doom 10:35, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I think there is a connection in the Jesuit justification for assassination, which may go a little way to explaining the government's determination to implicate Henry Garnet, even though he likely knew very little about the plot and certainly wasn't involved in its planning or execution. I'll add a sentence or two; I think that's all it needs. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I've added a short paragraph to the early reign of James I section, explaining James's understandable nervousness about the possibility of a Catholic assassination attempt on his life. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:29, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That's fine, thanks. The phrasing of the subsequently introduced Oath of Aliegance, by which Catholics had to swear that the doctrine that the Pope could (as it were) issue fatwah's for assassination was a heresy could also be tacked on there, but there's enouugh as it stands. Johnbod (talk) 02:20, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Support My comments above dealt with. Johnbod (talk) 02:20, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the support. I was thinking about elaborating a little bit on the Oath of Allegiance anyway, so I'll do that. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:06, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * ... done. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Why are "assassination" and "Catholics" linked at the stop? Possibly a more explicit pipe to the "Dutch revolt" target—"against the Dutch"? Then we know it's not one of those country links (i.e., to "the Netherlands").
 * "Between 1533–1540"—Please see the first point here: User:Tony1/Beginners'_guide_to_the_Manual_of_Style Tony   (talk)  12:53, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Both fixed, except that I think the link to "Catholics" is possibly worth keeping? --Malleus Fatuorum 16:39, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Decline 1c: Original research. Use of Time Series data for the value of money calculated; rather than referenced from an appropriate secondary source. Resolved 2c at talk. 2c fixits. All 2c resolved. 1c Original Research, inappropriately grounded speculation, a few non HQ sources. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:46, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1c:
 * This is Original Research. Value of money over time is an inordinately complex historical topic.  Wikipedia is not a qualified economic historian.  Find it in a secondary source.  "4,000 marks (about £430,000 as of 2009)" ^ UK CPI inflation numbers based on data available from Measuring Worth: UK CPI.
 * I'm not sure I agree. The source (Haynes p47) says that 4,000 marks was about £3,000 Parrot of Doom 01:01, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Haynes as a secondary has the right to equate Marks to Pounds. Or if he chose 16xx Pounds to 20XX Pounds.  We don't.  Time series for money value is incredibly contested by economic historians. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Bit of a misunderstanding here. The conversion isn't from marks, but from Northcote Parkinson's figure of £3,000. No original reaearch involved, or reliance on wikipedia, as the CPI conversion comes from data supplied by a reliable source. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:18, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No misunderstanding. It isn't a HQRS.  Time series data is extremely dubious.  Running it through a conversion website is simply not acceptable as I've repeatedly explained, this is an intensely debated area of economic history and your website is not a publication of the highest quality by an economic historian. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Then we will have to agree to disagree, as I ain't changing it. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:27, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If you read the website used to create this data you'll see that far from being a simple 'conversion website' its a service which claims a range of contributors, in fact it makes a specific point about the thoroughness of its data and calculation methods. I feel that demonstrates reliability well enough.  The figures used in the article exist to give the reader some idea of the size of the fines, else the figures are almost meaningless. Parrot of Doom 09:37, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with the nominators that the site is fine for a very rough idea of the value of money, we are not a academic publication here, we're only trying to give a general idea of the value, so it does not require an ironclad source. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Is it possible to resolve this quibble by expanding the footnote to better explain the approximation and its limitations? Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:11, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I've added a couple of notes explaining the basis of the calculations, one using relative purchasing power and the other average earnings as appropriate. I strongly believe thaough that challenging the reliability and quality of MeasuringWorth is ridiculous. The site was set up and is run by a Professor of Economics at the University of Illinois at Chicago, and has a distinguished board of academic advisers. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * ...MeasuringWorth in no way represents a consensus in the field, [Worth Measures] within their site displays a fundamentally naïve understanding of value, and applying any of their measures to the 17th century displays an arrogance not substantiated by their argument. Purchasing power parity and relative earning capacities break down in the transformation of the nature of goods, its a problem about the density of cash economy and commodity form, and its what broke the efforts of Past & Present to produce a similar time series for Britain. (See for example MeasuringWorth's discussion of the use of RPI, "Just one reason why the retail price index may not be the most appropriate measure is that prices of goods and services purchased by households or consumers alone are incorporated; neglected are the purchases of business firms and governments. Second, it is in the nature of statistical data that perhaps no "true" series of the retail price index is obtainable. An official series is acceptable beginning with the year 1948. For earlier years, privately constructed series are utilized, and they are probably further away from the ideal than even the official series."  I am about to read Officer's study, "What Were the U.K. Earnings Rate and Retail Price Index Then? A Data Study." and am not expecting to be impressed, the failure to account for changes in the nature of value itself and the primitive approach to price do not indicate that they're revolutionised the time-series data problems.) So I can't budge on this.  The closer should obviously take into account your arguments contra, and Ealdyth's opinion.  Your notes could be slightly longer regarding the methodology of MeasuringWorth in terms of producing these estimates  (which if adequate at expressing the tenuousness of the source or the highly contested nature of the field, would be adequate in my mind, and I'd revoke).  Also, you've got a typo in "Officer, Lawrence H. (2009), Purchasing Power of British Pounds from 1264 to Presen" by the way. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:16, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments: I've just finished studying this event for AS-level, and this would have been very useful. However, coming from the understanding I do have now, I have to make some comments on the content. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 17:45, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Lead:
 * "fled from London as they learned of the plot's discovery", and also attempted to gather support as they moved northwards. This should be briefly mentioned even if it is the lead.
 * Thanks, it is mentioned in the article but a mention in the lead is ok with me. Done Parrot of Doom 18:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Background > Religion in England:
 * "several hundred years of religious turmoil in England" this is a highly sensational assessment. The situation was not comparable to France at this time, which was in turmoil (Wars of Religion), and you should provide several references in order to validate this if you think it's worth keeping. IMO, something more moderate would be better.
 * I'm no expert on the religious and political happenings of this time, my leanings are more towards sheer enjoyment of reading about generally how different things were back then. We'll happily take any advice you might wish to give.  I don't think its a particularly sensational statement, what wording would you suggest to moderate the phrase? Parrot of Doom 18:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd stop saying how much you're not an expert! "Several decades" would be better, as there was very little before the end of the 1520s. But tension had replaced turmoil during Elizabeth's reign anyway. Johnbod (talk) 18:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That's much better. Apologies if I sounded patronising or sensational myself, my writing style leans towards both! MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk)
 * How about this? Parrot of Doom 18:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Some things need to be mentioned in this section which are crucial towards understanding why the plot happened: recusancy fines introduced by Elizabeth (which ruined many Catholic families), and the hope held by many Catholics that James would be more tolerant (because of his Catholic wife).
 * I'm concerned about focus and article size, so would the expansion of "The penalties for refusal were severe." to something like "The penalties for refusal were severe, with fines for recusants, and execution for repeat offenders" (would use better grammar obviously) be ok? Parrot of Doom 18:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds fine. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk)
 * Done Parrot of Doom 11:07, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * "he was no supporter of the Church of Rome" in fact James believed that the Roman Catholic Church was a part of the true Church, of which Protestantism was also a part.
 * Haynes p20 - "This did not touch James, whose real attitude towards Catholicism derived from the same roots as his roots on Puritanism - a hostility that was much more political than religious.1 C.McIlwain, The political works of james i, introduction (1918)" I take that to mean, generally, that he wasn't particularly fond of the Catholic Church.  Do you have a source for your statement, as its addition might help the reader make more sense of James's apparent change of mind (WRT Catholics) Parrot of Doom 18:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Apparently it's in Pauline Croft's biography of James I, simply "James I". Not sure of the page number, but I'll check whether google books has a limited preview of it. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 18:59, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I can certainly try to find one; it was mentioned as one of the main points of the topic. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk)
 * An important quote to put in would be from James I which is: "I shall not persecute any that shall be quiet" which obviously targetted Catholics.
 * I'd need a source for that. Parrot of Doom 18:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Plot:
 * This section goes into too greater detail about Robert Catesby; to my thinking this section should begin with "Intial planning". Perhaps it could provide a brief account of the conspirators, but it should not be entirely focused on Catesby. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 17:45, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * We've tried to balance the amount of information given on each member of the conspiracy, with their importance to the plot. Catesby was undoubtedly the prime mover and its therefore only correct that he is explained in greater detail than, for instance, Christopher Wright (who only gets a few sentences).  I agree about the structure though, it could probably stand a little fettling, let me have a think about it. Parrot of Doom 18:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, I understand it must be difficult to balance things perfectly; I have an incredible amount of respect for you both and others who've contributed to making the article as good as it is now. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk)
 * Okay, I understand it must be difficult to balance things perfectly; I have an incredible amount of respect for you both and others who've contributed to making the article as good as it is now. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk)


 * I've somewhat reworked that section, and eliminated some information particularly about Catesby that perhaps isn't so relevant to his role in the plot. Better? --Malleus Fatuorum 19:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Support: Remember, remember the fifth of November... Excellent work with the article, prose is clear, sources cited correctly, images check out, all around meets FAC criteria.  The Flash  {talk} 01:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments -
 * Current ref 146 (Marshall Peter...) who is the publisher?
 * Done Parrot of Doom 16:25, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Image placement of Queen Elizabeth - should it not be on the left, as she's facing to the right? The same goes for Princess Elizabeth .  Majorly  talk  17:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I've moved Queen Elizabeth to the left, as her body is slightly angled to her left, but I think Princess Elizabeth is fine as she is, as she's standing almost straight on to the viewer. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * What's with the different spelling of Raleigh (without an i)?  Majorly  talk  17:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Although "Raleigh" is probably more common nowadays, "Ralegh" was what the man called himself. Spelling wasn't yet standardised, and many are referred to by different spellings of their names, such as "Winter/Wintour", "Rookwood/Rokewood", etc. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:06, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It would surely be better to use the most common spelling.  Majorly  talk  18:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That might then create a problem with consistency - The Wintours are most often known as Winter, but they called themselves Wintour. I felt it was therefore best to assume the same stance with Ralegh.  I did consider calling Robert Catesby 'Robin' as that seems to have been his favoured name, but I think it was more a nickname than anything else. Parrot of Doom 18:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I got 'told off' for fixing the piping through a redirect in the Cosmo Lang article, and was pointed to WP:R2D. According to the guidance there should Walter Ralegh be a straight link rather than piped? Quantpole (talk) 20:39, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds sensible to me, I've removed them. Parrot of Doom 20:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I assume the Duck and Drake is a pub? Could it be linked, or clarified in some way?  Majorly  talk  18:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd be amazed if it still exists. Like a lot of inns of that era, it was probably not much more than a large timber-framed house with plenty of rooms. Parrot of Doom 18:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I've added the word "inn" after Duck and Drake. There's certainly no pub with that name anywhere near the Strand today, so there's nothing to link it to. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:05, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * An interesting article, no more concerns.  Majorly  talk  19:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments
 * In the lead Fawkes is not listed as one of the plotters, and it is not clear that he was involved from near the start of the plot but could imply he was just a sort of explosives expert. I realise that the intention is probably to avoid repeating his name too often, but I found that a bit confusing.
 * Good point; I've rewritten that bit. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:08, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I found the sentence: Nonetheless, James's easy succession[nb 3] was generally celebrated, then followed up a few lines later with: Despite several competing claims to the English throne, the transition of power went smoothly following Elizabeth's death.[nb 4] to be slightly confusing. I think it would make more sense to remove the word 'easy' and [nb 3] from the first sentence and combine it with the second sentence. I would prefer the [nb 4] to be moved to after the word throne. I presume reference 6 (Haynes p18) would be a source for the transition of power going smoothly.
 * Re-reading this I'm not sure I made myself very clear. I propose that the first sentence quoted above becomes: Nonetheless, James's succession was generally celebrated (removing the note), and the second sentence becomes: Despite several competing claims to the English throne,[nb 4] the transition of power went smoothly following Elizabeth's death.[6]
 * Whilst in the same section as above, I was unsure what Mary being regarded as a Catholic martyr had to do with James being an astute politician. I think the implication is that James used his mother's reputation to be more 'Catholic friendly', but that is simply my interpretation. Could the meaning o this be tightened up at all?
 * Ok its too long and boring a story to recite here but it took me a while to check this out, I think I've clarified things. Parrot of Doom 23:56, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The above really are minor things, overall I think the article is more than good enough to meet FA criteria. Quantpole (talk) 21:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your observations, I'll take a look at these hopefully tomorrow night and re-read the sources, to see if I can clarify things. Parrot of Doom 01:10, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Seems sound and comprehensive enough.  Himalayan   22:02, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Support. The shortness of this comment might make it seem like I've only done a half-assed review, but the truth is that after reading the article twice this week (on and off) I can't really find much wrong with it. It's nicely written, doesn't seem to omit major facts, etc. I guess if I'm going to quibble: 1) the last paragraph of "Religion in England" is, technically, missing a cite (in the article body at least); I assume it's supposed to be "Willson 1963, p. 154", but was accidentally missed out when some of the text was rolled into the annotation? 2) There's an uncited paragraph in "Bonfire Night", but this stuff is common knowledge, so it doesn't bother me much—it might others. 3) I'm a little surprised at the emphasis given to the Hammond-fronted reconstruction; has this really been the only serious attempt to figure out the likely efficacy of the plot? Are there any views that deviate from the programme's conclusions? 4) In "Trials", shouldn't "Minute ista pueris" be "Minare ista pueris"? 5) Aaaand finally, in "Aftermath", there is a seeming contradiction. The opening paragraph says that the discovery of the plot forced Parliament to implement more severe anti-Catholic legislation. However, the following "Accusations of state conspiracy" section states that "the legislative backlash had nothing to do with the plot". Other than that, nice work; I haven't read about the plot in any detail since school (15+ years ago, for the record) and it was nice to revisit the topic. Steve  T • C 11:23, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for looking the article over, and of course for your support.
 * Replies

--Malleus Fatuorum 12:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I've dealt with the contradiction you pointed out between Aftermath and Accusations of state conspiracy.
 * "Minute ista pueris" is exactly what the source says. Parrot of Doom 15:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Then that's a problem, as "Minute" doesn't translate to "threat" or anything like it. Whereas "Minare"—"to drive" (by threats)—does. To further complicate matters (or maybe clarify), there's a scan of A true account of the Gunpowder Plot (1851) available here, which quotes "Minare" (page 26). Steve  T • C 16:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think its a big problem. I know nothing about Latin but if its a simple mistake or misprint, we can just change it to the correct spelling.  Is there an area of Wikipedia speakers of Latin frequent? Parrot of Doom 16:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec)Actually there are an abundance of sources including Caraman etc (mostly old, but at least they knew their Latin) for "Minare ista pueris" & anything else would seem to be a typo. Johnbod (talk) 16:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll change it accordingly, but will add a note to the effect that Haynes may have misspelt the word (just in case). Parrot of Doom 19:01, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Done Parrot of Doom 19:08, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:18, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed Parrot of Doom 00:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.