GTA Wiki:Community Noticeboard

Welcome to GTA Wiki's Community Noticeboard.

Archives Page to be archived after 30 requests, or after six months from earliest request (whichever is sooner)
 * Archive 1 (June 2011 - Early July 2011)
 * Archive 2 (July 2011 - April 2012)
 * Archive 3 (November 2012 - Early June 2013)
 * Archive 4 (June 2013 - Early August 2013)
 * Archive 5 (August 2013 - Early January 2014)
 * Archive 6 (January 2014 - January 2015)
 * Archive 7 (Late January 2015 - April 2015)
 * Archive 8 (May 2015 - October 2015)
 * Archive 9 (Late October 2015 - March 2016)
 * Archive 10 (Late March 2016 - August 2016)

Talk page rules apply here. This noticeboard is for discussion and voting on changes to the wiki, reporting vandalism and wiki rule breaking, and reporting bad or unfair behaviour from GTA Wiki staff. Votes for the expiration of a Patroller's probation will also be held here.

For requests for promotion, please go to GTA Wiki:Requests for Promotion.

Voting Rules

Since voting about a change can cause arguments, here are the rules.
 * Anyone can start a topic for a community vote.
 * Please be civil when voting, and never condemn another user's vote.
 * Voting usually lasts 3 to 5 days.

'''Please input your new requests above the old ones. That way, we can easily spot it rather than looking for it.'''

Something regarding warning templates
When issuing warning templates to users, we commonly add "subst:" at the start of it in order to allow the actual text coding to appear in the talk page. However, it appears that some users tend to avoid this, particularly if the template is too long (such as this one), and warned users sometimes end up accidentally editing the template instead of the section of their talk page. Ferrari recently suggested adding to the templates, but it turned out to be inefficient, because it makes it impossible to edit the sections of the whole talk page. I'm proposing three options: either we Protect the warning templates in order to prevent the issue about accidental editing/removal, or we always Add subst when issuing warning templates regardless of their length (in this case we add such a notice in the policies), or else Keep the warning system as it is and simply revert the edits if someone causes faulty changes to the templates. 09:49, September 22, 2016 (UTC)

Probation Expiry - Ultimate94ninja (Patroller)

 * Closed as Successful by Monk Talk 08:09, September 13, 2016 (UTC)

My probationary period expired, so I took the liberty of setting up the vote. Please leave your votes below, for administrators and bureaucrats only, while remaining users can leave comments if they'd like to. 09:30, September 12, 2016 (UTC)

Votes

 * Yes - LS11sVaultBoy (Talk) 09:48, September 12, 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes - Sam Talk 13:08, September 12, 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes - Mr. Ferrari (talk ) 16:47, September 12, 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes - Monk Talk 18:31, September 12, 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes-- MythHunter 007  Talk 07:10, September 13, 2016 (UTC)

Comments

 * I think you've done pretty well during your probation and it would be good to see you continue on as a full-time Patroller. LS11sVaultBoy (Talk) 09:48, September 12, 2016 (UTC)
 * The main concern was your activity, but since becoming a patroller your activity has been consistent. A yes from me. Sam Talk 13:08, September 12, 2016 (UTC)
 * Top notch user. Did perfectly. Good luck bro. Monk Talk 18:31, September 12, 2016 (UTC)

New Staff Banners

 * Closed as Successful by Monk Talk 12:49, September 7, 2016 (UTC)

4 requests in a week. Pretty busy. This time, I've give the staff banners some more style and, like tables, infoboxes, and other stuff lately, they meet up with the latest style of square 1 px white borders and a couple of padding px. The backgrounds have a bit of gradient to seem less "in the face", but the background colors also match those found on Staff user colors, green, blue, and orange. The templates are found here. I'm currently trying to make them slightly less black, to somewhat match the wikis color scheme of dark gray, rather than black, so if you want, we can stick to black or change to dark gray (the same gray found in infoboxes, to be precise). Monk <font face="Tahoma">Talk 13:34, September 4, 2016 (UTC)

Additionally, I have upgraded all the warning templates:


 * ...so that they are all consistent. These look much more like the typical banners, and the staff ones will make that more consistent.

Votes

 * Yes - LS11sVaultBoy (Talk) 13:52, September 4, 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes - <font size="5" face="Old English Text MT">Sam <font face="Old English Text MT">Talk 15:01, September 4, 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes - <span style="border-radius: 5px 5px 5px 5px; border: 2px ridge yellow; background-color:#66cd00; box-shadow: 0 0 0px ;"> Chris6d (talk)  15:09, September 4, 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes - <font face="Comic Sans MS">Mr. Ferrari (<font face="Comic Sans MS">talk ) 16:12, September 4, 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes - 16:34, September 4, 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes - 16:42, September 4, 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes - Leo68 (talk) 06:07, September 5, 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes--<font face="Lucida Handwriting"> MythHunter 007  Talk 11:14, September 5, 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes - v-michael-trunk-mini.jpg V-franklin-trunk-mini.jpg V-trevor-trunk-mini.jpg 09-06-2016, 11:39:13 (EDT)
 * Yes - TAlim 1994<font face="Segoe Script" color="Ghostwhite"> - Konan T-A Lim 林道安  ( talk  |  contributions ) 16:15, September 6, 2016 (UTC)

Comments

 * I think they look really slick. LS11sVaultBoy (Talk) 13:52, September 4, 2016 (UTC)
 * As per Tom. Good work Monk. <font size="5" face="Old English Text MT">Sam <font face="Old English Text MT">Talk 15:01, September 4, 2016 (UTC)
 * The Warning and Block templates look very similar to the ones we have on the Watch Dogs Wiki. I like 'em, nice and simple. <span style="border-radius: 5px 5px 5px 5px; border: 2px ridge yellow; background-color:#66cd00; box-shadow: 0 0 0px ;"> Chris6d (talk)  15:09, September 4, 2016 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't even be a request, it's pretty obvious they're perfect xD All looking good, they match up with the enhanced version and cross over mission bars too. <font face="Comic Sans MS">Mr. Ferrari (<font face="Comic Sans MS">talk ) 16:12, September 4, 2016 (UTC)
 * As Guy said, this shouldn't even be a request. They look spectacular, Monk. Yes from me. Leo68 (talk) 06:07, September 5, 2016 (UTC)
 * I like them, so it's an obvious yes. v-michael-trunk-mini.jpg V-franklin-trunk-mini.jpg V-trevor-trunk-mini.jpg 09-06-2016, 11:39:13 (EDT)
 * I have no objections; the new designs look beautiful. Good job. TAlim 1994<font face="Segoe Script" color="Ghostwhite"> - Konan T-A Lim 林道安  ( talk  |  contributions ) 16:15, September 6, 2016 (UTC)

Character Icons on Character Pages

 * Closed as Successful by <font size="4" face="Tahoma">Monk <font face="Tahoma">Talk 12:49, September 7, 2016 (UTC)

Hey. So I thought we could add the mini-map character icons (F for Franklin, M for Michael, and other games, D for Dmitri, etc) to the respective character pages, maybe in the infobox somewhere. I'd find this a useful addition, as it also clearly outlines the color of the character. Unfortunately this can't be done for all characters, as other protags and antags have different colors depending on who takes part in the mission, especially strangers and freaks in GTA V. What d'you think? <font face="Comic Sans MS">Mr. Ferrari (<font face="Comic Sans MS">talk ) 11:18, September 4, 2016 (UTC)

Votes

 * Yes - LS11sVaultBoy (Talk) 12:38, September 4, 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes - <font size="5" face="Old English Text MT">Sam <font face="Old English Text MT">Talk 12:41, September 4, 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes - <font size="4" face="Tahoma">Monk <font face="Tahoma">Talk 12:49, September 4, 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes - 16:46, September 4, 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes - Leo68 (talk) 06:13, September 5, 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes - <font face="Lucida Handwriting"> MythHunter 007  Talk 11:14, September 5, 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes - TAlim 1994<font face="Segoe Script" color="Ghostwhite"> - Konan T-A Lim 林道安  ( talk  |  contributions ) 16:22, September 6, 2016 (UTC)

Comments

 * ...And said colors can be used for the border colors of images in the gallery. <font size="4" face="Tahoma">Monk <font face="Tahoma">Talk 12:49, September 4, 2016 (UTC)
 * Nice idea. And regarding the different colors depending on the protagonist, I guess the best option would be to put the three icons in the cases where a mission giver is available to the three protags. 16:46, September 4, 2016 (UTC)
 * I think it's a great idea, it helps people who come here that are just getting into GTA. Leo68 (talk) 06:13, September 5, 2016 (UTC)
 * Sounds good, but I'd like a bit more info on that. Where exactly would the icons be? By the name? Separate infobox field? Would there be an infobox outline color in reference to the protagonist/icon color? v-michael-trunk-mini.jpg V-franklin-trunk-mini.jpg V-trevor-trunk-mini.jpg 09-06-2016, 11:44:37 (EDT)
 * I expect they'd go in the infobox, like how race symbols go next to the title of race infoboxes, y'know? <font size="4" face="Tahoma">Monk <font face="Tahoma">Talk 12:49, September 7, 2016 (UTC)
 * As I have never properly played the Story Mode of Grand Theft Auto V, I am not certain as to what the protagonists' "colours" are, but I assume that they refer to the representative colours of the three protagonists. In any case I do not see any issue with this change, so I do not object. TAlim 1994<font face="Segoe Script" color="Ghostwhite"> - Konan T-A Lim 林道安  ( talk  |  contributions ) 16:22, September 6, 2016 (UTC)

Updating Diff Changes

 * Closed as Successful by <font size="4" face="Tahoma">Monk <font face="Tahoma">Talk 12:49, September 7, 2016 (UTC)

So Wikia updated the default Diff Change Reviewer and I personally found it awful compared to the prior design. I've come up with a design that is consistent with our Wiki Tables, Infoboxes, Vehicle Performance Tables and Cleanup Banners. The code is located here and basically removes that awful black background on each diff line, replacing it with the original colors, updating borders to match tables, etc. I find this much better. I have two sets of code, they are reversed color scheme (first is dark on light, second is light on dark). Please insert on of the code sets into your personal wikia.css at a time to see how it looks - remember to purge the page and view a diff. :) <font size="4" face="Tahoma">Monk <font face="Tahoma">Talk 13:57, September 3, 2016 (UTC)

Votes

 * Yes - LS11sVaultBoy (Talk) 14:00, September 3, 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes - <font face="Comic Sans MS">Mr. Ferrari (<font face="Comic Sans MS">talk ) 14:08, September 3, 2016 (UTC)
 * No Neutral - TAlim 1994<font face="Segoe Script" color="Ghostwhite"> - Konan T-A Lim 林道安  ( talk  |  contributions ) 10:22, September 7, 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes--<font face="Lucida Handwriting"> MythHunter 007  Talk 06:03, September 4, 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes - v-michael-trunk-mini.jpg V-franklin-trunk-mini.jpg V-trevor-trunk-mini.jpg 09-06-2016, 11:46:53 (EDT)

Comments

 * I haven't even looked yet lol, I trust you. I think I'll test them soon. Anything can be better than what we have. Maybe a complete rethink on the colors themselves - yellow and blue aren't very meaningful to me. Red and green are the most obvious approach, but maybe we could consider the two colors? <font face="Comic Sans MS">Mr. Ferrari (<font face="Comic Sans MS">talk ) 14:08, September 3, 2016 (UTC)
 * Could you post screenshot examples? Mind you, I didn't really mind Wikia's changes because the former background colors made it impossible to see added text. 16:53, September 3, 2016 (UTC)
 * I prefer the one on the left, with the green background and blue highlighting. LS11sVaultBoy (Talk) 17:15, September 3, 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah so do I. I was thinking of making the text a better color but idk yet. <font size="4" face="Tahoma">Monk <font face="Tahoma">Talk 17:17, September 3, 2016 (UTC)
 * I think the text color is good enough. LS11sVaultBoy (Talk) 17:19, September 3, 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with Rain that the former background colors made the highlighted text in the diffs next to impossible to see, and I am glad that Wikia changed their appearance to the current one. Admittedly, I do not see any need to change the colors from their current appearance, but if it is to be done the colors of the highlighted text must starkly contrast with the background (for example, dark blue or black highlighting on a white (or any light-colored) background, or white or yellow highlighting on a dark-colored background). In my opinion none of your two examples follow this rule closely enough, and unless it is changed I will not be approving this change. TAlim 1994<font face="Segoe Script" color="Ghostwhite"> - Konan T-A Lim 林道安  ( talk  |  contributions ) 17:57, September 3, 2016 (UTC)
 * That makes no sense whatsoever. My skin has light colors as background - light blue and light yellow, which are the same as those currently used to highlight the text. The text is now highlighted with a darker version of said colors and stands out fairly well. The font is also black and stands out good, and the diff words that are highlighted are also boldened to stand out from the darker highlight. These do meet your expectations as far as I can see. <font size="4" face="Tahoma">Monk <font face="Tahoma">Talk 12:53, September 4, 2016 (UTC)
 * Screenshot-CommunityNoticeboard-DiffExample.png see that you are confused as to what I am referring to, so allow me to elaborate: the image on the right shows how the diff pages look like now: as you can see, the highlighted text is clearly visible as white highlighting on the dark grey background, and the highlighted text becomes black in colour. What I am asking you to do is to make sure that any changes you make to the appearance of the diffs maintains this highly contrasting feature. My personal suggestion would be to reverse the paragraph colours so that the unchanged paragraphs display as dark grey, while the changed paragraphs display as light grey. I hope that I have clarified myself. TAlim 1994<font face="Segoe Script" color="Ghostwhite"> - Konan T-A Lim 林道安  ( talk  |  contributions ) 16:55, September 6, 2016 (UTC)
 * After reviewing your proposed changes again, I have changed my mind on outright objecting to them, as I now see that your changes have a fairly reasonable visibility due to the boldness of the text. However, I still do not personally see the need for any major changes to the diff appearance, and as I suggested above a simple paragraph colour reversal would be ideal in my opinion. TAlim 1994<font face="Segoe Script" color="Ghostwhite"> - Konan T-A Lim 林道安  ( talk  |  contributions ) 10:22, September 7, 2016 (UTC)
 * I prefer the former colours too. The new white on black is very difficult to read. <font size="5" face="Old English Text MT">Sam <font face="Old English Text MT">Talk 19:15, September 3, 2016 (UTC)
 * You're all being a bit vague here. What "former"? The original scheme Wikia implemented before they updated it, or the "former" skin before I suggested updating it (here)? I don't see what's so bad about my skin. <font size="4" face="Tahoma">Monk <font face="Tahoma">Talk 12:51, September 4, 2016 (UTC)
 * In my opinion the new white-on-black colour scheme looks much better than the old scheme, so I have to disagree with you on that matter Sam. TAlim 1994<font face="Segoe Script" color="Ghostwhite"> - Konan T-A Lim 林道安  ( talk  |  contributions ) 16:55, September 6, 2016 (UTC)
 * The one on left side looks good.--<font face="Lucida Handwriting"> MythHunter 007  Talk 06:03, September 4, 2016 (UTC)
 * I like the second one more, but I don't care which one gets picked. Both look good. v-michael-trunk-mini.jpg V-franklin-trunk-mini.jpg V-trevor-trunk-mini.jpg 09-06-2016, 11:46:53 (EDT)
 * Under the basis of mix messages between either code, I will choose the first design for one week, and switch to the second design the week after, and see how people find it. Please continue to comment on the design(s) and see which you prefer. <font size="4" face="Tahoma">Monk <font face="Tahoma">Talk 12:49, September 7, 2016 (UTC)

Revamping Warnings and Blocks

 * Closed as Successful by <font size="4" face="Tahoma">Monk <font face="Tahoma">Talk 12:49, September 7, 2016 (UTC)

Heyo. Some users may have noticed I have created this personal sandbox to which I follow in order to determine warnings and blocks. I've had numerous users claimed it is both information, professional and well laid out. I created it under the basis that the current Blocks and Warnings system on GTA Wiki is rather vague in terms of specific circumstances; everything seems to be based around three topics: sockpuppetry, vandalism, and image policy. In this sandbox, I have broken down these topics and listed what I personally think qualifies a block, a warning, and/or a certain amount of warnings. The table isn't exactly finished, but I have covered the basics of files, sockpuppetry, vandalism and underage users.

The table lists, from left to right: the action users commit, the response to the committed action, the maximum amount of warnings the user can receive (if more than 1, repeated actions), whether a block would be immediate (cannot be both this and previous), what happens after the maximum warnings have been reached, and two templates; warnings and blocks - the latter two are currently only used by me, it is basically an optional message that I place as a template underneath the block/warning to state what they have done - ignore them for now, we may come to them later if necessary.

I personally find it very systematic:


 * Creating a page with nonsensical content.
 * Article deleted
 * 1st instance is Vandalism notice.
 * 2nd instance is Warning.
 * 3rd instance is 1 week block.


 * Creating a page with racism, hate speech, pornographic material, etc.
 * Article deleted
 * 1st instance is a warning.
 * 2nd instance is an infinite block.


 * Damaging an article by: removing parts
 * Rollback of edit
 * 1st instance is Vandalism notice.
 * 2nd instance is Warning notice
 * 3rd instance is 1 week block.


 * Damaging an article by, deleting all content OR removing entire/multiple sections
 * Rollback of edit
 * 1st instance is a warning.
 * 2nd instance is an infinite block.

...etc. Basically most actions have two variables - a less "damaging" one, to which we respond less harsh to, and a more damaging one, which is usually an infinite block (after 1 warning). These variables are something the current system has a lack on.

All in all I think this is really well conformed and hopefully irons out the punishment, as well as the common "hate" we receive for not having a systematic, fair blocking system. If you approve of the table (which is to be expanded), I'd also like you to tell me your personal opinion on the blocks and warnings, whatever the Staff come to a conclusion off will be what we nail down - the current blocks are just the system I have always followed, and what I think are best to punish users for bad actions.

Votes: "Yes" - to update the Warning and Blocking policies, "No" - to stick to our current, official system.

Think that's everything to say. Thanks! :) <font size="4" face="Tahoma">Monk <font face="Tahoma">Talk 13:35, September 3, 2016 (UTC)

Votes

 * Yes - LS11sVaultBoy (Talk) 13:59, September 3, 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes - <font face="Comic Sans MS">Mr. Ferrari (<font face="Comic Sans MS">talk ) 14:08, September 3, 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes (conditional) - TAlim 1994<font face="Segoe Script" color="Ghostwhite"> - Konan T-A Lim 林道安  ( talk  |  contributions ) 17:32, September 3, 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes - 18:58, September 3, 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes--<font face="Lucida Handwriting"> MythHunter 007  Talk 06:03, September 4, 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes - v-michael-trunk-mini.jpg V-franklin-trunk-mini.jpg V-trevor-trunk-mini.jpg 09-06-2016, 11:52:55 (EDT)

Comments

 * Sounds good. <font face="Comic Sans MS">Mr. Ferrari (<font face="Comic Sans MS">talk ) 14:08, September 3, 2016 (UTC)
 * While I am in general agreement with your new policy system, I disagree with the rule that removing an entire section (or sections) of an article, but not the whole article, should result in an immediate infinite block: rather, I believe that section removal should bypass a vandalism notice, instead going straight to a warning, then an infinite block if the same behavior continues. I regard such edits as within reasonable bounds of "good faith" edits if there is the potential that the user believed that the removed information was incorrect or inaccurate. Also, the edit summary of the offending user must also be taken into account (assuming of course that the user actually leaves an edit summary), as it may explain his/her reason(s) for removing the article section(s). Aside from that, I agree with your changes. TAlim 1994<font face="Segoe Script" color="Ghostwhite"> - Konan T-A Lim 林道安  ( talk  |  contributions ) 17:32, September 3, 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed about the first part; editing can rarely glitch out and cause an entire page or section to be blanked while it was not intended. 18:58, September 3, 2016 (UTC)
 * You make another very good point. I agree with you on that note. TAlim 1994<font face="Segoe Script" color="Ghostwhite"> - Konan T-A Lim 林道安  ( talk  |  contributions ) 17:27, September 6, 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not voting because I disagree with the last part. I think article damage is to be dealt with the same way. The only change I suggest to make is to allow sysops to directly block users in case of large deletion of article content, rather than going through the warning/notice process. In fairness, first blocks should never be indefinite except in extreme cases, and I find it a shame that a lot of editors here fill up the block list because of indef bans for a single offense while a 1 or 2-week block usually does the trick. 19:05, September 3, 2016 (UTC)
 * I kinda agree actually. I think blocks should just go up in stages of 3 days, 1 week, 1 month, but never indefinite unless sockpuppetry. Maybe that's something we should change. <font size="4" face="Tahoma">Monk <font face="Tahoma">Talk 19:11, September 3, 2016 (UTC)
 * So what do we do? Go on with this vote or we close it and start a community discussion to overhaul the blocking guidelines? 20:25, September 3, 2016 (UTC)
 * I second what Rain says. I hold my hands up and say I can be guilty of inconsistently applying block lengths (sometimes the three strikes and you're out, other times an immediate ban). The blocking policy needs to be set in stone. <font size="5" face="Old English Text MT">Sam <font face="Old English Text MT">Talk 19:15, September 3, 2016 (UTC)
 * I would change the instant permaban to a warning and then a ban. Wikia's totally advanced and sophisticated editor can sometimes glitch out and remove all content from the page/section, while sometimes it could be an honest mistake - it'd suck to get permabanned over a small mistake/bugged editor. If after getting warned/questioned, they still continue to delete all content from pages without even responding to the warning/question, then permaban would be in order. v-michael-trunk-mini.jpg V-franklin-trunk-mini.jpg V-trevor-trunk-mini.jpg 09-06-2016, 11:52:55 (EDT)
 * Okay. A lot of people seem to point out the disadvantages of the permanent bans, so the change I will be making is a warning before permanent bans. Give me a tleast a week to iron this out into the policy. <font size="4" face="Tahoma">Monk <font face="Tahoma">Talk 12:49, September 7, 2016 (UTC)
 * UPDATE: I have adjusted the blocking measures. Users who commit serious offensives, i.e. removing all content, inserting hate speech, racism, etc, will receive 1 warning, and if it happens again, they will be instantly blocked (infinite). I have, however, kept instant, infinite blocks for sockpuppetry and instant blocks for underage users - these are ToU guidelines anyway. <font size="4" face="Tahoma">Monk <font face="Tahoma">Talk 13:12, September 7, 2016 (UTC)
 * I must point out that the Terms of Use do not actually prohibit Sockpuppetry as long as Sockpuppet accounts are used in a non-malicious or evasive manner; however I do not object to that policy. However, as you know, I am personally in disagreement with the underage policy, so I hope that you do not mind if I do not enforce that particular policy. TAlim 1994<font face="Segoe Script" color="Ghostwhite"> - Konan T-A Lim 林道安  ( talk  |  contributions ) 15:53, September 11, 2016 (UTC)
 * So you are denying to enforce a TOU policy? That means you are denying to comply with your general admin duties? This cannot be allowed. <font size="4" face="Tahoma">Monk <font face="Tahoma">Talk 15:56, September 11, 2016 (UTC)
 * Having already discussed with staffers on Comm. Central, administrators aren't required to enforce the COPPA policy. The ToU are enforced by staff, and you just have to respect them - thus, an admin that is over 13 is ok, and so does an admin over 13 that doesn't report underage users. If you want to report COPPA breaches and enforce that policy, it's the administrator's own choice. Although, the obligation to block underage users may be enforced on individual wikis, staff doesn't require admins to directly block underage users if they don't want to. 16:21, September 11, 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you Rain, you have pretty much covered my response. Also, not meaning to be rude Monk, but I seem to recall you saying in Chat pretty much exactly what Rain said when I brought up this matter there. More precisely, you said that I do not have to enforce the age policy or report underage users, as long as you do not catch them yourself. TAlim 1994<font face="Segoe Script" color="Ghostwhite"> - Konan T-A Lim 林道安  ( talk  |  contributions ) 18:23, September 11, 2016 (UTC)
 * Rather hypocritical, Monk. -__- <font face="Comic Sans MS">Mr. Ferrari (<font face="Comic Sans MS">talk ) 18:44, September 11, 2016 (UTC)