User talk:Bencherlite

Replied to your FLC comments

Thank you for participating in the FLC at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Dan Savage bibliography/archive1.

I agreed with your helpful suggestions, and so I've directly implemented them on the page.

I noted as such back at the FLC discussion at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Dan Savage bibliography/archive1.

I see that I had successfully responded to comments at that same discussion by DragonZero, who changed his position to "Tentative Support" (diff), contingent upon your response to my response to your suggestions. :)

I think the list page looks much better now, thanks to your helpful recommendations.

Perhaps you could have another look?

Thanks again,

— Cirt (talk) 05:38, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Understood. I've asked DragonZero instead to look over my responses to your helpful suggestions and see if my actions are satisfactory. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 18:28, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

FYI heads up

Please see diff.

I made a good faith effort here to get through to this user.

I tried! :)

Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 17:56, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Fuck

Seems the TFA/R discussion was longer than the article...by a factor of just over two.--ColonelHenry (talk) 00:15, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

The TFAR discussion also used the f-word almost exactly as many times as the article (excluding references etc). Not sure what that tells us either... Bencherlite^Talk 00:30, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I think the TFAR discussion used the f-bomb just about as many times as The Wolf of Wall Street...obscenity is the crutch of an inarticulate asshole, and ever-incorrigible wikipedians have a fuckin' problem. ;)--ColonelHenry (talk) 03:52, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I think I'm responsible for about 50 of them.--ColonelHenry (talk) 03:55, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much, Bencherlite, for your most detailed and well-written closing statement. Most appreciated, — Cirt (talk) 04:26, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

TFAR blurb length

Re: "total length of blurb when previewed (including spaces) as close as possible to 1,200 characters maximum." I added 550 words, so is this inaccurate? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:55, 11 February 2014 (UTC) Nevermind. I see now that its characters, but how do I count them? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:57, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Copy the on-screen display (not the wiki-code) and paste it into a word-processing program that has a tool allowing you to count words/characters. In my copy of MS Word, for example, it's the "word count" button on the "review bar". Bencherlite^Talk 18:00, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Does the blurb look OK now? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:29, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Yep, it's fine. Bencherlite^Talk 18:33, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Because I'm a PITA sometimes....

May I suggest that Jersey Act and Norman conquest of England run at some point? (For that matter, I really should get off my behind on Epikleros...) Ealdgyth - Talk 18:00, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, but who are you and what have you done to the real Ealdgyth...? Bencherlite^Talk 18:03, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

LOL. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:04, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Would the real Ealdgyth use "PITA" or "LOL"? Any particular dates in mind for the NC article? Bencherlite^Talk 18:11, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

None, actually. I was just yanking your chain. You might note what all three of those articles share (or a lack they share...) ... Ealdgyth - Talk 18:20, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

The word "fuck"? I bet there was a lot of swearing during the Norman Conquest... "Oh fuck, there's an arrow coming towards my eye!" "That's not an arrow, that's a collapsed infobox!" [etc] Bencherlite^Talk 18:26, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I never thought to use infoboxen as projectile weapons... (And I have to say .. I'm glad Middle Ages has already been on the main page - it's been interesting on the talk page for the last few months. I'm about to start revamping Protestant Reformation for the Core Contest - I gotta be insane.... or maybe space aliens invaded my brain?) Ealdgyth - Talk 18:50, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Make sure you cover the Bulgarian angle. Bencherlite^Talk 19:14, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

It'd only take me 10 or so hours to get to London... Ealdgyth - Talk 19:16, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Please do - I suspect you'd get on very well with my medieval historian wife! It's been a while since academic conferences have taken us to the US, but hopefully we can find an excuse in a few years when the boys are bigger. Bencherlite^Talk 19:26, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

TFA blurb text

Please see Wikipedia_talk:Today's_featured_article/March_1,_2014#TFA_blurb_text.

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 21:14, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I gave an example of a minor copy edit here, I'd like to discuss other changes at the TFA talk page, please? :) — Cirt (talk) 21:21, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay, Bencherlite, I replied to your email. — Cirt (talk) 21:45, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Discussion of your actions

I'm just letting you know that this has occurred at User talk:Jimbo Wales#Themed days on the Main Page. —David Levy 15:10, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I don't think I need to add to what you and Crisco 1492 have already said; my thanks to you both. Bencherlite^Talk 15:30, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Just to make sure that you're aware, Hector's criticisms eventually landed in Godwin's law territory. I can't say that I expected that. —David Levy 03:11, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I made an executive decision and closed that thread, due to Godwin's law. diff. Others may feel free to modify, of course, but after that point it seemed the likelihood of positive constructive dialog had been exhausted. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 03:56, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

For some reason, Jimbo rolled back your edits. —David Levy 04:07, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw. Most inappropriate use of the WP:ROLLBACK tool. Wasn't that tool to be used only to rollback vandalism? — Cirt (talk) 04:10, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

There are a few other suitable applications, but that wasn't one of them. —David Levy 04:20, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Agreed! :( — Cirt (talk) 04:23, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Regarding this exchange, I'll note that I somehow forgot about this discussion. (As you can see, I received no replies.) —David Levy 04:58, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Huh. Most interesting discussion, thank you. Still, it comes across as … removing someone else's actions with zero comment as to why, know what I mean? — Cirt (talk) 05:01, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. I'm baffled as to how that ever made it onto the list of acceptable uses (and I seriously doubt that this reflects consensus). —David Levy 05:25, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. I suppose it's possible in this instance it was an accidental click. But that's just the thing. With use of the WP:ROLLBACK tool, there's no edit summary. No explanation. So we are all just left baffled. — Cirt (talk) 05:27, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Cirt and David Levy (and ColonelHenry) for your words/actions here and at that conversation. Bencherlite^Talk 08:54, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Profumo affair

As you were kind enough to add some comments on this article at its PR, you are invited to do likewise at its FAC, now open. Brianboulton (talk) 18:01, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Brianboulton. I'll try and look in properly but I doubt you will need my help! Bencherlite^Talk 08:54, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Maybe not (who knows), but a lawyer's comments on the legal aspects (the Ward trial, Denning etc) would always be welcome, if only by way of an aside. However, I am not reqesting or expecting any great priority here. Only if you have the odd spare moment. Brianboulton (talk) 09:49, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

That really wasn't trying to be disruptive

My last edit [1] really was a good faith attempt to improve the template. At least two people have failed to read the instructions properly, myself being one of them, and both of us wound up resigning over it.

It's your page. if you didn't find the edit helpful, of course you should revert it. But going forward, you're going to want to think about how to make those instructions clearer to outsiders. Going forward, you're going to want to think about a lot of things, I expect, with all that's been put on your shoulders in the last year since raul's job fell to you. A lot of people say some horrible thing about you, Bench, but nobody doubts you carry a job that takes a LOT out of a person. I don't know much about anything, but I know the attrition rate for coordinators is pretty hellish and you outlasted them all, so probs to you for that. Your friend Four Tildes HectorMoffet (talk) 22:22, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Funnily enough:

1. There are scores of people with many more edits to the TFA page than you, and I've never heard one of them say "Do you know what would make the instructions clearer? Putting Bencherlite's role in big, big letters between horizontal lines." You were obviously making a point, given your earlier complaints about me.
2. You can search the relevant page histories for the last 14.5 months since I started scheduling TFAs and I doubt you will find more than a few TFAs suggestions with supporters that I didn't schedule. On a couple of occasions, I've had to decide which of two very similar articles to run. There was the Grace Sherwood nomination, of course, and I see you've found it and plastered it all over Jimbo's talk page even though it had nothing to do with the conversation. That was a rather different situation to anything else at TFA or TFAR in the last few years, as you've been told already and as any reading of the extensive discussions would have told you. That situation certainly didn't come from any misreading of the instructions.
3. There may well be lots of people who say some horrible things about me. I also know that I have support from a lot of people whose opinions I value but who owe me no favours. I also know that there are many people who appreciate the work that I do for TFA.
4. I'm always open to constructive ideas to improve the TFA and the TFAR process, including the instructions. If you have any, please come forward with them. Or you can carry on complaining on the sidelines about how unfair it is that I said I wouldn't make an exception to the TFA rules (about no repeats for TFA) for your pet project, when lots of people were already telling you you that TFA repeats were a bad idea. Your choice. Of course, if you can persuade the community that the best interests of the TFA process are best served by having me step down, then I'll gladly hand over the reins. Your call. Bencherlite^Talk 23:14, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

XMAS 2014 TFA

Seeing that the hubbub of "OMG too much Jesus, bejebus, on the main page" comments brought up briefly at Jimbo's talk page about the Xmas2013 TFA, I was thinking of a topic for next year's Christmas TFA...Eliot's "Animula" (the darkest Christmas card ever) or Journey of the Magi might be appropriate, or his later simplistic poem on "The Cultivation of Christmas Trees", or maybe some obscure irreverent think like the movie A Christmas Story? Any ideas? Something I can work on manageably, alone, for the next few weeks.--ColonelHenry (talk) 03:41, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

+1 for A Christmas Story, hilarious stuff. :) — Cirt (talk) 03:47, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

• How about Santa Claws... "his slay bells are RINGING!" — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:33, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I've never seen A Christmas Story, so am clearly missing out. Journey of the Magi I know, Animula I don't know. Surprise me! Anyway, as there is apparently a gang of people who would rather have anyone but me choosing TFAs, by Christmas I will probably have been deposed (or whatever the word is for doing away with czars and fuhrers) so someone else will have the fun of keeping everyone (un)happy. Bencherlite^Talk 08:54, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

• Nah, we won't get rid of you. Just rebrand you. How's Bigwig Bencherlite? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:57, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

• Not sure I like the sound of being rebranded... although as I do wear one of these for a living, the title might be apt! Bencherlite^Talk 09:02, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

• Bigger is better. We'll even get you a Wikipedia hair pin, reading "I ruin TFA" or something. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:09, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

.... unexplained ttempts to delete critical comments will be revert without warning.

That really wasn't trying to be disruptive

My last edit [2] really was a good faith attempt to improve the template. At least two people have failed to read the instructions properly, myself being one of them, and both of us wound up resigning over it.

It's your page. if you didn't find the edit helpful, of course you should revert it. But going forward, you're going to want to think about how to make those instructions clearer to outsiders. Going forward, you're going to want to think about a lot of things, I expect, with all that's been put on your shoulders in the last year since raul's job fell to you. A lot of people say some horrible thing about you, Bench, but nobody doubts you carry a job that takes a LOT out of a person. I don't know much about anything, but I know the attrition rate for coordinators is pretty hellish and you outlasted them all, so probs to you for that. Your friend Four Tildes HectorMoffet (talk) 22:22, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Funnily enough:

1. There are scores of people with many more edits to the TFA page than you, and I've never heard one of them say "Do you know what would make the instructions clearer? Putting Bencherlite's role in big, big letters between horizontal lines." You were obviously making a point, given your earlier complaints about me.
2. You can search the relevant page histories for the last 14.5 months since I started scheduling TFAs and I doubt you will find more than a few TFAs suggestions with supporters that I didn't schedule. On a couple of occasions, I've had to decide which of two very similar articles to run. There was the Grace Sherwood nomination, of course, and I see you've found it and plastered it all over Jimbo's talk page even though it had nothing to do with the conversation. That was a rather different situation to anything else at TFA or TFAR in the last few years, as you've been told already and as any reading of the extensive discussions would have told you. That situation certainly didn't come from any misreading of the instructions.
3. There may well be lots of people who say some horrible things about me. I also know that I have support from a lot of people whose opinions I value but who owe me no favours. I also know that there are many people who appreciate the work that I do for TFA.
4. I'm always open to constructive ideas to improve the TFA and the TFAR process, including the instructions. If you have any, please come forward with them. Or you can carry on complaining on the sidelines about how unfair it is that I said I wouldn't make an exception to the TFA rules (about no repeats for TFA) for your pet project, when lots of people were already telling you you that TFA repeats were a bad idea. Your choice. Of course, if you can persuade the community that the best interests of the TFA process are best served by having me step down, then I'll gladly hand over the reins. Your call. Bencherlite^Talk 23:14, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

This is going on your permanent record

One discussion in which Bencherlite caused two editors to quit Wikipedia, six months apart.

Well Done

I want to "thank you" for pushing out one of the better editors we had here, that being User:PumpkinSky. Of course, last time he was forced out was because of a featured article and that was lead by Raul654. Now with Raul gone (I wasn't aware he had left), the same article and the TFA coordinator shove PumpkinSky back out the door.

PumpkinSky has shown that the Grace Sherwood article was not featured on TFA, so how can you say it won't be featured again when it wasn't featured in the first place? You should know that the Grace Sherwood article was a major sore spot for PumpkinSky and should have approached the subject with a lot more grace (and some research) than you did. That lack of grace and research cost Wikipedia yet another good editor.

I was surprised when PumpkinSky came back, but I don't think he is going to this time. To be honest, I don't blame him. If I were him, I wouldn't have come back the first time after the BS plagiarism accusations and an actual witchhunt (which was very ironic considering the article).

The loss of PumpkinSky is on you and any future lack of TFAs is also on you. The community expected a change from Raul, instead your decision showed you are just Raul II. That's not something I would want to be responsible for or a title I would want. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:23, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

The article was on TFA (check the history of Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 31, 2010, not just the current version). As for the rest of your message, you're entitled to your opinion, but I disagree. I didn't force anyone out. I don't think I acted without grace or research. I simply refused to make PumpkinSky and Grace Sherwood an exception to the rule that TFAs are not repeated, for reasons that I have endeavoured to explain at length elsewhere. What PumpkinSky chose to do in response to that is his decision, not mine. Bencherlite^Talk 22:42, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I think the facts are being distorted here. I was involved in the first Grace Sherwood FA, and I know that the accusations of plagiarism were most certainly not BS. In fact when they first came to light I suggested to Rlevse that we ought to act quickly to sort the issue, which we could easily have done had he accepted that there was a problem that needed to be solved. Eric Corbett 00:05, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Eric. I know that the fallout from the TFA for Grace Sherwood caused a lot of grief to several people, including you. To now see it claimed by PS and Neutralhomer that it was never TFA in the first place... well. Bencherlite^Talk 00:11, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

That isn't accurate, everyone agrees it was briefly TFA before it was pulled, but everyone also agrees it was pulled and didn't get its full day in the sun. But I think it's best to let the past be the past on all of that; there was more going on there with Psky than the Sherwood article, so let's not pick at that scab. The problem with the article is solved now and that's the point. Montanabw^(talk) 00:17, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

No, PS apparently disputes that it was on the main page (not once but twice: "why if Grace were indeed on the MP why isn't it listed in that link?"). Quite why he wrote in those terms, I do not know, since he clearly knows it was on the main page, but his phrasing has clearly misled Neutralhomer, who said just a few lines above "PumpkinSky has shown that the Grace Sherwood article was not featured on TFA, so how can you say it won't be featured again when it wasn't featured in the first place?". If I am to be criticised, let's at least get the facts straight. Bencherlite^Talk 00:27, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Note his phrasing, "truly" he's pointing out an inconsistency - a solid point is raised, there is no "official" acknowledgement that the article was TFA, the fact is buried in the edit history. Don't misinterpret his comment as a denial, it's a form of argument, he was there at the time, of course he knows what happened - but a basic review of the TFA archives does look like a "no." Evidence of the article being on the main page has been buried, thus, it wasn't "there" in the official eyes of Wiki. You can't really have it both ways, saying it ran as a TFA when the "official" TFAs doesn't list it due it to the pull. And, there is a precedent of running a select few TFAs twice for particularly good reasons. Therefore, I don't think the occasional bending of a rule will create a slippery slope into running, say, Mr. Hankey, the Christmas Poo on an annual basis. Montanabw^(talk) 02:10, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:FA, WP:FANMP, Talk:Grace Sherwood and WP:FFA all mark it as having been on the main page, so I don't think it's fair to say that evidence has been buried or that it wasn't "there" in the official eyes of Wiki. I even wrote WP:TFA oddities which includes this episode. The simple reason that the TFA subpage for the day doesn't list both articles is that no-one since the switch has edited the archive to mention it (obviously both could not have been included on 31st October 2010 because the subpage was transcluded to the main page, but that's not an issue now). If that's what he wanted, he could have said so; if I misunderstood him, then so did Neutralhomer. I don't know whether editing the archive would be welcome or not - would it be seen as drawing further attention to the episode, or would it simply be making the history clearer? Thoughts? Bencherlite^Talk 08:33, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, I'll take no position on editing the archive, though if you do it for Grace, it probably needs to be done for any/all others pulled partway through the day (is there a list? Can't be very many?) Perhaps you didn't deliberately misunderstand Psky, I'll AGF there, but the real point is that, frankly, it would have healed a lot of wounds to have done an IAR on this article, it would NOT have set a precedent (beyond the precedent already set by the Transit of Venus article and the couple other exceptions) and what has happened now is more ill will and probably another round of endless drama and criticisms of the TFA process. The best leaders know when to bend the rules a little; particularly when doing so will solve more problems than it creates. "Teh usual suspects" who hate Psky forever would have been upset, but they seriously need to drop the stick, their beef with him was three years ago, it's over, and I am certain that there is NO ONE on wiki has done more to repair any problems raised by their editing than has Psky (including active participation with one of the biggest single copyright reviews on wiki, which cleared Psky of all "crimes" other than a few minor close-pharaphrases, by the way). Wiki needs a rule of law and a common sense approach to the rules where people who make mistakes and fix them can be welcomed back to the community and their contributions valued. It's a question of justice tempered with mercy. To stretch the metaphor a bit more, it's time wiki moved from the Old Testament God of judgement model to a New Testament God of mercy and forgiveness one. (Also known as maturity). Montanabw^(talk) 19:26, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

The list of articles pulled during their appearance as TFA is very short - just one other apart from Grace Sherwood - see WP:TFA oddities. I don't see the point in repeating myself on the other points. I appreciate your position but we simply disagree and I don't think either of us restating our positions will change the other's view or be terribly helpful. Bencherlite^Talk 19:44, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

(ec)But, playing devil's advocate here, if they make a special case because of the editor that requested it (rather than an actual event like the transit or the election in 2012) ... that's actually more unfair. "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others" Who gets to decide who is important enough to merit an exception? Hell, I'd love an exception so that unless I request it, none of "my" FAs go to TFA. If we make an exception to one rule, why can't I get that exception?? Slippery slope. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:47, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Indeed - well put (I've been trying to phrase something similar in my answers at WT:TFAR but probably not as elegantly). Once any IAR exception to the "once and only once" principle is granted purely on the basis of the history of the article and the identity of the primary author(s), as opposed to the subject matter of the article (as happened for Obama and Transit of Venus), then it is going to be unfair - well-connected editors will get lots of support for a second run, those without such connections will not and may not even try. Bencherlite^Talk 19:57, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

And if Ealdgyth gets it I want it too. The Grace Sherwood situation was unfortunate, but I find the argument that she didn't have a full day on the main page and therefore deserves a rerun to be rather unconvincing. Until TFAs are at least semi-protected not having a full day on the main page seems like a blessed relief to me. Eric Corbett 22:20, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

On one hand, I will wholeheartedly join with anyone arguing in favor of semi-protection of TFA; I think it's a reasonable reform that's long overdue. (And the next time it is raised, I think anyone who has ever babysat a TFA should get their voice to count triple!) But, indeed, Bencher and I are apparently not going to agree, and as he has the "authoriteh", well, the "'cause I'm dad and I said so" argument has never carried much weight with me in 50+ years of life, but that is apparently the only one that matters. As for the rest, slippery slope reasoning is generally a logical fallacy and intellectually lazy. And Wehwalt, Ealdgyth and Eric, I love ya all and you know I respect the work you do, but the wanting a veto on a TFA is a bit off topic; you are not simply comparing apples and oranges but you're dragging in vegetables ! That said, if there are only two articles in the history of TFA that have ever been pulled from the main page during their day in the sun, then what the heck, fix 'em both and give each a half day to make up their time. I mean seriously. Montanabw^(talk) 23:16, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

On the contrary, I have not said "because I say so" - I have given reasons, repeatedly and in some detail, for my decision. You may not agree with them, but you cannot pretend that I have not discussed the issue at length, both here and at WT:TFAR. Bencherlite^Talk 23:20, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree that we have discussed the issue at length. And it seems we apparently are talking past each other on parallel tracks, however well-intentioned. We probably have fallen short of reaching a meeting of the minds. Whether it was your intention or not, I think your arguments are over-simplistic and too rigid. And, though not what I intended, apparently you have concerns that going along with my approach would unleash a mudslide of disaster down a slippery slope. So I guess all that can be done is to drop the stick. Most of the time we don't really spat this much, so onward through the fog for both of us, I guess... Montanabw^(talk) 18:47, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Have we ever spatted? Or perhaps spatted? If we have, I don't remember it. Let's just hope we don't trip over the dropped stick in this infernal fog... (hello? hello? Are you there? <bump> Ouch!!) Bencherlite^Talk 19:27, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't think we directly have before, perhaps over the dethroning of Raul, which I favored, but I wasn't super active in that drama, more on the sidelines with popcorn, cheering on my cohorts. Yeah, bygones good with me, but I miss PumpkinSky, who is a really good egg and was a great collaborator on the Yogo sapphire article, a gem that was the inspiration for Gerda's "Precious" award.. Montanabw^(talk) 04:09, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Talking about Precious, it was inspired more by him saying Peace once a day to awesome Wikipedians for three years than the sapphire which is a symbol of it. See also, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:05, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm late to the discussion, but I wanted to say reading this discussion led me to leave Wikipedia after multiple years of positive editing experiences. The TFA coordinator threated to close any nomination I made, regardless of consensus. I never made a nomination, so I assumed he was just talking. Discovering this discussion showed me the TFA coordinator really does overrule overwhelming consensus, closing a discussion in which he himself participated in, in which he himself raised the only objection, where 13 supporters dismissed his objection, and where he closed the discussion a month early while discussion was still on-going. When WP:CONSENSUS has left, it's time for me to join the others above who have left because of this disrespect. --HectorMoffet (talk) 01:05, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

• Wow, WP:DIVA much?--ColonelHenry (talk) 03:41, 13 February 2014 (UTC)