Talk:W. C. Fields

A plea for help
Fields fans! Help, please. I've done several Google (Dogpile, ...) searches looking for various combinations of this or that and come up blank. Which rather surprised me. I know I've seen the movie (probably more than once), but I can't find a reference, and my memory has melted down. Possibly global warming. Anyway, ...

Fields is standing in the back of a buckboard on a dirt street in some 19th century town and is hawking some patent medicine nostrum. The spiel includes all the wonders of the stuff when Bill loses his voice. He turns, quaffs some of the brew, and turning back announces loudly that it CURES HOARSENESS! Upon which the crowd surges forward cash in hand.

What movie?? Please!

ww 14:54, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * User Wetman has nailed this (at Snake Oil as My Little Chickadee. Many thanks, W. ww 21:29, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

opps, wrong nail
The correct movie is "Poppy" c. 1936 http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0028120/ It's from the pitch scene for Purple Bark Sarsaparilla.


 * There is also a similar scene which concludes "The Old Fashion Way". McGonicle 19:22, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Tax dodges and production credit aliases
My understanding is that the primary motivation for W.C. Fields using names other than his own on production credits was to avoid the eye of the tax man. Fields famously had money hidden in so many different accounts, that after his passing and to this date, his Estate has still been unable to locate large amounts. Fields was also reported to have claimed tax deductions for large donations for the "Fund for Peruvian Bastards".

There could also have been the problem of Mr Fields 'over use of lookalikes'. Most top stars have lookalikes to fill in for minor parts and speed production. One rumour in Hollywood was that Mr Fields was using standins to such an extent the Studios threatened not to credit him with the movie.Johnwrd (talk) 21:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * THis is a myth. If you read any of Field's latest biographies (including Man on the Flying Trapeze) it is made clear that while Fields did have a handful of accounts across the country, these all contained small amounts and were mostly leftovers from his vaudeville days when he traveled all over. As far as the tax dodge is concerned, it also seems far-fetched: such a move would have been risking jail for fraud, not justa fine. The production credit thing was also common: everyone from Jules White to Ed Wood used aliases to cover multiple contributions to a picture (those days, being producer-director-writer-actor-photographer-gaffer-bestboy-colorist-cosmetician was not so valued as it is now, and writer-director-actors sometimes used pseudonyms in the same picture).Amherst5282 01:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I also suspect it's a myth that he was trying to dodge paying taxes. The way they used to tell the story, it had to do with financial insecurity; it was like a squirrel burying nuts and then forgetting where he buried them. The income tax was not then what it is now, so I suspect that's revisionism. Of course, we're assuming the story is even true. He only had to do it once, or even mention it once, for it to grow into one of the many legends about The Great Man. The interesting thing about his screenwriting aliases was not so much that he did it, but that he invented unlikely names, probably inspired in part by the colorful names that his author-hero Charles Dickens came up with. I don't recall which movie it was, but there's a scene where he's reading a letter and he's supposed to end it with some mundane name. Instead, he looks into the camera and smirks and says some funny-sounding name. Wahkeenah 02:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Euphemisms?
May I ask why there is a deliberate rewriting of a quote? The text reads "....regarding his love of alcohol is this: "I can't stand water because of the things fish do in it." Fields did not say this. The only place for coyness in an encyclopedia is within its own entry. This is wrong, unfair to the man and lies instead of imparting truth. An encyclopedia is worth nothing unless it speaks truth. SAW Bristol UK
 * There are a number of online places that give this as a legitimate Fields quote. That doesn't prove anything, of course - incorrect quote attributions are common - but it makes it hard to decide. You don't happen to know of a source where somebody verifiably discounts this as a Fields quote? - DavidWBrooks 23:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I've heard the unvarnished quote many times... and have seen no evidence that he actually said it, or if it was just something that somebody thought he might say. As Yogi Berra, the kind of malapropisms once (supposedly) said, about many quotes attributed to him, "I never said half the things I said!" Wahkeenah 23:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * That's a real problem with a person who is famous for quips - false attributions float in from all sides. The explosion of wikipedia-scraping sites complicates the online search, since our errors (if this is an error) slowly become the norm. - DavidWBrooks 00:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, this could be a good experiment. I've never seen that quote written that way before. It would be interesting to "Google" it every day and see where else it turns up. Wahkeenah 00:29, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The actual quote, the way I've always heard it, is "I never drink water - fish make love in it" - Vonbontee (talk) 07:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

probable spam
Removed this today.
 * later adopted as the corporate motto of, Chicago Options Associates, and, subsequently, the Bomis pornographic search engine, a hallmark of Net 1.0, then, ultimately, the Wikimedia 'Non-Profit' Foundation, poster-child and stalking horse to mix a metaphor of Net 2.0 ).

Might be a legit claim in it, but can anyone source it? Otherwise, looks like speculation spam or something else. ww 19:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I almost deleted it yesterday, Ww, but thought I should check it out first, and didn't have time. Looks pretty suspicious to me, and of no real relevance to Fields anyway. Rizzleboffin 20:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Only Once Citation
not good

Hippie Connection?
Hippies seem to have a thing for naming things after this guy. Like on the Firesign Theatre album with the song title "W.C. Fields Forever", and the local hippie fair had an area named "W.C. Field" (Which was a large field.) Where does this fad come from?

Also, at the Oregon Country Fair (a huge hippie fest) there's a stage named W.C. Fields.Fuzzyblob (talk) 18:54, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

What??
Fields was inconsolable after three-year-old Christopher Quinn drowned in Fields's swimming pool during a visit to his home by Christopher's father, Anthony Quinn, and mother, Katherine DeMille (daughter of famed Hollywood director Cecil B. DeMille).

Where did this random irrelevant factoid come from? No mention of this on Anthony Quinn's page either. So, again -- what? Just more lame wikiality?

It is true, though it was actually an ornamental lily pond- the child had earlier been interested in a model sailboat floating in the center. Carlotta Monti talks of it in her book and it is backed up in other sources. The details are sometimes confused with the 1943 death of Lou Costello's infant son in the family swimming pool.Saxophobia (talk) 19:40, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Nose
What skin disease did he have on his nose?Lestrade (talk) 19:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Lestrade
 * Rosacea. More specifically, "Phymatous rosacea". J. Van Meter (talk) 19:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * A more modern term is Rhynophyma - but yes, it's an end-stage feature of rosacea, often seen in alcoholics. (I'm a dermatologist.)DoctorJoeE (talk) 02:51, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Stooge
hi fields fans. i've just created an article for Tammany Young, Fields's straight man in seven films. it would be nice to get it linked into this article somehow, but i'm not sure where best to place it. any suggestions, let me know, or just go for it. thanks J. Van Meter (talk) 19:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers priority assessment
Per debate and discussion re: assessment of the approximate 100 top priority articles of the project, this article has been included as a top priority article. Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Pineapple juice or lemonade
There's a story in this article about how W.C. used to say his martini thermos contained pineapple juice and then one day someone actually put pineapple juice in it and he said "Who put pinapple juice in my pineapple juice!" But now it's about lemonade. Does anyone know which it really was, pineapple juice or lemonade? Fuzzyblob (talk) 22:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC) --Wer2chosen (talk) 14:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC) I will check some of my fields books. I remember it as pineaple juice. The fish comment I read differently too. It was not' I never drink water because of what fish do in it, but "I never drink water because fish f$7k in it.

very confused para
The birth para at this date is quite mixed up. I've not enough time to chase down the page history and fix it. If anyone else would like to do so, please do. I'll try to remember to come back and ... what was I thinking about? Perhaps someone else will know. ww (talk) 04:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The main problem seemed to be that line mentioning the 1910 census, now a footnote. Ewulp (talk) 02:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Fields and Frank Morgan
I'm a bit doubtful of this statement: " In any case, the Oz role was certainly tailored for Fields: Frank Morgan played the carnival mountebank "Professor Marvel" with the florid speech and pompous fraudulence typical of Fields."

Frank Morgan's pomposity owes little if anything to Fields. His trademark was an easy confidence which quickly deflates to confused ineffectual dithering- this is very evident where he is discovered behind the curtain. Saxophobia (talk) 16:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Lead section
I don't understand how this statement from the lead section can be considered encyclopedic, unless it is a quote or a mishmash of quotes from verifiable sources: …a misanthrope who teetered on the edge of buffoonery but never quite fell in, an egotist blind to his own failings, a charming drunk; and a man who hated children, dogs, and women, unless they were the wrong sort of women. It seems like highly-biased original research to me. If it is an inside joke from a statement that he himself made or that majority sources have made, then it needs to be sourced. If it is purely opinion, then it should be removed. — OranL (talk) 18:14, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's very much in keeping with the character he portrayed in films and on radio. Merely watching or listening is sufficient to illustrate each of the properties noted here. It's actually a well written and compact summary of his portrayals. On those grounds, entirely encyclopedic. On grounds of obviouslness, also encyclopedic. ww (talk) 23:26, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. Oran, as a fellow participant at OR/N, I would say that this meets the standard for working from primary sources.  The Fields character is very well-defined and consistent, and this characterization would be instantly understood as correct by any non-expert who were to view the source material.  As numerous secondary sources can confirm the information here, we should include some, but in the meantime, any removal or rewriting of the section would impoverish the article.  Mr. IP  《 Defender of Open Editing 》 14:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I seem to recall this same wording used on the back flap of a biography published just after Fields' death. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.204.185.113 (talk) 22:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * What is the "wrong sort of women", or how does one "never quite [fall] in" "buffoonery", in an encyclopedia sense? The line is by a talented writer, but it's not wiki quality. 71.194.62.168 (talk) 07:11, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Couldn't agree more. Self-consciously clever lines like those say more about the writer than the actual SUBJECT. Totally un-encyclopedic and needs to be rewritten. Vonbontee (talk) 08:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Removal of POV note in lead section + asserted copyvio issues
Since nothing's happening at the talk page, and since most respondents seem to agree that this is a basic description of Fields' fictional characters &mdash; rather than some sort of slant or personal defamation &mdash; I have removed the POV notice for now. A more serious issue we might need to deal with is the assertion by an anonymous editor in the section proceeding that this same prose appeared on a book flap and is thus a possible copyvio. Which book? We need to look into this.  Mr. IP  《 Defender of Open Editing 》 17:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Reference #4 - spam?
Reference 4 appears to be a site selling public domain recordings, not any kind of "in-depth" reference.

Second paragraph needs some fixin'
The second sentence in the second paragraph is a bunch of fragments right now: since I'm not sure of the original intent of the sentence, I didn't want to try and edit it myself, lest I give it a slant it's not supposed to have. Right now, if you take out the clauses in commas, it reads something like "Beginning in 1973, it has been shown that Fields was married, he financially supported their son." I don't want to stick a "while" in there after the first "that," since it would insinuate that he didn't financially support him afterwards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ministry of Silly Walks (talk • contribs) 15:03, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

NEEDS AN IMAGE!
What happened to the perfectly good photograph of Fields from The Barbershop that used to be on this page? Can't someone put it back, or replace it with another scan?? rackinfrackin 17.49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Mahatma Kane Jeeves
Years ago I heard a story that this pseudonym derived from Field's abortive work with Orson Welles. Welles was an accomplished magician and Fields would call him "The Great Mahatma". "Kane" for "Citizen Kane". "Jeeves" for Welles's love of the P. G. Wodehouse stories. Don't have a reference to cite but I thought to mention it.--Phyllis1753 (talk) 18:07, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Another apocryphal tale. This time the source was Orson Welles himself, who told the above story on PBS, during a broadcast of Sally of the Sawdust in the 1970s. However, Fields' grandson and biographer, Ronald J. Fields, suggested that Welles may have been gilding the lily, and gave a completely different account in the documentary WC Fields: Straight Up (also on PBS). The name originated as one of Fields' private jokes, a parody of English "drawing room" stage farces. They were apparently plentiful at the time, (some even written by PG Wodehouse.) According to Fields, they featured characters forever running offstage with the deathless exit lines: "My hat, Jeeves!" and/or "My cane, Jeeves!", etc. --(talk) 18:11, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Bad External Link
The line W.C. Fields' first show for the Chase And Sanborn Hour 1937-05-09 (01) Guest - Ann Harding links to a bad page. Unable to do a search on the site for correct link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by John sanborn (talk • contribs) 21:58, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Full name
According to the 1880 census, taken only 4 months after his birth, his name was Claude W. Dukenfield, and not W.C... --Maarten1963 (talk) 19:27, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Additional Influences
On the 1978 album cover for "The Rutles", Eric Idle changes "Strawberry Fields Forever" to "W.C.Fields Forever".

W.C.Fields appears on The Beatles' "Sgt.Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band" album cover.

In the Mid-70's the Frito Lay company introduced "W.C.Fritos" as an animated character to advertise "Fritos Corn Chips". Premiums, such as character shaped erasers , pencils , stickers , and even a Fan Club were done as tie-ins. ( Rumour is that his estate eventually sued Frito Lay, and they ceased the campaign. ) Harvey J Satan (talk) 20:31, 27 February 2013 (UTC)


 * All fail WP:N andWP:LIST, unfortunately. (The W.C. Fritos character was dropped because it could not match the Frito Bandito in boosting product sales.) DoctorJoeE   talk to me!  22:20, 27 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Ah. I see. Just throwin' a few things out there ... although the 1st two are every bit as "relevant" as noting "The Firesign Theatre" reference. Yeah, gotta admit , "The Munch Bunch" , a group of 3 dim witted cowboys , post "W.C.Fritos" , didn't fare much better. C'est la vie. Harvey J Satan (talk) 22:26, 3 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Absolutely right, and if I could find the Firesign Theatre reference I would remove it -- but I can't. I may just have a blind spot; if you would be kind enough to point it out, I'll take care of it.  DoctorJoeE   talk to me!  23:16, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


 * It appears to have since been removed. Harvey J Satan (talk) 18:32, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Shooting touritsts
There was a claim that he shot at tourists with a BB gun. It was tagged for a citation for three months. I've removed it, I don't think there should be allegations of him sniping people in the lede without some credible source. 71.110.64.171 (talk) 14:15, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Possible citation error
I noticed in the biography section that it states Fields' father served in Co M of the 72nd Pennsylvania Infantry in the Civil War. As volunteer infantry regiments only had companies designated A through K (excluding the letter J), this immediately caught my eye. A review of the entire muster roll of the 72nd in the authoritative Bates' History of the Pennsylvania Volunteers (http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=moa&cc=moa&sid=778308149b189f58bf191421757c33c6&q1=Twenty-seventh%20Regiment&idno=ABY3439.0002.001&view=image&seq=00000841) does not reveal any James Dunkenfield. The closest I could find was a George Dukenfield, but he was in Co I and was killed at Gettysburg on July 2nd, 1863.

In light of all of the above, I have to assume this particular assertion of his father serving in the 72nd is incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mws77 (talk • contribs) 05:12, 24 May 2014
 * I moved the above from WT:Signatures to here as I assume this is the page that was intended. Johnuniq (talk) 06:30, 24 May 2014 (UTC)


 * The information in our article seems to be citing "muster roll of 72nd PA" as the source, but you're right, the name isn't in Bates. Fields's biographer Simon Louvish says only that "James [Dukenfield] settled in Philadelphia and became so deeply attached to his newly adopted country that he fought in the Civil War for the Union. His brother, George, who enlisted too, was killed at Gettysburg. James was said to have lost two fingers of his right hand in the battle of Lookout Mountain, in Tennessee, 1863." (p. 30) I'm not a Civil War expert; does this veteran's pension file document provide any helpful information? Ewulp (talk) 04:48, 25 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I guess it's been a while since I logged into my Wikipedia account, and just noticed this. Reviewing the pension file you kindly linked, it appears to reference a Company M of the 3rd Pennsylvania Infantry at the top, as well as the 72nd Pennsylvania at the bottom. When I looked up the 3rd Pennsylvania in Bates', the closest match I could find was a James Duncan in Company K of that regiment. The muster-out date of July 29th matches what is on the pension file. It's not outside the realm of possibility that this is the same person, that the name was noted incorrectly somewhere. I'm at a loss as to how there could be a connection to the 72nd Pennsylvania, the more so when Fields' biographer states his father lost fingers at Lookout Mountain, as the 72nd Pennsylvania was not at that battle (they were in the Eastern theater of the Civil War, whereas Lookout Mountain was in the Western theater). It is entirely possible, if Fields' father did in fact serve in the 3rd Pennsylvania, that he reenlisted after that 3-month term expired. I just don't see the connection to the 72nd anywhere, aside from that pension file. It's certainly strange. mws77

Comic book character
Comic giant DC put Superman against con man J. Wilbur Wolfingham, debuting in the 1940's. His entry in Who's Who looks like he was based on Bill Fields to me.

2602:302:D85:4C39:98A:9259:A915:6D75 (talk) 04:18, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Pineapple juice?
I've always been a bit skeptical of the "pineapple juice" anecdote related in the article, as I had never read anything similar in any of the biographies, nor found any other reference to it. Today I finally got my hands on a copy of the cited source -- Phil Silvers's autobiography -- and the actual anecdote turns out to be completely different. I've corrected the passage in the article accordingly. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/ talk to me!  01:50, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Clutter in ib
Template:Infobox person states: "Only use those parameters that convey essential or notable information about the subject". Cause of death may be essential information when unusual or untimely: murder victims, passengers on the Titanic, famous suicides or overdoses, etc. In this case, not so much. Ewulp (talk) 13:13, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I disagree 100%. All causes of death should be listed, what is trivial to you is not trivial to me. Leaving it empty just leaves the reader with no answer. Most searches are on mobile and my smartphone shows the infobox. Siri and Cortana and Google Now only use the infobox information. I get no answer for Fields but I get one for other people. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:28, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I just checked some randomly selected biographical FAs to see how our best articles handle this. Several do not have infoboxes—they are not mandatory after all. Of 30 FAs (with ibs) checked, about 25 of which are deceased persons, the only one I found that lists cause of death is Mary Anning. No doubt there are others but I gave up looking. It is evident that cause of death is not adjudged by most wp editors to be essential information to include in the ib. This shows discernment in my opinion, and it may even encourage people to read the article. Ewulp (talk) 05:21, 13 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Seems to me that more energy is being expended on this than it merits -- but if the cause of death is known, why not list it? Do two additional words really constitute "clutter"?  Is it possible that the absence of such information in other info boxes is due more to sloth than conscious efforts to exclude it?  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  13:13, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Seriously, "encourage people to read the article", why make information more difficult to find just to encourage reading, that is so pedantic. The infobox makes the information machine readable by using a consistent format for the data. No one is forced to read it anymore than I am forced to read all the references or all the categories. "Clutter" and "trivia" are subjective. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:56, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I have not used the word "trivia". The information is not difficult to find; it's in a section entitled "Death". The link in the TOC makes it easy for the reader to jump to that section, and learn that Fields' death was related to alcoholism. Bits of data without context are often misleading; somebody who read only the infobox might presume that the underlying cause of Fields' fatal hemmorhage was an autoimmune disorder or a peptic ulcer.


 * Featured articles are subjected to rigorous review and attention to detail before promotion, and featured biographies almost invariably omit cause of death in the ib. I am inclined to think that this reflects editorial judgment, not mere carelessness or laziness. Ewulp (talk) 02:47, 14 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm "inclined to think" that FA reviewers have not made a conscious effort to exclude this information from IBs. Do we have any evidence that they do?  Do we know of any articles that failed FA because the COD was listed in the IB?  Do we have any evidence that FA reviewers even care, one way or the other?  Once again, if the COD is known, why not include it?  Why wouldn't you include it?  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  04:08, 14 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I am going to bold and restore it, as I said "clutter" is subjective, and the formatted data allows people searching with Google Now, Siri and Cortana to get the information directly. Most queries come from smartphones, where people come to have a very specific question answered, and not read for pleasure or entertainment. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:52, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * As mentioned, an FA need not have an ib at all. It is evident that a great many articles have been promoted to FA with minimal ibs. Every ib field except "name" is optional, and sometimes less is more. Infoboxes in biographical articles tend to mislead, as not all human activity can be reduced to database entries—for example, "years active" often gives a false precision (see Harold Lloyd and Louis Quinn for typical examples). A stomach hemmorhage is not one of the most notable things about W. C. Fields; that would be one reason to exclude it. The idea is not novel; here are some diffs demonstrating conscious exclusion from non-FA articles:, , . Ewulp (talk) 05:21, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Attempted enlistment WWII?
I recall from the biopic film, W.C. Fields and Me, that after he held a press conference announcing that when a movie he was then working in was over, he would "join" Gary Cooper, Clark Gable and Douglas Fairbanks Junior "in volunteering for combat duty", but he was rejected at the medical which he attended with John Barrymore and Gene Fowler. (He was then over 60.) Did he actually attempt to enlist? I have read that some of the scenes in the film were fictionalized.Cloptonson (talk) 05:50, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on W. C. Fields. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090615080148/http://pappawsotr.com:80/wcfields.htm to http://pappawsotr.com/wcfields.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 08:42, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on W. C. Fields. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130406054319/http://www.thebiographychannel.co.uk/biographies/w-c-fields.html to http://www.thebiographychannel.co.uk/biographies/w-c-fields.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130406054319/http://www.thebiographychannel.co.uk/biographies/w-c-fields.html to http://www.thebiographychannel.co.uk/biographies/w-c-fields.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:17, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

"Drowning" for money?
Here are a couple of references saying that he fake-drowned and drew a crowd while being rescued, and that crowd could then be monetized by him or vendors. TGCP (talk) 12:06, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

underPersonallife
Poole died of alcoholism and field made payments to "THEIR" child 2A01:4C8:48A:4ED8:9867:14C1:481C:A099 (talk) 05:43, 30 May 2021 (UTC)