User talk:Courcelles/Archive 99

Autocheck
pretty counterintuitive naming, but you showed up on my watchlist so I had to check it out. Seems what's happened is they shunted the feedback rights for the new AFTv5 into reviewer (and rollbacker, it seems), as well as creating separate groups for them, and created the old reviewer right (just autoreview for PC) as "autocheck". Not sure why, but hey. sonia ♫ 19:25, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I had no idea what it was, but turned out when I added it, I suddenly had a blue link taking me for an explanation. Very strange, but since when do the privileges of user rights on en have ANYTHING to do with what they're named? Courcelles 19:33, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

FLC for List of Connecticut Huskies in the WNBA Draft
Hello, I hope you have been doing well. I realize you must be very busy with your new ArbCom duties and whatnow, but if you find some time would you be willing to take a look at List of Connecticut Huskies in the WNBA Draft, currently at FLC? It's been stagnating for several days now without any comments. Thanks. –Grondemar 00:43, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Will see what I can find in there for you. Courcelles 05:29, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

My Page
I was wondering if you could protect this (semi protection and move): User:Tomtomn00/To_Do. ~ &#8658;TomTom  N00  @ 21:34, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No particular need, but no reason not to, either... done. Courcelles 21:38, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks ~ &#8658;TomTom  N00  @ 21:40, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Friendly notification regarding this week's Signpost
Hello. This is an automated message to tell you that, as it stands, you are set to be mentioned in this week's Arbitration Report (link). The report aims to inform readers of The Signpost about the proceedings of the Arbitration Committee in a non-partisan manner. Please review the draft article, and, if you have any concerns, feel free to leave them on the talkpage (transcluded in the Comments section directly below the main body of text), where they will be read by a member of the editorial team. Please only edit the article yourself in the case of grievous factual errors (making sure to note such changes in the comments section). Thank you. On behalf of The Signpost's editorial team, LivingBot (talk) 00:00, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Willett Hot Springs
Hi, Thanks for notifying me. I just added the tag because there were no references to prove the fact that such place exist. There was no information in it and there were just merely 2 lines in the article. But you are an admin and I totally respect your opinion. Thanks --Inlandmamba (talk) 06:30, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * An AFD is a legitimate choice here. But you tagged under WP:G11 which requires something to be promotional.  That's not spam, no matter what else it is, though I have my doubts about it surviving AFD, it can't be speedied. Courcelles 06:46, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 March 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 15:51, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration Analysis story
Hello Courcelles! I am beginning work on a story for The Signpost, similar to an article I wrote last year, this one concerning the voting patterns of newly-elected arbitrators. While my work has not yet begun, you will be able to find the draft story here. I would like to know if you would be willing to answer some questions (via email) concerning your experience as a member of the committee and the principles you balance when making decisions on a PD. Your assistance would enhance the purpose of the article, which is to make arbitrators more visible to the greater community as individual actors rather than a monolithic block of 'deciders'.

If this works for you, please leave a note on my talk page and I will be sure to email you promptly. Best regards, Lord Roem (talk) 20:25, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Fire away. Courcelles 01:00, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Email sent. Lord Roem (talk) 22:51, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

How exciting! (not really)

 * R&R Courcelles 22:52, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Would appreciate some feedback on a List
I would like to possibly put the following List up for FL: List of professional cyclists who died during a race. Before I submit it, though, I would appreciate any feedback from you on my talkpage. (Just to give you a benchmark, this is what the List looked like when I started on it almost two years ago.) Thanks in advance, Shearonink (talk) 01:31, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm... I'm thinking this should be a table, nd not bullet points. The lede should be 3-4 paragraphs, and FLC discourages lists that start with "this is a list" for the last few years. Courcelles 17:58, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see the problem as one of the data, purely of structure. Turning that bulleted list into a table would be major, I can't remember the last time a bulleted list got through FLC.
 * I appreciate your taking a look at it. I've adjusted the lede per your suggestions and have also added some images to the decades' sections.  You're right about converting the present version into a table...I'm thinking about it but that would be a major undertaking. (I was unaware of the predilection for tables in Featured Lists since it isn't listed at Featured list criteria but that's ok...live and learn.)  Thank you for your feedback, it was very helpful. If you think of anything else that needs to be changed/adjusted/deleted/whatever, please post your thoughts about it here.  Cheers, Shearonink (talk) 19:31, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Just an FYI...I am in the middle of converting the information by decade into separate tables. Feel free to stop in and take a look when you feel better, would welcome your feedback.  I guess this List is going to teach me how to do tables... Cheers, Shearonink (talk) 16:35, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Pic rename
Hi Courcelles! I named a pic I uploaded wrong (lack of sleep on my part). Can this be fixed? The file in question is: File:Rizbihaleeb.JPG -- Can we rename it to File:Ummali2.JPG? Thanks so much. :-) ~dee  ( talk? ) 11:11, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If you'd just like to delete it, you can do that and I'll reupload. ~dee  ( talk? ) 11:16, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Could you take a look?
Hi Courcelles! I've been playing with List of amphibians of Michigan over the past couple of days and was wondering if you might have a few minutes to take a look at it? I'm specifically wondering if there is any information that jumps out at you as being missing - I'm having a hard time finding developed articles on this subject on WP and so don't have anything to base it on. I'm considering putting it up for FLC, so any comments you have would be much appreciated! Thanks in advance, although no worries if you don't have the time/interest. Dana boomer (talk) 12:34, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Dana, I'm pretty much blind at the moment (I was in the ER earlier tonight, that's how bad I'm at the moment), I'll see what I can do next wek when I can read the edit box again. (Can someone slap a wikibreak template on the page?  Thanks.  For most intents and purposes, I'm out of here for the forseeable future except anything I can do with very, very blown up text. Courcelles 03:21, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, how horrible for you :( Please, take your time and feel better - your eyesight is much more important than a little list! I hope things improve for you soon, Dana boomer (talk) 15:51, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

 Good luck, take care of  yourself! --v/r - TP 23:16, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm back to a little "light" duty today, and a brief look showed some problems with modern tables (Look at a recently promoted FL for how to do row and column scopes), but no glaring omissions in content. Courcelles 22:27, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think (?) I have the column scopes in, but couldn't figure out how to do row scopes when the image was the first thing in the row (when I added the row scope at the beginning it turned everything bold). Could you (or one of your TPS) add one or two for me in the proper place so that I can see where they're supposed to go? The row scopes are going to be the death of me yet...never can figure them out... Much appreciated, and I'm glad your eyesight is returning! Dana boomer (talk) 11:33, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Did the first one, though I would consider moving the images to being the last column, rather than the first. The trick here is that whatever field the rowscope is MUST be on its own line, not just seperating cells with double pipes.  Courcelles 16:30, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, that makes sense :) Thank you very much for doing that...next week when I get some time I'll work on fixing the rest of the list and probably move the images to the end of the rows as you suggested. Thanks again, and I hope your eyes continue to improve! Dana boomer (talk) 11:33, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Republic of China article
Since you have previously shared your view in a CfD about the Republic of China, I guess you are interested to share your insight at Talk:Republic of China#Requested Move (February 2012) too. Thanks for your attention. 61.18.170.250 (talk) 11:06, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 March 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 11:31, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Talk:List of The Price Is Right pricing games#Merger proposal
This merger discussion has been inactive since September 2011. What is the consensus? --George Ho (talk) 08:16, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks like a rough consensus to merge it, to me. Courcelles 17:33, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

My userpage.
Hi, I was wondering if you could protect it again. ~ &#8658;TomTom  N00  @ 16:24, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure, done. Courcelles 17:41, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. ~ &#8658;TomTom  N00  @ 17:45, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Reopening evidence
While I'm not sure I'll have time to take advantage of this, I think it's great that ArbCom is acknowledging this is a more-than-two-person issue -- the original proposed decision left a bad taste in my mouth. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:34, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I wish I had read this case before this weekend, but I was inactive for the part before and after the PD was posted. This is one of those times here the parties list was extensive, and the amount of discussions and issues that needed to be raised in the evidence so high that our own word and diff limit shot us in the foot. Quite honestly, if these two editors was the extent of the problem, esp. with one being a sock of a topic-banned editor, I'd never have voted to take this case. Courcelles 23:08, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Pacuvius Calavius
Hi there! Pacuvius Calavius, an article I'd written (or rewritten extensively) some time ago was very severely modified by Claritas/Twyndylyng recently. While my instincts make me want to protect my work, I realize that it's not appropriate to exclude other contributions that might improve an article. So I compromised and rewrote the article in its original style, incorporating the new material as well as I could. Today Twyndylyng reverted my edits, and then you restored mine, before taking the article back to where it had been before Twyndylyng started modifying it. At this stage I'm not sure where the article stands, because as annoying as I found Twyndylyng's edits, I think there were some valid points to be made and relevant sources in his version of the article. If you have a few minutes, would you give it a look and tell me whether we should go back to the compromise version I posted a day or so ago? P Aculeius (talk) 03:44, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Here's the score, you can restore any edit you see fit, as long as you're willing to take responsibility for the content being neutral, not a copyvio, etc, no matter who originally introduced it. And that's not insignificant, little a banned user introduces should be trusted.  I've semi-protected it for a while to keep socks off the page, as well. But the bottom line is you know the subject much more than I do (well, I don't know it at all, I was just putting things back to where things were before the socks made messes), feel free to put the article on any version you believe appropriate, and then, if necessary, you can discuss the matter with any interested editor who isn't banned from this project. Courcelles 03:52, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll have another look in the next couple of days, and decide which version to go with! P Aculeius (talk) 03:56, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 March 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 13:26, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Template bug
This edit to Template:Death category header seems to have screwed things up. See Category:2006 deaths for an example (specifically, the text " "). —danhash (talk) 16:06, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * How in the world did I do that one? I see it's been fixed, good. Courcelles 00:03, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
 Whenaxis  talk &middot; &#32;contribs &#124; DR goes to Wikimania! 20:34, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk about my edits? 00:35, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Seven Storey Mountain - Vandalism
Hello. You helped me once before and I was wondering if you could help me again. The Seven Storey Mountain page is being vandalized again and I was hoping you could apply protection to the page. I really appreciate your help. Electronado (talk) 02:09, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello Courcelles. In working to preserve the integrity of wikipedia, I could not help but notice how Electronado has asked you for some relief on the Seven Storey Mountain page. If you are to take any actions concerning that page, I would like to remind you to make sure to read Talk:Seven_Storey_Mountain, as well as its edit history, and the edit history of the page itself, as it might make it apparent to you that, while  Electronado  may be asking for your help to "protect" a page, the protection that he/she is praying for is from those who have been zealously working to preserve the integrity of the page from the incessant tendentious edits made by Electronado and Pena129 who have an apparent WP:COI. It is also useful to point out that, when regarding each of those user's contributions, they are strictly limited to editing Seven Storey Mountain, which also leads to the conclusion that they were specifically created with the intention of promoting (or perhaps just vandalizing) that page since there appears to be no legitimate reason for deleting only certain selections from the band's compilation list (perhaps they just really don't like the songs that were released, or the records that they were on, or even the record label that released them).Desertally (talk) 15:07, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * at a general impression, I don't see a lot that needs doing, though Pena129 seems to be doing a little too much edit warring; consider filing a report at WP:ANEW if this should continue. Courcelles 06:04, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

The Voice UK.
As your an adminisrator, could you do a history merge from User:MayhemMario/sandbox:The Voice UK to the main article, The Voice UK. I would literally want all the info from the current main article to be replaced by my sandbox draft. Many thanks, Mayhem  Mario  19:03, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * done and re semi-protected. Courcelles 19:35, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Perplexed and hurt
I'm perplexed as to why you and the others signed up to the following, and very hurt that you did.


 * 5) Born2cycle is warned that his contributions to discussion must reflect a better receptiveness to compromise and a higher tolerance for the views of other editors.

If you have any examples of where you feel my contributions to discussion did not reflect sufficient receptiveness to compromise and/or too low of a tolerance for the views of other editors, I would very much like to know where, and why you think that.

If you don't know of any such examples, why did you agree to this?

Thank you. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:46, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I do feel the wording is fairly accurate, though I might have simplified it to being for general disruptive editing. As Elen said in her vote, and I'm paraphrasing, "listen more, talk a lot less"; and the evidence of your need to do this really exists clear as day on the talk page of the proposed decision itself (where another of my colleagues commented on your communication style). The evidence, and the talk page, show you trying to argue people don on walls of text, it ould be far more harmonious and better received if you would adopt a more succinct style of communication. Courcelles 07:33, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, that makes sense. My style is to err on the side of clarity over brevity; there can be no doubt about that!  But why is that a problem - nobody is required to read everything I say.  In fact, one of the reasons I use this approach (not perfectly!) is so that someone new coming to a discussion does not have to read the entire thread to know what's going on.  Therefore, there is a lot of repetition in my commentary. But what does not being as succinct as possible have to do with a lack of receptiveness to compromise, or insufficient tolerance for the views of others?  I don't understand the connection, at all. What's especially  baffling is that the Dec-Jan recognizability disagreement at WT:AT/WP:AT was all about certain others not being receptive to clear consensus (way beyond compromise) and their intolerance for the consensus view.  I just don't understand why I, of all people involved there, got this warning/advice, worded as it is. Now there is this blemish on my record - to what end?  I don't understand why you guys would treat me, or anyone else, so unfairly. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:45, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Urgent block or page protection needed
Hi Courcelles. Take a look at this page:. We need semi-protection or a rangeblock urgently for this IP edit. Thanks in advance for your help, Whenaxis (contribs) 22:12, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. Courcelles 22:16, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Phew! Thanks :) Whenaxis (contribs) 22:17, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 March 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 23:54, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Wonderful!
THIS was a nice way to wrap up your work at Wikipedia before you went on your wiki-vacation. I have been editing this article for some 3 years and your observation was quite on target...namely that the article gets more abused as we approach the "fateful" date of May 5th. My only observation is that the abuse continues for about 2-4 weeks after the 5th -- it seems that all the college kids want to add the 5 de mayo drinking et al experiences to the article starting the next morning whan they wake up, but after a few weeks vandalism does go down dramatically,,,, for another year that is! Thanks! Mercy11 (talk) 13:20, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * seems to me like all the "minor" holidays go through this cycle. 10 months of the year, no need to have it protected at all, but when the holiday approaches, vandalism comes from nowhere. If it flares up afterwards, it can always be put back on protection for a week or two. Courcelles 05:58, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Please delete the revision here
The user revealed too much of information there. I'm asking for his privacy protection. Thanks. Dipankan says.. ( "Be bold and edit!" ) 15:44, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, that's a fairly large place, so I don't think it is necessary. If he asks, I'd be happy to remove it, but it's hardly identifying enough to remove against his consent. Also, please report these type of things via e-mail instead of in public. Courcelles 16:39, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Bridgette B

 * Would you please unsalt this article? She does pass WP:PORNBIO now, as she has won an AVN Award; see here.  Erpert  Who is this guy? 20:45, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Done, though it wouldn't surprise me at all to see this back at AFD, PORNBIO is a crapshoot in the "field" at AFD and DRV. Courcelles 01:09, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Email

 * Seen, ill reply tomorrow (later today, actually) Courcelles 05:11, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Harassment of editors and Arbcom transparency
On my talk page at User_talk:Russavia, there is a discussion between myself and your fellow Arb User:AGK, concerning an issue which came to the attention of Arbcom. As the various links and diffs show, many editors saw the recent RFC/U against User:Fae as harassment, at best, and as homophobic harassment, at worst.

AGK firstly stated that he "voted" to ban Delicious Carbuncle, then has "corrected" himself to state that he merely was in favour of the Committee reviewing the case; either way there was opposition on the Committee to either banning Delicious Carbuncle or even reviewing the harassment that Fae was being subjected to.

As an Arb, the community elected you to represent the community for the community. The Committee time and time again pushes on editors who come before it that transparency is essential in our editing; in fact, transparency is one of the key tenets of this project, however the Arbcom often does not act in the same transparent way that it (and the community) expects of the community itself.

AGK states on my talk page that one can only expect a transparent hearing if a request for arbitration is filed, and states that most Arbcom business is conducted this way. This notion is somewhat correct, but it is also very wrong. As the committee time and time makes a point of stating that community transparency is essential, the community also expects the same of the Committee -- at all times. The Committee also makes many decisions "behind closed doors", and when pushed to explain decisions cites various "get out of jail free cards" to avoid being transparent to the community-at-large. This includes decisions such as banning editors for things done offwiki which can't clearly be attributed to that editor, or unbanning editors with a history of socking, etc, etc.

In aid of this, and in the interests of transparency to the Community at large, I am asking that you answer the following questions:


 * 1) Did you discuss the harassment of Fae on the Arbcom-l mailing list?
 * 2) If you did discuss this on the mailing list, were you in favour or against the Committee reviewing the information?
 * 3) If the discussion got to anything resembling a vote, did you vote in favour or against banning Delicious Carbuncle?

These are very simple questions which one is able to answer if they are truly for transparency both on the Committee and in the community in general, and I would expect that many in the community would be wanting transparent answers to these questions.

The last thing, it is of course Fae's choice if he wishes to request a case for Arbitration, but these questions are not being asked to have an end-run around the Arbitration process, but are being asked in the interests of transparency on a specific example that the Committee was aware of and refused to act upon. I would expect Fae and other editors (especially LGBT editors) would be wanting transparent answers here now, before deciding if they wish to act. Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 07:53, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * In order, the RFC was discussed in very general terms, I did think the entire matter warranted closer review, and no vote was taken. Courcelles 01:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your fortright answers Courcelles, it's appreciated. Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 06:07, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

List of professional cyclists who died during a race
Would appreciate your feedback as I continue the process of converting the bulleted text into Table form. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 14:55, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * okay, a few more thoughts. Use one table, and make the names, dates, and nationalities sortable.  Eithercreate an image olumn, or put the images outside the tables, don't use images with rowspan arguments.  "This is a list..." openings will never get through FLC these days. Courcelles 01:25, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, that "see also" section is far too long. Keep three or four if you must, but it needs an axe taken to it. Courcelles 01:45, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Trimmed the "see also", but I have a few questions. Are you saying the entire List should be converted into one single table? And since these are the first Tables I've ever constructed...what do you mean when you say 'sortable'?  If you could give me any "Help...Tables!" links, I'd appreciate it. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 04:24, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * And I guess I was confused about the title, thinking the title/subject had to be repeated in the first line of the lede per other WP article-forms. I see some FLs repeat their designation while others do not, so I'll re-craft those first few sentences again.  Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 04:39, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Regarding the first line issue, you'll notice if you look carefully, the FL's that start with "This is a list" are almost exclusively, older promotions. To use another list, see List of 1964 Winter Olympics medal winners, where the lede begins not by describing the list, but by introducing what the broader topic actually is (in this case, the broader topic is the 1964 Winter Games, not the list.  Yours is deaths in cycling, not the list of those who died.)  Regarding sortability, look at List of Atlanta Braves first-round draft picks and the code that makes the table work.  Most of the fields sort, but the school and ref do not (the code that makes that list function will be a direct help in getting yours to function.  Really, it would be easier if you looked through the code of well-made tables, and then asked questions, rather than me trying to write a tutorial for tables freeform (Or if push comes to shove, I can go in your list and set things up for you to finish the job). Courcelles 05:05, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, don't mean to bother you, I appreciate your help.Shearonink (talk) 06:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You're not bugging me at all, but I'll maintain until proven dead wrong, that looking at the raw code for a table that works is the best way to learn what you're doing. Tables get easier the more you do them. Courcelles
 * The pointing out which Lists you regard as having well-made tables is especially helpful. I did not know where to look for examples of them and these were my first attempts, so it's been a steep learning curve. And thanks for your previous set-up offer, but I think it would be more useful for me in the long run to learn how to create Tables by doing them myself. Shearonink (talk) 06:47, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Interview
Hi, my name is Pedro Rodriguez. I am a student at Michigan State University, working on an exploration of the Wikipedia adminship process under Jonathan Obar. You had previously showed interest in being a interviewee for our study. I can conduct the interview via Skype or email, whichever you prefer. I can be contacted at my email: rodri397@msu.edu to set up a time to Skype or, if you wish, to obtain your email to conduct the interview that way. Thank you for your participation in our study. SirGuybrush (talk)
 * Sent you an e-mail. Courcelles 01:41, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

What's happening?
Something seems to be oversighting the stuff on NawlinWiki's talk page, and locking and hiding the accounts.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:13, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Vandalism, that's all. Courcelles 03:15, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * While this is just vandalism, generally when you see that happening it involves privacy-related stuff that shouldn't have attention drawn to it onwiki. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 03:16, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I mean, it looks like a bot was doing it.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:17, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, nope, that was good old human intervention. And some fast button-clicking. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 03:23, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd congratulate the oversighter, but there's a reason why the log is hidden...--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:29, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 April 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 06:37, 3 April 2012 (UTC)