Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Kate Winslet/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 23:21, 30 December 2017.

Kate Winslet

 * Nominator(s): Krimuk2.0 (talk) 20:44, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Who hasn't heard of Kate Winslet? She is the ingenue in that big-boat movie. She is the pedophile Nazi in that Holocaust movie. She is the brainwashed Australian who pees on herself. She is the mother who is erotically spoon-fed a peach cobbler by a convict. She is the girl with the blue hair in that "what-really-happened-in-this-movie" movie. Oh, and she's also every Apple customer's dream woman with a hairdo to die for. Will she next be the woman with a big shiny star on Wikipedia? Kind reviewers and collaborators, let's make that happen. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 20:44, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Image review

 * File:RMS_Titanic_3.jpg needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:00, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * added. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 08:50, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I was reverted, saying that it isn't a US work. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 13:22, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * When and where was it first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:43, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * changed to a different image. I'm not well versed in copyright laws, but this seems to include a UK PD tag since the image was taken at the docks of Southampton. Is that apt? --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 15:59, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Potentially, but even if so we still need to know its status in the US - Commons requires that images be free in both US and country of origin. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:13, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * got it. Changed to one in the US PD. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 19:34, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, when and where was that one first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:48, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Per the description page the photograph was taken in Ireland in 1912, but it has a US PD license. I'm really no expert at this, so am I missing something? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 19:52, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Two things: since it's on Commons we need to worry about what its status is in country of origin, and that US PD tag requires us to demonstrate a pre-1923 publication (not simply creation). Nikkimaria (talk) 20:08, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Umm...that seemed a bit above my paygrade, so I've removed an image of the Titanic in favour of a DiCaprio shot. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:43, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Sources review

 * Ref 11: page ranges require ndashes, not hyphens. See also 81, 117, 203, 207, 216, 218, perhaps check for others I may have missed.
 * Ref 30: requires page no.
 * Ref 31: "Plays and Players" is the name of the journal, not the title of the article that contains the information you are citing
 * Refs 46 and 52 appear to be the same source, although 52 has the wrong date
 * Ref 61: "Los Angeles Magazine" is the publication. The title of the cited article is "Say Anything"
 * Ref 91: requires page no.
 * Ref 102: The link on "Collider" goes to the wrong article
 * Ref 159: Publisher missing
 * Ref 184: Dead link (Belfast Telegraph)
 * Ref 189: Publisher missing - it's implicit in the title, but should still be given
 * Ref 222: Where does the source text confirm the information cited to it: "Winslet's weight fluctuations over the years have been well documented by the media"? Not on p. 182.

Otherwise, sources seem of appropriate quality and reliability, and are consistently formatted. Brianboulton (talk) 11:00, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * thank you for the review. All done. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 11:27, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * A couple of points still outstanding: Ref. 30 – Itunes is not the publisher of the "Heavenly Creatures" soundtrack. And the link in what is now 101 is still going to the wrong Collider article. Brianboulton (talk) 16:44, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * umm... iTunes is the website that I've used to cite the Heavenly Creatures soundtrack. What should the publisher be?
 * As for the Collider source, it opens the right page for me. Is it not doing so in your browser? That's strange. What is it redirecting to? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 17:00, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

As far as I can work it out, the soundtrack publisher is BMG Rights Management. iTunes is merely the means of delivery. As to Collider, it's not the link to the source that's the problem, it's the link on the publisher's name. I think the link you want is to this, not to an article about particle acceleration. Brianboulton (talk) 17:17, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * oh, lol. Silly me. Sorry about that. Done now. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 17:26, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Support from Aoba47
Wonderful work with the article as a whole and I apologize for the large amount of comments. Please let me know if any of my comments require further clarification. If possible, I would greatly appreciate it if you could provide comments on my current FAC: Featured article candidates/Sévérine/archive1? Either way, I enjoyed reading this article and it was nice to learn more about this particular actress. I will support this for promotion once my comments are addressed. Aoba47 (talk) 04:08, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for such a positive review, . There's no need to apologise at all. I sincerely appreciate your time and effort in giving this such a detailed review. Most of your concerns have been addressed. Awaiting your comments on my responses to the rest of them. Cheers, Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:29, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for addressing everything. I left the responses to your comments above. Everything appears to be handled, but I have a few additional questions about the Reader and Winslet's work with Woody Allen. Hope you have a wonderful day! Aoba47 (talk) 16:02, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * thank you for the prompt response. Having thought it over, I agree with your comments on The Reader and the Woody Allen bit. I'm intrigued by your professor's reaction on The Reader, as I loved the novel tremendously. Anyway, I've included a sentence or two about both the "controversies". It was quite challenging to summarise these bits given that they may not reflect the entire truth. Do you think it's okay or does it need more work? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 20:03, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your responses. Just for clarification, I am actually quite interested in both the book and the film adaptation of The Reader as I find it quite a fascinating premise (not to sound trivializing when discussing such a large traumatic historical event), but a lot of my academic writing in graduate school focused on trauma studies that included the perpetrator's point of view so I guess it makes sense then lol. I am very happy with the additions that you made as they are very strong and great ways of dealing with rather difficult subject matters (wonderful choices for the supporting sources too). If the Allen discussion unfolds any further, then that part may be subject to change, which is fine. I fully support this for promotion; a very interesting and informative overview of the actress' career. Aoba47 (talk) 20:34, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much, . It was a pleasure interacting with you. I'll take a look at your FAC later this week. Cheers, Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:39, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you, and it was a pleasure working with you too. Aoba47 (talk) 23:06, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Support on prose from Moisejp
I've read the article twice and made a number of small copy-edits throughout. Two minor suggestions that don't affect my support:
 * "Catherine Shoard of The Guardian took note of the "emotional honesty" Winslet brought to her part, but criticised the film." Readers may wonder what about the film Shoard criticised.
 * "The cast rehearsed each act like a play and filmed it in sequence. Winslet collaborated closely with Fassbender, and their off-screen relationship mirrored the dynamic between Jobs and Hoffman." It would be nice to know in what way the their off-screen relationship mirrored the dynamic between Jobs and Hoffman. Moisejp (talk) 07:04, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * thank you for the support and for your helpful copy-edits. I really appreciate it. As per your two points, I've elaborated on the prose. I hope the infos are clearer now. Thanks again, Krimuk2.0 (talk) 13:34, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Support from ArturSik
Also Support on prose. I have read the entire article and as you might have noticed I've made a few minor amendments. Overall, it all looks good to me and could be promoted. Well done :) ArturSik (talk) 23:26, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the support and the copy-edits, . :) --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 17:15, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Support from Krish

 * Support: This is a very strong article and it really deserves that bronze star. Krish &#124;  Talk  14:24, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Krish. That's very kind. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 18:30, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Support from Harry

 * She subsequently eschewed parts in blockbusters "subsequently" is on of those words that makes a copy-editor pause; off the top of my head, it means at least three different things. Unless you're implying a causal relationship between Titanic and her eschewing blockbusters, I'd suggest replacing "subsequently" with "After Titanic" or at a push something like "later".
 * Tweaked. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 16:01, 14 December 2017 (UTC)


 *  in which she played one of her first roles set in contemporary times read a little awkwardly
 * I've tweaked it. Does it read better now? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 16:01, 14 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Do we need so much emphasis on her awards in the lead? Sure, things like first BAFTA/first Oscar are lead-worthy but as it is I think the multiple awards are weighing down the prose (and presumably her mantlepiece!).
 * This sentence reads awkwardly, probably because you have "joined the divergent series" sandwiched between two named roles for which you mention her awards (again! See above).
 * Right, so I've split the sentence into two. Is it better now? I've mentioned 5 of her awards in the lead -- the Oscar, the Emmy, the Grammy (all of which are highly notable) and the 3 BAFTAs. I can remove the BAFTA wins if you think it's a bit much? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 16:01, 14 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Kate Elizabeth Winslet was born on 5 October 1975 You don't need to repeat the full name and DOB in the body (I'm pretty sure that's in MOS:BIO)
 * Removed her middle name from the sentence but kept the DOB as the MoS doesn't forbid it. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 16:01, 14 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Punctuation should go outside quote marks unless it's an integral part of the quote (MOS:LQ)
 * with The Washington Post writer Desson Thomson calling her Generally avoid using "with" like that; it's not really professional-level writing
 * Changed.


 * What does "campaigned heavily" mean? "Campaign" is a verb more commonly associated with politicians than actresses.
 * Changed. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 16:01, 14 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Maybe try and find a way of eliminating a few uses of "of the same name"
 * Done.Krimuk2.0 (talk) 16:01, 14 December 2017 (UTC)


 * While vacationing at Richard Branson's estate "vacation" is hardly ever used in British English, and using it as a verb sounds like nails on a chalkboard to most Brits.
 * Changed to "holidaying". Krimuk2.0 (talk) 16:01, 14 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Winslet is widely considered to be among the best actresses I always pause at phrases like "widely considered", especially when they're followed by a plethora of references. Do the sources say she's widely considered, or are those four footnotes meant to demonstrate the width of the consideration? I know it's a subtle point, but we can't say "widely considered" in Wikipedia's voice unless the sources say exactly that. Combining multiple sources that say she's the best actress (or similar) and using that to demonstrate "widely considered" is original synthesis, which is considered a Very Bad Thing&trade; on WP, even if it's probably true!
 * Changed to "Several journalists consider Winslet to be among the best actresses of her generation". I believe that's not synthesis. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 16:01, 14 December 2017 (UTC)


 * A journalist for Elle Any reason not to name them?
 * The journalist isn't mentioned by name in the source, hence I made do with "a journalist". Krimuk2.0 (talk) 16:01, 14 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I removed a couple of curly quotes; check for more (MOS:CURLY); I tried a find-and-replace but it couldn't tell the difference
 * A little difficult to spot these, but I couldn't find any offending ones. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 16:01, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

I made quite a few edits as I read through, mostly to the prose and few other minor bits and bobs; please check my edit summaries and revert if I've messed anything up. I enjoyed reading it. A few modest hurdles before it's ready for its star, but nothing fundamental. More importantly, if I was going to watch a Kate Winslet film over the weekend, which one would you recommend? :) HJ Mitchell &#124; Penny for your thoughts? 14:09, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * thank you for the review and the copy-edits. I'm glad you enjoyed the article.
 * Anyway, if you're in the mood for a highbrow drama, then I'd highly recommend either Revolutionary Road or Little Children, which are among my favourite of her films. But given the time of the year, the warm and fuzzy The Holiday is both timely and a suitable distraction from the woes of the world. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 16:01, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the recommendation. I'll definitely give one of those a go. I've had a look over the changes and your replies and I'm satisfied, so support. HJ Mitchell &#124; Penny for your thoughts? 16:37, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, HJ Michell. Do let me know if you end up watching any of these films. :) --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 18:47, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Support from John
I see a few too many quotes that could be summarised. Why "orange-coloured"? Although not a vegetarian, in 2010 Winslet narrated a video for PETA that showed animal cruelty in the production of foie gras? Is there a connection here? Fuller review to follow. --John (talk) 22:52, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I did wonder about "orange-coloured" and nearly edited it out as I was going through, but I figured someone at some point has thought it might be ambiguous and it doesn't hurt anything. HJ Mitchell &#124; Penny for your thoughts? 08:15, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't "orange top" cover it, if it's important? --John (talk) 22:48, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, John. So the orange top Winslet wears in Eternal Sunshine has a bit of cultural significance to fans of the film. As for the "vegetarian bit", I can remove it if you want, but the reason I kept that in was because she supported a PETA campaign despite eating meat. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 09:01, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * So what? --John (talk) 22:46, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Better?. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 05:19, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Much better, thanks. --John (talk) 23:16, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, John. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 09:20, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Now, the quotes.
 * "quite stocky as a child" 1


 * "I didn't lock myself away and give up on my dream. I fought back." 2


 * "acting master class" 3


 * "just sit and sob my heart out"


 * "a bright-eyed ball of fire, lighting up every scene she’s in" 4


 * "making Sue into a sassy, defiant woman who would rather be right than happy" 5


 * "hit a certain level of intellect that I don't believe I have" 6


 * "well beyond her years" 7


 * "You don't understand! I am Rose! I don't know why you're even seeing anyone else!" 8


 * "big, bold, touchingly uncynical" 9


 * "stifled ardor with [...] pained delicacy" 10


 * "still had a lot to learn" 11


 * "burn[ing] out by the age of 25" 12


 * "obliviousness and optimism" 13


 * "really brave" 14


 * "Showing the kind of courage few young thesps would be capable of and an extraordinary range [...] from animal cunning to unhinged desperation, [Winslet] holds nothing back." 15


 * "most daring actress working today" 16


 * "continuing to explore the bounds of sexual liberation" 17


 * "correspondence of spirit between them" 18


 * "too ridiculous" 19


 * "the zanier part" 20


 * "uniquely funny, unpredictably tender and unapologetically twisted romance" 21


 * "electrifying and bruisingly vulnerable" 22


 * "her corseted English rose persona in favor of a drunken, motormouthed bohemian" 23 (shortened)


 * "radiant and earthy as ever" 24


 * "exceptional in a delicate and finely tuned performance" 25


 * "the showiest role and filthiest one-liners" 26


 * "perfect" 27


 * "registers every flicker of Sarah’s pride, self-doubt and desire, inspiring a mixture of recognition, pity and concern". 28


 * "struck by how emotionally crippling that must be" 29


 * "tiny, oppressive, claustrophobic" 30


 * "the best English-speaking film actress of her generation" 31


 * "there isn’t a banal moment in Winslet’s performance—not a gesture, not a word" 32


 * "there was nothing of her that I could relate to" 33


 * "honesty and truthfulness" 34


 * "a haunting shell to this internally decimated woman" 35


 * "absolutely fearless here, not just in her willingness to expose herself physically, but her refusal to expose her character psychologically" 36


 * "incredibly powerful, upsetting and disturbing" 37


 * "quiet, heartbreaking masterpiece" 38


 * "terrific—intelligent, focused and seemingly devoid of ego" 39


 * "the Citizen Kane of awful" 40


 * "her pleasure in the text is infectious" 41


 * "more vulnerability than strength" 42


 * "mawkish and melodramatic" 43


 * "what she can to add layers to her vulnerable-victim role" 44


 * "emotional honesty" 45


 * "strength and grace" 46


 * "gravitas that isn’t always in the script" 47


 * "really glamorous, nasty piece of work" 48


 * "cold and crass" 49


 * "never looked more painted and tired" 50


 * "likable and charismatic" 51


 * "in a permanent state of falling apart" 52


 * "shabby character with feverish life" 53


 * "unbelievably heartbreaking" 54


 * "mess" 55


 * "only time in my life that I've ever lost control of my instincts" 56


 * "surprisingly amicable" 57


 * "we go to the park, kick a ball around, go to a museum, watch a movie together or just hang out at home playing Monopoly" 58


 * "there's no way I'm going to allow my children to be fucked up because my marriages haven't worked out" 59


 * "The countryside, particularly, is very good for my head. I love that I can go for a walk, pick blackberries and feed them to the baby as I go along." 60


 * "unconventional" 61


 * "less of a family" 62


 * "getting breakfast and packing lunches and doing the school run" 63


 * "soul and attitude of a jobbing actress, trapped in the body of a movie star" 64


 * "gravitates toward troubling roles in smaller films" 65


 * "thorny, potentially unsympathetic" 66


 * "unsentimentalized, restless, troubled, discontented, disconcerted, difficult women" 67


 * "the most prepared and well-researched actor on set" 68


 * "to reposition directors’ and producers’ perspective on her" 69


 * "angst-ridden women" 70


 * "women who are either finding their way out of a situation, looking for love, having some struggle within love, or questioning the big things in life" 71


 * "you have to confront your true feelings every single day. And that’s pretty exhausting. Then you have to go home and make dinner" 72


 * "she has the kind of personality that puts an entire room at ease, dropping F-bombs and self-deprecating remarks intermittently, while charming everyone with that buttery English accent" 73


 * "authoritative, almost ambassadorial aura" 74


 * "articulate, sophisticated, [with] a definite hint of grandeur" 75


 * "unfiltered, frank, sometimes blunt" 76


 * "a refreshing lack of pretension" 77

So, 78 quotes! This is way too many. I think most of them can be summarised or just removed. I'm not going to put a number on it but I'm looking for a substantial reduction in the quotes. --John (talk) 10:59, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * "I just didn't want people to think I was a hypocrite and that I'd suddenly lost 30 lbs or whatever" 78
 * Right, so before I trim/remove these (I'm sure some can be paraphrased; but I'm not entirely sure or keen on a "substantial reduction"), I'd like to ask to kindly clarify how many quotes are too many at the FAC? Does the FAC requirement mandate us to use as few quotes as possible or is that something we can work around depending on the article? More specifically, as you can see above, barring a few "long ones" none of the quotes are more than a couple of words each. Is that problematic as well? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 14:07, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * As I said, there isn't an actual number, but I think 78 is definitely way too many. Although it has a slightly different and narrower focus, you may find Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates and the essay WP:RECEPTION to be of interest. Don't overuse direct quotations. Paraphrase whenever you can—it's easier to quote rather than rework the wording to fit the point of the paragraph, but it's your job to make the argument. Use quotes for illustration, not because you can't think of any other way to say something. is how puts it, and I think that is right. Take (more-or-less at random) no.57: "surprisingly amicable". Are we really saying there is no way to summarise this without quoting verbatim from the source? Ctrl-C, Ctrl-V is certainly an easy way to write an article, but it does not lead to an article that is "well-written: its prose is engaging and of a professional standard", hence my raising it here. --John (talk) 21:09, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Would a 50% reduction work? I think I'll be able to do that. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:36, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer not to haggle over numbers. Instead, as we both accept there are too many, why not start to cut out the least essential ones first and see how we go? --John (talk) 13:41, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

did a fair bit of trimming. What do you think now? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 13:41, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Excellent! Good work. --John (talk) 13:45, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you. :) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 13:49, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * John, Krimuk, is there more to do here? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:19, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Hope not. :D John? --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:40, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Possibly. I can't properly look just now. Can you give me a couple of days? John (talk) 17:07, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I can look at this properly tomorrow. Thanks for your patience. --John (talk) 04:25, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I've struck the ones that have been dealt with. Well done for doing that. We are down to around 50. --John (talk) 16:21, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I am working my way through copyediting the article with a view to tidying up fanspeak and further summarising quotations. It is broadly ok and I am confident I can finish this by tonight. --John (talk) 16:46, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Done, I think. --John (talk) 00:45, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Units Still on course to meet that deadline. What about units of human weight? The article uses pounds, but this isn't right in UK usage. Older British people use stones and pounds, and younger ones use kilos. How should we solve this? --John (talk) 22:58, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Let's be consistent in our usage. What's the most acceptable unit, and we'll stick to that? WP:UNITS says that for the UK "the primary units for personal height and weight are feet​/inches and stones/​pounds". --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:41, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * So stones/pounds, with a kg conversion? --John (talk) 14:26, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Done. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 14:58, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * No, 185 lb isn't quite right. I think we would want 13 stone 3 and the kg conversion. A bit tough on Americans who might not know either unit, hence my raising it here. --John (talk) 15:45, 30 December 2017 (UTC)


 * 13 st or 13 st seem like the choices. I'm not wild about using three units but maybe that's the least bad. --John (talk) 15:55, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Linking We shouldn't link inside a quotation. So we can't say, for example, Her next film, an adaptation of the Australian gothic novel The Dressmaker, was described by the director Jocelyn Moorhouse as "Unforgiven with a sewing machine." --John (talk) 00:13, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * How do you suggest we fix this? Also, I'm not sure I agree with the removal of the "Citizen Kane of awful" quote. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:41, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Footnotes. --John (talk) 14:26, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Just an idea (it might be stupid) but does Unforgiven "with a sewing machine" go against MoS guidelines? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 14:58, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't really like the quote. I counter-propose "Her next film, an adaptation of the Australian gothic novel The Dressmaker, was described by the director Jocelyn Moorhouse as being reminiscent of Unforgiven."--John (talk) 15:45, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

and could we please wrap this up now? I'd really appreciate it if we could close this before the year ends. Thanks. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:46, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. --John (talk) 14:26, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * All done now, ? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 16:32, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Not quite. I fixed it. We never use stones as decimal fractions. I think it looks damn clumsy with three units, as I said above, but as you point out that's what the MoS recommends. I'm happy to sign off on this if you are. --John (talk) 19:04, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Alright, thanks. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 19:06, 30 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I now support. Nice work. --John (talk) 19:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, John. Wish you a very happy new year. Cheers, Krimuk2.0 (talk) 19:26, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 23:21, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.