| Revision as of 22:53, 1 May 2010 editAunt Entropy (talk | contribs)Rollbackers6,848 edits →Deletion: clarify← Previous edit | Revision as of 02:21, 2 May 2010 edit undoTombaker321 (talk | contribs)712 edits →Your mishandling of Vera Baker: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 222: | Line 222: | ||
| :I'd like to know when John Edwards turned into a conservative. Anyway, reports about Edwards managed to move beyond the Enquirer. And I hope nothing about Bush in Misplaced Pages is sourced solely to the Enquirer. If so, then you might have something, otherwise...no. Yes, the National Enquirer has been vindicated in the past regarding their coverage. Doesn't mean they are now something we call "reliable." Seriously, what encyclopedia would use the National Enquirer as a sole source? I'd like to think we have ''some'' standards... ] (]) 22:51, 1 May 2010 (UTC) | :I'd like to know when John Edwards turned into a conservative. Anyway, reports about Edwards managed to move beyond the Enquirer. And I hope nothing about Bush in Misplaced Pages is sourced solely to the Enquirer. If so, then you might have something, otherwise...no. Yes, the National Enquirer has been vindicated in the past regarding their coverage. Doesn't mean they are now something we call "reliable." Seriously, what encyclopedia would use the National Enquirer as a sole source? I'd like to think we have ''some'' standards... ] (]) 22:51, 1 May 2010 (UTC) | ||
| == Your mishandling of Vera Baker == | |||
| I have commented in all three sections where you have inflamed the Vera Baker story. I wish you would have thought out what you are doing. Talking the quotes of a random unknown IP address, as the single basis for your request for an article's deletion is amateurish. You locked down the article before experienced editors could attempt to handle the news. You locked down the article without first going into Talk and working with anyone else. You have mixed the roles of individual editorship of a specific article with your roles and responsibility as Admin. Looking for boilerplate to justify you actions, and posting it as rationale is self serving. | |||
| I suggest that you consider the other drivers on the road, as you are sloppily cause unneeded havoc. Your alias correctly implies you are a careless bomb thrower, that roles should be solely as an editor, rather than as your role as an admin. Bad work on your part. --] (]) 02:21, 2 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 02:21, 2 May 2010
I hold the SUL account for NuclearWarfare
| |||||||||||||||||
| This is NuclearWarfare's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments. |
|
|
Wait! Are you here because your article was speedy deleted? Click here before leaving a message to find out why. |
 Archives | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Scibaby again
Please re-semi-protect Climatic Research Unit email controversy - Scibaby has hit it again just after your full protection expired. If you could block his latest sock, User:QuestionYou, at the same time, that would be great. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:41, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
- Looks like Prolog took care of the semi-protection; I blocked the sockpuppet. NW (Talk) 00:22, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Avatar characters FLC update
Hi again, I just wanted to ask a few questions. You were instrumental in getting the three seasons past through FLC, and I was wondering if it was normal for ten days to pass and still not get a single comment on the FLC? Thanks, --haha169 (talk) 03:38, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
- FLC has slowed down quite a bit recently, but I can't remember it being this bad. Luck of the draw, I suppose. NW (Talk) 00:22, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
- The inflow of reviews is cyclical, and I think (and hope) the number of reviews is on the upswing, for now, so hopefully the characters list will get some love. Also, congrats NW :) Dabomb87 (talk) 00:08, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Have a beef w/ 4chan?
Some random has posted this page in 4chan and is under the impression that you are trying to shut down the site. I'd like to get your response to this.
- I'm trying to shut down 4chan? Or Misplaced Pages? In either case, the answer is "No, I am not trying to shut down the site." NW (Talk) 23:07, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
- That would be rather impressive though (shutting down the former, not the latter). I would bow to your imminence were you to pull off that feat. Actually, both would be impressive. If you managed to shut down Misplaced Pages then I'd be forced to get a life... Auntie E. (talk) 03:47, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
TheDarkLordSeth
You were involved in an appeal filed at AE a week or so ago by the above user in relation to his topic ban from the Armenia topic area. Could you please take a look at User talk:AGK#TDLS AE appeal, and if you can, offer comment? He makes some compelling arguments, and I am inclined to think that a topic ban was too harsh and/or that a second chance is in order. Thanks, AGK 13:13, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- I'm a bit busy for the next few days, but I'll try to pop in with a few comments early next week. NW (Talk) 23:07, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
- Posted on your talk page. NW (Talk) 01:15, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
SPI
The SPI I opened, no one took a look at it and it was then closed based on an old CU when I asked for the confirmation through the behaviour.
So far the only admin that have looked at it was at the ANI and she said it looked quacky and that I should open a SPI.
I have now gotten MuZemike to reverse the closure, I ask you now to please go through the evidence there as no SPI clerk has done it so far: --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:16, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- I really need a comment on this. I don't want it to be closed again just because no one has went through the evidence. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:36, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- I really don't have time to go through this, so please just be patient. It should not be closed because of lack of response again though. NW (Talk) 02:10, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
About Twinkle
Hi, I was working on Turkish Misplaced Pages. Now, I want to continue my contributions here, in English Misplaced Pages. I have checked twinkle page out, but I am already done with it. I have already created monobook for this account. However I have this script coded in my monobook.js, when I want to use warn/notify user button it says that my account is too new to use twinkle. I still could not find out the matter. Do you have any opinion about this issue? Regards--CnkALTDS 19:06, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- I really don't have the slightest clue about technical stuff like this. I think you might be better off asking at WP:VPT. Sorry I can't be of more help. NW (Talk) 02:11, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- Hi, NuclearWarfare. First off thanks for your reply. I have coded this yesterday. It works quite good for now. I just don't know all the hotkeys of templates in English Misplaced Pages, but guess I will learn very soon. I am going to ask to join the patroller group from a bureaucrat. Thank you again. Regards.--CnkALTDS 15:41, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Move protecting all featured articles?
Has there been a discussion on this somewhere that I can read? Savidan 19:15, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- There was a small discussion on WP:AN, but I do believe that Risker is writing up something for WT:FA, which should be up soon if not already. NW (Talk) 19:18, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
bloody hell that looks tedious!
|
The Working Man's Barnstar |
| For all your hard work move protecting each and every featured article! That's going to take you all day! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:20, 26 April 2010 (UTC) |
- Great work- shame East718's protection script is down, but at least all the TFAs will be move protected when they hit the Main Page. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:20, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- It shouldn't take that long, but thanks. NW (Talk) 19:20, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Move protections of FA
Why is this being done?
If there's a new policy that's agreed it, you might like to link to it in your edit summaries. Misplaced Pages:Protection policy#Move protection gives no justification for it. I have to say, I'd like some discussion, since I'd want to oppose this.--Scott Mac 19:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- Let me link to Risker's explanation, which is basically why I had been mass move-protecting the FAs. But I have stopped my script-based page protection per your request for further discussion. Which page do you think we should have such a discussion on, WT:FA (where Risker has already opened a thread) or WT:PPOL? NW (Talk) 19:38, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- I'd suggest somewhere more public like AN or one of the pumps, with notes on the relevant pages in WT space. Just a suggestion. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:47, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- I'd say the appropriate place is probably WP:RFPP or Misplaced Pages talk:Protection policy, since this marks a fairly major, and IMO unjustifiable departure from the current principles of protection.--Scott Mac 19:50, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- WT:PPOL sounds like a good place then, with notes at AN, VP, and WT:FA. Would you like to start the discussion, or shall I? NW (Talk) 19:51, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- I'd say the appropriate place is probably WP:RFPP or Misplaced Pages talk:Protection policy, since this marks a fairly major, and IMO unjustifiable departure from the current principles of protection.--Scott Mac 19:50, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
WMC enforcement request
There are two elements to that request. Could you also give an opinion as to whether WMC made personal attacks on the talk page for that article? That's an important element, because, if so, he was already warned about that in the past. Cla68 (talk) 04:22, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- I don't know if you read the "comments by others" section in the enforcement request. If not, you might need to be aware of this diff from last month, where WMC adds negative information to a skeptic's BLP sourced to a blog, in contrast to his edits in question from yesterday. I know we like to AGF, but what makes that edit to Booker's BLP especially difficult is that WMC is discussed in an unflattering way in Booker's 2009 book, and therefore he shouldn't have been touching Booker's BLP in the first place. Cla68 (talk) 05:49, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- I saw ToaT's response to you on his talk page. Before I spend time investigating this, is there anything else I should need to know? As for his talk page comments, which do you mean? The collapse box below contains the text of the words that WMC added to the talk page. None in particular seem to breach the civility policy. Could you please explain further? NW (Talk) 21:35, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
| Extended content |
|---|
|
The section on views on climate change is grossly one-sided and amounts to a BLP violation. I don't have time to fix it now William M. Connolley (talk) 22:07, 25 April 2010 (UTC) \On second thoughts I'm right - the section as it stands is a BLP violation, by grossly misrepresenting her views, so I've removed it. Don't put it back until it correctly represents her position: viz: support for basic GW theory; disagreement with some recent IPCC methods William M. Connolley (talk) 22:10, 25 April 2010 (UTC) On the contrary, the grossly one-sided representation of Curry's views is a clear BLP iolation, and I've removed the material again. The fact that it is reliably sourced is irrelevant; the point is that it is grossly partisan and unrepresentative William M. Connolley (talk) 08:36, 26 April 2010 (UTC) Consensus is irrelevant for BLP William M. Connolley (talk) 09:42, 26 April 2010 (UTC) readers should know whic hblogs she has posted on - really? Would they also like to know what she has for tea? William M. Connolley (talk) 10:31, 26 April 2010 (UTC) Get someone to check it for neutrality before you post it William M. Connolley (talk) 11:46, 26 April 2010 (UTC) MN has tagged this but the discussion that should be on the talk page is missing. MN: please explain why you have tagged this (with the wrong tag too, but we don't expect miracles) William M. Connolley (talk) 09:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC) Curry's notability with the general public - ah, can you see the mistake you're making? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:18, 26 April 2010 (UTC) No, not obviously, and not yet. You have no interest in her science, and that is regrettable, but that doesn't mean her biog should reflect that William M. Connolley (talk) 21:02, 26 April 2010 (UTC) I'm not reading your mind. I'm reading your edits. We are a resource for the general reader - yes, but not all articles are written from that point of view. Nor should Curry's biog be drowned by the excitement-of-the-moment, just because that excites some people William M. Connolley (talk) 23:12, 26 April 2010 (UTC) |
- "You have no interest in her science, and that is regrettable". Please explain to me how that isn't an actionable personal attack and baiting. Like I explained to you before, with diffs, WMC has been treating other editors this way, including newbies, on article talk pages for about five years. Are you going to do anything about it? Cla68 (talk) 22:56, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- Brought that particular diff up on WP:GS/CC/RE. NW (Talk) 23:56, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- What is your opinion of that comment? Cla68 (talk) 00:12, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- I'm a bit iffy on it. On the one hand, it certainly is not the model of civil discourse; on the other, it is not exactly rant-level blockable behavior. To me, it falls into one of those gray areas where there really is no appropriate response. NW (Talk) 00:17, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
NW, there is also the "we don't expect miracles" quip, directed at Marknutley. You may not know this if you're not a "regular", but WMC has been regularly mocking what he perceives as MN's lack of intelligence for several months now. In one case, he remarked that MN didn't know a scientific paper from wrapping paper. This long term condescension has been brought up repeatedly on the RFE page, and I believe he's been specifically warned for it (but I can't say for sure). So "we don't expect miracles" may be harmless when taken in isolation, but when it's part of a continuing pattern of condescension and baiting, it's more serious. ATren (talk) 01:59, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- Be aware that if we're going to use an expansive definition of incivility and baiting, then patronizingly telling another editor to "relax", accusing someone of "snarkiness" (an ill-defined term that tends to be in the eye of the beholder), or referring to editors' comments as "crap" might well qualify. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:09, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- Boris, all of those diffs are comments on actions, not editors, and they pale in comparison to the condescension of WMC saying another editor thinks a scientific paper is something you wrap chips in. That kind of thing has no place here. ATren (talk) 03:43, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- This and this are as battlegroundish edits as I've ever seen. I filed a Wikiquette alert about it. NW, it's wrong that editors have to put up with this belittling and baiting behavior on these article talk pages. I've never seen Tillman, the object of that remark, be anything less than civil and collegial in his talk page interactions with other editors. For him to be treated like this is just wrong. Cla68 (talk) 05:21, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Spiral Architect
00:07, 24 October 2009 NuclearWarfare (talk | contribs) deleted "Spiral Architect" (Deleted because expired WP:PROD; Reason given: No demonstration of notability (see WP:MUSIC). If references exist that can prove notability please add them. They do not have to be in English but they do have to meet the reliable sources)
Hello!
I believe the above page has been deleted in error. It was deleted for lacking in notability in music, despite two members of the band being individual notable musicians (criteria number 6 for Notability (music))(http://en.wikipedia.org/Asgeir_Mickelson and http://en.wikipedia.org/Steinar_Gundersen). The rest of the band members are also heavily involved mainly in the Norwegian metal scene.
Can the article be restored?
Kind regards Anna Lindman — Preceding unsigned comment added by Golgahtroll (talk • contribs) 15:51, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) NW, I see you are on Wikibreak; I have restored the article as a contested PROD and will advise Ms Lindman on her talk page. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 19:39, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks very much for handling this John. NW (Talk) 21:36, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
issue solved
the issue is solved thanks Iureor (talk) 06:59, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- The name was User:Iureor. With a capital i (Misplaced Pages's default font is annoying in this regard). --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:45, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
so that is what happened lol thanks :) Iureor (talk) 06:57, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
SPI
@$&%!
Excessively Brief (talk) 03:42, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Couple process questions
I was surprised that you would add a proposal regarding one editor Marknutley to an RfE for a different editor. This seems confusing - shouldn't there be a separate request? I started to comment following it to ask this question, but I thought this was an admin only section. I looked, and didn't see the notice, then I realize it got caught up in the collapsed section above. While it seems like an uncontroversial change, I didn't want to move the collapsed section below the notice myself.--SPhilbrickT 12:29, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- Feel free to make any cosmetic changes that you wish. I'm not really one for what I perceive to be needless bureaucracy, but if you feel that discussion on Marknutley merits another section, feel free to branch it off appropriately. NW (Talk) 00:59, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Quite annoying (and no, it's not PARARUBBAS now)
Hi there NUKE, VASCO from Portugal here, hope your wikibreak was a happy one,
I would like to know your input on this user, Zombie433 - i am writing to you on the advice of User:Daemonic Kangaroo, the last person sending him a message (i on turn sent him a "briefing", asking his opinion).
Developping: although he is not a vandal, his English skills are very poor, he writes no summaries, etc. The worse, he engages in overlinking like i never saw, sometimes in same line, a by-product of his English "skills"...Never mind the LEVEL 4 on his talkpage, please!
More (and Kangaroo is a shining example of this, and so am i): i sent him a message about minding overlinking and tenses in an encylopedia (Kangaroo about unreferenced BLPs), he did not answer (ditto for Kangaroo), and also has the custom of REMOVING messages sometimes minutes after they arrive at his talkpage, what on earth is this?
Do you think anything could be made? Thank you very much in advance,
VASCO - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 14:09, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- Vasco, I'm so sorry about this, but I'm afraid I'm a bit too busy to help you out. Perhaps one of my lovely talk page watchers could help out here? If not, well, Juliancolton seems like an excellent choice to ask. ;) NW (Talk) 01:08, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- Will do so my friend, thank you for the tip. Cheers, VASCO - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 02:39, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
"When Adam delved and Eve span"
This was actually a multilingual international little verse couplet, which was recited in several Germanic languages and dialects. I don't know that it's exclusively associated with John Ball... AnonMoos (talk) 08:52, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- I do believe that the origin of the couplet comes from Wat Tyler's Rebellion, at least according to my source (R. R. Palmer (1995). A History of the Modern World (8 ed.). McGraw-Hill. ISBN 007048262.
{{cite book}}: Check|isbn=value: length (help); Unknown parameter|coauthors=ignored (|author=suggested) (help)) The book is only an intro level book though, so it could be wrong. I would be happy to delete the redirect if you so wish though. NW (Talk) 11:32, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- Don't delete it; what I ideally want in its place would be an article discussing its different occurrences in various historical contexts, but I'm not competent to write such an article myself... AnonMoos (talk) 12:13, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Dolores Del Monte and Jackie Rainbow
You PRODded these two Playmates and they were deleted. Undeletion has been requested at WP:REFUND, so per WP:DEL#Proposed deletion I have restored them, and now notify you in case you wish to take them to AfD. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 10:59, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the heads up. I have sent both to AfD. NW (Talk) 11:34, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Mentorship
Sure, no problem. Cla68 (talk) 00:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks very much for agreeing to help out. NW (Talk) 01:44, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons
You know, a user has to constantly violate the policy in order to be blocked. If a user violates the policy once, you should gently remind them. I'm undoing your edit. Sonic120 (talk) 01:24, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, no. Egregious violations of BLP require no warning, nor should they. People who violate the policy like that obviously have no concern for ethics or not doing harm to other people, and should be shown the door immediately. NW (Talk) 01:26, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
- I've seen that users are only blocked when they repeatedly violate the policy. Sonic120 (talk) 01:33, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
- Some of these vandalism blocks are most definitely BLP-related. Not too many occur with warnings.
- Then, why do you think that there are uw-unsourced templates? I think that you should only block them without warning if it is very severe. Sonic120 (talk) 01:36, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
- The templates exist because some people like pointless bureaucracy. I'm not talking about unsourced additions either, I'm talking about egregious, vandalistic attempts to harm the encyclopedia. User:NuclearWarfare/Vandal Warnings for more. NW (Talk) 01:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with you, since you clearly explained it. Sonic120 (talk) 01:50, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
- The templates exist because some people like pointless bureaucracy. I'm not talking about unsourced additions either, I'm talking about egregious, vandalistic attempts to harm the encyclopedia. User:NuclearWarfare/Vandal Warnings for more. NW (Talk) 01:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
- Then, why do you think that there are uw-unsourced templates? I think that you should only block them without warning if it is very severe. Sonic120 (talk) 01:36, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
- Some of these vandalism blocks are most definitely BLP-related. Not too many occur with warnings.
- I've seen that users are only blocked when they repeatedly violate the policy. Sonic120 (talk) 01:33, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Blocked 184.82.9.68
Why did you block 184.82.9.68 without talk page access? I don't see how the IP is revoking its talk page access. Sonic120 (talk) 01:54, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
- It was a /b/tard abusing that IP, which is likely an open proxy. They often abuse talk pages. NW (Talk) 02:42, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
About IP vandal
Hey I saw you recently blocked IP 129.74.109.78 because of edits to Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Guitarists/Buckethead task force/Freekbass. However, the history is very confusing and I believe the similar IPs 129.74.87.97 and 129.74.86.235 should also be blocked for multiple vandalistic edits. It's unclear whether they're the same person or not. Do you think we should csd the article then? Deagle_AP (talk) 01:57, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what's going on, but I have deleted most of the vandalistic revisions and semi-protected the page. NW (Talk) 02:46, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Vera Baker
Hello NW. I am involved in a conflict over on Vera Baker. I encountered the article through vandal patrol, and an editor insists on adding rumors, while providing sources to tabloids. If you would like (it's totally optional) please look into it. As I interpret the BLP policy, this should be removed per WP:GRAPEVINE. Thanks, (signing off for the night) Airplaneman ✈ 04:31, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
- Fun fun. Thanks for the heads up. I removed the section and semi'd the article for three days per BLP concerns. NW (Talk) 04:45, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you. Airplaneman ✈ 04:46, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Ah, another example of why wikipedia will never be considered a credible source. Partisan editors cleansing everything so that only conventional wisdom remains. So was National Enquirer not reliable on John Edwards? Misplaced Pages needs to evolve.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Crackenstein (talk • contribs)
- The National Enquirer is not a reliable source. It may have been correct in Edwards' case. That really does not matter in assessing reliability. NW (Talk) 16:30, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Deletion
Very inconsistent to delete these reports that are spreading quickly while keeping allegations against President Bush and John Edwards which derived from similar sources up. These actions give off the impression of a liberal bias thus jeopardizing Misplaced Pages's legitimacy.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.62.149.115 (talk • contribs)
- I assume this is in regards to Vera Baker. Can you point me towards these allegations against Bush and Edwards? NW (Talk) 14:42, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
- I'd like to know when John Edwards turned into a conservative. Anyway, reports about Edwards managed to move beyond the Enquirer. And I hope nothing about Bush in Misplaced Pages is sourced solely to the Enquirer. If so, then you might have something, otherwise...no. Yes, the National Enquirer has been vindicated in the past regarding their coverage. Doesn't mean they are now something we call "reliable." Seriously, what encyclopedia would use the National Enquirer as a sole source? I'd like to think we have some standards... Auntie E. (talk) 22:51, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Your mishandling of Vera Baker
I have commented in all three sections where you have inflamed the Vera Baker story. I wish you would have thought out what you are doing. Talking the quotes of a random unknown IP address, as the single basis for your request for an article's deletion is amateurish. You locked down the article before experienced editors could attempt to handle the news. You locked down the article without first going into Talk and working with anyone else. You have mixed the roles of individual editorship of a specific article with your roles and responsibility as Admin. Looking for boilerplate to justify you actions, and posting it as rationale is self serving.
I suggest that you consider the other drivers on the road, as you are sloppily cause unneeded havoc. Your alias correctly implies you are a careless bomb thrower, that roles should be solely as an editor, rather than as your role as an admin. Bad work on your part. --Tombaker321 (talk) 02:21, 2 May 2010 (UTC)