Talk:Gareth Penn

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Solved?[edit]

http://d550.blogspot.com

I just stumbled across this today. If this is what it appears to be, then it is a confession by Gareth Penn.

Good find. I didn't read the entire thing (Penn's self-regard was tedious) -- but was it not more a satire than a confession? Since Penn himself has been accused of being the Zodiac killer (a fact which I'll expand on and cite in the article, if I can find the source document I'm thinking of). Cheers. Salon Essahj (talk) 22:50, 19 October 2012 (UTC)Salon Essahj[reply]


Thinking of this? http://www.opordanalytical.com/report/The_Zodiac_Killer.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.203.36.160 (talk) 04:47, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re-write[edit]

Embarking on a rewrite of this article to give it a better tone, remove puffery, unsourced statements, and generally weed out the vanity etc...

Ok, this article seems to have a lot of original research and synth implying that the subject is a murdered, using online message boards and innuendo. It appears to be a massive BLP vio, and much of it in my opinion needs to got straight out the window. I've asked folks at the BLP notice board for a second opinion and will wait on that. In general, original research implying someone is a serial killer is a no-no.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:28, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. We have left a guy who wrote a bunch of stuff for his local MENSA chapter newsletter, and a book. Yes? KillerChihuahua?!? 17:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. I'll keep an eye out for iron-clad sourcing on future additions (there's nothing online, beyond the archives of the mensa newsletter).Bali ultimate (talk) 17:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not at all sure his paper on Tristan is worth including - it has nothing to do with his reason for notability, which seems to be that he wrote a book about the Zodiac killer, which no one serious takes seriously, and he accused a professor of being that killer. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It exists as filler to bulk up the sourcing and justify Penn's "notability," clearly. It's one of the few solid things we have about him, but... it's largely irrelevant to whatever claim he has to notability (his zodiac interest) so could probably go on those grounds. But it does no harm by staying here, either (unlike the rest of it).Bali ultimate (talk) 17:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly is this individual's notability? The sourcing seems very thin - half of it appears to be things he's written himself. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm all for deletion, but AfD's regularly fail when a wall of bad cites are available, overriding policy and common sense.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
actally, WP:BADSITES had been reected as a good reason to violate an article through a violent WP:aFD process so i dont think that ta delet enom on those gournds will survave. Smith Jones (talk) 01:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Smith Jones -- no offense, but what you just wrote is completely incomprehensible.Bali ultimate (talk) 01:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
the game is up. we cannt delete articles based on "bad sites" as you put it right here. even if you blieve that they "ovveride polic & common sense" deletions should be based on actual policy. instead, my recommendation si that we continue to work together to improve the qualite of the article through adding better sources and removin unsourced statements. Smith Jones (talk) 02:35, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Am i to understand you don't understand that "cite" and "site" are two very different words? I'm not sure what's worse; your not knowing, or knowing but being fey.Bali ultimate (talk) 02:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
sorry i assumed it was a typo. you have made a few typos in the past so i think we can all forgive and forget re: this grieve error. Smith Jones (talk) 17:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've edited this article before (long ago) and have mixed feelings about the discussion here. Not to shill for Gareth, but without him there would be no Robert Graysmith, no Zodiac movies, and not half the public awareness that exists of the notorious case today. He was the guy who pretty much resurrected it for public viewing from the dustbin of unsolved homicides. I took a crack at two parts of the page that were not so much inaccurate as incomplete, adding sources and clarifying. Editors and admins should realize that some of these sources are not online, but in a library or on microfiche. From what I've seen, they've been properly bibliographed (like the California magazine article) and continually yanking them implies editorial bad faith. Also, if you need confirmation that Penn was never a suspect in Napa, call the police and sheriff. They will tell you, as they've told many others, that they have no record of any suspect named Gareth Penn. And read Times 17. Virtually everything in this article is somewhere in that book. Scijournalist (talk) 06:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Much of what you've written above shows you have no idea how wikipedia works. We can not do ANY original research. We should rely on what reliable secondary sources report. Self-published, fringe works are generally out. A generalized link to the Napa country court system is NOT a citation. Please, the internet is full of places for amateur sleuthing, conspiracy, whatever you want. This is one of the few places we're it's not really welcome. If you have citations to reliable sources that are relevant, bring them here; no, quasi-literary stories about fictional encounters by other Zodiac buffs (i.e. Cabal) are NOT appropriate for an encyclopedia article.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Foxglove Press[edit]

This apparently now defunct printer focusing on true crime was a vanity press, which means all of his works on the zodiac killer were self-published. The article can probably stand as is, but it's worth keeping in mind going forward.Bali ultimate (talk) 00:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We should so note in the article (self published). KillerChihuahua?!? 15:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Haste Makes Waste[edit]

As one of the early and often editors of this page, I can find several instances on a cursory read where the one day re-write you did here damaged the entry. For one, you've mischaracterized Mr. Penn as an "investigator," when he was in fact properly characterized before as an "amateur detective," a title that was discussed back and forth by a couple of editors. The term "investigator" is normally used in this context to mean "professional."

I went back to see what started this food fight, and it looks like Bali ultimate kept trying to delete another accurate, sourced passage:

The Portrait of the Artist as a Mass Murderer article prompted a bizarre cat-and-mouse game between Penn and New York Press reporter Alan Cabal. Wanting to meet the author who described the Zodiac murders as high art, Cabal arranged to meet with Penn. In an April 16, 2002 book review of Robert Graysmith's Zodiac Unmasked, Cabal would write that their planned encounter -- which never physically occurred -- turned out to be a “run down the rabbit hole of Northern California weirdness."

You prematurely and hastily deleted this accurate reference apparently because the link to its source was dead, but that's so common on the Web I don't you why you wouldn't go the extra step and find a working link. I have: http://www.nypress.com/article-5757-graysmiths-zodiac-unmasked.html

Several people in the know about Gareth Penn worked on this article, including Alan Cabal, Curt Rowlett, and Jake Wark. Much of it came from books or articles these men earlier wrote. Next to Robert Graysmith and the Zodiac himself, Gareth Penn is probably the most recognized and well-known figure in the Zodiac investigations, which is why so many people have written about him and discussed his work over the years.

I'd suggest unlinking your respective egos from this entry and revisiting a lot of your deletions and changes. If links to sources aren't working, try to find new ones. Don't assume bad faith or libelous intent on the part of earlier editors. In the alternative, the entry should be submitted for mediation. As I find inaccurate edits, I will change them, and I will enlist the aid of other admins. Zdefector (talk) 14:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Several people in the know about Gareth Penn worked on this article, including Alan Cabal, Curt Rowlett, and Jake Wark...I'd suggest unlinking your respective egos from this entry," learn about WP:COI and WP:BLP and WP:SPA, then make sure you insert information into a biography of a living person only when backed by iron-clad reliable sources.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Blogs are not allowable sources. That is a blog entry by Cabal. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That most certainly is NOT a blog entry by Alan Cabal, but an April 23,2002 book review that appeared in print as well as online. It is a perfectly legitimate source, as were many you deleted. I'm well aware of all the labels, and would remind that under SPA, "Such accounts warrant particularly gentle scrutiny before accusing them of any breach of official policies and content guidelines." That clearly didn't happen here, and from reading User:Bali_ultimate, when the SPA invited Bali to participate in an exchange on the talk page, Bali deleted the comment and set about spanking the SPA by canvassing Admins and deleting most of the Gareth Penn entry (that motive is reflected in the rather sarcastic comment Bali left on the SPA's Talk page). From what I've read, the SPA in question has gone out for other opinions to other editors in several places. Again, Haste Makes Waste. Zdefector (talk) 15:55, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Really? My error, then. I'm looking at the site, and it is has blogs, features, columns, and no way that I can see of distinguishing what is what. Ok, so its... does he write a column, or is that a feature article? or what? In what way is that review significant to this article? In other words, what content do you want included which should be sourced to that? KillerChihuahua?!? 15:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it can be called a blog post. However, please not that the long description of the "meeting" is about a meeting that never took place. That is, an unidintified "impostor" was impersonating Penn (who was he? Sent by whom? Why? The article doesn't say.) In essence, it's a fictual imagining of an event that never happened, written in the first person by a minor free lancer for a minor publication.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:14, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I don't see that in the linked article, whatever kind of article it is. I see Cabal admitting to crank phone calls, and I see him disparaging Penn and his ideas. I don't see the meeting content to which you refer - pls post a text snippet so I can search the page with it? Thanks. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind I see it, what did you want added to this wikipedia artilce for which that is a source? I'm still unclear on that. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What do i want to add from that source? Nothing. Seems completely irrelevant and odd.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:03, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bother, sorry. that Q was to Zdefector. Apologies for any confusion. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

first we need to estalibish that Alan cabal is a notable entrant into Mr Penns life. i am sure that there are dozens of people who have talked aobut gartth penn,seeing as how he is notable to have an article, so we need to make sure that we are only included things that are relevent to Gareth Penn. Smith Jones (talk) 17:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why? I do not see that as a "first" need. You want to add something to the article, say what, and we'll discuss it. I'm not on a forum; I'm not going to speculate about how significant anyone is or is not in teh overall scope of Gareth Penn unless it has something to do with a desired edit to this article. To do otherwise is to violate WP:NOT, and while I'm flexible about that, I'm not too darn flexible, especially with a BLP which just got gutted due to blogs and emails being used as sources for speculative meanderings. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:49, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I cited the entry to which this Cabal/NY Press article was a source above. By the looks of the history, it was the first entry that Bali deleted -- repeatedly:
The Portrait of the Artist as a Mass Murderer article prompted a bizarre cat-and-mouse game between Penn and New York Press reporter Alan Cabal. Wanting to meet the author who described the Zodiac murders as high art, Cabal arranged to meet with Penn. In an April 16, 2002 book review of Robert Graysmith's Zodiac Unmasked, Cabal would write that their planned encounter -- which never physically occurred -- turned out to be a “run down the rabbit hole of Northern California weirdness."
There it is, exactly as Cabal reported it. If you know anything about the Zodiac case, and Mr. Penn's well-known role in it, you know that he had a number of unusual encounters with high profile members of the media. This Cabal story is one instance; the Anthony Hilder interview you deleted was another. I also see that all of the references to sourced FBI files have also been deleted, as well as all of Mr. Penn's copyright filings, the most recent stories about him in Boston Now, etc. and most of his other writings, which were used to substantiate the expertise he claimed to bring to the case: as a linguist, artillery surveyor, what have you.
As a result of Mr. Penn's thirty-year crusade against Michael O'Hare, which continues to this day, the Berkeley professor has become one of the named half-dozen or so suspects in the Zodiac killings (rightly or wrongly) to which this deleted source refers: http://www.zodiackiller.com/SuspectOHare.html. I personally don't care much for Tom Voigt, who runs that website, but it is widely regarded by both amateur and professional investigators as the top clearinghouse for all things Zodiac, as its Google ranking and wide following also attest. Additionally, many of the deleted entries were in the article to let readers judge for themselves Mr. Penn's credibility, dubious or not.
I regret to say that upon further reading of the edit history, there's so much more properly-sourced material in the article you two (or three) deleted I don't have time to revert all of it or rewrite it. I appreciate your interest in making this entry better -- I really do, and I congratulate you for working hard on behalf of Wikipedia. But I do wish you'd have spent more than a few hours rewriting something that took two years and had survived dozens of previous edits and admins. Zdefector (talk) 17:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
i will go back and see if there are any valid removed materail. i have long noticewd a tendnecy to hack and slash in good faith whenever some bad material is noticed, even if good material is disadvertently distroed. Smith Jones (talk) 18:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Well, that's not properly supported by the ref, nor does it have any place in this article. Cabal says he made a lot of crank calls; then that be met an impostor. This is junk trivia. If you feel this should be in the article, make a much stronger case than it was in there before please. Also, please limit yourself to suggestions for improving the article, and not complaining that we enforced BLP and gutted this article of ill-written and worse-sourced content. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cabal says no such thing. Yes it's clear that Cabal says "The fellow I met turned out to be an impostor, a shill", but it's also clear from the context that he means Penn was an imposter - that it became clear during the evening they spent together that Penn's claims to be an expert were all sham. He's not saying that he met some unknown person who was pretending to be Penn! It's explained that the meeting was set up after long correspondence, and he later refers to Penn's own account of "his meeting with me". It's surely a legitimate source for Cabal's opinion of Penn. Paul B (talk) 12:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The earlier version of this article, which was worked on by Cabal himself, said plainly that 'the meeting never happened.' The sense of the meandering, vague Cabal article, written 20 years AFTER the attempted meeting didn't happen (explaining the no quotes, no information at all about Penn except Cabal's own musings about him that he's a "booze-hound" etc...) also seems to be that a meeting didn't happen. Also, the letter Penn wrote in response to this article also made it clear the two men had never met. Penn's letter also basically calls Cabal a liar. Even if the two men had met the piece would have to be used with care for a BLP (real journalists would get fired for stalkerish behavior towards a subject, for instance) and, is it happens, it doesn't have any information anyways.Bali ultimate (talk) 12:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cabal writes, "Penn’s interpretation of the calls is about as accurate as his account of his meeting with me.". The article may have been worked on by Cabal himself, but can't actually know that (you appear to be repeating what someone said above), nor can you know whether the version quoted was agreed by him. I've no idea what was in the letter because the link does not seem to work. Cabal comes over as a complete ass ("I love the smell of human blood. I think I would have started killing people for sport") but his article seems to be legitimately relevant to the topic. Paul B (talk) 14:37, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On Sources[edit]

To zd - you wrote: "There's so much more properly-sourced material in the article you two (or three) deleted..." Bring some specifics here. What citations, for what information? Are they reliable? Are they relevant? Are assertions being made in the article verifiable? Is any of this encyclopedic? Remember, a link to a FOIA page with thousands of scanned notes, none of the text searchable, and without an index is not a citation. Self-published sources by hobbyists can be used sparingly, if at all. Google rankings mean nothing; The Onion gets a lot of traffic, after all. Zodiackiller.com is not a reliable source for matters of fact. Copyright filings? Are you joking? So, until you bring specifics that meet the above criteria (at minimum), there's nothing meaningful to discuss. Three fairly active editors assessed all of that stuff as wanting. Were errors made? Almost certainly one or two. So why don't you show us, don't tell us?Bali ultimate (talk) 18:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've provided a valid source -- the Cabal/NY Press story -- for a section you earlier removed -- and removed and removed -- because you thought it was erroneous and unsourced.
Now that it is sourced, one of you argues that the story came from a blog (it didn't) and the other argues that it isn't relevant to the biography (it is). Because you clearly have tons of time on your hands, these arguments will go on ad infinitum, until you either get bored with them or decide to spend your copious time on other endeavors. All the debating, sourcing, reviewing, etc. won't satisfy you, nor any other RA (Roaming Admin) who invested his ego in spending a few hours yesterday rewriting this entry. One needs only peruse Bali's Talk page to realize that he edit-roams with a certain cranky, un-Wiki-like hostility. Further debating will only bolster that hostility, and create a time-wasting edit war that could get the article locked or deleted (which it probably should be at this juncture).
That said, the article is as it is, which is neither interesting, informative, nor particularly encyclopedic, and another example why many of us consider Wikipedia a 2nd-tier information source (God bless Jimmy Wales nonetheless). But of course, as you would argue, that's just my opinion. So be it. My best to the both of you as you continue interpreting and rewriting history from your respective desktop perches. Zdefector (talk) 19:55, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KillerChihuahua: If you are going to remove items from the Gareth Penn entry because "zodiackiller.com is not a RS" (reliable source), as you stated on your editing entries here, then you'd better get right over to the Zodiac Killer entry proper and start removing text from over there as that Wikipedia page uses zodiackiller.com for 80% of its information. I mean, if you are going to enforce that rule, you might as well enforce it across the board, least you appear to be merely capricious, right? But be prepared: the editors over there will not take lying down the sort of arbitrary editing that you did here on the Gareth Penn entry. I'll wait right here and see if you can really back that removal up by your enforcement of the "zodickiller.com is not a RS" rule over on the Zodiac Killer entry or whether, as I strongly suspect, you are just another surly editor with an ego problem who is merely flying by this entry for the moment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.102.139.239 (talk) 14:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
IP, Please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If what you say about that other article is correct, you're probably right that it should be gutted. I won't take that on this week, others might though. However, just glancing at that article, it seems like much greater care has been taken to avoid defamation. Also, at biographies of living persons enforcing standards is more important than other sorts of articles. Not that that's a reason not to try to make every article comply with policy, but it explains how to prioritize in this imperfect encyclopedia.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:01, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, looked at that article more carefully. It has tons of reliable sources, looks to be in fairly good shape. As far as I can tell none of the citations are to zodiackiller.com accept maybe a few links to scans of the Zodiac's letters. Not sure if that last complies with the letter of policy, but even if my supposition is true that those links to scans are to that site (i didn't check): A. removing them would do little to change that article, which is filled with what appear to be reliable sources, and B. They aren't being used to make points about an identified, living person. They're harmless. If one really wanted to make those links perfectly compliant, you could strip them of the body text and put them in an external link section. At any rate, take it up with the editors over there if you feel changes have to be made.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Flying by? More or less, yes, actually. I came here from the BLP noticeboard, so my focus is on ensuring BLP is followed. KillerChihuahua?!? 01:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bali ultimate is in total violation of BLP and several other editorial standards, not the least of which is simple courtesy and a modicum of respect for other editors. He can't even get his story straight half the time, arguing just above that the Zodiac Killer entry should be gutted, and then scratching that crass statement out! He never edited this entry before but drops in and erases two years of work without so much as a discussion, even though from the history, several people have requested such. I've tried to be civil, as many others have, but Bali ultimate seems to delight in belittling and sneering at well-intentioned contributors. You assume bad faith, "puffery," and a host of other ill-intentions against other editors, on this and many other entries. How unfortunate, that such a great tool as Wikipedia can be highjacked by people with attitudes such as your own. (PS: What are you doing removing critical comments from this discussion page?) Scijournalist (talk) 04:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a specific suggestion, with a citation, for improving this article that doesn't involve meetings that never happened? If so, let's hear it. Either way, drop the focus on me and the personal attacks.Bali ultimate (talk) 04:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
i agre wit bali personal atacks poioson the atmospher eof debate and render talk apges a toxic ground. this in tnr leands to dramatic page changes which editors are thus relcalcitrative to discuss on the talk page for fear of being attacked. i strongly sugest that we all take a step back and realize that EVERYONE working hard here is in good fiath and should be treated gently but firmly and not by screaming at Bali Ultimate. She has every right to strike otu comments of her own if she so desire and attackin her for this is incivil in the most extreme category of incivil, WP:NPAinvility. --Smith Jones (talk) 13:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)--Smith Jones (talk) 13:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article by O'Hare[edit]

Michael O'Hare has written an article (http://www.alternet.org/media/140351/how_a_conspiracy_theorist_who_thought_i_was_the_zodiac_killer_almost_ruined_my_life/?page=1) that I thought might make a good reference for this page, but rather than edit the page I will simply point it out here and let a more experienced editor make that call. Jgoulden (talk) 18:53, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Gareth Penn. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:20, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gareth Penn. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:11, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gareth Penn. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:43, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gareth_Penn&oldid=1201581363"