| Revision as of 19:43, 17 March 2017 editAndrewWTaylor (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers11,532 edits →Fake photo: fake← Previous edit | Revision as of 01:54, 18 March 2017 edit undoMedeis (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users49,187 edits either a banned user or should not be closed; but bad links incline toward summary removalNext edit → | ||
| Line 186: | Line 186: | ||
| ::::Yep, that's it. Thanks for the source. ] (]) 03:23, 16 March 2017 (UTC) | ::::Yep, that's it. Thanks for the source. ] (]) 03:23, 16 March 2017 (UTC) | ||
| == Beauty and the Beast (1991) - DVD Differences == | |||
| {{hat|]--]] 04:43, 16 March 2017 (UTC)}} | |||
| Do the two DVDs of the ] have differences? | |||
| If they do, what is the difference between and ] (]) 22:40, 15 March 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :Your links don't work for me, but a special edition normally contains more, such as commentary, bloopers, deleted scenes, etc. And, since this is Disney, they normally make their DVDs with a special format that plays when inserted, skipping the menu, so small kids can play them. Not sure if one or both are so formatted. ] (]) 23:30, 15 March 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :I also cannot view the links; I think Amazon prohibits direct linking to images. You may have better luck linking to the product page instead. ] (]) 02:51, 16 March 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :In the meantime, our ] mentions some specific differences between the versions. ] (]) 02:53, 16 March 2017 (UTC) | |||
| *I've fixed the links. The original poster was confused by the way that the wikimarkup requires a <code>|</code> in <code><nowiki>]</nowiki></code> but does not allow one in <code><nowiki></nowiki></code>. --] (]) 04:26, 16 March 2017 (UTC) | |||
| {{hab}} | |||
| = March 17 = | = March 17 = | ||
Revision as of 01:54, 18 March 2017
of the Misplaced Pages reference desk. skip to bottom Select a section: Shortcut Want a faster answer?
Main page: Help searching Misplaced Pages
How can I get my question answered?
- Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
- Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
- Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
- Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
- Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
- Note:
- We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
- We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
- We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
- We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.
How do I answer a question?
Main page: Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Guidelines
- The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.
March 12
Inheritance in various legal systems:
In most of legal systems, a person can inherit from another person dying intestate - because they both have (dead) common parents, or common grandparents (and likewise).
Is there any legal system in which: a person can inherit from another person dying intestate - even without them being relatives (or spouses) - but rather because they both have a (dead) common child? Or a (dead) common half-sibling? Or a (dead) common half-cousin (and likewise)? HOTmag (talk) 13:05, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
- In California: "Except as provided in Section 6451, relatives of the halfblood inherit the same share they would inherit if they were of the whole blood." Also it looks like adoptive and foster parent relationships count for intestate inheritance, under certain conditions. (Link to all of Part 2 of the California Probate Code.) --47.138.163.230 (talk) 22:15, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
- I suspect this law discusses half-kinship (including legal kinship created by adoption), whereas my question is about two persons who are by no means relatives - nor are they half-relatives (nor are they spouses), even though they both have a common offspring or a common half-relative (e.g. a common half-sibling and likewise).
- The law states: "relatives of the halfblood inherit the same share they would inherit if they were of the whole blood ". As I understand, this law states that a person can inherit from their half-sibling (and likewise). However, this law says nothing about whether John can inherit from Sandra, who is neither John's sister nor John's half-sister, but rather both John and Sandra have a common son or a common half-brother - Peter - who had passed away many years before Sandra died intestate and bequeathed. That's what my question is about. HOTmag (talk) 00:01, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- Under the Inheritance (Family Provision and Dependants) Act 1975, if Sandra was financially dependent on John at the time of his death she can lodge a claim against his estate. It is irrelevant whether their son is alive or dead. This works the other way if Sandra was maintaining John when she died. 80.5.88.48 (talk) 06:50, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- Is it relevant whether they have a common offspring? HOTmag (talk) 09:05, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- See Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975. The Act is perfectly general in its scope. A daughter who had been cut out of her father's will might claim against his estate if she was financially dependent on him. The Act operates equally well in the case of intestacy. 80.5.88.48 (talk) 09:14, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- So, it doesn't matter whether or not John and Sandra (who have no kinship nor half kinship) have a common offspring at all, and whether or not they have a common half-relative at all. The relevant point is the dependence, so I don't see how this law has anything to do with my original question. HOTmag (talk) 09:28, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- By law, in this country parents cannot be closer than first cousins. Since they had at least one child together they might well be married or divorced or simply have lived as cohabitees. Any of these scenarios gives John a possible claim against Sandra's estate. 80.5.88.48 (talk) 10:03, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- Please notice that having lived together as cohabitees (or as spouses) has nothing to do with having a common child, i.e. they may live together as cohabitees (or as spouses) without having a common child, and also vice versa: they may have a common child without having lived as cohabitees (nor as spouses), so again I don't see how this law has anything to do with my original question. HOTmag (talk) 10:19, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- OK, let's say that John and Sandra have Robert, who emigrates to Australia at the age of 16. Forty years later he dies. Ten years later Sandra dies. I can't imagine any mechanism by which the fact of Robert having died in Australia would create a right for John to benefit from Sandra's estate. Would it be under British law or Australian law, and why would any legal system make such a provision anyway? 80.5.88.48 (talk) 10:37, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- The fact of Robert having died, may be necessary in a given legal system, because maybe (under that legal system) - if Robert is still alive - then Sandra (who has just died intestate) bequeaths to her son Robert rather than to his father John. That's why I'd added the provision of Robert's death. However, I don't insist on Robert's death, which may be unnecessary if - under that legal system - Sandra (who has just died intestate) can bequeath both to her son Robert and to his father John (provided that both of then are alive). Anyways, I still wonder if there is such a legal system, while Sandra and John (who is her son's father) are neither relatives, nor half-relatives, nor spouses, nor have they lived as cohabitees. That's what my question is about. HOTmag (talk) 11:24, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- I think this is your question of Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2016 January 26#Law: Is there any legal system in which the dead can inherit? in a slightly different form. It all depends on the law of intestacy. You may find this previous answer helpful:
- The fact of Robert having died, may be necessary in a given legal system, because maybe (under that legal system) - if Robert is still alive - then Sandra (who has just died intestate) bequeaths to her son Robert rather than to his father John. That's why I'd added the provision of Robert's death. However, I don't insist on Robert's death, which may be unnecessary if - under that legal system - Sandra (who has just died intestate) can bequeath both to her son Robert and to his father John (provided that both of then are alive). Anyways, I still wonder if there is such a legal system, while Sandra and John (who is her son's father) are neither relatives, nor half-relatives, nor spouses, nor have they lived as cohabitees. That's what my question is about. HOTmag (talk) 11:24, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- OK, let's say that John and Sandra have Robert, who emigrates to Australia at the age of 16. Forty years later he dies. Ten years later Sandra dies. I can't imagine any mechanism by which the fact of Robert having died in Australia would create a right for John to benefit from Sandra's estate. Would it be under British law or Australian law, and why would any legal system make such a provision anyway? 80.5.88.48 (talk) 10:37, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- Please notice that having lived together as cohabitees (or as spouses) has nothing to do with having a common child, i.e. they may live together as cohabitees (or as spouses) without having a common child, and also vice versa: they may have a common child without having lived as cohabitees (nor as spouses), so again I don't see how this law has anything to do with my original question. HOTmag (talk) 10:19, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- By law, in this country parents cannot be closer than first cousins. Since they had at least one child together they might well be married or divorced or simply have lived as cohabitees. Any of these scenarios gives John a possible claim against Sandra's estate. 80.5.88.48 (talk) 10:03, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- So, it doesn't matter whether or not John and Sandra (who have no kinship nor half kinship) have a common offspring at all, and whether or not they have a common half-relative at all. The relevant point is the dependence, so I don't see how this law has anything to do with my original question. HOTmag (talk) 09:28, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- See Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975. The Act is perfectly general in its scope. A daughter who had been cut out of her father's will might claim against his estate if she was financially dependent on him. The Act operates equally well in the case of intestacy. 80.5.88.48 (talk) 09:14, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- Is it relevant whether they have a common offspring? HOTmag (talk) 09:05, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- Under the Inheritance (Family Provision and Dependants) Act 1975, if Sandra was financially dependent on John at the time of his death she can lodge a claim against his estate. It is irrelevant whether their son is alive or dead. This works the other way if Sandra was maintaining John when she died. 80.5.88.48 (talk) 06:50, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
You can establish the position in the English legal system from the following previous answer. What you are asking is if any legal system gives preference to issue of the whole blood over issue of the half blood. If the English rules are typical (and I would guess they are) the answer will be "no".
- No, I'm not asking if "any legal system gives preference to issue of the whole blood over issue of the half blood ". My question is about two persons who are by no means relatives - nor are they half-relatives (nor are they spouses), even though they both have a common offspring or a common half-relative (e.g. a common half-sibling and likewise). HOTmag (talk) 21:16, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
In English law, certainly, if there is no will (the grandparent died intestate) the grandchildren might inherit. Under the rules, a divorced spouse gets nothing. If there are surviving children, grandchildren or great - grandchildren of the person who died and the estate is valued at more than 250,000 pounds the partner will inherit:
- all the personal property and belongings of the person who has died, and
- the first 250,000 pounds of the estate, and
- half of the remaining estate.
If there are no surviving children, grandchildren or great - grandchildren, the partner will inherit
- all the personal property and belongings of the person who has died and
- the whole of the estate with interest from the date of death.
Children of the intestate person will inherit if there is no surviving married or civil partner. If there is a surviving partner, they will only inherit if the estate is worth more than a certain amount.
If there is no surviving partner, the children of a person who has died without leaving a will inherit the whole estate. This applies however much the estate is worth.
If there are two or more children, the estate will be divided equally between them.
If there is a surviving partner, a child only inherits from the estate if the estate is valued at over 250,000 pounds. If there are two or more children, the children will inherit in equal shares:
- one half of the value of the estate above 250,000 pounds.
All the children of the parent who has died intestate inherit equally from the estate. This also applies where a parent has children from different relationships.
A child whose parents are not married or have not registered a civil partnership (see earlier discussion regarding children of civil partners) can inherit from the estate of a parent who dies intestate. These children can also inherit from grandparents or great - grandparents who have died intestate.
If you follow the BBC series "Heir Hunters" you will know a lot about these rules, and also that the situation in Scotland is different. Under the Succession (Scotland) Act 1964 there is no generational cutoff.
In England, a grandchild or great - grandchild cannot inherit from the estate of an intestate person unless either:
- their parent or grandparent has died before the intestate person, or
- their parent is alive when the intestate person dies but dies before reaching the age of 18 without having married or formed a civil partnership
In these circumstances, the grandchildren and great - grandchildren will inherit equal shares of the share to which their parent or grandparent would have been entitled.
Parents, brothers and sisters and nieces and nephews of the intestate person may inherit under the rules of intestacy. This will depend on a number of circumstances:
- whether there is a surviving married or civil partner
- whether there are children, grandchildren or great - grandchildren
- in the case of nephews and nieces, whether the parent directly related to the person who has died is also dead
- the amount of the estate.
Other relatives may have a right to inherit if the person who died intestate had no surviving married partner or civil partner, children, grandchildren, great - grandchildren, parents, brothers, sisters, nephews or nieces. The order of priority amongst other relatives is as follows:
- grandparents
- uncles and aunts. A cousin can inherit instead if the uncle or aunt who would have inherited died before the intestate person
- half - uncles and half - aunts. A half - cousin can inherit instead if the half - uncle or half - aunt who would have inherited died before the intestate person.
You cannot generalise that grandchildren will inherit if there is a will. It depends on the terms of the will." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.147.143.29 (talk) 13:37, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.14.24.95 (talk)
- I once inherited about £200 from a cousin of my father, who I'd never heard of (my father having died nearly 20 years earlier). As I recall, one-third of the estate was being divided between my fathers' family (Dad was one of nine siblings) and I got half of Dads' share. It was an unexpected windfall. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 21:32, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- So the whole original estate (before being divided) must have been £10,800 (Btw, not: fathers', Dads', but rather: father's, Dad's). HOTmag (talk) 07:19, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
- Arwel's been the unwitting victim of a falling wind, and you wan't to talk Postrophes? μηδείς (talk) 00:28, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
- So the whole original estate (before being divided) must have been £10,800 (Btw, not: fathers', Dads', but rather: father's, Dad's). HOTmag (talk) 07:19, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
- I once inherited about £200 from a cousin of my father, who I'd never heard of (my father having died nearly 20 years earlier). As I recall, one-third of the estate was being divided between my fathers' family (Dad was one of nine siblings) and I got half of Dads' share. It was an unexpected windfall. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 21:32, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
March 13
Gadungan Island
Does Gadungan Island really exist, or is it a fake/hoax article? 86.20.193.222 (talk) 06:56, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- It's not in The Times Comprehensive Atlas of the World (2008 edition).
- It's not in Rand McNally's The New International Atlas (1991 edition).
- It's not in Google Maps.
- The article cited in the first reference is available free online in PDF, but it's page images only, not searchable text. Still, I skimmed it and it does not seem to mention this island, nor does it seem like the sort of article that would.
- The user who created the article has made only three other Misplaced Pages edits, one of which also relates to this same supposed island and the other two are about other minor islands in that part of the world (one a redlink, one not linked).
- The user who claimed to have validated the references in the article has made no other Misplaced Pages edits.
- The second reference requires payment to see, and I'm not going to pay just for this reason. But I think we already have enough evidence to say "hoax" (and also "sock puppet") and to revert the user's other edits. --76.71.6.254 (talk) 08:27, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- Gadungan is a city in Java, 26 km from Surakarta. 80.5.88.48 (talk) 08:51, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- The first line of the article clearly says that the name means "fake" in the local language - then gives an alternative name in Arabic, which translates as "false." The further comment about it being difficult to see the island because of mist suggests that the author has included enough clues for us to spot what he is doing. The Michael Hitchcock work cited has the words "The Case of Bali" in its full title - and a search shows that there is a tourist village (not an island) in Bali named Gadungan. Wymspen (talk) 09:33, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking the time on this. I had been through the same thought-process and searching, but wasn't confident to tag it as a "blatant hoax" without a second opinion. The article has now been deleted. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 16:31, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- When was the article created? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:16, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking the time on this. I had been through the same thought-process and searching, but wasn't confident to tag it as a "blatant hoax" without a second opinion. The article has now been deleted. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 16:31, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Resolved
It was created 05:55, 13 March 2017 by Somuchphotography (talk · contribs), and marked "Reviewed: Good sources, well-written" at 06:09, 13 March 2017 by Verscaper (talk · contribs). I took notes while investigating. I've requested Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Somuchphotography. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 02:16, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- At least it wasn't around for long. You hear stories about hoax articles that linger for years before they're found out. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 03:23, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- Example; WP:Articles for deletion/Wichita Glade, Florida. Abductive (reasoning) 20:16, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- You know, Agloe was created as a hoax and became real; why shouldn't Wichita Glade have the same opportunity? —Tamfang (talk) 08:09, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
- Example; WP:Articles for deletion/Wichita Glade, Florida. Abductive (reasoning) 20:16, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
March 14
Household delivery of exotic meat in Italy
I am after a service to deliver exotic meat to a household in Italy. I'm aware of UK based companies, but I guess one actually based in Italy might be cheaper. As I don't speak Italian, and Google translate isn't so good, I'm a bit stuck.
I'm also aware that the word "exotic" is a bit nebulous, so I'll provide some examples: kangaroo, crocodile, elk, llama, alpaca. Any websites?--Leon (talk) 08:34, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- Here is an Italian supplier that mentions some exotic game. --Jayron32 16:19, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- No mention of home delivery on that website, though. --Viennese Waltz 16:29, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- people will generally do a lot for you if you pay them enough. --Jayron32 16:53, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- And, it is in Rimini, which is more than large enough to have multiple delivery services (including FedEx and UPS). So, you can get a dedicated delivery service to handle the order. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 18:01, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- "Get me a crocodile sandwich - and make it snappy" ... sorry, couldn't resist. Gandalf61 (talk) 16:49, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- Wouldn't that joke work better with turtle soup (snapping turtle soup, to be specific) ? StuRat (talk) 20:13, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- Not really, since it is called "snapper soup", not snappy soup, and they are not called snappy turtles. also, the soup is rich, but not spicy. Pretty much like a cross between thick tomato soup and Manhattan clam chowder. μηδείς (talk) 23:16, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Living in an RV home
I heard that living in an RV home is often cheaper than a regular home or apartment. Is it possible to live in an RV while working a regular full time job? Do you know of anyone who lives in an RV who works full time and isn't a vacationer or a retiree? 32.214.87.245 (talk) 16:01, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- , , , . --Jayron32 16:07, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- see also Mobile home. Xuxl (talk) 16:09, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- Mobile homes (as in prefabricated and named for the city in Alabama) are not really intended to be moved from place to place. It is possible, but they are usually parked on a lot and left there. Recreational vehicles are intended to be moved from place to place. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 17:24, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- The bit about Alabama seems most unlikely. -- SGBailey (talk) 21:42, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- Indeed. A big on mobile homes being named after Mobile, Alabama. It sounds ludicrous on the face of it. Matt Deres (talk) 00:32, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
- The bit about Alabama seems most unlikely. -- SGBailey (talk) 21:42, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- Mobile homes (as in prefabricated and named for the city in Alabama) are not really intended to be moved from place to place. It is possible, but they are usually parked on a lot and left there. Recreational vehicles are intended to be moved from place to place. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 17:24, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, obviously they were named after their ability to be hung from giant wires and suspended over a baby's crib, while rotating slowly. :-) StuRat (talk) 01:46, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
- They got their name after Alexander Calder used one to store his work in progress. —Tamfang (talk) 08:11, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, obviously they were named after their ability to be hung from giant wires and suspended over a baby's crib, while rotating slowly. :-) StuRat (talk) 01:46, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
- Rumor has it they used to be called mobil homes until Mobil sued for copyright infringement.--WaltCip (talk) 18:43, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry. I didn't realize that I was in such a minority. I thought the Snopes "Lost Legends" were pretty much common knowledge. Still, I stand by the main point: Prefabricated homes are not normally moved from place to place. They are permanent homes. Recreational vehicles are intended to be mobile. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 17:31, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
- This is a rather odd question. I knew multiple managers who lived in mobile homes. Is there some hidden premise here? 17:34, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- A mobile home, designed for permanent occupancy, is not the same as a recreational vehicle, which is only designed for short-term use, such as for vacations/holidays. StuRat (talk) 20:15, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- I understand that many people employed in Silicon Valley can't afford, or aren't willing to pay, the exorbitant rental rates ("As of 2016 a two-bedroom apartment rented for about $2,500 while the median home price was about $1 million"), and have been opting for RVs. StuRat (talk) 20:17, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- Seems unlikely that much land in Silicon Valley would be devoted to trailer parks rather than being snapped up for real-estate development...hmm? -- Deborahjay (talk) 07:23, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
- When I had a job in Sili Valley, my apartment was adjacent to a trailer park. —Tamfang (talk) 08:13, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
- And many people park RVs in other places, like at a friend's house, and may bum some electricity and water. But, even without those things, RV's are designed to be self-sufficient for a few days (run the engine to charge the batteries, cook with propane, etc.). They do need to occasionally find some hook-ups to drain the sewage, etc., though. StuRat (talk) 19:31, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
- Not the same, but similar: there are professionals in London who live in houseboats. This site seems to have some pictures of examples. --165.225.80.115 (talk) 10:25, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
- The same is true of Cambridge (at least for some value of 'professional'); see here for some examples. Although these look like barges, in most cases they are permanently moored, and the occupants are liable for Council Tax. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 18:35, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
- When my parents were married in the mid 1950s they lived in a caravan near Birmingham (UK) and both worked full time. The caravan park where they lived has gone but there is one in sight of theirs. --TrogWoolley (talk) 12:13, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
March 15
Avalanche!
Can anyone tell me when/where this gif is taken from? †dismas†| 16:19, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
- It is the avalanche on St Francois Longchamp mountain in Savoie France on March 6, 2012. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 19:24, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
- Do you have a reference? -- Jack of Oz 20:15, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
- Yes. A chairlift destroyed by an avalanche. An avalanche in the resort of Saint-François-Longchamps, Savoie, folded Friday afternoon a chairlift carrying seventy skiers, who were evacuated unharmed. Blooteuth (talk) 21:29, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
- Yep, that's it. Thanks for the source. StuRat (talk) 03:23, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
March 17
Fake photo
This photo File:Alan Shepard.jpg does not show astronaut Alan Shepard. Someone needs to take action. Bubba73 17:46, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
- It's hosted on Commons. I've posted a request to have it deleted from there. †dismas†| 17:59, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you - I didn't know how to approach it. Bubba73 18:01, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
- Any idea who it actually is? Looks vaguely familiar. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 19:35, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
- It looks like a (rather badly) photoshopped version of this. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 19:43, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
- Any idea who it actually is? Looks vaguely familiar. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 19:35, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you - I didn't know how to approach it. Bubba73 18:01, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
