User talk:Krimuk2.0/Archive 7

Pathe Panchali
Can you have a read of Pather Panchali? I am hoping for a peer review. Before that, I'd like you to read it with intense concentration (!), and suggest improvement.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:59, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure Dwai, I'll give it a thorough read. :) -- kri muk  90 08:34, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Infobox
So I have to ask, why don't you want infoboxes on Vidya Balan and Deepika Padukone?? Nikhilmn2002 (talk) 23:30, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:DISINFOBOX. Also, the FA nomination for Padukone can be found here: Featured article candidates/Deepika Padukone/archive1 where the uselessness of the infobox in her article has been discussed. Cheers! -- kri muk   90 05:30, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Pather Panchali peer review
Hi! If you have time, could you please have a look into this? Your comments will be highly appreciated in this peer review. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:40, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

The changes to Deepika
Ever since the first edit of @User:Bollywood4ever at Deepika Padukone, I think there has been mayhem in the article. He seems to have informally copy-edited parts of the article, and another editor has added an infobox with sources, as against the FA review's suggestion. Can u pls have a look? &#45;--- Kailash29792 (talk) 04:02, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Gemini FA review
The article Gemini (2002 Tamil film) has been nominated as a candidate for Featured Article status, we would like to hear your comments on what needs to be done to improve the article with and focus on its compliance with FA criteria. If you have the time to review and critique the article, we would appreciate it. The FAC at: Featured article candidates/Gemini (2002 Tamil film)/archive1. &#45;--- Kailash29792 (talk) 15:59, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library Survey
As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasit &#124; c 14:50, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Precious again
  Indian cinema

Thank you for quality articles as part of the Indian cinema task force, such as Vidya Balan appearing on her wedding day, stressing her courage "to step beyond the boundaries imposed by a male-dominated Indian film industry", and for your ẆẺḶḈỘṂẾ, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:34, 14 December 2012 (UTC) A year ago, you were the 334th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:17, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you once again. :) -- kri muk  90 06:47, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Happy New Year, bro!


--Jionpedia  ✉  19:16, 31 December 2013 (UTC) — is wishing you a Happy New Year! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{subst:New Year 1}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

2013 was one hell of a year. While it gave us some great movies (The Lunchbox, Kai Po Che!, Lootera, Bhaag Milkha Bhaag etc.) and some record-breaking blockbusters (Yeh Jawaani Hai Deewani, Chennai Express, Dhoom 3), it also gave us some really sad moments (the deaths of Pran, Paul Walker, Nelson Mandela, Farooque Sheikh, re-crimilisation of homosexuality, typhoons and cycolones like Phailin and Haiyan). Nevertheless, I ain't gonna miss 2013, so have a happy 2014 ahead! Yours truly, --Jionpedia  ✉  19:16, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Ranveer Singh
Hi Smaro, can you please share your opinion here? — Indian: BIO  · [ ChitChat  ] 14:53, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Main Page appearance: Deepika Padukone
This is a note to let the main editors of Deepika Padukone know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on January 5, 2014. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask. You can view the TFA blurb at Today's featured article/January 5, 2014. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Deepika Padukone (born 1986) is an Indian film actress and model. She has established a successful career in Hindi (Bollywood) films, and is cited in the media as one of the most popular and attractive Indian celebrities. She made her acting debut in 2006 as the titular character of the Kannada film Aishwarya. She then played dual roles in her first Bollywood release—the 2007 blockbuster Om Shanti Om—and won a Filmfare Award for Best Female Debut. Padukone received praise for portraying the lead female role in the 2009 romance Love Aaj Kal, but her performances in the 2008 romantic comedy Bachna Ae Haseeno and the 2010 comedy Housefull met with negative reviews. The 2012 box office hit Cocktail marked a significant turning point in her career, earning her critical acclaim and Best Actress nominations at several award ceremonies. In 2013, Padukone established herself as a leading actress of Hindi cinema by playing primary roles in the comedies Yeh Jawaani Hai Deewani and Chennai Express (both of which rank among the highest-grossing Bollywood films of all time), and garnered critical acclaim for her role in the tragic romance Goliyon Ki Raasleela Ram-Leela. UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Great to see as TFA today!!♦ Dr. Blofeld  12:52, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

SPI
Hi Smarojit/Krimuk90, there's a sockpuppet investigation involving you here. Note that I'm not involved in it, I just stumbled across it by accident, and I noticed you haven't been informed. Regards, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 06:02, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks Baffle Gab. I don't think I need to comment there. If someone is suspicious (only because I edited Balan's page), then the result should prove them wrong.  kri muk  90 08:58, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Ranveer Singh
Hi Kri/Smaro, have you seen going on removing the film names from all tables? We have had a consensus against this at the talk page of Ranveer Singh as you might remember, however, going on edit warring on this, violating WP:3RR continuously, this is not the way to handle things! Haven't we requested the user to time and again raise this concern in the proper channels like the MOS:films or the Wikiproject films? He/She has failed to do this instead is choosing to edit war. What are your suggestions for this? — Indian: BIO  · [ ChitChat  ] 05:36, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh God! Again! I really don't understand why he is doing this when consensus has already been reached on the talk page! -- kri muk  90 05:39, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Can you please come here once more? Sorry to bother you like this. I have notified Bollyjeff and User:Cirt also who is an admin. — Indian: BIO  · [ ChitChat  ] 06:05, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments. Can you please keep an eye on Ranveer Singh for further edit warring. I have reverted twice, cannot revert further even if TRPoD does not abide by 3RR. — Indian: BIO  · [ ChitChat  ] 06:34, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yep, I'll do that. -- kri muk  90 06:35, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Ranveer Singh". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot  operator /  talk  12:58, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Hey bud!
Have you seen Goliyon Ki Raasleela Ram-Leela? --  Bollywood Dreamz  talk 16:20, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Hola! Yes, I have. What about you? Was a bit disappointed by the film, considering it's a Bhansali product. But Ranveer and Deepika were fabulous. -- kri muk  90 01:24, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I found it a bit long, but overall it wasn't too bad. What other films have you seen lately? --  Bollywood Dreamz  talk 19:47, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I saw Krrish 3, and it was simply terrible. Lol! The only other Bollywood film that I saw was Shuddh Desi Romance, and that was fabulous! What about you? -- kri muk  90 08:05, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * LOL... I must admit that Krrish 3 was bad. Apart from that, I only saw Gori Tere Pyaar Mein and was disappointed with that as well. IMO, this year has been pretty disappointing so far! --  Bollywood Dreamz  talk 16:08, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The pest is back at it again! --  Bollywood Dreamz  talk 05:52, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 'Pest' is too weak a word for what he is! He has single-handedly made editing on Wikipedia a terrible experience for a lot of us. -- kri muk  90 06:35, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Now look what he's trying to do. Both the awards have been properly sourced, yet he claims that Padukone didn't receive it. It's his agenda against all the other actresses. LOL. Hope you can keep an eye as well! :) --  Bollywood Dreamz  talk 20:01, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey Smaro! Needed your opinion on something. While keeping their maiden name, Kareena Kapoor Khan and Aishwarya Rai Bachchan both added their husband's last names after marriage. Right now in both of their respective articles, they're addressed by their maiden name. Do you think it's important to change it to their new names (Kapoor Khan and Rai Bachchan or just Khan and Bachchan) or can we just leave it the way it is? The only reason I ask you this is because recently on Kapoor's awards page, User:Miniapolis made the change. --  Bollywood Dreamz  talk 20:07, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That's interesting, but I would still prefer referring to them as Kapoor and Rai, respectively, because that's their common name. They have been referred to by those names for most of their career and I don't think it needs to be changed only because they are married. -- kri muk  90 03:39, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks! :) --  Bollywood Dreamz  talk 04:42, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

It seems like all the BOI links are dead and to access their information you have to pay... :S --  Bollywood Dreamz  talk 21:50, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I saw that. What a pain! :( I wonder who will pay to access it! -- kri muk  90 02:32, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * This is going to affect us badly! :( Plus, we will now have to add the archived links for all the old BOI links. --  Bollywood Dreamz  talk 02:53, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Are the archived links available? -- kri muk  90 03:28, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, they are! BTW, have a look at this; it's written by Gul Panag. You might be able to use some stuff from there to add to Vidya's article. --  Bollywood Dreamz  talk 03:34, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Excellent article! Thanks. It's a shame how the Indian society functions. Being married has nothing to do with being an actor, male or female. It really pisses me off when people make these sexist remarks. I really hope that Kareena and Vidya can successfully change this stupid notion. -- kri muk  90 06:47, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Is there a reason you removed the years from Balan's article? :) --  Bollywood Dreamz  talk 15:34, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I did so because I merged the early life and career section in one. I didn't see the point of mentioning years in the later subsections, and not mentioning them in the first few. So I decided to remove it altogether. A few other actor/actress FAs also follow such a format. -- kri muk  90 17:04, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring against MOS and to reinsert duplicated content
re

You apparently have not read either WP:MOSTABLE which states "[Tables] can be useful for a variety of content presentations on Wikipedia, though should be used only when appropriate; sometimes the information in a table may be better presented as prose paragraphs or as an embedded list." or WP:FILMOGRAPHY "Some filmographies are presented in a tabled format; however, you should make sure there is an obvious benefit to table format before creating a table for a filmography. "

from the same WP:FILMOGRAPHY "Notes:   This field is to include optional, additional information such as medium, episode titles, or awards--when there is no separate "Awards" section in the given article."

Please revert yourself. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  16:17, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You're right. I have made a few changes to exclude repeated info in Shraddha Kapoor'a article. But the rest need to stay as there is no policy against it. -- kri muk  90 16:22, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Pssst!. — Indian: BIO  · [ ChitChat  ] 12:07, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh God!! And now there is a new one here. What's funny is that he is the same one adding all sort of fluff to Padukone's filmography. I am so tired of this!! Could you help me in reverting the edits User:IndianBio. I would be very grateful. Thanks, -- kri muk  90 12:14, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Fully protected it seems. :( What's funny is TPoDwhatever has the audacity to even go against consensus. ANI is coming up soon. — Indian: BIO  · [ ChitChat  ] 16:33, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Hahaha
LOL at this comment! Go Smaro! So sick of reverting his edits all the time. It's impossible to argue with people who think they're right all the time even if a hundred people are disagreeing with them -.- AB01 (talk) 07:02, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * LOL! Seriously man! He really pisses me off! I agree, it's impossible to argue with such people. -- kri muk  90 07:14, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Very true. Anyways, he's lost his appeal anyways, so until and unless he changes his non-NPOV, and try to set a precedence, I'm afraid his malicious edits won't be taken into account, in any article. — Indian: BIO  · [ ChitChat  ] 06:44, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * He still doesn't seem to get the idea, rambling on about corporate advertising and stuff! LOL! -- kri muk  90 08:14, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Rani Mukerji TFA nomination
This article has been nominated for as a TFA, feel free to weigh in here. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 02:23, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, of late I heard some editor "working" for Rani Mukerji tried to modify the article according to her needs, creating an edit war between u and him. Did u finally end the war and make sure the article is TFA worthy? Kailash29792 (talk) 04:04, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Hey, those editors have now been blocked. See here. I have requested for the page to be semi-protected now. Let's see if I can sort out the issue at TFA. -- kri muk  90 04:07, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 20
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Aamir Khan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fanaa (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

You've got mail!
Nikkimaria (talk) 15:46, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

stop "blindly reverting"
You are the one "blindly reverting". . It HAS been discussed on the talk page and the current consensus is to NOT violate WP:CRYSTAL and NOT misrepresent sources. Which is a good thing because even if the local consensus was otherwise, the policies would still apply. Revert yourself. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  12:57, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * No. -- kri muk  90 12:58, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * and so you are admitting that you are edit warring against policy and consensus to follow policy? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  13:03, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * No. -- kri muk  90 13:06, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * ok, so you are just editing against policy and consensus and falsely accusing others of not using the talk page while you are not using and ignoring the talk page. got it. --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  13:18, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * So you think! I have left amble replies on Talk:Ranveer Singh. I never saw you comment properly on any of those. All you did was repeat the same CRYSTAL crap a million times when we had already come to a consensus. -- kri muk  90 13:20, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Is this your new stance to sabotage the article again TRPoD after losing your appeal? — Indian: BIO  · [ ChitChat  ] 14:00, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I can't understand why he is only targeting this article? If it's such a big issue for him, let him establish a common rule for "all" articles. Not just Singh. -- kri muk  90 14:28, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

when restoring content it is the WP:BURDEN of the party restoring to add appropriate inline citations for the claims they are placing in the article, they cannot claim that a "source exists over there, go look for it." in addition, there is NO source that is a reliable source for claiming that an unfinished unreleased film had appeared or will appear in a certain year. Revert yourself. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  05:39, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Please set a precedence for "all" filmography formats to follow this practice and I will happily revert myself. Until then, please stay away from my talk page. -- kri muk  90 05:41, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * no project can over ride WP:V and WP:CRYSTAL. no errors in other articles allow repeating those errors elsewhere. Misrepresenting the sources in article content is NOT acceptable. Consider this your final warning. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  12:23, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * what the consensus at the project was, is that unreleased works can be included in the filmography. However, the there was NOT a consensus that the unreleased work could be presented as if it had been released or in a manner that Wikipedia assures that it will be released. And even if it had, a project cannot override the Wikipedia wide policies of WP:V and WP:CRYSTAL because there is no source that is  reliable for assuring future events. --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  18:47, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * dude, read the policies. the consensus HAS been established BY WIKIPEDIA EDITORS FOR ALL OF WIKIPEDIA. We cannot make predictions, and we cannot misrepresent what the sources say. and no source is reliable for establishing that future events HAVE occurred. And no matter what they may wish, the Film project CANNOT override that. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  18:55, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * read the top of the policy pages. WP:V "This page in a nutshell: Readers must be able to check that Wikipedia articles are not just made up. This means that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." Show me where Wikipedia has accepted that content in filmographies is NOT subject of WP:V. Much content of filmographies can be verified by the credits of the film itself, however WHEN THERE IS NOT A FILM, the future credits that may exist cannot be used to verify anything. --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  19:05, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Not only is it likely to be challenged, it has ACTUALLY BEEN CHALLENGED. I have challenged it multiple times, and you have multiple times failed to properly respond to the challenge by providing an inline citation or misrepresented what the source can actually verify. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  19:11, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * thank you for deciding to follow WP:V policy. --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  19:21, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 27
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Aamir Khan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Love Love Love (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Truce
I think you just don't know me and just revert whatever I try to fix. But I don't want to be on bad terms with anyone. I was just giving you suggestions. But you just strongly oppose anything I give you as help. Hopefully, you can be nicer with your edits next time. I really don't want to bug you. You are doing a decent job with the page. I would prefer some things to be different but it's okay. I'm not picky. Hope you don't think of me as troublesome because my intention was just to improve and build that page. But thanks for making it a featured article. Just do your best now! Good luck! I won't bug you. But please take my suggestions into consideration next time instead of just discarding them. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.48.206.18 (talk) 10:19, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I would definitely have taken your suggestions into consideration, if you weren't the same person responsible for creating several socks and harassing many users over the years, Shez! Aren't you tired, really? -- KRIMUK  90  ✉  10:21, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I am not harassing anyone. Seriously. I just made accounts now because you would target one of them when I would give input and work so much. All my hard work would be erased so I used another account to not revert my work and it would be fine. Because the work was good. Anyway, I am not making any IDs now. Just using this ID. So don't think I am other users when I am not. And I don't know why you think I am some Shez. I am not. I just started wiki last year and now more actively this year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.48.206.18 (talk) 10:27, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Do take good suggestions from me. Bunty Aur Babli: I am telling you it's two different names. And whenever you guys decide to keep all the awards, do put the template from Rani's page. It's all there so you don't have to work from scratch. Thanks! Wish you luck! I don't have time to edit anymore from tomorrow as I am off holiday. I just did this for fun. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.48.206.18 (talk) 10:30, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Atleast you told the truth about something, if not the entire thing Shez. That's an improvement for you. Anyway, have a nice holiday. Enjoy! -- KRIMUK  90  ✉  10:32, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I really tried to help you. But you just keep reporting me. Be like that. Wow! I was tumbin. You can report me. I was just helping. Forget it. You just do your own thing and dont take input from me. I really dont want to cause trouble. Just be cool. Stop accusing me of stuff. Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.48.206.18 (talk) 10:34, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Not just Tumbin. All of these. They have been confirmed by a Checkuser, so there is no point in lying. -- KRIMUK  90  ✉  10:37, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes I am not lying. I said tumbin here because you mentionned it. I am not Shez. That's all I said.

The Special Barnstar
Thank you Krimuk for that barnstar. Also, Kalidas is my sixth consecutive GA (get it? double hat-trick). Kailash29792 (talk) 15:09, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Shraddha Kapoor
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hindi/bollywood/news-interviews/Shraddha-Kapoor-bombarded-with-bday-wishes-on-Twitter/articleshow/31345533.cms I found this source is more accurate and reliable one to represent her date of birth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.226.73.30 (talk) 15:39, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Rani Mukerji filmography
I'd like to thank you for supporting the DYK project. Cheers Victuallers (talk) 00:02, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

accusations of "bad faith"
You have had bad faith all along. And you still have not provided any valid rationale for why we would break WP:V and WP:CRYSTAL to claim a release date for an unreleased film when we can easily and more accurately describe what is actually verifiable. Your resistance to accurately presenting the facts is completely incomprehensible to me. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  20:12, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I have started numerous discussions, in talk pages, and the latest one being here. However, you have refused to even discuss this seriously, making a joke out of this entire situation and randomly reverting my edits. So please discuss there, before you go on your "bad faith" rampage again. -- KRIMUK  90  ✉  04:14, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Grace of Monaco.png
 Thanks for uploading File:Grace of Monaco.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 15:43, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

final warning
This is your final warning. If you continue to misrepresent sources as you did with and  and  you will be blocked. The consensus is that we must accurately represent the sources. changing content to misrepresent the sources is unacceptable and will lead to you getting blocked. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  09:55, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you need to brush up on your English language skills if you cannot fathom what the result of the discussion was. -- KRIMUK  90  ✉  09:57, 8 March 2014 (UTC)