Talk:Flatulence/Archive 2

Untitled
Flatulence is the presence of gas in the gastrointestinal tract of mammals due it's generation by intestinal bacteria or, more commonly, through the ingestion of atmospheric gases. Though the term 'flatulence' is commonly used to refer to expulsion of gas from the anus (i.e. 'farting'), in medical terms such an action is actually termed flatus.

Citation #3 states that a grand total of nine individuals were sampled in their 'study'. It's highly probable those those nine individuals were not representative of Earth's population, or even if they were, percentages of world don't always come out to 11% increments. Is there a better source that could be used?LeeRamsey (talk) 02:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Inconsistencies
There are a few inconsistencies between this article and the Antiflatulence article. For instance this article says that cumin reduces flatulence while the Antiflatulence article says it does not. Similarly this article gives garlic as a cause of flatulence whereas the Antiflatulence article lists it as a remedy. The antiflatulence article at least gives a reference for its dismissal of cumin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Majurawombat (talk • contribs) 00:18, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

This article indicates that garlic is a cause of flatulence. The article on anti-flatulence indicates that garlic prevents gas. Which one is true? 207.219.3.222 (talk) 16:16, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Just Wondering...
Did the original author manage to keep a straight face while writing this?

Dwacon (talk) 23:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * This article is hilarious. Accidental defecation :D I agree, it is HILARIOUS! :D

Ok, and I would like to know WHO had the time to post this article. I mean, SOMEONE has a bit too much time on their hands here. . . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.108.149.138 (talk) 02:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Accidental Defication, egh? I don't call it "following through", I call it a "shart" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.204.132.48 (talk) 22:15, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Archiving
This page is 116 KB (18541 words) long. Because of possible technical issues, I think we should archive this page. I'd use the cut and paste method, leaving the three most recent threads here. Puchiko (Talk-email) 17:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * As there were no objections, I have archived the talk page. Puchiko (Talk-email) 22:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Nontechnical references
Should they really be separate? It makes it difficult to cite a nontechnical resource; you have to go down and add it yourself instead of just using a ref tag (which will add it to the 'regular' reflist - unless there's a property of the ref tag of which I'm unaware that can specify it as nontechnical, in which case please enlighten me and call me a ninny). --Dbutler1986 (talk) 04:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Performance art
This section seems relevant and integrated enough to me. 'Trivia' like this is often listed or mentioned in articles with a section relating to references in popular culture, which is what this amounts to. I think the template should be removed. --Dbutler1986 (talk) 04:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Could anyone please tell me more about this bulgarian fart contest? I'm interested in this story. I would namely like to know if this Maria Doychinova is the same one who is a fashion designer. Thank you. My e-mail: figueira.ric@gmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.220.42.31 (talk) 22:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Physical Posture/Exercises
Information on physical postures/exercises to aid the release of uncomfortable intestinal gases may be enlightening for the article under the remedies section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.192.71 (talk) 21:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Research?
Why limit farting (first paragraph) to mammals? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.214.9.247 (talk) 10:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Cultures
I think giving specific details about which cultures find farting acceptable and which ones don't should be added. ACDCPres 02:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * My thoughts exactly. It would be pretty interesting to know. Teimu.tm (talk) 03:31, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I went ahead and added an template to that phrase. Teimu.tm (talk) 06:48, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Farting
I reverted this article back to a recent version that contained the term fart. Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia (not a medical one), and its important to use a term that a majority of people know. Flatulence is no more or less a "proper" term than farting is, and its definetly not slang -- its use is too common, everyday, and widespread. It would be a misservice the readers to simply ignore this important term. Its such a odd thing to want to sensor. Ehlkej (talk) 21:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. Why use the word "flatus" all over the place? People don't know it's fart. Doctors know it's fart, and, well, doctors are people, but they ain't most people. The common term is fart or gas. &mdash;  Rickyrab | Talk 02:30, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The reason seems pretty obvious to me: "fart" is a much rougher, less "refined" word. Using it casually is simply not appropriate tone for an encyclopedia. - furrykef (Talk at me) 11:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Citations needed
Oh come on, not EVERY sentence needs a citation now, does it.. It makes articles really hard to read and is just silly. I am talking about the section "Dietary" where every second word has a citation or "citation needed". Whoever posted all that is obsessed with citations. seriously!--217.231.205.126 (talk) 10:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, especially since the rest of the article doesn't seem to conform to the extreme citation standards in the Dietary section. Additionally, some of the stuff is a given and doesn't really need a citation unless you happen to be an alien from another planet who is completely unfamiliar with Earth, in which case it remains a mystery how this alien learned enough english to understand this article without learning some basic information about humans and Earth. Not everyone is a wikipedia administrator, y'know. 74.56.36.34 (talk) 00:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

ICD infobox
Why is this article topped by a medical infobox? In the vast majority of occurances, flatulence has nothing to do with either disease or dysfunction.

Peter Isotalo 14:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Post release
In 1998, Chester "Buck" Weimer of Pueblo, Colorado, USA received a patent for the first undergarment that contained a replaceable charcoal filter. [...]

The inventors, Myra and Brian Conant of Mililani, Hawaii, USA still claim on their website to have discovered the undergarment product in 2002 (8 years after Chester Weimer filed for a patent for his product

Was it made in 1994, or was it 4 years after his product was made? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.235.253.187 (talk) 20:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Merge
There doesn't seem to be much justification for keeping a separate article on the common word for a bodily function. The word really doesn't really live a life of its own comparable to "fuck" or "shit" and is really just a colloquial term for flatulence. And it's not an issue of censorship or using "proper" language instead of everyday terms, but rather the issue of formal vs informal. Keeping this separate is no more justified than having a separate entry for burp/belching or job/employment.

Peter Isotalo 09:14, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The later sections of the article about how the word is used other than just as a synonym for flatulence would suggest that this isn't so. (Recently, at the Isle of Wight festival John Lydon was interviewed, saying that he felt a bit of an old fart, but was still capable of playing with the young farts, to which he was told that since he was headlining that day, he was more like a king fart.)  The afd was soundly defeated, at least partially on the grounds of this, that the word 'fart' is now more than just an informal term for flatulence, but like 'fuck' and 'shit', really has developed a 'life of its own'. Benea (talk) 10:21, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The information about the "indepdence" of this term consists of a small section that is entirely limited to how the word is used in modern English, ei dictionary information. WP:NOT still says we're not supposed to be a dictionary. This is not an AfD nor is it an attempt to remove any and all information about etymology and linguistic information about the word. We can keep much of the information and still merge it with flatulence. However, I see no reason to make exceptions from basic policy just because this happens to be a profanity.
 * Peter Isotalo 18:20, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I just looked over the page, and I don't think much, if any, of the material is appropriate for flatulence. This article is really about the word fart, which is a different subject from the topic of farting/flatulence. I oppose a merge. 19:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The AFD brought on the article under the grounds that an article on a word was not appropriate for wikipedia was closed as a snow keep, no consensus at all for a merge, or that such an article was a violation of basic policy. This essay basically explains the general approach. But are you opposing this article on the grounds that as it is an article about a word, it is a dictionary definition, as in your second post (in which case 'fuck' and 'shit' fail the relevant guideline)? Or because that it is nothing more than an informal term for flatulence, as you set out in your first post (and which was demonstrated to be a logical fallacy)?  The two terms are distinct, in the way that 'fuck' is not a redirect to sexual intercourse, or 'shit' to defecation. And as Xyzzyplugh's essay sets out, there is no real consensus over what to do with articles about words. I'd happily support a merge but only if the two concepts were the same, and they are not.  Benea (talk) 10:16, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * "But are you opposing this article on the grounds..." Are you directing this at me, or Peter? Carl.bunderson (talk) 19:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Peter, and sorry I should have said 'proposing' (i.e. for merge). I was going to indent it under his last comment, but worried that it would confuse the chronology. Benea (talk) 19:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Heh, I got confused cuz it sounded like a reply to him but it was indented to me :P Just wanted to make sure I wasn't supposed to reply. Carl.bunderson (talk) 20:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I've never been quite satisfied with how dicdefs are repeatedly snuck through WP:NOT. The diffuse argument "beyond dictionary information" appears to be up to whomever reads the article, but it certainly doesn't stand up to a detailed check list of what dictionary information actually consists of. Let me break it down in more detail:
 * "Usage history" and "Vulgarity and offensiveness" correspond almost directly to the Wiktionary headings "Etymology" and "Usage notes" respectively.
 * "Changing attitudes" obviously has far more to do with the approach to flatulence humor than the word "fart" itself. And that's ignoring the complete lack of references and attempt at synthesis based solely on television programming.
 * The only part of the article that might be described as encyclopedic information is "In other usage", but most of it is just synonym information covering the rather limited semantic range of "fart". It doesn't even approach the enormous variety of more vulgar profanities like "fuck" or "shit" and I don't believe it merits an separate article full of other dictionary information.
 * The most obvious argument for calling most of this article an expanded dicdef, though, is that that virtually all the relevant references are dictionary articles, and for all practical purposes, that includes the obscure Duck Fart drink. Fecal Matters in Early Modern Literature and Art: Studies in Scatology would be the shining exception among the sources, but previewing it in Google Books reveals that it's really about French, German and Italian humanists and their use of flatulence as a literary tool. That means it's about the cultural history of a concept, not a specific word in the English language.
 * Peter Isotalo 13:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose This issue has already been addressed at Articles for deletion/Fart and nothing has changed to justify a merge. Alansohn (talk) 01:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The AfD was a matter of deleting contents completely. This is about a merger where much of the content would be kept. I've presented some rather detailed arguments about why the information in this article very obviously fails to qualify when it comes to going "beyond a mere dictionary definition". I would appreciate if the main argument of this discussion wasn't pointing to a previous discussion which has by and large been limited to a "no, you're wrong" style of debating. Peter Isotalo 06:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Peter, I'm a little concerned that you're editing the article to make it fit your arguments, and make this easier for a merge, without there being any consensus that this is the right approach. I wonder if you could raise your content concerns here before removing information, as a show of good faith? Essentially this is an article about a word. User:Xyzzyplugh/Articles about words is a good indication of how this fits in with WP:DICDEF, and explains that these sorts of articles are considered in light of their immediate value, and decisions are arrived at by consensus. The arguments in the afd, and pointed out again here, show that the consensus is that the material is not considered suitable either for the flatulence article, or for wiktionary. Which leaves us at the point where people agree this is more than a dictionary definition. An article on a word is not inherently a dictionary definition. Benea (talk) 06:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I removed a statement about the FCC that had been fact-tagged for 18 months, a section which was entirely based on editorial observation, not reliable sources, and a reference to a source which had nothing to do about the word "fart", but early modern literary allusions to flatulence in various other European languages. I don't see any problem with removing speculation of this kind, nor why it would be considered some kind of pre-merger POV. If I wanted to really prep the article for a merge, I would have certainly also removed the highly trivial information about Duck Farts, fart sacks and nun farts.
 * I do have considerable difficulty accepting the arguments used to defend the existence of articles "about words", but not dicdefs. The only substantial distinction between the two appears to be the slightly longer format. There's no lack of information here that could be transferred to both the Wiktionary article and flatulence. Most of the etymology and usage info could be used to bolster the Wikt-article with only minor reductions. Our own article on flatulence is largely devoid of cultural context (as our so many other articles on medical issues), and could be expanded with information contained here. "Vulgarity and offensiveness" could be transferred almost intact since it is as much a comment on the view on flatulence as it is a history of the word "fart", and the examples of usage are perfect candidates for inclusion in the citations section in Wiktionary.
 * I have no difficulty in understanding that people are eager to keep these article, but what I don't buy is the highly contradictory nature of their arguments. If an article that is not about a concept, specific terminology or even a clearly defined semantic meaning, then how on earth can it be defined as anything other than a dicdef? The only really major difference that separates this from fart appears to be that they are located in different projects. The "but it's a good article"-argument is by all means a nice one, but it pretty much ignores that this information can be more appropriate in other articles or projects.
 * Peter Isotalo 12:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose. We have a mammal bodily function that it is good for Wikipedia to address;  we can name that topic either Flat or Flatulence.  Flatulence is more encyclopedic, but does not address other uses of Fart (outside of being a verb in relational to flatulence);  other uses of do not "fit" on the flatulence article.  I suspect that if a half-hearted/"enthusiastic" merge is attempted, then the fart article will still have left-overs remnants of material, but will (probably) be a lesser article as a result. —Sladen (talk) 09:06, 15 November 2008 (UTC

AlexBriggs12 (talk) 06:41, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose Flatulence is a scientific term, while "fart" is vulgar and is a slang term.


 * Oppose This article has to do with the act of pushing air out of one's anal sphincter. The "fart" article is all about the word itself. Also, THE GAME —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.71.82.59 (talk) 00:11, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Oppose: Flatulence is a clearly designated medical term, and fart is a clearly designated term from popular culture. both have their own history and their own independent existence that makes them individually notable. Merging the two articles would be highly detrimental to both as it would blur the lines between science and popular culture, which is not what Wikipedia would be about. At best it would be confusing and inpresise and would likely lead to fart being excised all together, and at worst it would lead to a POV driven entry that either treated fart as a legitimate medial definition or flatulence as being a pop culture concept. I say no to merging. Merging these two entries would be like merging an entry about the Starship Enterprise with an entry about the US space program. We also need to consider the fact that the word fart has two meanings, one of which is nothing to do with flatuance. In British English a fart can be a dull person of advanced years "My neighbor is a boring old fart". CrazyChinaGal (talk) 14:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

editsemiprotected

People need to know. This really works, after almost having a nervous breakdown because of flatulence I thought about changes in my toileting habits and put my own "Breath the smell in" theory to the test. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.2.149.73 (talk • contribs) 05:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * For this to be included, you would need to cite a reliable source where it has been published, what you mention is original research, which is not suitable for use in Wikipedia articles. — Snigbrook 17:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Infaliable Cure For Flatulence
Case Study. I noticed that following the use of my ceiling fan to cover up embarassing toilet noises and removal of wind, I developed excessive flatulence. When I stopped using the fan and experienced the resultant odour my flatulence reduced. I attribute this phenonemon to the immune reponse created by breathing in the airborne microbial particals through the nose. My flatulence reduce down to normal levels. Cert IV; BSc; BHSc (EHM); Grad Cert Appl Sc NEM; Grad Cert IH.(ExpertNEM (talk) 04:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC))

maybe you just had wind 92.22.68.48 (talk) 20:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)ronaldmaxdonald92.22.68.48 (talk) 20:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Herbs and spices that countaract flatulence
This article states that certain spices are known to counteract flatulence, or evacutation of bowel wind, and then lists caraway, coriander and what, according to the article, is the "closely related" turmeric. In fact, turmeric is NOT closely related to coriander, cumin or caraway seeds, which are in the angiosperm family apiaceae, as it is the angiosperm family Zingiberaceae. Also, I wonder whether parsley should be included here,although this is a herb rather than a spice.

Animal flatulence
Though it isnt made clear, the article seems to be mostly about human flatulence. I just learned from a vet that rabbits are very vulnerable to bloating because they are unable to fart, but couldnt get a detailed explanation for this. There might also be come mention made of verting noises made by deer. Sparafucil (talk) 00:21, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Remedies
under dietary remedies the text suggests that tofu is a fermented bean product. It is not fermented and in fact it is often a cause of flatulence. The soy product that I should be referenced is Tempeh.

This line: Lactobacillus casei and Lactobacillus plantarum have recently been hypothesized as being responsible for this effect.[6] Some legumes also stand up to prolonged cooking, which can help break down the oligosaccharides into simple sugars. Fermentation also breaks down oligosaccharides, which is why fermented bean products such as miso and tofu are less likely to produce as much intestinal gas).

Should read: Lactobacillus casei and Lactobacillus plantarum have recently been hypothesized as being responsible for this effect.[6] Some legumes also stand up to prolonged cooking, which can help break down the oligosaccharides into simple sugars. Fermentation also breaks down oligosaccharides, which is why fermented bean products such as miso and tempeh are less likely to produce as much intestinal gas)

Done Welcome and thanks. Without a reference I didn't want to add that claim for tempeh, but I removed Tofu. Celestra (talk) 06:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Composition of Gas
I have never heard of carbonyl sulfide or butyric acid being responsible for the smell of a fart. Can the author find a citation for this? FartDoctor (talk) 01:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

"Sharting"
I suggest adding "sharting" as a synonym for "following through" as it has become standard vocabulary used to describe these incidents FartDoctor (talk) 01:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

((ESp|n}} Welcome and thanks. Please provide a reference and detail the change. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 06:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Spelling
Article needs to settle on one spelling of "feces" or "faeces". Since this is a chiefly American encyclopedia, I think it should be "feces". No matter which is chosen, there needs to be either one or the other for consistency's sake.

Perdophagy
I have been reviewing information about subculture sexual practices that include perdophagy, or the "eating" of farts. It involves a donor farting directly into a passive participant's mouth, after which the the passive participant "chews" the flatus and comments on its taste.

Perdophagy usually occurs peripherally as a part of Coprophilia, but it is sometimes practiced discretely.

Does anyone else have more information on this? The only sources I have are interviews that I conducted over the past year that have not (yet) been published in a peer-reviewed venue. If we had something more solid, we could include this topic in the article—it is a shame to leave it out.

P.S. I cross-posted this from Talk:Fart since I think it's more appropriate here. Thanks.

Trollaxor (talk) 20:22, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Meat Free Monday under Environmental impact
The last line under Environmental Impact doesn't belong in this article (re: Paul McCartney and Meat Free Monday). I believe that proponents of Meat Free Monday (according to their website SupportMFM), when referring to the effect of meat consumption on climate change and the environment in general are critical of other components of meat production that result in increased greenhouse gas emissions (e.g. feed production and transportation), not particularly direct livestock GHG emissions, whether by flatulence or burping/respiration). See also.

I'd like to remove that line. Any thoughts?

Nytewing07 (talk) 16:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC).

Hair
Hair around the anus muffles farts. This is important information that should be included. Some people shave their buttholes and are shocked by the new timbre. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.185.226.203 (talk) 13:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Find a reference and include the information and the reference in the article.  franklin   14:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Environment
The environmental impact of animal gases is believed by many to be serious. However the carbon content of the gases is 'bio' carbon that was in the atmosphere until a short time before the fart was emitted (1-2 years at most) when the cow's grass/fodder was grown. This could bring it into the category of 'sustainable' which is not the case when fossil fuels are burned, emitting carbon that was fixed from the atmosphere in huge quantities over millions of years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.185.126 (talk) 10:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 87.112.114.20, 24 April 2010
In introductory paragraph, after

a process colloquially referred to as "passing gas"

add

, "breaking wind",

(including the commas)

87.112.114.20 (talk) 07:28, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree.  Chzz  ►  07:41, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

✅

Edit request from G6JPG, 24 April 2010
In the section "Mechanism of action", delete the word "a" from "expulsion of a flatus".

G6JPG (talk) 07:56, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Done, and also, I asked to get your account swiftly auto-confirmed - very soon, you will be able to edit this (and other semi-protected articles) directly. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  08:23, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

✅

= Whoopie Cushions =

I think it would be a good idea to mention the common flatulence simulating toy known as the "whoopie cushion" in the Culture section. Also, there really ought to be a link to the article on "whoopie cushions" in the See Also section. --PaladinWriter (talk) 06:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Merge Fart lighting
The fact that this:Fart lighting is an article is ludicrous, this isn't eBaum's World —Preceding unsigned comment added by 7mike5000 (talk • contribs) 16:58, 19 August 2010


 * Can you make an argument about how its not an appropriate article for wikipedia based on actual policies rather than a subjective interpretation of how ludicrous you think it is? Two previous afds here and here have determined the article does not fail wikipedia policies or guidelines. Benea (talk) 08:53, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Missing source
In the section, Environmental Impact a source is not found: Flatulence is often blamed as a significant source of greenhouse gases, owing to the erroneous belief that the methane released by livestock is in the flatus.[20] While livestock account for around 20% of global methane emissions,[21] 90-95% of that is released by exhaling or burping.[22] Only 1–2% of global methane emissions come from livestock flatus.

Source 22 is no longer valid. Please provide a new one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.52.249.29 (talk) 10:35, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Hydrogen content in flatus
I was sceptical that flatus should contain hydrogen, but a quick search in Gbooks finds plenty of support. I'm unaware of any bacteria or other microorganism that can produce hydrogen; methane and various sulphides, sure, carbon dioxide and even nitrogen, yep, but hydrogen? Can anybody help here? MrCleanOut (talk) 08:28, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

A fart came out!
Have you farted in class or in a restaurant?Farting is something normal!i was getting up from the floor and suddenly I heard a fart come, out everyone looked at me and laughed!I am still scared of sitting on the ground! A fart is somthing that happens to everyone!If you laugh at other people ....don't because you are going to fart in front of someone and your fart is going to be even smellier and louder! so do not laugh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I Love farts and so do you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thekim15 (talk • contribs) 00:52, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Whoopie Cushion - Invention & Definition
The Whoopie Cushion was invented by the Roman Senator Proctus Flatus in 79 B.M.

Definition from wordiq.com: A whoopee cushion is an inflatable rubber pouch or bladder fashioned so that when it is squeezed, it produces a blatting or flapping noise resembling a Bronx cheer or a loud fart. It is often available in toy stores, and is used chiefly by children to play pranks.

It is used by inflating it and placing it on an unexpecting victim's chair. When the victim sits down, his weight squeezes the cushion, causing it to sound. It is unlikely that observers would mistake the sound of a whoopee cushion for the victim actually flatulating; much of the humor is in simply taking the victim unawares.

More recently, electronic devices that produce pre-recorded farting noises have been sold; these are usually timed or remote controlled. This means that they can be activated well after the victim has sat down, and thus have more likelihood of being mistaken for an actual fart. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnhasson (talk • contribs) 05:02, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Underwear
Another manufacturer is Shreddies (UK, but shipping worldwide). Not to be confused with the cereal that might well cause farting.--88.73.1.98 (talk) 19:09, 19 April 2011 (UTC)