Misplaced Pages

User talk:Brigade Piron: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 10:39, 20 February 2015 editKeith-264 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users145,086 edits →Dinant: Comment← Previous edit Revision as of 22:50, 20 February 2015 edit undoMediaWiki message delivery (talk | contribs)Bots3,131,364 edits →The Bugle: Issue CVII, February 2015: new sectionNext edit →
Line 342: Line 342:
</div></div> </div></div>
<!-- Message sent by User:LivingBot@enwiki using the list at http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Wikipedia_Signpost/Tools/Spamlist&oldid=647462565 --> <!-- Message sent by User:LivingBot@enwiki using the list at http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Wikipedia_Signpost/Tools/Spamlist&oldid=647462565 -->

== ''The Bugle'': Issue CVII, February 2015 ==

{| style="width: 100%;"
| valign="top" style="border: 1px gray solid; padding: 1em;" |
{|
| ]
| width="100%" valign="top" | <div style="text-align: center; color: darkslategray;">'''Your Military History Newsletter'''</div>
<div style="-moz-column-count:2; -webkit-column-count:2; column-count:2;">
* Project news: '']''
* Articles: '']''
* Book review: '']''
* Op-ed: '']''
* Timeline: '']''
</div>
|-
|}
|}
<div style="font-size: 85%; margin:0 auto; text-align:center;">
''The Bugle'' is published by the ]. To receive it on your talk page, please ] or sign up ].<br/>If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from ]. Your editors, ] (]) and ] (]) 22:50, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
</div>
<!-- Message sent by User:Ian Rose@enwiki using the list at http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:The_ed17/sandbox3&oldid=646152724 -->

Revision as of 22:50, 20 February 2015

I'm taking a partial wikibreak, so I'll be less active on Misplaced Pages until the summer. As a result, it may take a bit longer to respond to messages but it's unlikely I'll be gone completely... —Brigade Piron (talk)


Archived Posts:

The Signpost: 10 December 2014

Battle of Britain foreign pilots, and Merry Christmas

Hi Brigade Piron, how are you? I'm sorry but I'm rather confused by the claim that "After Poland and the Commonwealth contingents, Belgium provided the second-largest foreign contingent of pilots during the Battle of Britain." I guess we are saying that ignoring Poland, NZ and Canada, Belgium had the second-largest contingent after Czechoslovakia? This seems a slightly awkward way to word this. Why not simply say that Belgium had the third-largest non-Commonwealth contingent and the fifth-largest foreign contingent overall? Or something like that. Seems more logical to me. Cheers, hope you're well and a very Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you and your loved ones! :) —  Cliftonian (talk)  15:29, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Cliftonian. Yes, I'm bemused about it too (please feel free to rephrase or delete). The section in the book I'm working from says "It is a little known fact that after the Commonwealth and Polish contingents the largest number of foreign pilots in the RAF during the Battle of Britain were Belgian...". Perhaps the source is wrong, but I don't like making that sort of call.
If you could have a look some other aspects of the same article though, it seems there are quite a few dodgy (and rather nationalistic) claims. The number of Irish pilots has halved from 15 to 10 in my research (down from about 40 a few months ago!) and the Ceylonese pilot has also evaporated, while Barbadan and Newfoundland pilots have popped up ex nihilo. I'm happy it's more accurate now (or, at very least, sourced), but I'm sure there are further inaccuracies lurking... Happy Christmas to you too! —Brigade Piron (talk) 15:41, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Ah yes, I have looked up the source on Google books. Hmmm. Seems that the author either made a mistake or perhaps is erroneously referring to the Poles and Czechoslovakians together as the "Polish contingent" (alternatively it could be that he made reference to a "Polish-Czech contingent" or something similar and a prose editor changed it). I would usually say leave it as it is when you have a sourcing anomaly like this but in this case we are dealing with numbers of people and it can clearly be seen that as worded this just isn't right. I have reworded to "Belgium provided the largest contingent of pilots during the Battle of Britain that did not come from Eastern Europe or the Commonwealth." Do you think this is okay?
I think there is never going to have a stable set of figures for this, partly because it is often hard to pigeon-hole people as being specifically from one country. Take for example Squadron Leader Caesar Hull—born in Rhodesia, schooled in South Africa, joined the RAF in Britain. Sources variously list him as either Rhodesian or South African; in his article I went with "Southern Rhodesian-born". There's a Battle of Britain pilot who was born in South Africa and a British citizen, but who is counted in this article as American as his parents came from there. Then you have that pilot who was basically British but who was born in Haifa and so occasionally shows up in lists as Palestinian or Israeli (for example at the end of the Battle of Britain film with Michael Caine). I think the approach we have at the moment is actually best—the figures don't line up exactly, but giving a couple estimates for each country gives a general idea of the contingents' size. —  Cliftonian (talk)  16:06, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
That's great, thanks! The same is true for the Barbadan guy who is listed as British by the RAF, but considered a national hero in (and listed by the RAF memorial as from) Barbados by all accounts! Incidentally, I've reverted a couple of additions I think you made to the table which do not seem to be mentioned on the link cited - could it be that you mistook the reference you were using? Anyway, if we cite both "official" estimates given by RAF and the London memorial, I don't think anyone can complain! Cheers for re-doing the table formatting btw: looks much better! —Brigade Piron (talk) 16:45, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
That seems to have been a combination of me getting the two links mixed up in the Northern Rhodesian's case and the RAF list referring to "South Rodesia" and "North Rodesia"—quite shocking frankly. Evidently the RAF recruits semi-literates. I would say it makes me feel glad I volunteered in a foreign army instead but the Israelis are much worse on this kind of thing; you would not believe how often they spell their own names wrong. There was once when a package was sent to me care of "JP Asher, Flat 1" and the Israeli post office thought it was addressed to a Mr Asher Flat. —  Cliftonian (talk)  16:52, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Ha ha! Still, making a mistake like that on a "Roll of Honour" does seem a bit bad even still! Incidentally, I've added a legacy section to the bottom - please feel free to add to it if you can think of anything. The BNP Polish spitfire thing was just something that stuck in my mind ;) —Brigade Piron (talk) 18:50, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
That was amusing, wasn't it. Silly people. I'm also reminded of that thing just a couple weeks ago, when Dave announced a plan to cut off immigrants' benefits after four years in the UK. A Czech minister tweeted a picture of Czechoslovakian RAF pilots with the caption "no benefits for them?" —  Cliftonian (talk)  19:09, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 December 2014

'Belgian waffle' in UK?

Howdy; I hope all is well. You said this. Do they really eat that particular kind of not-Belgian-at-all waffle in the UK? The rest of Europe? Are you sure? Even if you are sure about the UK, I wouldn't want to phrase it 'Europe' for fear of it seeming more widespread in Europe compared to real waffles from Belgium than it really is. Cheers, Oreo Priest 13:49, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Oreo! Well, I don't have a cite, but I believe a Belgian Waffle is basically what the rest of Europe (UK or, indeed, France and probably elsewhere) considers when the word "waffle" is mentioned. I agree it's potentially a bit problematic. Could the mention of place not be deleted from the first sentence altogether and mentioned more specifically elsewhere? That might address some of the frequent IP edits which try to Belgian-ise the dish! Happy Christmas by the way! —Brigade Piron (talk) 19:14, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Added cat

Dear, I took the liberty to add a category to your user page. I am member of the board of WM Belgium and I would like, if it is ok, to have curated list of active wikipedians in Belgium who may be interested in our future activities. Feel free to revert of course. I have on my personal todo list a collaboration with the Musée National de la Résistance. --Alberto Fernández Fernández (talk) 08:50, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Not a problem at all, though I fear I may not be so active in the coming year! Programme sounds good though! All the best & have a good Christmas! —Brigade Piron (talk) 16:32, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CV, December 2014

Full front page of The Bugle Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:51, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 December 2014

Comment

Dear Brigade Piron, You cancelled two small contributions I recently put ont the page "Belgium in WW II". This is just to let you know that I am interested by this aspect of Belgian History. I am most willing to collaborate with you in this intersting and poorly developed field. But let me tell you that I did not write that the Belgain government in exile in London was composed of four men only. I did say that in the fall of 1940 only the first four members were in London. Your statement on the SOE activities is alo a bit short and rather incomplete. Please let me know if you are willing to discuss those points. sincerely Luc Michel--Luc.arthur.michel (talk) 14:13, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Luc-Michel,
Your enthusiasm is great and your knowledge on the subject appears really commendable. Plus, of course, thank you for not taking my revert the wrong way!
Concerning the revert in question, I'd really advise you to consider whether the article in question (intended as a short and basic guide to everything that happened in Belgium 1940-45) is necessarily the best place for a discussion of what is a relatively peripheral matter.
As you might have seen, I've worked through a dozen or so Belgian-WWII articles to get them to GA standard, but there're still plenty of gaps in the detailed coverage (particularly at Front de l'Indépendance and for similar articles). If you would be interested in creating an article for the "Socrates" network, as you seem to know about it, that would be brilliant! Incidentally (please do not think this intended to cause any offense!) I assume English is not your first language? If so, please consider using the Sandbox to test the content you want to add. All the best!—Brigade Piron (talk) 19:00, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about Belgian Africa

Hello, Brigade Piron,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether Belgian Africa should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Belgian Africa .

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks, Vanjagenije (talk) 02:23, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Previous Rollback

I roll the edits on Attack on the twentieth convoy of the IP user (Probably sock of Banned User) because he continuously ignores others requests that he actually read an article before he assesses them. Albeit some of his edits are technically correct through blind luck, I find myself rolling him continuously. I appreciate the catch as I appear to be causing the same problem I am trying to prevent myself.--Molestash (talk) 22:26, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

No problem at all, thanks for letting me know! —Brigade Piron (talk) 10:52, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 December 2014

Your GA nomination of Brabant Revolution

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Brabant Revolution you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of 3family6 -- 3family6 (talk) 03:22, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 January 2015

Your GA nomination of South Kasai

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article South Kasai you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cliftonian -- Cliftonian (talk) 20:01, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Brabant Revolution

The article Brabant Revolution you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Brabant Revolution for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of 3family6 -- 3family6 (talk) 21:01, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of South Kasai

The article South Kasai you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:South Kasai for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cliftonian -- Cliftonian (talk) 21:21, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Brabant Revolution

The article Brabant Revolution you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Brabant Revolution for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of 3family6 -- 3family6 (talk) 04:21, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of German occupation of Belgium during World War I

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article German occupation of Belgium during World War I you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of 3family6 -- 3family6 (talk) 17:21, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of German occupation of Belgium during World War I

The article German occupation of Belgium during World War I you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:German occupation of Belgium during World War I for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of 3family6 -- 3family6 (talk) 04:24, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of German occupation of Belgium during World War I

The article German occupation of Belgium during World War I you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:German occupation of Belgium during World War I for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of 3family6 -- 3family6 (talk) 17:41, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Hubert Pierlot

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Hubert Pierlot you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of 3family6 -- 3family6 (talk) 20:01, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 January 2015

Your GA nomination of Congolese Independence Speech

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Congolese Independence Speech you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of AHeneen -- AHeneen (talk) 06:01, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Hubert Pierlot

The article Hubert Pierlot you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Hubert Pierlot for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of 3family6 -- 3family6 (talk) 19:41, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Congolese Independence Speech

The article Congolese Independence Speech you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Congolese Independence Speech for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of AHeneen -- AHeneen (talk) 05:41, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Reviewer citation question cleared up

Nice job on the Congolese Independence Speech article. I believe I set the reviewer straight with his question Misplaced Pages:Good article help#Short citations. Good to see you around. Prhartcom (talk) 06:30, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Prhartcom! —Brigade Piron (talk) 08:18, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Congolese Independence Speech

The article Congolese Independence Speech you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Congolese Independence Speech for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of AHeneen -- AHeneen (talk) 20:21, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Video of Independence Day events in Congolese Independence Speech

This video is certainly not a copyright violation! The video has been uploaded to YouTube by the copyright holder!! It is a news reel produced by Pathé News, which operated until 1970. Their archive of 85,000 videos are now owned by British Pathé (same Misplaced Pages article), which has published the entire archive on YouTube. The video is also available on the British Pathé website.

This video is what Template:External media was created for. It is very valuable content relating to the subject of the article, especially in the section it was placed, and I believe the description was appropriate (the length is ok, see the first example). This edit needs to be undone. AHeneen (talk) 20:32, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough, I didn't know. I've added it in. Thanks for the review! —Brigade Piron (talk) 21:46, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Any reason for not using Template:External media? It is very relevant in the "The Speech" section and with the description and is used like the quote box template. AHeneen (talk) 22:45, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
In all honesty, I'm really not sure it adds anything. For videos hosted on commons, it makes good sense to include it in-line. But here, I think a picture is more helpful - to my mind this is exactly what works best in the external links section. I know it's not a picture per se, but I think much of Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Images still applies. All the best, —Brigade Piron (talk) 23:48, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 January 2015

The Bugle: Issue CVI, January 2015

Full front page of The Bugle Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Horne and Kramer

Greetings BP, do you have a copy of this? German Atrocities, 1914 A HISTORY OF DENIAL John Horne and Alan Kramer. Keith-264 (talk) 12:40, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, not heard of it. —Brigade Piron (talk) 14:01, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
If you want a copy, send an email to Keith-264 (talk) 14:10, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
OK Keith-264 (talk) 09:51, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Philip Verheyen hoax

Howdy. Something's not right about attribution for the painting of Philip Verheyen here, and I was hoping you could help me puzzle it out. Sreshta Premnath has claimed that it's his own work including at Commons. On his webpage, he claims "The painting “Philip Verheyn Dissecting His Own Amputated Leg” does not actually exist. It is a composite image I have created in order to explore this fragility of truth and authenticity.". Additionally, the original uploader, Pieter Dehijde gave this after a Google search. I sure get the feeling he's also in the business of creating hoaxes for fun, though his other contributions don't look specious. At any rate, my admittedly clumsy search was not able to find any other evidence of this painting existing, but I'm not sure if it does or doesn't.

So is it really an old image that he's trying to appropriate? Or is it a new image that is a) a hoax, b) not freely licensed, but still c) a good illustration of the subject! I'm not too sure on what to make of this or how to proceed, so I thought I'd ask for a second opinion. Cheers, Oreo Priest 08:44, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Oh, I hate this kind of thing. I've had a look, and it seems clear that the book "Amputaties en Bewaringen" does, indeed, not exist. Considering the claim that "it is a composite image I have created in order to explore this fragility of truth and authenticity", I definitely think it should be deleted. If it is also true that much of the content is questionable, I think we have a real problem. In the meantime I've put a "hoax" tag on the page to warn unwary users... Can anyone from WP:Medicine provide expertise on this? Unfortunately it's really not my area... Well spotted! —Brigade Piron (talk) 09:42, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 January 2015

Requested Move discussion

There is a Requested Move (article rename) discussion that you may be interested in at Talk:The Adventures of Tintin (film)#Requested move 30 January 2015. Thank-you. Prhartcom (talk) 08:09, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 February 2015

The Unicorn

Hi Brigade Piron, it's always good to see our resident Belgian expert touching up the Tintin articles. In the Unicorn, which I have nominated for GA, the thrust I am going with here is that the ship's nationality is British, not French. Let me explain: While of course I know that the fictional ship was not originally British, Hergé's English publisher actually went to a great deal of trouble to make it appear so, even altering the French flag to a British one in the comics. As this is the English Misplaced Pages, I am beginning with the English Unicorn and it's characters, then working backwards to the French Unicorn as you can see further down in the article. I hope you agree with this approach. Therefore, may I ask you to please touch up the article again, restoring it back to this original way, in the manner you see fit? I wish to stress that I greatly appreciate your edits and input; as I have probably missed something and I know your touch always is an improvement; I have no doubt you will leave the article better than the way I left it last night. I am expanding the article further down the page a bit right now, but before saving my changes I will wait for you to do this edit first and give it your stamp of approval, then I will paste in my changes. Thanks! Prhartcom (talk) 15:41, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Update: Okay, I waited about four hours and went ahead and applied the changes I was making that edit conflicted with yours, overruling some of your changes (but I appreciate and kept several others). As I said, I am very interested in your historical expertise and invite you to now have at it, improving it as best you can. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 18:31, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Update again: Oh! You should review it for GA! Go to its talk page and click the link if you dare. Prhartcom (talk) 20:24, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

No problem. I'm afraid I'm on a wikibreak (if not a total one) so taking on reviews and stuff isn't really possible. I wish you all the best for it though. Frankly, I must say I disagree with your stance on this issue. As the original, the French should be given a degree of primacy and, I think, putting "Royal Navy" in the first line like this is slightly misleading. However, for the GAR, I'd say the lack of any mention of the ship's role in the Spielberg film (particularly because of its importance) is a much more major problem. But good luck! —Brigade Piron (talk) 13:27, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 February 2015

Vietnam

No. As a former government in exile it gets an infobox. This is not a difficult concept to understand. Frankly reverting my edits constitutes vandalism. RoyalMate1 00:23, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Royalmate1, I can't understand anything (no matter how obvious it may be) if you don't put an edit summary since I'm sorry to say we probably don't have some kind of telepathic connection. But I'm afraid there is no law for governments in exile getting infoboxes - plainly because they aren't the "former countries" which the infoboxes were intended for. Shall we take it up on the talk page? Please actually look at Misplaced Pages:BRD by the way - reverting is not just WP:IDONTLIKEIT, but the start of a constructive process... Your revert of my revert could, I'm afraid, be interpreted as attempting to start an edit war. —Brigade Piron (talk) 08:04, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Dinant

Battle of Dinant (1914) I'd be grateful if you'd run your eye over the new version. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 19:37, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Have done my best ;) —Brigade Piron (talk) 22:39, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks very much, nice pics too. Ready for a B?Keith-264 (talk) 22:46, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
I should think so. —Brigade Piron (talk) 22:50, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Excellent, my Wikimojo seems to be returning too; hope your break is going well.Keith-264 (talk) 22:55, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your edits, the page looks better for them. After the recent depressing experience with the Somme page, it's a relief to get back to a constructive relationship. Keith-264 (talk) 10:39, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 February 2015

The Bugle: Issue CVII, February 2015

Full front page of The Bugle Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 22:50, 20 February 2015 (UTC)