Talk:Wade Sanders

Starting the "Wade Sanders" article
I started this article after being referred to an OpEd piece in the Washington Times by Sanders, wondering who he was, and not finding an article on him on Wikipedia. Here's a link to his Federal election contributions, as reported from FERC by opensecrets.org:. If the link rots, the necessary info is his name and zipcode (94104), which I saw on a site for San Diego political contributions that I found on Google but lost track of (I started trying Firefox today, and I dunno where to find the overall History...). Anyway, the info that he was big into defending Kerry from the SBVT from day 0 was what I was looking for, and now it's here. Andyvphil 09:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I ran across a mention of WS appearing in Douglas Brinkley's Kerry-in-'Nam book Tour of Duty on p.254. If someone has a copy and there's cite-worthy material there, please insert it. Andyvphil 10:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not worth a mainspace cite, but here's the cite for Sanders' deputy assistant secretary title(?1994-1997?):. Andyvphil 11:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and here's a resume:. No time now for me to dredge it. Andyvphil 11:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Silver Medal Revocation
There appears to be some contention as to whether the silver medal revocation should be included. At this time, the only substantiation anyone can offer for this claim is the following post on a personal web site:

http://www.swiftvets.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=179944&sid=a751c24c0d07cf22a148a45bb299b69d

There is currently no evidence to prove that the revocation has occurred. All of the following references refer back to this one forum post. I am suggesting that until someone can confirm the validity of this forum post, that the information about the revocation of a Naval Medal be left off of this page.


 * http://www.boston.com/Boston/politicalintelligence/2011/07/newspaper-kerry-crewmate-stripped-medal/PPG4hQojlR2L3PQJBPw7bL/index.html
 * http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler/2011/07/26/john-kerry-ally-loses-silver-star/
 * http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0711/SwiftVets_revenge.html?showall
 * http://nation.foxnews.com/sen-john-kerry/2011/07/26/kerrys-swift-boat-ally-jailed-stripped-silver-star — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benace (talk • contribs) 23:16, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Fox News is a very reputable news organization. The fact that several MAJOR American news organizations are reporting this - up to and include the Navy Times - should count for something. General  Zukov  ''' 23:18, 26 July 2011 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by General Zukov (talk • contribs)

My apologies, I added the Fox News after my first edit. I still don't see where Fox News or anyone else cites a reliable source. The Navy Times would absolutely be a credible source, if their article could be located on their website. I have yet to find it :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benace (talk • contribs) 23:25, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Award Revocation
Some dude keeps deleting information regarding the announced revocation of the Silver Star award. It seems to me that the editor is pushing some kind of POV since he states that references by both the Boston Globe, Fox News, and the Navy Times are not good enough for him!

See for your self:

In the July 18, 2011, issue of the Navy Times, it was announced that Navy Secretary Ray Mabus revoked the Silver Star, the nation's third-highest valor award, which was awarded nearly 20 years ago to retired Capt. Wade Sanders of San Diego. A spokeswoman for Mabus confirmed the secretary's decision, which he made in August 2010 following a review and recommendation by the Navy Department Board of Medals and Decorations. "Mabus signed a memorandum in which he revoked the previously awarded Silver Star," said Capt. Pamela Kunze. "Had the subsequently determined facts and evidence surrounding both the incident for which the award was made and the processing of the award itself been known to the Secretary of the Navy in 1992, those facts would have prevented the award of the Silver Star," Kunze said.

General  Zukov  ''' 23:15, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

General Zukov: I have been removing this for the reasons mentioned in my post above. Each one of those articles reference back only to the forum post on the SwiftVets web site. It may be hard to believe, but I am not trying to push any agenda or view here. I am merely trying to create an atmosphere of journalistic responsibility. The fact that large news companies such as Fox and Boston Globe have re-printed or paraphrased information from a personal forum post does not make that information reliable. None of the sources have offered any substantiation or cross-check other than to refer to each other's articles that all refer back to the same SwiftVets forum post.

My question to you is: can you find any original source for the claim that Wade Sanders's silver star has been revoked? One that does not refer back to either the SwiftVets forum post or the Navy Times article (unless the actual Navy Times article can be found on their official web site)? I have been searching for quite some time today, but have not found anything reliable. I have no doubt that the information is accurate, but we need to be able to verify it before posting it here. It is the gross lack of verifiable citations that has been giving Wikipedia a bad name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benace (talk • contribs) 23:23, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

What you are asking for is impossible. One could argue that the Navy Times is just repeating what someone else told them. FYI - the Navy Times is NOT an official government publication. It is owned and run by the Gannett Company, which also produces USA Today newspaper and several local papers. Yeah, my original sources kinda sucked, but a quick Google search found all those others. General  Zukov  ''' 23:39, 26 July 2011 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by General Zukov (talk • contribs)


 * Unfortunately, your two sources point back to a blog, which is generally not a reliable source and particularly for this sort of an assertion about a BLP. There is a discussion at BLPN, which you are welcome to join, but in the meantime, until the possible BLP violation is resolved, unless you can find an independent, reliable source, you should not reinsert the material.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:50, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I disagree. There are multiple reports, some that refer back to the SwiftVets website and some that dont. Regardless, even the sources that do link to the SwiftVets website are still WP:RS. ZHurlihee (talk) 13:26, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

The fucking Secretary of the Navy PERSONALLY signed the order stripping this guy of that bogus award!! Are you guys just trying to push a liberal POV by creating a controversy where there really is none? Are any of you saying that this award revocation did not happen or that this report is somehow false? Yeah, I didn't think so. Stop screwing around and wasting peoples' time with this BS. that is why so many people get frustrated with Wikipedia and all the quality editors quit. General  Zukov  ''' 16:22, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * By the way, thanks for not making a link to the BLPN discussion and wasting 20 minutes of my life trying to find it myself. General   Zukov  ''' 16:25, 27 July 2011 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by General Zukov (talk • contribs)

Here is a link for anyone else who wants to jump into the discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Wade_Sanders    General   Zukov  ''' 16:33, 27 July 2011 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by General Zukov (talk • contribs)


 * The article has been restored to prior to the reinsertion of the BLP violation. Do not reinsert it without a consensus at BLPN. Also, Zukov, keep a civil tone in your comments here, at BLPN, and in your edit summaries.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:46, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * After a considerable delay, Navy Times has finally posted the article on their website. Bbb23 was right to demand high quality citations, but I believe that threshold has now been met.   Will Beback    talk    01:03, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I've added the material to the article with the Navy Times and a Fox source. I've inserted it right after the assertion that he was awarded the Silver Star. I think it would be giving it too much prominence (even though I know it's unusual) to have it in its own section.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:15, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

How would someone in the Navy received a Silver Star in 1992 anyway? Was he a corpsman with the Marines in Gulf War 1 or something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.63.82.53 (talk) 04:05, 28 July 2011 (UTC) :He got it for stuff that supposedly happened during Vietnam. Every so often you hear about a guy getting a long-overdue award. in this case, he asked for an upgrade (I think) to a previously awarded Broze Star. General  Zukov  ''' 00:49, 29 July 2011 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by General Zukov (talk • contribs)
 * ...in this case, he asked for an upgrade (I think) to a previously awarded Broze Star.
 * With all due respect (and unless you've seen something I haven't), few particulars have yet to surface and any thoughts as to who, how, when etc etc are speculative. The closest I've seen to reporting some additional details is the Fox News assertion from "military officials" alleging that Sanders was "responsible" for "errors" in the "creation" of the award and that Sanders "may have lied" in that process. JakeInJoisey (talk) 01:54, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Possible copyvio
Entire sentences in the "personal" section appear to have been copy and pasted directly from the Signon San Diego piece. I have put some sections in quotation marks to prevent possible copyvio, but more work on this is probably needed. There may also be other instances of copyvio in the article, from this or other sources. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:17, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Note: The problematic material appears to have been added by User:ZHurlihee with these edits in July 2011. The piece being copy and pasted from was published in December 2008. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:24, 28 July 2011 (UTC) Actually added much earlier - still checking. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:39, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I trimmed the "personal" seciton down quite a bit. That not only takes care of any CopyVio issues, but also deals with the WP:WEIGHT issue of having nearly half of his biography taken up with his photographic pastimes. ZHurlihee (talk) 19:03, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, that section looks fine from a copyvio perspective now. I've removed the template. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:11, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Previous copyvio concerns should have already been resolved prior to the more recent 'trimming' due to weight concerns. I've re-added some content, also citing WP:WEIGHT concerns. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:59, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


 * That’s a bit too much trimming, you took out everything related to the crime, only left in that he was sentenced, not for what or any of the relevant details. Please refrain from doing that again. I would add that nothing on this talk page adequately explains your edit as indicated in the summary. ZHurlihee (talk) 19:20, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I actually removed content that paraphrased cited sources too closely. For example, this text in our article: "He was caught under a 2½-year-old Department of Justice investigation called Project Safe Childhood" looks extremely similar to the Union-Tribune source text, "He was caught under a 2½-year-old Department of Justice investigation called Project Safe Childhood".  Perhaps before we go running amok and counting our ten dead chickens before they've hatched, we should decide on what is usable and what is not.


 * I've returned, per WP:WEIGHT, the other 'significant view' relevant to the section we have been editing; namely, that of the defendant. Previous edits seem to have completely stripped that view from the article.  Since Demiurge1000 has expressed a concern that certain content may too closely paraphrase a Union-Tribune article, perhaps s/he could suggest suitable alternative wording instead of deleting the content wholesale?  I've checked the present content cited to the source mentioned in the edit summary, and I don't share the same concern -- the similarity appears to be primarily because it is quote-heavy, and quotes, by their nature, will be not only similar, but identical.  That content from our article:
 * ''After entering his plea, Sanders claimed he got caught in the net of zealous prosecutors, saying, "I'm not the kind of person they were after." Sanders said he had previously worked in aiding child sex abuse victims in Yugoslavia, and that he was downloading material for an article on child exploitation in foreign countries. Sanders stated, "I have no sexual attraction to children whatsoever," and, "There was no evil intent."
 * Xenophrenic (talk) 20:56, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Sander's defense is still present, all be it not in as lengthy a form. I will modify the Project Safe Childhood line. But back to my original point, how can the article conform to WP:NPOV and have this much content dedicated to one incident? ZHurlihee (talk) 21:06, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You are citing "too much content" as a weight issue, and deleting it. I am citing "one-sided content only" as a weight issue, and adding the other side of the story.  The present content should address both issues.  The content I added exists in the reliable sources we cite, but has been mysteriously left out of our article. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:17, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Xenophrenic, the text "including a 21-minute video that depicted girls engaging in sex acts with an adult man" is copied word-for-word identical from this source, and in the version you've just restored to the article yet again, is not even cited to that source. Please do not restore any of this material again unless you have personally checked it for copyright violations of this nature. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:20, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Demiurge1000, the text you quoted is not in the citation you linked. Not word-for-word, nor paraphrased.  (That also accounts for why it isn't cited to that source in my version.)  I have "personally checked" the text for copyright violations.  Is it possible you have mistakenly linked to the wrong source?  The wording you cited is included in 2 of the other sources cited in that article, however.  Your latest edit has also removed a reliable source citation without explanation.  Please do not delete reliable sources without justifying those deletions here.  Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 20:11, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Apologies, that was indeed the wrong link - this source is where the text in question was apparently copy-pasted from. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 13:54, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I've trimmed the "21-minute video..." content, and replaced it with the "8 videos" content from another source, but even so, I do not believe the previous text constitutes an actual "copyright violation", as it is a fairly immutable fact not easily given to paraphrasing. It was initially added by an IP-user here.  I've been looking through other submissions as well, and there does not appear to be any outstanding violations in the existing article text.  As I noted above, it would be greatly appreciated if you could improve the wording in our article instead of making wholesale deletions.  Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 20:42, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Miliary.com
Looks like Gannet has scrubbed Sander's from military.com. I cant find his profile and all his articles are redirected back to the editorial page. You can still see the cached copy though. How do we cite his work for Military.com? ZHurlihee (talk) 19:07, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Try an internet archive search on the original URL. JakeInJoisey (talk) 20:12, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Personal Section
Can someone, namely Xeno, explain why the article needs 3 whole paragraphs on his conviction and also explain why its not a WP:WEIGHT issue?

"An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements."

ZHurlihee (talk) 20:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


 * As explained above, it is a weight issue. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:17, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Who cares?? The only reason why any body knows of this guy is cuz he's a pedophile and his bogus award was taken away. How about you guys just delete everything negative about this guy - like y'all been trying to do from the beginning? General  Zukov  ''' 04:36, 31 July 2011 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by General Zukov (talk • contribs)


 * The only reason why any body knows of this guy is cuz he's a pedophile and his bogus award was taken away.
 * Hardly the case General...and a major understatement. Sanders was a high profile part of the Kerry defense against the Swift Boat Vets campaign. You'll be hard-pressed to find even the mention of his name if NPOV isn't carefully adhered to. JakeInJoisey (talk) 04:46, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Personal Section POV Tag
The current inclusion of Sander’s defense throws the section out of wack and is a violation of WP:WEIGHT. While all major POV’s should be represented, we really don’t need more than a brief sentence from Sanders on why he did what he did. In fact, when reading the sentencing memorandum, his excuses and claims of being caught in the wrong place at the wrong time fall to pieces.

According to the memorandum, he first tells the FBI that he had no child pornography on his computers and if he had downloaded any it was only because he believed it was adult porn. His story then changed to his story to claim that his obsessive compulsive behavior drove him to "research" child pornography. The prosecution and the agents investigating it stated it was a transparent excuse. ZHurlihee (talk) 20:45, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * It's structure is akin to reading the last 2 paragraphs of a news story on a crime. A relatively short narrative on the conviction of a perp...then a relatively lengthy list on grounds for appeal. The POV is blatant. JakeInJoisey (talk) 12:17, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


 * It's structure is akin to reading the news sources upon which the content is based. Perhaps you can get them to address this "blatant POV".  ZHurlihee's retrying of the case in the above two paragraphs fails to address the two weight issues we're actually dealing with here:  1) weight (size) of the porn case section compared to the rest of the whole BLP article, and 2) weight within the porn case section between the two opposing sides.


 * With regard to issue 1, I disagree that there is a legitimate concern about the size of that section. That issue is likely to be the defining issue for this individual for quite some time, even over his military history, his work in government and politics, numerous appearances in print and TV media, etc.  The section need not overwhelm the article, but it will be significant.  Regarding issue 2, if there is a perceived imbalance, it is not because there is a "lengthy list" of defendant-related content, it is instead because of a lack of prosecution-related content.  Why no mention of the rather damning facts that he had images from as far back as 2003, yet only produced 3 pages of handwritten notes after more than 4 years of "research"?  "Research" that he completely failed to mention during his initial questioning about the porn, and only raised as an explanation after his arrest?  He also blames PTSD, and in fact makes it the cornerstone of his feeble defense, yet there is not a single mention of it in our article.


 * Despite my personal opinions (the guy is guilty as sin, and "Research" & "PTSD" are two lame and implausible excuses conceived in a frantic attempt to save his own bacon), I've made sure that the reliably sourced content about the evaluations by mental health experts and therapists is present, along with relevant quotes made by the subject that reliable sources deemed relevant enough to convey to us. I also added a link to his statement to the court. That much is per WP:BLP. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:24, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I am not attempting to retry the case and have presented a summary of the prosecutions sentencing comments to put the current language in perspective. BLP demands that first and foremost we “get the article right” and the current wording most certainly does not “get the article right”. It downplays both the credulity of the prosecution’s case as well as overemphasizes Sander’s excuse as JakeInJoisey also noted. The current length is a not wp:WEIGHT issue anymore but in its prior form the length of the section unbalanced the article as a whole. Currently, however, the amount of space given to Sander’s defense does unbalance the section. The other information presented above, the “damning facts” of the case were not included by me because I was trying to trim the section only to the most relevant and important details. That and it was taken from a primary source, and we are to be careful when using primary sources.


 * Just noticed this, "A therapist treating Sanders testified that he was not a danger to children, and several mental health experts concluded he was not a pedophile.". Part of Demiurge's concerns were copyvio and the firt part of the sentence is neearly word for word from the source and I couldnt find any source anywhere for the claim that "several mental health experts concluded he was not a pedophile". ZHurlihee (talk) 16:22, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


 * "...I was trying to trim the section only to the most relevant and important details."
 * 'Relevant' and 'important' are subjective qualifiers; rather than edit from personal opinion, we should convey as important what our reliable sources convey as important. I just noticed "Wade Sanders" is word for word identical to the name given in our cited sources.  We should reword that, too. Both the 'therapist' and 'several experts' content are in the same cited source (among other sources). Xenophrenic (talk) 18:00, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I do see the information about the "several experts" and must have missed it the first pass. Based on the conversation here we seem to be in disagreement about what is relevant and important and how it pertains to the overall NPOV of the article and based on the feedback here, it would appear that the consensus is that there is too much in the article describing Sander’s pure and innocent motives. ZHurlihee (talk) 13:14, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I added the above mentioned "several experts" sentence; your changes to that section look fine. I don't have a strong opinion either way as to whether the revoked Silver Star should appear in the infobox. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:47, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not entirely in agreement that any mention of what his personal therapist thinks should be included. It doesn’t seem that relevant. ZHurlihee (talk) 17:22, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Compare and contrast this with the David Vitter article treatment. Apparently those who are ideologically right warrant no equivalent brevity or exculpatory consideration. JakeInJoisey (talk) 19:15, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for showing me that, it was truly atrocious. I can’t understand how things like that make it past the multiple layers of editors, but I am not quite sure I follow the analogy on this article. Are you saying I am being too soft on Sanders? If it were up to me none of his ‘PTSD/Swifboaters made me do it’ bullshit would be in the article. I believe its completely self serving and in light of both his knowledge of the law and the material found on his computers (it was more than one machine, read the sentencing statement from the Feds if you have a strong stomach) completely transparent.
 * If you want it removed from the article, I would support that 100%. ZHurlihee (talk) 19:23, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * All of the 'PTSD/Swiftboaters made me do it' stuff has already been removed from the article. As for the Vitter article, I agree 100% that other articles exist that could use similar attention.  Wikipedia will forever be a "work in progress". Xenophrenic (talk) 20:00, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * What's missing is the judicial refutation of Sanders' "research" alibi. Otherwise, IMHO, it's about right. JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:47, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Recent edit re: letter of support
Sure, I'll play along. Sources indicate that numerous letters were sent in support of Sanders; why select this particular one to showcase in this article? Xenophrenic (talk) 15:38, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Because only one of them comes from a sitting US Sentator. That in itself is quite noteworthy. ZHurlihee (talk) 15:43, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * While you are welcome to your opinion of what is noteworthy (I disagree, by the way - one letter from a senator among dozens of similar letters from Navy officials, congressmen and other politicos isn't very noteworthy), it still isn't relevant to this BLP. Even less so in light of your previously expressed weight concerns about too much content in that section. The only reason I can see for inserting that specific content into this article would be to coatrack or Trojan horse the mention of one person into a controversial article section in order to tarnish that person by association.  Is there any other reason? Xenophrenic (talk) 17:20, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * There have been multiple WP:RS that have noted this (and the one I cited in the article), so that in itself makes it noteworthy. All of the links mention Kerry specifically, even though many wrote letters on Sanders' behalf. Its much more noteworthy that his shrink saying he's not a danger to children. If you could link to a policy objection, instead of an essay that would help as well. ZHurlihee (talk) 19:35, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "that in itself makes it noteworthy"
 * Again, as I noted above, whether or not you feel it is noteworthy does not establish its relevance here. The new sources you mention in addition to the original opinion piece (the first 2 are duplicates, by the way) raise the Kerry association first as it related to his presidential run (which is already covered in our article).  The additional sources also mention other submitters of letters of support, so that makes them all "noteworthy".  There's even a "scandal" involving another letter-writer.  We should be able to cover this noteworthiness of these people and scandals in just a few paragraphs appended to that section I should think.  If you want policy-based objections, or support, your best avenue would be to raise the issue at the BLP/Noticeboard. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:06, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I don’t understand your argument here. Its notable because RS have made not of it. Its noteworthy because he is a long serving US Senator. The additional letters don’t appear to be noteworthy because there was no elaboration on who wrote them or what they contained. Your suggestion of several additional paragraphs seems to go against WP:WEIGHT. One sentence on a very noteworthy person putting his reputation on the line to defend Sanders does not. I think going to the BLP noticeboard seems wouldn’t help but comments from other editors involved in this article would. ZHurlihee (talk) 20:43, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * As I noted above, twice before, and again now: I'm not arguing over your assertion of whether it is noteworthy/notable or not. Notability is a specification for article creation and has nothing to do with specific content items that go into an existing article.  Input from uninvolved, impartial editors would be helpful.  Canvassing specific editors not so much. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:57, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't feel strongly about this, but my view is that the Kerry letter should stay in. It's not uncommon for people to support defendants before a judge sentences the person. It also makes some sense given Sanders's involvement with Kerry's campaign, which is also mentioned in the article. I would change the wording so it reads: "Senator Kerry wrote a supporting letter before Sanders was sentenced." I don't see why we need the phrase "longtime friend" - their history is already documented in the article. I also don't see why we need to repeat the phrase "child pornography". The proposed sentence is more succinct and I think reduces Xenophrenic's concern about it being anti-Kerry.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:14, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Do you think it should go in the conviction section? The reason I added the "child pornography" phrase because I had move the sentence out of the personal section and into the section about Sanders' relationship with Kerry. ZHurlihee (talk) 14:46, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Bbb23, and have added a single sentence mentioning the support. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:30, 23 August 2011 (UTC)