Talk:Killing of Michael Brown

College plans

User:Knowledgebattle sent me an email objecting to this revert. I have no idea why they didn't just post here instead, per normal procedure. They asked why I reverted, a question I had already answered in my edit summary. I guess they don't know how to read a page history either, so I'll repeat the edit summary here.

previously removed along with Wilson's commendation to resolve WP:NPOV issues

Knowledgebattle, you can research the article's page history and the archives of this page to learn more about the earlier removal of the college mention (this happened many months ago). I wasn't the editor who removed it then, but I was aware of it and concurred, as did multiple other editors with some experience. You might also read about NPOV via the link above. My revert was certainly not "propaganda" as you said in your email. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:31, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Mandruss You are correct, I'm not savvy on how to operate Wikipedia. I came across several articles which mentioned interviews with family and friends, and since people kept asking the question, I wondered if they'd consulted Wikipedia. That's when I checked the page, and I noticed it wasn't on there, so I added it.

I saw your comment, but did not understand what it meant. Now that I do, I get what you're saying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knowledgebattle (talk • contribs) 02:23, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I still think it is a stupid idea to leave it out. It wasn't "a plan" it was a reality until he was killed. I do not see a legitimate reason to keep it out. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:45, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I may be wrong, Chris, but I think the onus is on you to research the issue in the archives and show why the rationale for the removal was flawed. That is the primary purpose for article talk archives, to prevent the need to rehash the same issues every time someone comes along and disagrees with existing consensus. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:57, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't have to research diddly squat - Huffington Post and Daily Kos was being used in this article and defended. Clearly, neither of which are appropriate for BLP issues and numerous false information was being presented and deliberately reinserted. I asked why we cannot spare even a mention of Brown's enrollment and no valid reason was given. Consensus can change and to the best of my knowledge, there was never an attempt to evaluate it and no specific problems with the content was given. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:17, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't have to research diddly squat My bad, I had forgotten why I avoid interacting with you. Thanks for the reminder. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:30, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

It is a matter of policy and common sense - and if I recall you were content to let BLP violations and deliberate hoaxes remain in the article. I'm giving you a chance to state why the material should or should not be in the article. If you have no objections than the material should be reincluded. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:28, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Your memory is faulty, and you are throwing everyone who opposed you for any reason into the same basket. As I clearly stated at the same (multiple times if I'm not mistaken), I abstained from BLP questions for lack of competence in the area. As I said before, I'm not going to rehash this issue with you. I have stated my understanding of consensus, but I have other things on my plate and I'm not going to spend any more time battling with you over this. Do what you will; if you get away with it, shit happens. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:43, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

If you lack competence in the area of BLP, then please do not get upset when Daily Kos and Huffington Post sources are being removed and replaced. I really shouldn't have to say that "Assuming Good Faith" is a core tenet and WP:BURDEN over the example falls on you. Wikipedia is not a battleground and I responded to the call for assistance, rectified the deepest issues and was content that some non-sense conspiracy and the full identity, ages and addresses of each witness not be published on the Wikipedia article. Now - I ask again - what is wrong with noting Brown's enrollment in college? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:29, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

The Introductions second paragraph is not completely factual

It states "Brown robbed a nearby convenience store, stole several cigarillos, and shoved the store clerk." This was all allegation, none of which can ever be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The store clerk failed to identify Michael Brown as the suspected robber in a statement released by his lawyer. Also, Michael Brown never plead guilty, nor can he be tried and found guilty in a court of law. Because all suspects are innocent until proven guilty, we cannot report rightfully allegation as though it is fact.

This sentence should read "Shortly before the shooting, Wilson had been notified by police dispatch of a nearby convenience store robbery and of the suspect's description. He encountered Brown and Dorian Johnson as they were walking down the middle of the street blocking traffic. Wilson said that he recognized that the two men matched the robbery suspect(s) descriptions.[2][3]

MsJWilkinson (talk) 14:22, 12 March 2015 (UTC) Ms. J. Wilkinson

This has been extensively discussed. Please see Talk:Shooting_of_Michael_Brown/Archive_20#RFC:_Alleged_theft_of_cigars_from_convenience_store.3F Gaijin42 (talk) 14:44, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

The Introduction's Second Paragraph Needs Work

Is it just me, or are there some problems with it?

"Shortly before the shooting, Brown robbed a nearby convenience store, stole several cigarillos, and shoved the store clerk. Wilson had been notified by police dispatch of the robbery and the suspect's description. He encountered Brown and Dorian Johnson as they were walking down the middle of the street blocking traffic"

There needs to be some citations here, somewhere. I know it is widely agreed fact, but we need to cite it. Furthermore, I believe some people said he didn't actually rob the store, but someone called 911 and reported it (?)

Secondly, what are the last few sentences trying to say? I feel like they were pushed through Google Translate or something. It's fine and actually cited well until:

"Witness reports differed as to whether and when Brown had his hands raised, and whether he was moving toward Wilson when the final shots were fired. The last reason is that there are 12 grand jurors to help the layer to judge officer Wilson, but nine of them are white. And only if nine of the 12 grand jurors agree the indictment, officer Wilson will be indicted. What is important is that the evidence including photographs and the transcripts are disclosing, but usually, they should be secreted.

The first sentence makes sense, then it suddenly appears to be the concluding paragraph of a different essay.

Can we work on this, or am I reading it wrong?

CPTFreedomFries (talk) 20:59, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely agree about the essay bit. I removed them. The earlier bits I think are sufficiently cited in the section/paragraph, but if there is something that you think really needs it, I doubt anyone would object to duplicating a cite for it. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:55, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

The Media Blackout

I'll be honest, I don't know much about it, but if there's anyone out there that does, shouldn't we include it? It was (to my knowledge) one of the most important factors behind the Ferguson unrest. The fact that the police cover-up or their attempt to calm down Ferguson isn't being brought to light kind of confuses me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poklimmm (talk • contribs) 09:29, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Findings of investigation into Civil Rights Violations

A good summary is available here [1] - Cwobeel (talk) 20:40, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

While some coverage in the article is appropriate, this investigation was not investigating the shooting, so its relevance is limited. Obviously its part of the larger story/protests, but I think minimal here, and more perhaps in Ferguson unrest Gaijin42 (talk) 03:19, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

There is also a Ferguson Police Department (Missouri), and it already contains a short subsection about this investigation. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Mccolluch, declining to press charges

We had the following text in the article recently In a later interview, McCulloch acknowledged that he believed several witnesses lied under oath about the events of the shooting, but did not wish to pursue charges.[ref]Sakuma, Amanda. "St. Louis Prosecutor Admits Witnesses Likely Lied Under Oath". msnbc.com. MSNBC.[/ref]

I have removed it, because in the context (following allegations of bias) it seems pretty misleading. In light of the DOJ and AP evaluations of the witness statements, a great number of the "liars" would be on the pro-Brown side, but the way we had it makes it seems like a pro-Wilson bias.

If we can figure out (and source) a way to get it back in that is not misleading, I'm open to it though.

Gaijin42 (talk) 03:51, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

witnesses testifying against

Cwobeel, I get your point about it not being a trial, but why not work on improving wording, rather than removing something that is well sourced.

• Primary : Witnesses Consistent with Prior Statements, Physical Evidence, and Other Witnesses Who Inculpate Wilson : There are no witnesses who fall under this category.
• Primary 2 :As detailed throughout this report, those witnesses who say so have given accounts that could not be relied upon in a prosecution because they are irreconcilable with the physical evidence, inconsistent with the credible accounts of other eyewitnesses, inconsistent with the witness’s own prior statements, or in some instances, because the witnesses have acknowledged that their initial accounts were untrue.
• primary 3 : Witness accounts suggesting that Brown was standing still with his hands raised in an unambiguous signal of surrender when Wilson shot Brown are inconsistent with the physical evidence, are otherwise not credible because of internal inconsistencies, or are not credible because of inconsistencies with other credible evidence.
• NYT  : Versions of events that sharply conflicted with Mr. Wilson’s were largely inconsistent with forensic evidence or with the witnesses’ previous statements, the report said.
• NYT2 :At the same time, it concluded that the witnesses who said that Mr. Brown was surrendering were not credible. Those witness accounts stating that Brown never moved back toward Wilson could not be relied upon in a prosecution because their accounts cannot be reconciled with the DNA bloodstain evidence and other credible witness accounts.”
• abc :Accounts that Brown put his hands up are "inaccurate because they are inconsistent with the physical and forensic evidence," the report says. Witness accounts were "inconsistent" and "changed over time," it also said.

Gaijin42 (talk) 22:49, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

and doj summary of Wilson

Several choice quotes from the report (all picked up by secondaries)

• Multiple credible witnesses corroborate virtually every material aspect of Wilson's account and are consistent with the physical evidence
• As discussed throughout this report, Wilson’s account is corroborated by physical evidence and his perception of a threat posed by Brown is corroborated by other credible eyewitness accounts.

Gaijin42 (talk) 23:09, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

We should be very careful here with our choice of secondary sources, because of the potential of bias in interpreting the report's findings. the way we summarize the findings is also crucial. The way it is currently stated "that witnesses who contradicted Wilson were not credible, that evidence and credible witnesses corroborated Wilson's account" is not acceptable, IMO. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:03, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

This is the conclusion of the report. Notice the very specific language used. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:11, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

As discussed above, Darren Wilson has stated his intent in shooting Michael Brown was in response to a perceived deadly threat. The only possible basis for prosecuting Wilson undersection 242 would therefore be if the government could prove that his account is not true – i.e.,that Brown never assaulted Wilson at the SUV, never attempted to gain control of Wilson’s gun,and thereafter clearly surrendered in a way that no reasonable officer could have failed to perceive. Given that Wilson’s account is corroborated by physical evidence and that his perception of a threat posed by Brown is corroborated by other eyewitnesses, to include aspects of the testimony of Witness 101, there is no credible evidence that Wilson willfully shot Brownas he was attempting to surrender or was otherwise not posing a threat. Even if Wilson was mistaken in his interpretation of Brown’s conduct, the fact that others interpreted that conduct the same way as Wilson precludes a determination that he acted with a bad purpose to disobey the law. The same is true even if Wilson could be said to have acted with poor judgment in the manner in which he first interacted with Brown, or in pursuing Brown after the incident at the SUV. These are matters of policy and procedure that do not rise to the level of a Constitutional violation and thus cannot support a criminal prosecution. Cf. Gardner v. Howard, 109 F.3d 427, 430–31 (8th Cir. 1997) (violation of internal policies and procedures does not in and of itself rise to violation of Constitution). Because Wilson did not act with the requisite criminal intent, it cannot be proven beyond reasonable doubt to a jury that he violated 18 U.S.C.§ 242 when he fired his weapon at Brown.

Conclusion For the reasons set forth above, this matter lacks prosecutive merit and should be closed.

My proposed edit for this section:

The investigation concluded that there was no evidence upon which prosecutors could rely to disprove Wilson’s subjective belief that he feared for his safety, and that the facts did not support the filing of criminal charges against Wilson.

- Cwobeel (talk) 00:16, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

From the paragraph you posted " Given that Wilson’s account is corroborated by physical evidence and that his perception of a threat posed by Brown is corroborated by other eyewitnesses" directly supports my part about wilson's account. Elsewhere in the report it directly calls out the "Brown" witnesses as not credible, repeatedly. AP, NYT, ABC, and others picked up on both of these threads and discussed them at length. To pretend that the report (and multiple secondaries) don't 'repeatedly say that Wilson was credible and that the "others" were not credible in very plain and unambiguous language is not NPOV. Perhaps this is another good use case for an RFC to have the wider community pick between several alternatives. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:43, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

No it does not. Are you implying that "Given that Wilson’s account is corroborated by physical evidence and that his perception of a threat posed by Brown is corroborated by other eyewitnesses" equates "that witnesses who contradicted Wilson were not credible, that evidence and credible witnesses corroborated Wilson's account"? Seriously Gaijin42? - Cwobeel (talk) 05:35, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Cwobeel The part about wilson being credible and corroborated absolutely. Particularly when coupled with "Multiple credible witnesses corroborate virtually every material aspect of Wilson's account and are consistent with the physical evidence". and "Wilson’s account was consistent with those results, and consistent with the accounts of other independent eyewitnesses, whose accounts were also consistent with the physical evidence. Wilson’s statements were consistent with each other in all material ways, and would not be subject to effective impeachment for inconsistencies or deviation from the physical evidence. Therefore, in analyzing all of the evidence, federal prosecutors found Wilson’s account to be credible.

"The "not credible" bit is not backed by that particular sentence, but it is certainly backed by the report elsewhere, and multiple secondaries. Those witnesses are listed under a section that reads "Witnesses Whose Accounts Do Not Support a Prosecution Due to Materially Inconsistent Prior Statements or Inconsistencies With the Physical and Forensic Evidence " and were described in the introduction as " We did not credit and determined that a jury appropriately would not credit those witness accounts that were contrary to the physical and forensic evidence, significantly inconsistent with other credible witness accounts, or significantly inconsistent with that witness’s own prior statements. " and the section titled "Witnesses Consistent with Prior Statements, Physical Evidence, and Other Witnesses Who Inculpate Wilson" which reads in its entirety : "There are no witnesses who fall under this category. " Not to mention of course the numerous secondary sources which have done this analysis for us, and made the same type of summary, and also including the brown family which says they do not buy the DOJ's self defense theory.

As an aside, what you are describing as the conclusion is not the conclusion. It is the final paragraph of the "Wilfullness" section. The conclusion is a mere one sentence. the "Introduction" serves as a far better summary of the document as a whole. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:32, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

RFC  : How should the DOJ report be summarized.

The DOJ investigation report into the shooting has been released, and covered by multiple reliable sources.

link to report, and Some sources discussing the report for evaluation

http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/opa/press-releases/attachments/2015/03/04/doj_report_on_shooting_of_michael_brown_1.pdf Report conclusion: As discussed above, Darren Wilson has stated his intent in shooting Michael Brown was in response to a perceived deadly threat. The only possible basis for prosecuting Wilson undersection 242 would therefore be if the government could prove that his account is not true – i.e.,that Brown never assaulted Wilson at the SUV, never attempted to gain control of Wilson’s gun,and thereafter clearly surrendered in a way that no reasonable officer could have failed to perceive. Given that Wilson’s account is corroborated by physical evidence and that his perception of a threat posed by Brown is corroborated by other eyewitnesses, to include aspects of the testimony of Witness 101, there is no credible evidence that Wilson willfully shot Brownas he was attempting to surrender or was otherwise not posing a threat. Even if Wilson was mistaken in his interpretation of Brown’s conduct, the fact that others interpreted that conduct the same way as Wilson precludes a determination that he acted with a bad purpose to disobey the law. The same is true even if Wilson could be said to have acted with poor judgment in the manner in which he first interacted with Brown, or in pursuing Brown after the incident at the SUV. These are matters of policy and procedure that do not rise to the level of a Constitutional violation and thus cannot support a criminal prosecution. Cf. Gardner v. Howard, 109 F.3d 427, 430–31 (8th Cir. 1997) (violation of internal policies and procedures does not in and of itself rise to violation of Constitution). Because Wilson did not act with the requisite criminal intent, it cannot be proven beyond reasonable doubt to a jury that he violated 18 U.S.C.§ 242 when he fired his weapon at Brown. Conclusion For the reasons set forth above, this matter lacks prosecutive merit and should be closed. Secondaries http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/feds-evidence-backs-ferguson-officers-account-shooting-29392292 http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/05/us/darren-wilson-is-cleared-of-rights-violations-in-ferguson-shooting.html http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/04/politics/ferguson-darren-wilson-justice-department-report/ http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/05/politics/ferguson-report-hands-up-michael-brown-darren-wilson/ http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/03/04/doj-will-not-prosecute-former-ferguson-police-officer-darren-wilson/ http://www.buzzfeed.com/joelanderson/federal-report-calls-darren-wilsons-account-of-shooting-cred#.fvxw0lNw0 http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/03/05/michael_brown_family_civil_lawsuit_darren_wilson_ferguson_implicated.html http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2015/03/04/390753502/ferguson-documents-justice-investigation-backs-officer-wilson http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2015/03/04/390713944/ferguson-report-justice-dept-says-wilson-won-t-face-civil-rights-charge http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/justice-department-finds-that-ferguson-officer-did-not-violate-michael/article_06cfab32-5fb1-59dc-bf47-5711ae36cd8a.html

How should the report/secondaries be summarized?

• Just state that there was insufficient evidence (proposed wording below)
  • The investigation concluded that there was no evidence upon which prosecutors could rely to disprove Wilson’s subjective belief that he feared for his safety, and that the facts did not support the filing of criminal charges against Wilson.
• Provide additional details from the report about the evidence and witness credibility (proposed wording below)
  • The investigation concluded that there was no evidence upon which prosecutors could rely to disprove Wilson’s subjective belief that he feared for his safety, that witnesses who contradicted Wilson were not credible, that evidence and credible witnesses corroborated Wilson's account, and that the facts did not support the filing of criminal charges against Wilson
• expand into larger multi-paragraph section that can provide more detail/nuance by not summarizing so tightly
• other

Gaijin42 (talk) 01:21, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Survey

• additional details or expand The report repeatedly and unambiguously says that the evidence and credible witnesses supported wilson, and that contrary witnesses were not credible and contradicted evidence. Secondaries have also put significant coverage into this aspect. It would be a gross violation of NPOV and BLP to bury this, and imply that the report says something along the lines of "Hes getting away with it, because we couldn't prove otherwise" Gaijin42 (talk) 01:21, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
• Expand. The report is not particularly unclear about its conclusions: "Multiple credible witnesses corroborate virtually every material aspect of Wilson's account and are consistent with the physical evidence" (emphasis added). However, the report is more ambiguous about the specific details of Wilson's account. For example, the report concludes that Wilson's account of the struggle in the car is consistent with forensic evidence and can't be disproved, but the report doesn't explicitly back Wilson's story that Brown was reaching for Wilson's gun. Same for the "charging" narrative; the report notes that the credible witness accounts and evidence support the fact that Brown had turned around and was moving toward Wilson, but it doesn't explicitly endorse the notion that Brown was charging. So the material aspects of Wilson's story are supported (there was a struggle in the car with Brown's hands inside the vehicle, Brown was facing and moving toward Wilson when he was killed), but the report is agnostic on some of the details that would be more damning for Brown. We shouldn't suggest that the report is agnostic about the overall account, though. Dyrnych (talk) 04:35, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
• Limit to conclusion of the report - We need to cover the main findings as reported in the conclusion, without paraphrasing with out own syntheses, in a short and concise sentence. The conclusion is exactly that: that there was no evidence to disprove Wilson's claim. See for example how it is presented here [2]. - Cwobeel (talk) 05:29, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
• Expand into larger multi-paragraph section that can provide more detail/nuance. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:54, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
• Expand per WP:DUE. Do NOT cherry-pick. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:58, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
• Expand, but don't get carried away with minute details. Isaidnoway (talk) 00:59, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
• Additional Details - I wouldn't spend a great deal of time on the DOJ report. Frankly, I think those who would are probably motivated by WP:RECENTISM. Looking back on this event 10 years from now the DOJ report will be a footnote. Let's treat it like that now. NickCT (talk) 18:13, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
• Additional details and expand The report states numerous times that the evidence and credible witnesses supported Wilson, and that contrary witnesses were not credible and contradicted evidence. It would be a gross violation of NPOV and BLP to hide this, and imply that the report says something along the lines of "Hes getting away with it, because we couldn't prove otherwise" XavierItzm (talk) 13:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Comment : The above !vote quotes mine exactly. For the record, I have no relationship to XavierItzm and (to my knowledge) have never interacted with him in any way on or off wiki, I think he just liked my argument. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:27, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

@Gaijin42: - Lolz. Maybe just a coincidence? NickCT (talk) 16:37, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. —Charles Caleb Colton, 1820 ―Mandruss ☎ 17:53, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

• Additional details, integrate findings, do NOT use the above summaries First things last - the above summaries would be fine had there been a trial and Wilson be found not guilty. The vague weasel-word would fit to a description, as trials never exonerate, nor weigh in on evidentiary detail. Both the DOJ and the Grand Jury decisions, unlike a trial, are absolutely emphatic that there is no "there" there - no basis to even ask the question of whether Brown was dangerous or Wilson acted in self-defense. However, while there should be extensive use of the detail in the DOJ report, it should be used by integrating it into the rest of the article, as it is both itself, the narrative, and an "event" within the narrative that needs a heading. Put the details about credibility of witnesses and accounts should be in the sections about the witnesses. The parts about Brown trying to take the gun in those sections, the parts debunking the surrender story with those sections, and movements that led to the Brown "charging" Wilson included in that section. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 17:18, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

DOJ evaluation of witness statements

From an Associated Press story in The New York Times that summarizes the findings of the Department of Justice report on the shooting of Michael Brown[3]

"The report describes eight witnesses who it says gave credible accounts corroborating Wilson's assertion that he acted in self-defense. By contrast, the report says there were no credible witnesses who incriminated Wilson and whose accounts were consistent with prior statements, physical evidence and other witnesses. It says portions of Johnson's testimony about his friend's shooting were inconsistent with prior statements and physical and forensic evidence."

--Bob K31416 (talk) 17:05, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

DOJ evaluation of Wilson's account

From an Associated Press story in The New York Times that summarizes the findings of the Department of Justice report on the shooting of Michael Brown[4]

" 'Multiple credible witnesses corroborate virtually every material aspect of Wilson's account and are consistent with the physical evidence,' the report said."

--Bob K31416 (talk) 11:01, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

DOJ position on whether Wilson shot Brown in self defense

An Associated Press story in The New York Times has the following quotes from the United States Department of Justice report.[5]

"The evidence establishes that the shots fired by Wilson while he was seated in his SUV were in self-defense."

"The evidence establishes that the shots fired by Wilson after Brown turned around were in self-defense.”

--Bob K31416 (talk) 21:06, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

These are sold WP:RS citations and should be included in the article. XavierItzm (talk) 13:58, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Falsified DOJ report

Footnote 53 cites a document that is circulating widely that is a falsified version of the DOJ report. Any and all citations using the source material https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1681212/doj-report-on-shooting-of-michael-brown.pdf are faked. The actual DOJ report is at http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/opa/press-releases/attachments/2015/03/04/doj_report_on_shooting_of_michael_brown_1.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Micronics78 (talk • contribs) 15:13, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Source? For that matter, can you point to the differences between the two documents? ―Mandruss ☎ 15:16, 11 March 2015 (UTC)