Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Parsecboy (talk | contribs) at 11:32, 4 November 2009 (→A question: thanks). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

	Fragmented conversations hurt my brain.
	In an effort to keep conversations together, I will likely respond on this page if you begin a conversation here. If I've begun a conversation on your talk page, I'll watchlist that page until you respond.

Note: I usually hide from Misplaced Pages on weekends, so if you leave a message on the weekend you will likely not get a response until Mondays.

24 December 2024
News and notes: Responsibilities and liabilities as a "Very Large Online Platform" Op-ed: Beeblebrox on Wikipediocracy, the Committee, and everything Opinion: Graham87 on being the first-ever administrator recall subject In the media: Delhi High Court considers Caravan and Ken for evaluating the ANI vs. WMF case From the archives: Where to draw the line in reporting? Recent research: "Misplaced Pages editors are quite prosocial", but those motivated by "social image" may put quantity over quality Humour: Backlash over Santa Claus' Misplaced Pages article intensifies Gallery: A feast of holidays and carols Traffic report: Was a long and dark December
Single page Front page About Subscribe Suggestions Archives

Note to self:images

Note to me. Per User:TenPoundHammer/Country, country music artist articles need pictures. I need to go through my photo albums and see if I can find any useful ones. Karanacs (talk) 16:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Peer review: Free State of Galveston

Hello again,

I recently created a new article Free State of Galveston. I put out a peer review request and, since you are a history buff, I thought you might be interested.

Anyway, if you are, feel free to take a look.

Thanks.

--Mcorazao (talk) 03:04, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite. I will take a look this week. Karanacs (talk) 14:22, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm a bit behind this week due to real-life deadlines and a crisis of conscience over the latest drama. I'll still try to get to this over the weekend or Monday. Karanacs (talk) 02:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Review left here. My sincere apologies on the delay. Karanacs (talk) 17:58, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Your extra credit bit on Catholic Church...

I suggest reading the following works to help with what you're trying .. (Le Goff's a bit outdated and the work you're citing is somewhat of a cross between a popular history and a low level textbook.) You have Eileen Power's Medieval Women which is a good start. Medieval women by Derek Baker World Cat; Queens, concubines, and dowagers : the king's wife in the early Middle Ages by P. Stafford World Cat; Women in medieval life : a small sound of the trumpet by Margaret Labarge World Cat; Women in medieval history & historiography by Susan Stuard World Cat. That should get you started, although I'll admit I don't pay much attention to "women's history" so I have little on my shelves about it. I do have Malcolm Barber's The Two Cities World Catwhich is a good recent comprehensive history of the High Middle Ages, which does have mentions of women's status and the church. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:59, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Jean Lafitte

Well done on adding references, I've expanded intro to cover whole article but what i've added needs to be tightened a little. Looks close to GA, were you going to nominate soon or planning to take to FAC? Tom B (talk) 12:30, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Tom, thanks for your help on the article. (Especially thanks with the alt text stuff - I hate writing those.) I'm actually hoping to bring this article to FA at some point, but not quite yet. I still have notes from the Davis biography to incorporate, and then the article will probably need a really good copyedit. I tend to be pretty verbose in my first pass at an article and have to trim a lot of unnecessary detail and convoluted wording. This is one of four articles that I'm currently prepping for FA; One of them only needs a good copyedit, so it will probably be next. Maybe I'll finish working on Lafitte after that. If you're interested in trying for GA before that, feel free to nominate the article as-is. Karanacs (talk) 20:36, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

righto, i think Lafitte's at GA level and that it's worth bringing articles as fast up the quality rating as possible, i'm an immediatist in that sense . some fa editors don't value GA as much, maybe because they think it's a better use of everyone's time/resource to go straight to fa. what do you think? the convention article is short, but i'm assuming there's not much more one can reasonably say, will have a look. i noticed the coincidence of Reform Act of 1832. Tom B (talk) 00:50, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't go for GA reviews much because there's often a backlog and I'm usually pretty aware of what else needs to be done to get the rest of the way to FA. I respect the process, and I've gotten great feedback from GA reviews in the past, but it's usually easier for me to focus on the FA criteria. If you nominate Lafitte for GA I'll help with any of the feedback if I can. I need to go find all my notes; I think they are buried somewhere on my desk. Karanacs (talk) 13:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom clarification on Mattisse's Plan

Request opened by Moni3 here --Moni3 (talk) 16:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Wanted to make sure additions were relevant

Hi. I had a short conversation with you a few weeks ago about the relevance of an entry that I made from a book that I was going through, and I wanted to ask about a revision that I just made to make sure that it was viable. I am going through the book Real Estate Damages and it has some great information about the effect of various disasters and events on real estate properties. I added a small section on the 1964 Alaska earthquake page titled Lasting Impacts. This section briefly discusses some of the impacts that the earthquake and following tsunamis had on the land values in the area. If you wouldn't mind quickly checking the page when you get a chance to make sure the addition is okay, I would appreciate it. Youknow009 (talk) 23:33, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Responded on user talk:Youknow009 . Karanacs (talk) 18:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Please take a look at User:Richardshusr/Catholic Church and women

I have started putting together an article on Catholic Church and women in my userspace. Since you expressed an interest in this topic at Talk:Catholic Church, I thought you might be kind enough to look at it and give me your thoughts. I know that this needs an overview to introduce the topic and provide the reader with a summary of the article. If you would care to write one, I would be very grateful.--Richard (talk) 07:09, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Richard, I'll be happy to look at that when I have a few free momets - may be several days. Thank you for taking the initiative to start that! Karanacs (talk) 14:17, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

RfC

Certified; I will have limited time this week; but you may want to add the incredible wording of the poll itself, especially since there was a comment that she's done this before. (Also Nancy is genuinely a single-purpose account; I looked up her edits when Xandar was canvassing for his views on naming policy, and 64% of her mainspace edits were on Catholic Church alone.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I've added the full text of the poll wording now, and moved the RfC to the approved section. I wouldn't necessarily describe Nancy as an SPA. She does concentrate on Catholic Church, but she has done a lot of work on other pages related to Roman Catholicism as well (bringing 2 to FA status). Karanacs (talk) 18:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

And if she weren't so darned obstinate and contentious, Catholic Church would FA by now and the lion's share of the credit would belong to her. Let's not forget her good qualities while trying to pick the mote out of her eye. (and yeah I know that's not what the Scriptural passage says) --Richard (talk) 21:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

"Catholic Church would FA by now and the lion's share of the credit would belong to her." Absolutely true. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 01:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

The lion's share of the credit will still belong to her, even if someone else picks up the baton now. Pmanderson's charge of SPA is just ridiculous. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:19, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed again that she will still deserve the lion's share of the credit. I'm not sure the suggestion that she's an SPA is so far off. Nor that it's necessarily a bad thing: she's been very focused. At the same time, the fact that she's branched out somewhat, both at FAC and to some other types of articles, is I think a good thing in that it should allow her to gain some sense of perspective. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 01:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

All I can add is that if I were in Nancy's position, which I hope I never am, like her I would not take part in the RfC; I'd walk away from the article, wishing it well. If, after a decent interval, it still wasn't up to snuff and wasn't being worked on, then I'd consider getting involved again. But sometimes you just have to walk away. Even I know that. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 02:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it will. The main question is whether the article can clear the last hurdle to reach featured article status; under the current atmosphere that could take years. Karanacs (talk) 01:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

That's true as well. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:25, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Certified. I read through pretty much the whole thing in detail, and couldn't think of anything I'd add. Thank you for doing such a clear and thorough job. Harmakheru (talk) 00:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Another

I'll leave Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Kerry slug/archive2 to you as well, since the nominator seems unsatisfied with my first closure, and a fresh set of eyes may be needed; I've left a query for Invertzoo (talk · contribs). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

RfC

I hope you don't think I derailed your RfC with Nancy. I do feel that RfCs are somewhat broken, as there is no real community forum except through them and they are overall incredibly problematic. It is strange how many of them just don't seem to take and have active participants but others are just swamped. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:13, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Everyone is welcome to submit their opinions at an RfC, and I see nothing problematic about the view you posted. Did you do something else I haven't noticed yet? Karanacs (talk) 15:17, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

No, its just that the RfC is dead with little interest it seems. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

• In case you hadn't seen this. Johnbod (talk) 15:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Saw it, thanks for your effort. Karanacs (talk) 15:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: Thank you

I know you aren't working on the Republic of Texas-era articles, but I thought this appropriate nonetheless. It's nice to see so many new articles created on Texas history! For a while I've been the only one...now I'm not so lonely ;) Karanacs (talk)

Nice to feel appreciated. :-)

Thanks.

--Mcorazao (talk) 18:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Wow. Thanks for the review on Free State. Very thorough. --Mcorazao (talk) 18:32, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

That's why it took so long! I've done a lot of work reviewing articles at WP:FAC, and even for more informal reviews I stick to that pattern. You've done some great work - I enjoyed reading the article. It's especially timely; some of my husband's now-deceased relatives often frequented the Balinese Room during its heyday, and the family ofen laments the building's destruction in Ike. Karanacs (talk) 18:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't want to start a new section, to take up room, but thanks for the barnstar. I don't know if you saw my response, but it's no big deal to me. A main page date is a main page date, assuming Illinois quake gets the 10th. ceranthor 19:40, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Questions: Free State of Galveston

I hope you don't mind my pestering. Can I ask for some clarifications on your feedback? Please don't feel obligated to respond if you are busy. --Mcorazao (talk) 19:26, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

As a general question, since I am not a writer by profession can you offer any more specific guidance on how to improve the writing style since obviously this is a concern for you throughout the article?

Also, regarding citations, there are some cases where you ask for a citation on a statement that is described in the citation on a preceding sentence. Are you recommending that for any statement that could be questioned it should be cited even if it is the same citation as the sentence before?

• There are quite a few references to Cartwright with no page numbers. This wouldn't be acceptable at FAC level (unsure about GA).

Can you clarify? I assume that you are talking about the Texas Monthly article (Cartwright 1993). Texas Monthly published the article online (the link is provided in the references). I don't know what the page number would be in the paper publication. My understanding is that a page number should not be necessary in this scenario.

• The first paragraph is a good start, but it doesn't flow well to me, and the chronology is off just a little. We may need a little more detail about the history of Galveston.

Sorry to be dense. Can you clarify? I didn't intend this section as a whole to be strictly chronological. I was simply attempting to give a general impression of what happened in the city immediately preceding this time without being too detailed. What details would you recommend bringing out?

• I'm not sure it is accurate to say that Galveston "began its life as part of" Lafitte's piracy. From my reading of Lafitte's biographies, I thought the island was pretty well abandoned when Lafitte was driven off.

I debated on what to say here. More than one source mentioned that Lafitte's legacy influenced how the island later developed. What I have read, although it is not detailed, is that the island was not completely abandoned though it was probably just a few stragglers that remained. Campbell's Bayou on the coast, for example, was established by one of his captains that did not go with him after he left. Probably, though, I should just take this out (it was more of just an interesting side note).

• I would like some more details on the ethnic changes and why these groups chose to come to Galveston.

Can you clarify? I was trying to keep this section short (I'm sure I will get dinged in FA if the background becomes a large section). The only purpose in mentioning this was to point out that the Maceo's coming to the island was part of a larger demographic trend (and that trend probably made it easier for them to become established). My inclination would be rather than elaborate to just remove the statement.

• I'd like a little more background on the two gangs. Did they form as a result of Prohibition, or did they already exist in some form before that? Were the gangs local, or branches of more widespread businesses?

Honestly I have not found any details on the gangs. My impression from what I have read is that gangs were a part of the landscape since the 19th century. These two gangs definitely existed before Prohibition though it is unclear exactly how significant they were before. I have no idea where to find more details in that regard.

• What made the arrests "fortuitous"

I chose that word to be terse but apparently at the expense of clarity.

• If you can find appropriate sourcing, it would be interesting to know how much of the annual tourism industry was a result of the vice businesses.

I'd love to find these kinds of details too. But I would have no idea where. Such info, of course, was never officially published. Membership at the major clubs from what I gather was a closely guarded secret. And the legitimate and illegitimate tourism was closely tied (people stayed at the hotels and visited the casinos). So it is not entirely easy to separate anyway.

• Any more info on Al Capone and Albert Anastasia?

Have not found any. From what I gather they never tried that hard. It seems the Maceos made clear that it would be all out war if they tried to come in and they figured the location was too remote from their core areas to want to bother (I read in one source that Al Capone said something like "Texas is too far from Chicago").

• definitely need citations for "San Antonio..

I did provide a source. Are you saying that the source isn't good enough or that each individual sentence needs to have that same source specified?

• "some have argued that the city ..." do we have any particulars on who has argued this? This is really vague attribution for a pretty hefty statement.

I provided a reference. Are you suggesting that the author of the reference should be mentioned in the prose?

• Are there any further details on the effect of gambling legalization in Nevada? Since Galveston was essentially allowing the gambling places to run free, I wonder how big the effect was.

Excellent question. I really would love to know more about that. Various sources talk about an influence and that some people moved operations there but I have seen no general analysis of the degree of influence. ANICO funded a lot of development there and was probed in connection to the national mafia which suggests there was a lot of connection.

On the second point, the fact that Galveston was allowing gambling to run free wasn't the issue. The state cops and the government still were always an issue. At by the end of WWII things were changing in Texas so the gambling operators were finding themselves under more scrutiny (they were getting away with things mostly but the threat of individual businesses being shut down was getting more serious). Having a legal place to operate gambling (and for customers to feel safe from the police) was a big deal no matter how "open" Galveston was.

• Any info on why Fort Crockett was shut down? Was it related to the vice stuff in any way?

I assume the answer to the second question is yes since the time frames coincided. But I have not seen any sources that discuss the relationship specifically or even discuss the purported reason for the shut down. I *believe* that it simply played out that all of the entertainment businesses simply crashed very quickly and there was no longer a reason to have the base (remember, Fort Crockett had become mostly an army recreation center by that time so, if the entertainment businesses were shutting down, why send soldiers there?).

• I think the article might be organized a little awkwardly. It seems that End of an era and the Prohibition and the Maceos sections could be combined into a history section.

I started to organize it that way but it seemed to me more confusing to do it that way. That is, it seemed that either I should do the entire article as a strict chronology or else organize it as

• What led up to the era
• What the era was like
• What happened at the end and afterward

In the "What the era was like" sections I didn't try to be chronological but rather topical. I can't see a way to combine the general discussion of Prohibition and "End of an era" as a section separate from everything else in a way that wouldn't make it less readable. Can you suggest a more specific article layout?

Thanks so much! --Mcorazao (talk)

copying questions to article talk page - will reply there. Karanacs (talk)

Outline bump

Hello. A gentle reminder for User:Karanacs/Outline RfC draft.

1. I'd appreciate your replies in the 1st and 3rd threads at the talkpage there.
2. I'm wondering whether it's time to ask/remind people for wider input? Whether we choose some of the other admins who've previously expressed concerns, or archive Misplaced Pages talk:Outlines and place a pointer from there to the RfC draft, or other small-scale notification options?
3. I'd also really like to get some more general-feedback from you - what is still unclear in the draft-notes (oversimplified vs still-too-complicated)? and what our next steps and next topics should be?

No rush. Just a nudge. Slow and steady wins the race. (I watchlist everything too, so feel free to indulge in extended mumblings here, if you want to keep the RfC talkpage readably-short! I want to give more context&musings throughout (and keep writing-then-deleting paragraphs), but I'm trying hard not to overwhelm anywhere.) Thanks again. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:26, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

It's on my list of things to do. I'm working my way down the talk page now. If I can't find time this weekend (I'm usually offline on the weekends), I'll look in Monday. Thank you very much for taking so much initiative. Karanacs (talk) 19:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

See also User talk:Dragons flight#NOTCONTENT regarding his idea at Misplaced Pages:Village_pump_(proposals)#Disambiguation_pages_are_not_articles. (I'm out for the day. Car repairs and moss-removal and such...) -- Quiddity (talk) 20:11, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Michele W.D. Bio references

Hi I've worked very hard in trying to put together the correct references to show a reason for inclusion, I haven't put together a draft or listed any personal information at this time I'm just trying to see if I can get an o.k. to go ahead with creating the topic article and if it will probably pass this time for inclusion based upon on what I have so far. I will invite the other editors as we'll to take a look. I've created a discussion page for Michele W.D. in my sandbox where you can leave me a message.Tinkermen (talk) 23:24, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't know if you've had the chance to come look yet but another editor already created a new Bio for her again this weekend after I left you and the othere editors a note, I hadn't invited him to the discussion not sure why that happened? Also while your looking over weather I have enough references for inclusion could you take a minute and look at the new article topic I am creating for the book Divorce Busting, it's my first article, should I make it a STUB? Is it ok as it is or do I need to make some changes? ThanksTinkermen (talk) 19:38, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I took a look at the article that was created by the other user, and it looks like it meets policy, so is unlikely to be deleted. You can use some of the references you found to expand that article. Can you provide a link for me to see your sandbox copy of "Divorce Busting"? Then I'll try to take a look soon. Karanacs (talk) 19:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I moved it to namespace Divorce Busting (I wanted to try being bold "my first article" after being here 20 some odd days doing reference research) I'll continue to work on it as I learn more and make it better. I sent you an email hope that was o.k. Tinkermen (talk) 07:24, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:Spanish Missions in Texas.JPG

File:Spanish Missions in Texas.JPG is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Spanish Missions in Texas.JPG. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Misplaced Pages, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Misplaced Pages, in this case: ]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 11:32, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Jesuit Missions of the Chiquitos

Hi Karanacs! Just wonder why this candidacy was archived. I (and a couple of other editors) responded to comments made by reviewers and was waiting for a response from them whether these issues had been addressed. Should I have asked these reviewers for a response? bamse (talk) 20:25, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

It had been up for over two weeks without gaining consensus for promotion. The oppose for prose didn't appear to be in the process of being addressed. I recommend that you take a few weeks to talk to the reviewers who commented and to work on the prose. When those reviewers are satisfied, renominate the article. Hopefully the next nomination will go more smoothly. Karanacs (talk) 14:38, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the advise. The oppose for prose had been addressed through a copy-edit by Truthkeeper88 which unfortunately was not mentioned on the review page. I will give it some time to rest and maybe come back to the article at a later time. bamse (talk) 20:12, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Murder of Imette St. Guillen

Hey, see that you're working on it. I'm tied up doing some milhist work in a sandbox at the moment, but let me know if I can help with prose or whatever. Skinny87 (talk) 21:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Right now I'm reading through more recent sources to try to see what should stay and what should be yanked. There's a lot of info out there... Karanacs (talk) 21:35, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

A question

Hi, Karanacs. I don't want to be a pest, but I noticed you archived the FAC for SMS Derfflinger due to lack of reviewers. I was in the process of working with one of the reviewers over his concerns about a particular section, and I wasn't expecting the FAC to be closed when it was (I realize it's been a month, but I didn't know if these things could be bent slightly or not). There are three editors supporting it and none opposing, and the less subjective criteria (i.e., images, links, etc.) have been addressed. Is there any chance you might reconsider your closing? I'm not trying to give you a hard time or anything, I just wasn't expecting the review to be closed as it was. Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 01:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, obviously I see that the archiving has happened but the review page was still open when I went through it and gave my support earlier today; is the process too far gone for it to achieve promotion in this tranche? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:11, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

This is an unusual situation. It is rare for a support to be entered after an FAC is closed but before the bot archive everything. I was already torn over this article; it had been up for a long time but was very close to promotion. Because there was some confusion among the reviewers about the close, I decided to rethink this one. I also had not seen Jackyd's latest note removing much of his concern, as I was working off an earlier version of the FAC page. I have now reversed my decision and promoted the article. (Note to anyone watching this conversation - this will not become a common occurrence. I repeat, this is an exception and it will not become a common occurrence.) Please let me know if you see any issues with the steps I took to manually change the status. Karanacs (talk) 04:11, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks good (you beat the bot :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

oopsie, you didn't beat the bot, but it still looks good SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I pretended I was a bot. It's all part of my master plan to take over the world ;) Karanacs (talk) 04:18, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Then you can join the club that Maralia and I sponsor! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:19, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

(out)I think I found an issue, since the article was a GA, nominally the bot would remove its listing at WP:GA and update the counters for that process accordingly. Since this was a manual promotion those steps were not completed. I'm sure it can be done manually, but the counts are a bit complicated for me to understand. -MBK₀₀₄ 04:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, even if it needs some tidying, your flexibility in this unusual instance makes you tops in my book, Karan (and tks Sandy for endorsing)...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:53, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much for looking this over again, Karanacs, I really appreciate you taking the time. Parsecboy (talk) 11:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Joey Hamilton FAC

Being relatively unfamiliar with the FAC process, can you explain your closure of the FAC. There were no opposes, which makes it weird to me that it was closed.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 03:24, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I now see it was closed due to lack of reviewers, which to me seems unfair since the article may or may not meet the criteria, but it wasn't given a chance to go through the process of FAC.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 03:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Giants27. Unfortunately, we cannot promote articles to FA status unless there is consensus that it meets all the criteria, and this nomination had received no supports after 3 weeks. This usually means one of these scenarios: a) FAC reviewers were busy and none/few of them read the article or b) reviewers read the article but did not feel that it fully met the criteria but did not feel strongly enough about it to leave a comment. If b), a lot of times a good copyedit can help engage the reviewers more. If a), sometimes just waiting a few weeks will help the article gain better notice. I do recommend that you have Giants2008 look at the article one more time, as he usually does a great job with sports-related articles. I know this is frustrating - rest assured that you have done all the right things, and hopefully next time it will go more smoothly. Karanacs (talk) 04:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)