Talk:Jessica Biel/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Personal life

This edit was frankly ridiculous and unfair. User:Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz deleted an entire section with references without even asking for a better citation first.
Does anyone actually doubt that Biel dated actor Chris Evans, a statement that has been in this article for months? Does anyone seriously doubt that Biel has dated Justin Timberlake? I did not even word the article to say when she dated either of these two or if she was still dating Timberlake. More specific details could be added later and the section improved. Yet the whole section was deleted. My edits were not even reverted, they were completely deleted, so long standing content about Chris Evans not previously objected to was deleted as well. It is extremely difficult to assume User:Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz is acting in good faith with such hasty deletions, and this is without even looking at his edit history (which only confirms his tendency to delete first and not bother to ask questions later. See also the many complaints on his talk page). -- Horkana (talk) 00:57, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:BLP is not an excuse to delete whole sections. The material is sourced and GQ is reputable, and they themselves talk about how much coverage her relationships get in the tabliods. The mention mere of tabloids is not an excuse to reject the material, even if those were the sources being used but if anything it goes to notability and GQ is a quality source and the main source being used.

There is an abundance of evidence she date actor Chris Evans and plenty more she dated Justin Timberlake. Not wanting to write something that would easily become WP:DATED I deliberately did not make any claims about who she is currently dating just that at some point she has dated them. I would like better sources for Jeter and Reynolds but again the wording was carefully chosen and doesn't make anything more than the basic claim they dated.

I would ask other editors to please get involved in this. I'm happy to work to improve the section and find better sources but even with WP:BLP there is no excuse to delete the whole section on sight. -- Horkana (talk) 13:27, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Not only did she date Jeter but the Onion made a joke about it too.

On another matter entirely an editor claimed Biel dated her co-star from 7th heaven Adam LaVorgna but unfortunately WP:BLP requires us to remove that information, even if it is credible. I'm mentioning it here in the hope that someone will add it back if a better source (and it needs to be better than IMDB) becomes available. -- Horkana (talk) 02:31, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually TVGuide might be reputable enough and they mention it in their Jessica Biel biography. Alternatively a better source might be EW.com where Biel is mentioned as his real life girlfriend. -- Horkana (talk) 02:31, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Delitionist User:Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz is again asserting what does and doesn't belong without any discussion and conveniently ignoring the fact the material is thoroughly referenced. Biel gets nearly as much publicity for her relatioships as she does her other work. The relationships and personal life information is notable - not everyone needs to go to the level of Elizabeth Taylor - it has received frequent coverage should not be deleted without proper discussion.

Much of the material in the Personal life section was previously included in the article alongside her career, as she co-starred with Adam LaVorgna and Chris Evans. It was not challenged but when it was cleaned up and moved into a separate section and many references carefully source, editors have repeatedly deleted the whole Personal life section without any effort to discuss. -- Horkana (talk) 17:16, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:NPA. Nymf _hideliho! 18:33, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

This section was referenced on WP:BLPN. I agree that we don't want to be keeping a detailed history of someone's love life unless there's something particularly notable about it (marriage, children, divorce, lawsuits, jumping up and down on Oprah's couch...). Single people usually date, and famous people usually date famous people, that's not something we should devote space to. While I wouldn't immediately strike the section while yelling BLP, I would argue that unless there was something particularly memorable about any of these romances, we shouldn't list them, any more than we would list the clothes she wears or the restaurants she goes to. Any of those would fit fine in a celebrity gossip magazine, but it's not of encyclopedic interest. --GRuban (talk) 19:38, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Relationships

In the personal section we trot out all her romances. Unless there was something particularly memorable about any of these romances, we shouldn't list them, and I proposes deleting them. --BweeB (talk) 00:34, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, support - unless they have been lengthy and noteworthy relationships its a bit personally intrusive, like a dating list.. Off2riorob (talk) 03:14, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Agree with both the above. Celebrity "dating histories" aren't in general encyclopedic content. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 12:17, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Removed. --GRuban (talk) 17:54, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks GRuban. --BweeB (talk) 18:36, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Restored. Consider WP:UNDUE and to consider the notabilities of the specific relationships. If she dated a notable costar for several years and multiple rs reported on it... That seems significant enough for a mention even if an editor thinks it's worthless garbage. Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:14, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

All right. Let's get more opinions, and see if we can find consensus. --GRuban (talk) 18:07, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I am coming into this conversation just a tad bit late. I was surprised to see no personal section at all for her. I do not think a list of men she has dated need to be on Wikipedia. She has been with Timberlake since 2007, broke up and then got back together 3 months later. Now, they are engaged. I think the only relationship that needs to be mentioned is her relationship with Timberlake. Also, does anyone know if she is a Scientologist? I had never heard that before. Mylittlezach (talk) 18:58, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

RfC: Relationships

Should the Jessica Biel article include a list of the people she has dated? --GRuban (talk) 18:08, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

• No, that is irrelevant gossip, not relevant information. Irene.espinal92 (talk) 13:48, 16 September 2011 (UTC)irene.espinal92

• Yes, if reliable sources discuss it - It is customary for articles on celebrities to include some description of the person's personal life (marriage, divorce, children, important relationships, etc). Of course, any information must be supported by WP:Reliable sources. Blogs and gossip web sites are not reliable sources. It is best if the information is sprinkled throughout the article, in the correct chronological location (assuming the article is arranged chronologically) but it is also okay to have an entire section dedicated to "Personal Life", although that is not as encyclopedic as scattering the information chronologically. An example of a "Personal Life" section is in the John le Carre article, here. As an example of dating information, the article on Lindsay Lohan includes the quote: " Lohan began dating actor Wilmer Valderrama in 2004, guest-starring in an episode of That '70s Show, of which Valderrama was a regular". Another example is the "relationship" section in the George Clooney article. --Noleander (talk) 19:49, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
• No. Just because something may be verifiable does not mean it is noteworthy enough to include in an article. I think an overemphasis on subjects' personal relationships constitutes fancruft and degrades the seriousness of Wikipedia, as I have never seen a traditional encyclopedia with dating lists. Ibanez100 (talk) 00:14, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

What do you think of the other WP articles on celebrities (I'm guessing that there are over a thousand) that mention dating and relationships? Are you suggesting that there be a WP-wide policy prohibiting mention of dating/relationships? Or only for Jessica Biel? --Noleander (talk) 03:01, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say that it should be prohibited to mention (!) dating or relationships, but that an overemphasis on subjects' personal relationships and especially things like "dating lists" seem unprofessional and are not befitting of a serious encyclopedia. Certainly, if the date was important to the subject's notability in their field then it should be included, but collecting dating information just for the sake of it, no. That's a general statement. I am here via RFC and don't know the specifics of how dating lists pertain to Jessica Biel in particular. Ibanez100 (talk) 06:43, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

• Same. (No). I am suggesting there be a WP-wide policy against mention of day-to-day personal details about the subject that aren't relevant to their enduring notability. And there is, or rather are. They're called WP:WEIGHT and WP:BLP. We don't write about the restaurants she attends, the shoes she buys, the clothes she wears, because these things change from day to day, and everyone does them, and they don't really affect her career or her life other than for that moment. Same for her dates. Single people date, and single famous people tend to date other single famous people, that's more assumed than unusual. If she marries, or has children, or other things that endure, we should certainly mention it, but otherwise her dates are personal details of no great or lasting importance, and should be left out. --GRuban (talk) 14:13, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but how do we determine if a given relationship is sufficiently important for the article? The answer is simple: look at the sources. If a several reliable sources comment on a relationship, then it should be in the article. But if it were just 1 or two gossip sources, then, no, it doesnt belong in the article. We don't need to (and should not) be applying our own subjective judgement to this decision. Follow the sources. --Noleander (talk) 14:22, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

In every issue of People (magazine), Star (magazine), and so forth, you will see not one, but several, sections devoted to the clothes celebrities wear, the events, beaches, and restaurants they attend, and, yes, the other celebrities they happen to go out with. Look, celebrity X has lost 5 pounds! But celebrity Y has gained 5 pounds! Celebrity Z shows cellulite! Celebrity Q has wrinkles! Has celebrity P had a face lift? Celebrity S is here seen shopping in a supermarket, just like a regular person! Celebrities D and E are seen here, actually holding hands, and sharing an ice cream cone! Are you honestly saying that if several of those happen to make inane comments about the same celebrity appearance that it suddenly becomes useful for our article? I propose not. It's editorial judgment as to what is important and what isn't, and I propose that normal dating, like normal beach going, restaurant going, and clothes wearing, isn't. If she dates the pope or a president, yes, because that would be rare. If she gets married or has a child, yes, because she'll do that only a few times in her life. But just dating another actor is something actresses do all the time; it would be more unusual if she didn't than if she did. --GRuban

(talk) 13:36, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Sources rule. Most of what you mention would be prohibited by WP:NOTNEWS. A case can be made that her relationships are routine coverage, but I would disagree when the NYT or other high brow publications cover it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 16:30, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

• Sources for specific relationships - Here are some relationships that are mentioned in the section. I have no idea if the sourcing for any of them is significant or not.

• Adam LaVorgna
• Chris Evans
• Derek Jeter
• Justin Timberlake

If someone can provide decent (non gossip) sources, please provide them (some sources are already provided in the deleted section). --Noleander (talk) 14:28, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

• It should be included per WP:UNDUE. We don't get to decide that we don't like a certain kind of coverage. Reliable sources rule. Here's a few thousand sources on the latest relationship.[1][2] I'd guess that it has received more coverage than all the other coverage she has recieived combined. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 14:59, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

But we are writing an encyclopedia here, not a magazine. The problem is that an actress, say, gets nominated for, or wins and Academy Award. She becomes a hot ticket with the media, including the tabloid press. Now every event in her life is reported - what event she attended, what she wore, who she went with, what diet she is on, where she lives, what charity she supports, etc., etc. Then all this "dating" stuff gets reported. Then anyone can add material to the Wiki article about all the people she dated supported by these press reports. And while well referenced, the fact that she dated "Mr. X" for 2 months is not relevant to the Wiki article (IMHO). What do we do? What Wiki policy to apply? When does common sense come into play? Wiki Vs. Magazine? --BweeB (talk) 20:52, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

What an online encyclopedia is is a matter of opinion. On WP we use reliable sources to decide matters of opinion. I understand your position, but I feel we should go with RSs, regardless of how we feel about the info. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:40, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

No, it's not a matter of opinion, we have a policy on it, or at least what our online encyclopedia isn't. That's called WP:NOT. One of the nots is "Not a newspaper", which specifically says: "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia." Do you really think Jessica Biel dating Justin Timberlake is an event of "enduring notability"? I'd say it's pretty clearly routine news reporting of celebrities. --GRuban (talk) 16:54, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

A few minutes ago I answered this before you asked it. It's below somewhere. We should probably start a new section if the conversation is going to continue, this thing is messy. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 17:07, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

• OK, some quick guestimates. The LaVorgna relationship is mentioned by RSs, but not a ton. About 1/100 of Timberlake. Evans gets maybe 1/10 of Timberlake. Reynolds not sure but less than 1/10 (probably a lot less). Jeter is maybe 1/20 of Timberlake. So, UNDUE would call for 10 paras on Timberlake, barely mentioning Evans and Jeter, and leaving out LaVorgna. Reynolds I'm not sure.
• That's not easy to do, so maybe we should trim the first four to just their names, and if someone wants to add info about Timberlake (like comments on its coverage) they can. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 15:24, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
• Compromise suggestion - What about one small paragraph, that mentions only the three that are discussed by lots of RSs: Timberlake, Jeter, and Evans. And omit the others? --Noleander (talk) 20:52, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
• No Just as it was stated above, it's gossip. She's not notable for her dating life, she's notable as an actress!

@-Kosh► Talk to the Vorlons►Narn (Loyal Bat Squad Member)-@ 14:33, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

• Right now, less than 1/10 of the articles about her on google news are about her acting.[3] So I wouldn't say she's really notable for her acting, anymore. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 14:47, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

• No, per Irene "that is irrelevant gossip, not relevant information." --BweeB (talk) 21:05, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
• Comment - I see a few !votes above which say "exclude dating information". But the rationales are lacking. To simply say that "it is gossipy and not notable" is not good enough: the consensus of the WP community, established in hundreds of celebrity articles, is that certain dating information can be included in articles. The work we have to do here is draw the line: which relationships are too trivial, and which are significant enough to be mentioned? No one is demanding a huge, prominent section in this article labeled "Dating". The handful of significant relationships (whether there are one or two or three) can be innocuously mentioned at the appropriate chronological point in the article. But to just mandate "no dating information for Biel" is not consistent with the broader consensus established in other celebrity articles. ---Noleander (talk) 03:06, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

This is a reasoned position, Noleander, but how to decide "which relationships are too trivial, and which are significant enough to be mentioned?" --BweeB (talk) 19:43, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd suggest that a relationship can be included only if two criteria are met: (1) the relationship is mentioned in mainstream media or biographies (not just gossip/tabloids); and (2) it is mentioned in several reliable sources, not just one or two. I'm not saying that that is the guideline that all the other WP celebrity articles do, but it should be in the ballpark. --Noleander (talk) 23:00, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

• No, as per my comments above and at BLPN. GRuban gave a useful set of examples about the sorts of relationships to include in the BLPN discussion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:49, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

How did this undecided discussion turn into Hullaballoo Wolfowitz preemptively deleting the Personal life section again before the discussion is concluded?
Relationships are tricky, I'm not impressed by the question being negatively phrased as should we "include a list" when the relationships are written out as prose with some context given and references provided to both verify them and show some level of notability.
I'm amused by assertions that marriage somehow makes a relationship more significant. A high-profile relationship such as Biel and Timberlake can last as long or longer than a Hollywood marriage. How many times did Liz Taylor marry?
In any case Biel's relationship with Timberlake gets nearly as much coverage as her acting if not more, if anything failing to mention it is WP:UNDUE. Some editors think relationships are trivial, and others think claims of someone being a sex symbol are trivial, and others think actors in minor roles are trivial. I think her high profile relationship with Timberlake has an unbundance of sources and correlates with her status as a sex symbol. Her relationships with her co-stars were for a long time mentioned in the article intertwined with her acting career for a very long time without objection (and without even requests for sources, were gradually added) and only when they were moved to a seperate Personal life section were there repeated attempts to delete the sourced material, with little or no explanation. Perhaps a seperate section is not better, and perhaps most of the material should be reintegrated alonside her acting, simply mentioning that she dated her then costar, giving better context to readers as to why it was mentioned. However integrating her relationships into the acting text like that doesn't work for her most high profile and most publicized relationship with Timberlake as she did not costar with him at or near the beginning of has not co-star.
It would be very strange to leave out her relationships when despite her reluctance to talk about it how often it comes up in articles. Aside from all this it is a shame this article is incomplete, failing to mention the modelling/spokesmodel/promotional work Biel has done. -- 93.107.76.37 (talk) 21:25, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I am going to agree that his removal without clear consensus to do so was not appropriate. If anything, I see a lot of comments about irrelevance and gossip without actually referring to basic policies. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:02, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Jessicabielgfdl.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Jessicabielgfdl.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:22, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Spouse in infobox

Granted her and Justin Timberlake got married this year '2012', it is proper to put (2012-present), it sounds funny now but it won't sound funny 3 months from now what it's a different year unless they get divorced. putting 'present' is an open ended way to say that they are still together. putting 'm. 2012' is redundant for the infobox when he is already listed as her spouse. anyone other than Zac disagree? Lady Lotus (talk) 02:51, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Adding where it says in the Template:Infobox_person that the format Name (1950–present) is to be used for current spouse and Name (1970–1999) for former spouse(s). anyone care to argue that? no? Ok then I'm changing it to (2012-present) Lady Lotus (talk) 02:59, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Lady Lotus doesn't seem to understand the concept of 2012 being the current year, and this "-present" cannot be added to it. I've tried, I really have. Zac (talk · contribs) 03:00, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Why do we need to say (2012-present) if we are still in 2012 (October, precisely)? — ΛΧΣ21™ 03:04, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Again, the fact that it is still 2012 has nothing to do with it, it's just the year they got married, regardless if it's still the year we are in. Lady Lotus (talk) 03:05, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, for me it sounds redundant; it's like saying (today-today) when we can say married today (or, reduced, m. today). — ΛΧΣ21™ 03:07, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

It appears somebody likes talking to themselves on the talk page and just doing whatever they want, instead of actually letting other users comment before doing anything. Zac (talk · contribs) 03:06, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Well when I'm quoting the direct template and what is says is proper format, I don't really find it necessary to have a discussion about it. Lady Lotus (talk) 03:11, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

You still fail to realize 2012 can't be labelled as being the present. Template or not. Zac (talk · contribs) 03:13, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

So is it going to be 2012 forever? You are just prolonging the inevitable and the 'm' is still not even valid or to be used when discussing dates so all that you really want to put is (2012) which sounds dumber than (2012-present) Lady Lotus (talk) 03:19, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

OH MY GOD... WHEN IT BECOMES A NEW YEAR, "PRESENT" CAN BE ADDED TO IT. OBVIOUSLY! THE ONLY REASON WHY IT CAN'T BE INCLUDED NOW BECAUSE 2012 IS THE DAMN PRESENT! AS HAHC, THAT IS LIKE SAYING (2012-2012). I am sorry for shouting, but it frustrates the hell out of me that you just don't understand... Zac (talk · contribs) 03:22, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Like I said prolonging the inevitable. I'll let an admin decide because your rudeness is exhausting, especially when you dont listen or care to follow guidelines. Lady Lotus (talk) 03:26, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes I'm serious I even told you I was going to have it resolved because you clearly don't want to listen. We have been discussing it, I've given you all the facts but you (still) don't want to listen and started getting belligerent about it. So yea I took it to DRN. I don't enjoy talking to a brick wall. Lady Lotus (talk) 03:53, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

DR/N

		The Dispute Resolution Noticeboard Olive Branch
		Closed. This was not the right time or place for this dispute. Filing editor may recieve boomerang for behavior/conduct issues involving WP:ICANTHEARYOU. Recommend Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard if content issues are not resolved here on the article talkpage and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct if editor continues to refuse collaborative editing towards a true consensus. Amadscientist (talk) 04:17, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Birthplace

IMDb reports that Ms Biel was born in Ely, Minnesota. That would seem to be the sort of bio fact that should be included. I would have added it but the entry is flagged as "protected" so I will defer to others of higher status to update it LAWinans (talk) 23:25, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, IMDb is not considered a reliable source for biographical info. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Health and Welfare ‖ 01:59, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism

From all appearances,it looked as if someone has tried to circumvent the semi-protected status of this page by making repeated and literally dozens of citation requests for the most absurd of points, such as Biel appearing in 'Ulees Gold' and other films, that the entry was covered in numerous request citations (in certain paragraphs there would be one per sentence) for the flimsiest or silliest of reasons. As these citations appear to originate recently from one source, I have deleted many. If valid requests were amongst them and I deleted them accidentally, I assure you it was accidental. The entire page looked like an eyesore if you peruse some of the recent edits. Please revert anything that was a valid request.(Yakofujimato (talk) 01:18, 28 October 2012 (UTC))

rankings

Are those really necessary for her page? Lady Lotus (talk) 01:17, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Biel's Surname

Jessica Biel has take Justin Timberlake's last name or not?--Greg Hansenson (talk) 09:12, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Biel changed her last name to Timberlake's. It should say Jessica Timberlake. I don't know why the page has suddenly changed it to being hyphenated. --p4 (talk) 17:01, 26 June 2013 (UTC)p4poetic

Placement of Maiden Name

With regards to this edit, WP:BIRTHNAME doesn't explicitly say one form is preferred over the other. It reads:

It is common to give the maiden or birth family name (last name, surname) of a woman better known under her married name, for example: Lucy Washington (née Payne, 1772?–1846), widow of Major George Steptoe Washington… An alternative form, Lucy (Payne) Washington, is also widely accepted. A woman should be referred to by her most commonly used name, which will not necessarily include her husband's surname.

While one form is not specifically said in WP:BIRTHNAME to be preferred over the other, concision is often preferred. In this case, I'd go with the more concise form. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 14:11, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

To me the concise and more accurate form is where it's after the married name, not bracketed within the middle of the married name, where it makes the name displayed both ugly and cumbersome. This first option (with née after married name) is also the most widely accepted option seen not only in Wikipedia, but also in other media. --121.219.108.242 (talk) 14:30, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Accuracy is an arguable point, but "née" certainly isn't more concise. A common rule of thumb is to be concise as possible without leaving out important detail. The form I used is concise and doesn't leave out any important detail. As for looking "ugly", if anything I'd imagine it looked "uglier" in longer form with messier text. Hard to say exactly which is more widely used, seems roughly equally common from what I've seen. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 14:55, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Some links do not work anymore

The one I noticed immediately was link [18] which is now a 404 error. Might want to check the rest of the sources/citations to make sure they're still active. seems like a practice that should be undertaken at least twice a year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.114.65 (talk) 02:33, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, references do indeed need to be checked. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:34, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 October 2014

the statement saying that she regrets the photo shoot is not only no longer a valid source but there are other sources that suggest the opposite. I would remove "She later stated that she regrets the Gear shoot but considers it a learning experience.[18]" and remove the citation which is citation 18. Oceanisle2009 (talk) 18:25, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

•  Done Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:34, 15 October 2014 (UTC)