Talk:David Copperfield (illusionist)

Over 500 shows per year, really?

The source is "The Seoul Times", but I don't think it's possible. The article even says 550. It's more than the number of days in a year! Do they count every trick as a separate show? Antimirov (talk) 00:55, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

No. Some venues hold more than one show per day. Las Vegas, for example, has been known to have some performers stage shows twice or more on some nights. Cirque du Soleil runs 10 shows per week, for example. At the MGM Grand, Copperfield is listed as " 7:30 and 10 p.m. nightly; plus 4:30 p.m. Sat" which is 15 shows per week when he is there. Is 500 a year possible? Yep. Collect (talk) 23:23, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Editing the Opening Paragraph

Hello fellow editors. Again, I am a COI editor, with what I hope to be a proven track record of making neutral and factual posts with proper sourcing of information.

Just a heads up that I would like to make an edit to the opening paragraph of this article. I have always felt that the introductory paragraph for this article has been quite different from most other celebrity biographical articles I have seen on Wikipedia. A quick search for some well-known celebrities shows that those articles' introductory paragraph(s) is a summarization of what the celebrity is known for as well a quick highlight of his/her/their awards and achievements. Examples of such introductions can be seen on the articles for Barbara Streisand, Steven Speilberg, Mel Brooks, Justin Timberlake, Jack Nicholson, Rod Stewart and many others (too many to list). After seeing the content of those articles, I would like to edit the introductory paragraph of the David Copperfield article to be as follows:

David Copperfield (born David Seth Kotkin; September 16, 1956) is an Emmy Award-winning American illusionist, and was described by Forbes as the most commercially successful magician in history. Copperfield’s network specials have been nominated for 38 Emmy Awards and won a total of 21 Emmys. Best known for his combination of storytelling and illusion, Copperfield’s career of over 30 years has earned him 11 Guinness World Records, a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame, a knighthood by the French government, and he was named a Living Legend by the US Library of Congress. Notable illusions created and performed by David Copperfield include vanishing the Statue of Liberty, walking through the Great Wall of China, escaping from a locked safe inside an imploding building, and flying through the air night after night in his Broadway show. Copperfield has sold over 40 million tickets and grossed over 3 billion dollars, which is more than any other solo entertainer in history, including Madonna, Michael Jackson and Lady Gaga. He currently performs over 500 shows a year, and spends his time off relaxing on his privately-owned chain of islands in the Bahamas - Musha Cay and the Islands of Copperfield Bay.

Everything will be properly sourced within the edit (although the edits are just a summarization of other factual statements that have been already sourced on other areas of the article). Hopefully the tone in the edit remains neutral enough for the Wikipedia community guidelines. I'm open for discussion regarding any of the above. TheMagicOfDC (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:32, 30 August 2011 (UTC).

celebritynetworth.com

Is not a "reliable source" for a BLP as nearly as I can determine. Collect (talk) 21:13, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Fountain of Youth

This article should talk about the fact that Copperfield declared to have found a Fountain of Youth in 2006. What follows was my version before it was removed by TheRedPenOfDoom and John for reason I stll don't understand (The RedPenOfDoom wrote "seems trivial and some type of agenda behind this", while John said it was doubious and poorly referenced).

In August 2006, Copperfield claimed he had found a true Fountain of Youth in Musha Cay. "I've discovered a true phenomenon," he told Reuters. "You can take dead leaves, they come in contact with the water, they become full of life again. … Bugs or insects that are near death, come in contact with the water, they'll fly away. It's an amazing thing, very, very exciting." Copperfield said that he hired scientists to conduct an examination of the "legendary" water, but as of now, the fountain remains off limits to outside visitors. According to Copperfield, he found it by connecting lines between "magical places" on the Earth, and noticing that those four lines intersect at Musha Cay. He also aked astronauts what was the most beautiful spot, the most beautiful water, and they all agreed this specific spot in the Atlantic Ocean, and they all agreed it was Musha Cay.

Here there are about 103,000 pages that talk about the fact, and that's just to stick to English sources (the news has also been covered by several foreign media; for example here and here is on Corriere della Sera, the greatest Italian newspaper, while here and here is on la Repubblica, the second greatest Italian newspaper). I want to know which source do you guys think it's the best, but we just can't hide this verified and interesting information from Wikipedia. --Newblackwhite (talk) 19:51, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

• With decent sourcing this would be trivia. Without decent sourcing, it cannot be included on a BLP article. If the best English-language sources the OP can find are www.howtobuyaprivateisland.com and www.vegasdeluxe.com, then we definitely cannot use it. If there are better sources, we can talk about it. --John (talk) 21:58, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Let me understand: a famous and renowned man claims to have found the Fountain of Youth, says to the world that he hired scientist to study the phenomenon, but we cannot report it in the man's biography because it would be..."trivia"? That's nonsense.

And why can't we keep www.vegasdeluxe.com, if it contains a verbatim interview to Mr. Copperfield himself? Also, the reliability of the latter can be sustained by the fact that Copperfield is well-known for using almost the same wording in different interviews, and in this one we have the same wording of one Italian source. We can even use those sources, since Corriere della Sera and la Repubblica are notorious and reliable sources. English sources are better here? Yes, but that doesn't mean foreign source are forbidden, especially when there are several of them. I don't know which source English and American people consider trusted, but you can help me by finding the most authoritative source here --Newblackwhite (talk) 22:18, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

That someone is making a promotional stunt to hype their rental destination property is niether noteworthy nor news worthy. -- The Red Pen of Doom 23:36, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

"someone is making a promotional stunt": prove it. In Wikipedia:Neutral point of view I read "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources". The sources here say that Copperfield declared to have found a Fountain of Youth, and that the declaration has been reported by media all around the world. Whatever our opinion on the matter is, it shouldn't influence our job, which is report facts as stated by sources, and leave opinions to the reader. --Newblackwhite (talk) 17:44, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

If you dont see "My new resort has the Fountain of Youth!!!!!" as a self promotional claim, i really question your ability to edit at all. Feel free to take your disagreement to the NPOV notice board. [1] -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:04, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I trust Copperfield, since his almost fourty-years carreer has gained him a fame as a respected and renowned man, and he has declared several times that it's not a self proclamed claim, but what I or you think doesn't matter here. You are free not to believe him and think he's a liar, but this shouldn't influence our neutral point of view. We should stick to sources. --Newblackwhite (talk) 18:31, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

You can personally trust him all you want. But at Wikipedia, exceptional claims require exceptional sources. We have nothing other than a source reporting that a man stating his resort has the fountain of life, a pretty damn exceptional claim. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:36, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I think you missed my point. I don't want the article to say he actually found the Fountain of Youth. I want the article to say that he claimed to have found it and none knows if this is true or not. Do we have proof that he found it? No. Do we have proof that he claimed to have found it? Yes, hundreds of thousands (if not milions) of sources. You can personally distrust him all you want. But, Wikipedia is not censored, so we cannot hide a claim that spread around the world just because some of us think it's a promotional stunt. --Newblackwhite (talk) 18:48, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

You keep missing the point. By including such a self promotional quote in the article, Wikipedia is either 1) Colluding to promote extravigant claims about the resort 2) attempting to showcase the subject as a big fat liar or 3) participating in a "Ha ha ha, look how st00pid this guy is who thinks he has the fountain of life". None of which are appropriate or encyclopedic. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:56, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

So, it is ok to write that he wants to put a woman's face on Mt. Rushmore, straighten the Leaning Tower of Pisa and even vanish the moon, but not that he said to journalist of all countries in the world that he found a water that brings life to dead leaves or almost dead insect, and hired scientists to conduct an examination. Seems unlogic to me. And you forgot 4) Report a claim that may be true or untrue, but as for now has been reported by media all around the world and is worth mentioning. --Newblackwhite (talk) 19:22, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I have said nothing about the quality of the rest of the article, just that this would make it worse and there is no reason to do so. -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:27, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

So, adding verified and interesting informations would make Wikipedia articles worse? I'm lost. I think you are too biased because you think it's all a hoax. We should stick to the neutral point of view, and include significative news as reported by the media. By the way, I would like to know what other users think. --Newblackwhite (talk) 19:39, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not just a collection of stuffs. -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:45, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

True, and there's no doubt that possibly found the Fountain of Youth is encyclopedic. For know it's just a claim waiting to be proven or rejected, but it has been reported all over the world. --Newblackwhite (talk) 19:50, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

" found the Fountain of Youth " uhhh right. -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:25, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

I have taken a third opinion request for this page and have reviewed the issues thoroughly. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of uninvolved eyes. I have made no previous edits on this page that I am aware of and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. If you feel that my answer is not appropriate, or not thorough enough I may be contacted to add to it, or an additional third opinion may be sought by replacing the {{3O}} template. I hope this reply is of assistance and I am expressly open to feedback, barnstars, kittens, or trout slaps on my talk page! I agree with RedPenn that this deserves mention in the article. There appear to be scores of places where this was reported. However, I think we should include some sources where they speculate that Copperfield is making this claim as a promotional gimmick. I say that because John is correct -- this does look a whole lot like a well-played promotional stunt. And, if we have reliable sources questioning whether these claims are precisely that, I think we should include this in the article so readers don't get the wrong idea. (Even as I type this, I find myself hesitating on this second part of my advice. I can't remember ever advocating for inclusion of sources which speculate as to a speaker's intent. However, in this case, I think it may be appropriate.)—JoelWhy (talk) 20:39, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

• "I agree with RedPenn that this deserves mention in the article"...Actually, RedPenn doesn't want to add the info, I am the one who wants. Just to evitate misunderstanding with users' names. --Newblackwhite (talk) 20:44, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Oops, sorry...and, on that basis, I actually shouldn't have taken the 30 request (i.e. more than 2 people involved in the discussion.) But, no matter, it's not like my opinion is binding or anything. In any case, I'll see if there are any sources outright questioning it.JoelWhy (talk) 20:50, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

None of the sources I found actually outright question this extrodinary claim. They simply state the Copperfield made it, and slyly wink "yeah, right". -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:45, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

And I would point out that it was six years ago that he supposedly had scientists out to prove the amazing properties so simply as putting a leaf or a dead bug in the water and they were brought back to life. One would think that verification of such miraculous properties would have been made public when verified since they were so widely trumpeted previously. -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:51, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think anyone's arguing we should imply there's any validity to this claim. I think the only question is, if we include it based strictly on what he said, he comes across as a nutcase (which he may be, I have no idea.) Or, we include speculation from other sources (assuming we have any making such speculation.)JoelWhy (talk) 20:55, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

" if we include it based strictly on what he said, he comes across as a nutcase" or an outright liar promoting tourism to his resort; either of which is BLP problematical. there is nothing that I have found that would allow the second option of "placing the extrodinary claim" in some kind of context. Which would lead us to the third option of not including it.-- The Red Pen of Doom 21:10, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

So, can we agree to include in the page all the information we have? The reader will know this is a six years old claim, and then will be free to conclude what he/she wants. --Newblackwhite (talk) 21:05, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I found a 2011 interview where he told the journalist that he believes it could be the home of the Fountain of Youth; he then says “Life is good. I have lots of exciting stuff going on, and I’m working on so many things. I’ll keep you informed -- and, who knows, maybe if we do discover that Fountain of Youth, I’ll become the world’s first 150-year-old magician.”

So, 5 years on he's still on this? Maybe he really is a nutcase. But, at least he now isn't claiming he has found it, only that it could be there.JoelWhy (talk) 21:17, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Interesting, can you post the link? Anyway, I think even the 2006 interview made clear that it "could" be a fountain of youth, and he hired scientist to verify it. As for the world’s first 150-year-old magician, I remember reading it in an Italian newspaper in 2006 (while he was doing his last tour in Italy, and shortly before the Tornado of Fire special aired here). Well, I think we have enough information to add to the article. --Newblackwhite (talk) 21:25, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Here's the link to the 2011 article.

Ok, I'm going to edit the page using this link. --Newblackwhite (talk) 21:46, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I strongly advise you to wait for consensus to form here first. I am still against including it, for the reasons that RedPen has already given. --John (talk) 21:51, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Wait, a minut, after the last RedPen message there have been new reasons for including it, such as a new link (and my last edit had 7 SOURCES). I asked "So, can we agree to include in the page all the information we have?" 1 hour ago, and since then I haven't seen reasons against it. I wonder how this story will end. --Newblackwhite (talk) 22:03, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

One hour isn't long enough. Leave it two or three days. Meantime you could try to write a one-sentence summary that doesn't copy the source, and find more and better sources. Proposing those here is more likely to lead to something being included. --John (talk) 22:09, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

a "new source" that does nothing but repeat the same "Copperfield says " of the old sources. And its puff piece by Robin Leach who makes his living by being able to be invited into the homes of the "rich and famous", not exactly your standard for "journalistic reporting" . -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:16, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

This is incorrect. Copperfield has repeated these claims (albeit in a modified form) in this 2011 interview. We have a direct quote from Copperfield, so the fact that Leach wrote it isn't really relevant (unless you're implying that he made up the direct quote.)JoelWhy (talk) 13:20, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I am saying the Robin Leach has a vested interest not to do anything other than regurgitate what Copperfield has said. -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:21, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

"Meantime you could try to write a one-sentence summary". You mean here in the talk page, or can I add a one-sentece content in the page about the fountain? --Newblackwhite (talk) 22:31, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Here in the talk page. --John (talk) 22:35, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

And what kind of summary could I make in one sentence? By the way, I hope you can confirm that Copperfield did make the claim, and none here thinks he didn't and the sources are wrong. So, the only thing left to prove is that an encyclopedic man's claim to have possibly found the Fountain of Youth and hired scientists to study the phenomenon is worth mentioning. I think the answer it's obvious, bue apparently it isn't. To prove it deserves mention, we can notice how the news have been reported by media all around the world for years, including biggest national newspaper. If this doesn't prove it, I don't know what will do. But I feel I'm repeting the same things all over again. I hope we don't go on forever --Newblackwhite (talk) 22:54, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

A man claims to have found the fountain of youth!!!!!!! - and the entire world wide response is "this guy says he found the fountain of youth. he's performing thursday night at 7 at the appollo." pretty much going nowhere there. you get a bigger reaction from a fart in church.-- The Red Pen of Doom 23:27, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the reactions were far more than what you said, if we read all the sources (not to mention sites that can't be usesd as sources, such as forums, while we can see the huge impact this news had). By the way, how are we supposed to end this discussion? You did a third opinion request, and the response was "I agree [...] that this deserves mention in the article", with the only condition that if we see source questioning the claim we should also put it in the article, yet we are still here discussing the same things. Should consensus be searched only between us, or should we call another third option? --Newblackwhite (talk) 15:04, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Forums aren't notable for an encyclopaedia unless they generate notable third-party coverage. I am still against the inclusion of this material; at best I think it is trivia and at worst I think it could be seen as ridiculing the living subject of the article, which is a no-no. --John (talk) 02:04, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

THe FoY "claim" is not notable. Period. Any weight at all would be UNDUE. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:56, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

"Forums aren't notable for an encyclopaedia": that was unnecessary since I explicitly called them "sites that can't be usesd as sources", and I only mentioned them to debunk RedPen's claim that the world reaction was insignificant. Of course the information cannot be trivia, since it is a potential discovery that can change the history of humanity, and I don't see how it could ridiculize Copperfield, since he is the one who made the claim and is still making it in recent interviews. Remember that we are talking about a man who is famous for making possible the seemingly impossible. When in 1981 he said he was going to make an airplane disappear, few people believed him, but he did it. When in 1983 he said he was going to make the Statue of Liberty disappear, many people thought he either was publicizing the airplane feat or got mad after that, but again he did that. Sure, those were illusions, but not everything he did was just that. The Alcatraz escape was half illusion and half real, while stunts such as surviving a 2,000 degrees tornado of fire were real. Giving his reputation, it's not wonder that the article can report claims like "he wants to put a woman's face on Mt. Rushmore, straighten the Leaning Tower of Pisa and even vanish the moon" without fearing this could be seen as ridiculing him. Also, since we should follow a neutral point of view, we should all be more open-minded. Remember when last September it was announced the discovery of neutrinos possibly travelling faster than light, which could have lead to time travel and teleportation? The news was instantly reported on Wikipedia, and none said "at best it is trivia, at worst it could be seen as ridiculing those physics who think speed of light can be exceeded". The claim is (rightfully) still there, even now that it has been proven false (like historical scientific claims). With a bit of common sense, we could do the same thing. Copperfield's claim is well-known and has been reported by at least hundreds of thousands of sites, including several major national newspapers. Since we are trying to find consensus in this page, I think those who are against it could do a little effort of accepting it, since few lines reporting a referenced claim will not hurt anyone. And I think writing sentences like "THe FoY "claim" is not notable. Period." is not going to help us. --Newblackwhite (talk) 22:27, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Find reliable sources first. Promoting an edit by using absolutely non-usable sources is not going to get you very far on Wikipedia. Cheers. `Collect (talk)

"Promoting an edit by using absolutely non-usable sources": are you kidding? I have mentioned several usable sourced in this talk page: for example here is an article from Corriere della Sera, Italy's largest circulation newspaper. Here is another article from Corriere. Here is la Repubblica, Italy's second largest circulation newspaper. This article is from Repubblica again. Since Corriere and Republica have ALWAYS be considered reliable sources, that's already four good references. Foreign sources are not forbidden by our guidelines and Google translator is very good, not to mention I could do a full translation of those articles myself. But is it really true that we don't have reliable sources in English? This is a 2011 verbatim interview with Copperfield, and it doesn't matter who is the interviewer, since it reports words said by Copperfield himself. Unless someone is implying that the whole interview is made up, which would be laughable, we do have a reliable English source. There is enough material to finally edit the article. We don't need to have a perfect section: for now, an acceptable section is good enough. Most pages are really improved only after months. And since we are going to find a compromise of some sort, I think everyone has to give up something: I can renounce to my original wording and to certain sources, but you should also renounce to intransigent attidudes such as "not notable. Period".--Newblackwhite (talk) 15:05, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

reaction on forums IS completely insignificant to Wikipedia articles unless the reaction on forums itself is covered by reliable sources. -- The Red Pen of Doom 16:19, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

sources out-weigh anything anyone has got to say, it has references and it was news at the time. Just keep it and everyone move on with your lives.intraining ^{Jack In} 15:35, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

"sources" alone do NOT outweigh everything. In fact ", but because other policies and guidelines also influence content, verifiability does not guarantee inclusion."-- The Red Pen of Doom 15:52, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

This may be true, but in this case we have a piece of information that is verifiable AND interesting, so it's about time we mention it in the article, even with few lines. Or is there a particular reason not to include it? We have discussed this matter too much, if we go on like this this talk page is going to become a novel. --Newblackwhite (talk) 16:01, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

neither "sources" alone nor the claim that it is "interesting" outweigh editorial judgment and other Wikipedia policies. In fact "because other policies and guidelines also influence content, verifiability does not guarantee inclusion." The claim of FoY without a proper context is in violation of BLP by making the guy appear to be a loony or a huckster or brings Wikipedia in collusion with a marketing campaign or promoting the absolute edge of fringe theories. Find a third party source that puts the claim into a context that is not Wikipedia's voice. -- The Red Pen of Doom 16:06, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

When I said "interesting" I meant "relevant", "not trivial", I just couldn't find a better world. And due to its exceptionality the relevance of the claim is self-evident. Also, it's untrue to say that the claim doesn't have a context, since we know who made it, when, how many times, where the FoY is supposed to be, which clues led to the discovery (dead lives, bugs etc.), who was called (scientists) and for what, the fact that the fountain remains off limits to outside visitors and so on. I don't see how this piece of information could showcase Copperfield as "a loony or a huckster", since he is the one who publicy made the claim and keeps publicy repeting it every time he can. I think the info meets all of the requisites of WP:BLP. People who would read the claim on Wikipedia are free to decide whether think it could be a true and rivolutionary discovery (which, giving Copperfield's reputation, wouldn't be surprising) or a hoax (which you seem to think). In both cases, we shouldn't take position for the reader. --Newblackwhite (talk) 16:36, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Again, if it were indeed an exceptional claim that should be covered then the sources covering this exceptional claim would be more than "Copperfield sez".

Period.

It is a non serious claim that is not taken seriously by reliable sources and is not going to be placed in the article until you provide reliable third party sourcing that does more than simply repeat "Copperfield sez". -- The Red Pen of Doom 16:40, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

What does "sez" mean in English? --Newblackwhite (talk) 16:48, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

It is non-grammatical/colloquial version of "says", sometimes carrying implications such as the actual words spoken probably shouldn't be taken at face value. -- The Red Pen of Doom 16:57, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I understand, now I can comment your previous message. And my comment is that once the sources have proven that the claim does exist, then we must include it. Several notorious newspaper have been talking about it for years, and it's not up to us to guess the unexpressed opinion of the reporter. Saying that the claim is "not taken seriously by reliable sources" is an original research. And we are talking about a man who holds 11 Guinness World Records, have been nominated for 38 Emmy Awards and won 21 of them, has sold 40 million tickets and grossed over $3 billion. It's not an unknown charlatan who makes senseless claims to become famous, and this is a further reason to include the info in the article. --Newblackwhite (talk) 17:14, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

No. It is indeed up to us to exercise editorial judgment for any number of reasons but most particularly to ensure that we are not participating in WP:BLP violations or promotion of WP:FRINGE theories. The mere repetition of "copperfield sez" in sources does NOT over-ride our primary duties. If the claim is so "extraordinary" that we are "required" to cover it, it would be easy to find reliable sources actually covering and commenting on the "extraordinary"-ness of the claim and not simply repeating "copperfield sez". The extreme LACK of any actual coverage of the "extraordinary" claim beyond the fact that it has been made is a sure sign that we SHOULDN'T be covering it. -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:28, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Now we do have a source (2 of em) which places it in context. You happy? -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:15, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Request for third opinion

Does including reliable sources who quote David Copperfield as stating that he may have located the fountain of youth on the premises of resort islands that he owns meet the encyclopedic standard of inclusion for the article?

comments

See the discussion above for background: Talk:David_Copperfield_(illusionist)#Fountain_of_Youth -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:24, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Note that more than two editors are already involved in the discussion. Collect (talk) 17:32, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

@theredpenofdoom, just shut the fuck up and move on, what the fuck do you care about what goes in a david copperfield article. Your arguments are pathetic and you are a fucking loser. There are sources and that's it, get a life and fuck off.intraining ^{Jack In} 13:03, 6 April 2012 (UTC)