User talk:Logger9/Archives/2009/July

SEM images
I was glad to see your microscopy contributions, such as File:Coll 1.jpg, File:Solid 1.jpg and File:Coll 3.jpg, but disappointed by lack of length scales. Would it be possible to add those ? Ideally as graphics in the picture file. If its not possible, a solution is to describe a characteristic size (e.g., a sphere or image width) in the figure caption, on the page where the image is listed. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 12:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Since most of the work I will post here is of submicron spherical amorphous silica (as I worked with that same system for several years in and out of graduate school) I prefer to keep the image free of clutter, and simply specify the average particle size (or diameter) in the micrograph text or description. But I am certainly open to suggsstion and/or negotiation -- especially if it is coming from a quality source. -- logger9 (talk) 22:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I did not understand "the quality source" part, but all I'm asking is to describe the size of features in microscopy images (image caption is fine). Saying submicron means nothing to me. All my (TEM/STEM) pictures are submicron :) For example, I could have images of spheres from few angstroms up to to few microns. Materialscientist (talk) 01:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * My average particle diameter was consistently 0.6 microns (or 600 nm). I had the conditions of TEOS precipitation consistently worked out to give me that reproducible result. In that size range, I could just barely observe the Brownian motion under a light microscope. I also watched mobile lattice defects dart across the screen while observing thin films of aqueous colloidal crystals under oil. -- logger9 (talk) 02:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand and am glad to hear that, but still, could you please fix the corresponding figure captions for these 3 pictures. Materialscientist (talk) 02:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. Feel free to post me again if you find any particular case(s) where the average particle size in my micrographs is not specified. -- logger9 (talk) 04:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Good job. Sorry for being a nuisance (just part of my character and my role on WP - nothing personal), but please avoid jargon (like avg. dia. - no need to save space here). Wikipedia is meant for non-specialists. How about sizes in File:Solid 1.jpg ? Materialscientist (talk) 04:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Busted !! Done :-)  -- logger9 (talk) 04:37, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Good start. I forgot to tell you my honest (though yet unshaped) impression - you're a professional, trying to improve WP. That is great, we certainly do need more of that. That said, I have plenty of little things I'd like to settle. Please understand that they often deviate from WP policies, and thus in poiting to them I merely attempt to prevent future conflicts (like those you were having recently). The motive here is to improve quality of information to protect it from being deleted. I'll start listing items with an idea that you'll fix them better than I (or other editor, who will simply cut and re-paste whole sections). Please do forgive me if some problems below are irrelevant to your edits :

1) Putting an author name is almost obligatory in the description of an image file, but it is certainly not a good practice to repeat that in the article. I think this has irritated someone, and it could be understood (I might have fixed that already).


 * No objections. -- logger9 (talk) 16:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

2) Ceramics processing is a copy of ceramics engineering. As you are the main contributor of the former, I kindly ask you to agree to remove it via redirect to the latter.


 * No objections. Feel free to proceed -- logger9 (talk) 16:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Ceramic engineering also has extended lists of "Other References" and "further reading", which might be deleted soon if you don't sort them out.


 * Done -- logger9 (talk) 16:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

3) If you scroll to the bottom of nanomaterials you'll find plenty of unnecessary items, which should be cleaned up. Someone will look through "Other references", judge they are not related to the article and will simply deleted the whole section, putting the author in a black list of spammers. "Further reading" is dedicated to sol-gel. What is it doing in nanotechnology ?


 * Done -- logger9 (talk) 16:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

4) Nanoparticle - sol-gel "further reading" does not belong there.


 * Done -- logger9 (talk) 16:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

5) Colloidal crystal, sol-gel, Phase transformations in solids, Physics of glass, Glassy state, Transparent materials and Transparent ceramics have statements supported by 15-30 refs, which would appear superfluous to any reader. Very soon, one of WP cleaners, such as myself, will stumble upon this, say "WP is not a link collection" and hack them all bar one.


 * I may need to chew on that one a bit... -- logger9 (talk) 16:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

6) File:Solid 1.jpg does not look scientific and must be properly described in the image file (how this picture was obtained, what does it show and where the particles are). Materialscientist (talk) 11:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. -- logger9 (talk) 16:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You've added sample prep., but the figure desperately needs description of observation technique and procedure. Materialscientist (talk) 00:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Done (SEM micrograph) -- logger9 (talk) 04:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Regarding 5) I understand how difficult it is to cut of refs found by long searching. Please take your time, but this must be addressed, the sooner the better.

7) Article John W. Cahn is clearly out of shape. It is extremely uncommon on WP to describe scientific theories on a page of biography of a living person (they may only be mentioned in passing), especially with extensive reference to original works by others. This may end up in speedy cutting off parts there. If you are interested in improving that page, could you please sort that. Materialscientist (talk) 00:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Done. -- logger9 (talk) 04:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)



Physics of glass
I've read (i.e. neither peer-reviewed not glanced, but something in between) the Physics of glass, and without judging its correctness, I do acknlowledge it is a thorough summary of the history of modeling and mechanisms of glass structure. Definitely not for an unprepared WP reader, but thats another issue ..

I "fixed" what I found odd (mostly simplifying, wikifying and typos). An advice is to put a figure right below the section heading (if it is a short section; off course, its arbitrary in long ones), not later. Also, in most cases "Dr. XXX from YYY research center" should be simplified to "X" - WP is very sensitive to advertisement and self-promotion.

A comment: electron microscopy of disordered materials is so tricky that very few (non-trivial) results there may be considered reliable.

What I couldn't fix:
 * I saw the correction to File:Solid 1.jpg, but as a microscopist, I can not accept usage of that figure, at least in its current form and explanation: (i) Interpretation of SEM contrast is by all means ambiguous (and unfortunately, not everybody understand that) (ii) The SEM data were heavily processed. For myself in such situations, I say that it is a great pity to trash some results, but that will enhance the credibility of the rest, and thus is a must.


 * Excellent point, and well taken. Woud you like to see the original next to it ?? The overall effect is completley different. -- logger9 (talk) 07:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, I would like to see full story before judging it. I hope you noticed that my comments had intuition behind it (someone is already attacking that image on some talk page) Materialscientist (talk) 00:55, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. See Physics of glass. -- logger9 (talk) 06:45, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * "The B-W model was .." falls out of content. (You were talking about Bethe and then suddenly jump to Bragg-Williams) ? Regards Materialscientist (talk) 06:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your efforts, but your edits to the introductory paragraph included one sentence which was not written in proper English. Thus the revert to the orignal paragraph (which is not much different). Thanks for all your help :-) -- logger9 (talk) 06:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Quite possibly. Please do correct my style by all means, but you may wish to reconsider your revert: (i) you were talking about atoms and molecules and showing a demo picture of particles, which is an obvious contradiction. You have to include particles in order to use the figure and to talk about colloidal glass; (ii) Please do try to explain at least some terms to non-specialists, that is what I tried to do with long and short range order (including your picture in the explanation). I'm not sure you get the point that no-one has understood your article on WP yet, and by making it clearer you'll reduce the number of opposers. Previous description of short range order was by no means clear. (iii) Bravais lattice is so vague there, even for a scientist (the term has extremely limited use in the modern research reports and is substituted by crystal lattice or alike). I have no regrets about my lost edits. I just urge you to think about content (behind my poor spelling). Materialscientist (talk) 06:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I hear you. I admit openly that I had to look it up to remember what it was called ! Some aspects of serious crystallography truly mystify me. In general, I try to stick with fcc and bcc (both of which I observed repeatedly in my work in colloidal crystals). How did nature ever get so complex, anyway ? -- logger9 (talk) 07:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ha. If you want complex - glance through my quick draft of Polymorphs of silicon carbide. And I've heard some materials could be worse :) Materialscientist (talk) 08:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment for you
Hi Logger9,

In response to your requst for advice, I left this comment for you on Talk:Glass transition.


 * I'm sorry to see that you have removed the material from your worksheet, but I will respond anyway. The intro should be very brief as it is intended to cover the entire article. It should be possible to include very short description of the sections, (just the point), and keep an intro that is no longer than the other sections. Zaereth (talk) 21:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Keep in mind that each section should have an intro paragraph, and each paragraph an intro sentence.

Maybe I should've left my original advice on the GT:talk page, but I wanted to keep the discussion where the material being discussed was located, to avoid confusion. We can always transfer a copy to the GT:Talk page if you think it will help. (It just may once the article is unblocked.)

Wikipedia is a unique thing, and it takes a bit of time around some of the more controversial articles to really get used to the place, but I sincerely hope you do not give up. If you use the approach which I and many others have expressed is customary here, there is very little others will be able or willing to do to remove information so swiftly. I always take everything that is not minor maintenance to the talk page before making any edit. I will then wait a few weeks; and this gives everybody involved a chance to respond. If they do, I listen carefully to their advice, and either follow it, or carefully explain why we shouldn't, and wait and see what others think. Don't even respond to personal attacks, and use instead calm, methodical logic and reasoning to make your attacker look bad. First and foremost, show not tell. Give us the undeniable evidence and let us decide. Use this approach and you will win more support from the community, for everyone wants to feel considered, and those who disagree with your ideas will be forced to provide information to the contrary rather than cutting. Zaereth (talk) 00:39, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Note: It's time for me to go get some sunshine, so I won't respond again until tomorrow. Zaereth (talk) 00:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Transparent ceramics
What do you mean "mentioned to you" ? Materialscientist (talk) 08:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Just what I said. I had no clue. -- logger9 (talk) 21:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If you're talking about the move, that was a real-time event: Paula was ripping the article to pieces while I was on RCP. I reverted her, moved the article and ripped it myself to fit into the context. You couldn't possibly keep an article with that name and that content - "elements" and chemical people would quickly join. "Aluminum" is too much an interference. Materialscientist (talk) 22:19, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No foul...it looks great to me ! -- logger9 (talk) 22:20, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * In fact, that was my very first introduction to that story.. Now, please do listen to this and above writing of Zaereth, and do follow it ! Do not engage in personal fights. Ignore all personal accusations. Do act as a cool professional. Your reaction only instigates a fight. Please do believe me on that - I was attacked 10 times more seriously than that, without any reservation ("kamikaze" attack aiming to kick me out of WP), mixed with dirt, on WP and outside. I ignored, and won in all respects (regarding my status, my edits, and my opponents). WP is an extremely complex society, and I'm learning new every day. Right diplomacy is invaluable here to get your message through. Materialscientist (talk) 22:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * You hear that. Exploding boy is an admin and non-scientist. And even he is talking (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plastic deformation in solids) about your 23 refs per one sentence.. There was a good reason why I speadily engaged into the above issues. Materialscientist (talk) 22:46, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Understood. Thanks ! -- logger9 (talk) 23:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Your edits to Talk:Plastic deformation in solids
It appears as though you have copied and pasted talk page posts from other editors on at least one other page to the talk page for this article. This is unacceptable for various reasons, and I have removed these posts accordingly. If you want to start a discussion, then do so, but to not attempt to make it appear that other editors have commented where they have not. Please don't do it again. Thank you. Exploding Boy (talk) 22:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Understood. Sorry ! -- logger9 (talk) 00:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi
Please see my edits to the Plastic deformation deletion discussion page here. I have removed some of the content from that article per WP:POVFORK, and have also removed protection from the Glass transition article in an effort to stimulate discussion and the reaching of consensus there. I encourage you to participate in the discussion, but please take this as a warning that disruptive editing will not be tolerated. Thank you. Exploding Boy (talk) 18:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I am confused. Where did my article go ? -- logger9 (talk) 19:20, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Portions of the (not "your") article were removed per WP:POVFORK as explained above. Exploding Boy (talk) 19:24, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Aside from the introduction, the entire article was removed ! What are you planning on doing with it ? -- 21:32, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Me personally? Nothing. Once you've reached some consensus on the Glass transition article about what will be included there (and I have removed protection from that article now), you can discuss what content would be appropriately placed elsewhere. I would also suggest you get involved in the discussion about the other two Deformation articles, which it seems may soon be merged, since several users have pointed out that Plastic deformation may need to be part of that merge too.


 * As a personal suggestion, I think you need to relinquish your sense of ownership over articles to which you contribute, and bear in mind that material removed by editing is always recoverable.


 * In reference to Collect's comment below, a deletion review does not apply in this case, since material was only removed and the article itself was not deleted. Exploding Boy (talk) 23:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Excellent. I have joined in the suggestion of a merger. -- logger9 (talk) 23:58, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I noticed that. I think it's a good start.  Exploding Boy (talk) 23:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

recourse
You can ask for a review of the deletion (unlikely to go far) or produce a "completed" article which would make the "too poorly written" assertions become improper. I suggest the second -- and do not use "naked cites" ("[65] [66]" etc.) but use the actual cites you want in the article. Minimum ten reliable sources should work. Once you have it written in Notepad, upload it to userspace (try User:Logger98/Sandbox ) and ask an experienced editor to smooth out any hard-to-understand language. Typical articles on WP are written at about a 10th grade level or lower. might help in this. Hope this helps. Collect (talk) 23:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * OK. I have already posted it here, and will work on the references soon. Please advise regarding an editor. -- logger9 (talk) 23:43, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I just woke up, saw what happened with plastic deformation in solids and am still mulling the situation. I think nothing wrong or bad happened and advise you to think it this way. Let me explain why: You've gone your way. Nobody really told you what was wrong with it, but it was "wrong", because you wrote far from WP standards - too complex, wrong lead, wrong referencing, etc. That is however a very minor problem.

You were breaking a major rule - Every WP article is open for editing by every (registered) user. Kicking out everyone from "your" main-frame article, without a civilized discussion, is wrong.


 * When did I ever do that ??? I NEVER broke that rule. When have I ever turned away a fellow Wiki editor ? PLEASE show me when and where I did. Need I remind you that it was my work that was blanket deleted. I am perfectly willing to work cooperatively, and I have illustrated that repeatedly for Wikipedia. I am the one who has (only recently) been turned away comprehensively by another editor -- and viscously. logger9 (talk) 00:16, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Simple answer - maybe you did not. I trust your word (meaning if I was wrong on that, I'll turn my back. No offense meant or implied). What I saw is that you tend to revert. An unspoken rule among experienced editors is not 3RR, but to discuss 2nd revert even if trivial and 1st if non-trivial. Another thing, I've heard people asked you to explain your writing (it is admittedly heavy for WP), I haven't seen that yet. That seems improving, and I appreciate that. BTW, your opponent seems to have left WP for good. Materialscientist (talk) 02:21, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Telling you to go somewhere and write another article of your own was also wrong (not your fault). I think this is what Exploding Boy took quite seriously; he has good reasons for his action and I would not question them. What I would do is do things right. Not to launch a dozen of incomplete articles, but straighten them one by one. You are on a gray list and must show that you can write for WP. Let me tell you a secret (only my opinion though) - your professor title grants you some temporary shelter because WP needs professionals. Some might be expecting you'll learn WP rules and will contribute constructively. If this will not be happening, this attitude might change. I myself had to learn how to write for WP, it is very different from Phys. Rev. Another thing, you get to stop irritating people (by copy pasting sections between the articles, and listing those 23 refs per sentence, for example). Again, the point is not that it is that bad (it is arguably bad), but that people are getting enough of that. Coming back to what you've lost - you can lose nothing regarding your texts on WP, they are always here, it is all about your position (status, whatever) on WP. This is what you might need to think about, first and foremost. Regards. Materialscientist (talk) 00:01, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Logger, I think materialscientist has some good advice here, especially where he says to try to spread out your inline citations some more and create articles fully before moving on. NW ( Talk )
 * I agree wholeheartedly. -- logger9 (talk) 00:37, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, this is all great advice. As Materialscientist pointed out, no info is ever lost, and you may be surprised how many people will go back through the history to compare old versions with the new, and rehash stuff that has been removed. The article Glass transition has been unblocked, and I strongly hope that you help out there. I think no one there is probably more qualified, but realize that others will want to help. My suggestion is to start at the top, and remained focused until finished. Personally, I would write a lede that defines the glass transition in the simplest terms, (elementary school here), and paste it onto the talk page, (this is allowed), for review. Once it's tweaked to meet everyone's approval and inserted in the article, then do the same for the intro, (10th grade level, as Collect suggested). After that start in with the college level information. I will be away for the holiday weekend, but I look forward to seeing what you come up with. I really am interested in this subject, and would like know every viewpoint about it. Thanks, and happy holiday! :-D Zaereth (talk) 03:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

AN/I Discussion
Is there anything you want to say on the AN/I discussion you posted yesterday? Because it is hard for 3rd parties to help you when the user in question has claimed retirement.-- The Legendary   Sky Attacker  20:35, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * She's done. Life is moderately normal again :-) Thanks ! -- logger9 (talk) 22:55, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Followup about Strength of glass
Strength of glass looks to me like it is almost ready for mainspace! I just had one concern left; do you think you could check out User talk:NuclearWarfare/Strength of glass? Thanks, NW ( Talk ) 18:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Down but not out!
I made the case that on close inspection the deleted sections from Plastic deformation in solids arent a POV fork of Glass transition. As long we dont push it too hard and dont get any opposition from an editor with a scientific background I dont anticipate any problems with returning your sections. Id guess Exploding boy is possibly considering you a potentially problematic editor as you were maybe a little rude on the Glass article. It helps to always remain polite, and to be ready to compromise where possible. FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:38, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, I removed the merge link you had on Deformation (engineering) as its strongly frowned on to have a link on the main article space to user space.  An also as they're saying we can put back your missing sections and so have all your valable information in the original Plastic deformation in solids .  If you still want to you could put a merge tag to your main article, but Id suggest its worth keeping them seperate.  Im going to return the missing section then will leave it to yourself and others to make the other improvements! FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks immensely for your help and input in this matter. I haven't yet decided whether or not to go ahead with the merger, but I am certainly open to input on that subject. -- logger9 (talk) 21:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC).
 * you're welcome, glad the decision turned out nice, its shaping up to be one of the most useful science article I've seen on here. FeydHuxtable (talk) 08:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Logger9/Kinetic theory of solids
Could you take a look at User talk:Logger9/Kinetic theory of solids? Thanks, NW ( Talk ) 20:14, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Refs in plastic deformation in solids
Same old story - some sections contain ~7 refs per sentence. Also ref. 32 is a mess. The situation is not catastrophic, but I added tags not to forget about this issue. Materialscientist (talk) 07:36, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * OK...and thanks for the help with the equation :-) -- logger9 (talk) 07:46, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thats easy. Off course Transparent materials needs more references. Many paragraphs have none (lead and introduction don't count here though). This is not about number, but about homogeneously supporting all the claims. Materialscientist (talk) 07:56, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmmmmm........OK, I'll see what I can come up with. -- logger9 (talk) 08:00, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Great work!

 * Just following up on that; could you please try to add a bit more inline citations? I know it might be a pain, but ideally, you should try to have one for every paragraph, at least. You are allowed to duplicate refs if you wish. NW ( Talk ) 01:56, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the support, dude. I seriously doubt that I could have done it without your continuing guidance (along with several other "Wiki mentors" :-) Believe it or not, that last article on Solids was completely spontaneous, and the bulk of the article practically wrote itself in about 4 hours. A job well done by all ! -- logger9 (talk) 07:32, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Transparent materials
I am ripping off that article (1/2 to go; took a minute of break) and I do hope you understand why - it contained major physics errors and numerous repetitions. It is better if I finish the process uninterrupted. One thing which seemed as your addition: transparency of materials has little to do with crystallinity. Just to give you a practical example: if you take any crystalline solid (silicon, SiO2, etc.), gently amorphize it and compare absorption spectra before and after, you'll note very small difference, only (slight) broadening of the absorption edge. Another thing, liquids are not alike silica and most other amorphous solids in that they interact through van der Waals rather than covalent and ionic interactions. Materialscientist (talk) 08:15, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * "Major physics errors" ? I seriously doubt that. Maybe some repetition. I have published the material on Light scattering in liquids and solids in a separate article. -- logger9 (talk) 22:10, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * That there were major physics errors in transparent materials there is no doubt (the text is still poor, what I've done was emergency). That those were your edits could be a blunt statement of mine - I'm often too quick on judgment, forgive me if so. I'll check other articles later. Regards. Materialscientist (talk) 23:49, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * These are clearly your own personal opinions. You might notice that the article was given a "B" class rating. That there were (or are) major physics errors is simply not true. Your help is appreciated -- but not your negative judgments. It's kind of like the time that you stated that I was completely unwilling to accept anyone else's input on articles of my own creation. There was no foundation for saying so -- and yet you did. -- logger9 (talk) 23:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I am often wrong and am willing to accept that. Could you please point me where I was wrong in deleting and correcting material there ? Materialscientist (talk) 00:52, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't mind your help. But first you post numerous tags on the aritcle and have me spend hours rewriting it. Now you decide to launch a phase 2 campaign, with language like "ripping off", "major errors", "numerous repetitions", "poor text", and referring to the (rewritten, tagless) text as being in a state of "emergency".


 * How can you possibly expect to build any sense of goodwill between co-workers ? You have some work to do on your implementation protocol -- and form of communication. It would help for starters to try to choose your words more carefully. Then maybe we could work better together as a team. -- logger9 (talk) 01:04, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It is true that I'd better keep my mouth on assessing and instead focus on editing. I simply couldn't find time to read many of "your" articles in full yet and was doing quick tagging and format fixing instead. Wasting time on WP is inevitable. If you wish to reduce that, discussing things which you're not sure about before writing them might be a good idea. IMO, your edits are getting much better, but we all have to keep learning, and that is what (in my observation of veterans) makes a good WP editor. A minor note, I would advise replacing some references, such as (Mandelstam, L.I. (1926). "Light Scattering by Inhomogeneous Media". Zh. Russ. Fiz-Khim. Ova. 58: 381., etc.) Don't get me wrong, I am a fan of good old school, but if nobody can access a reference, there is no sense having it. Materialscientist (talk) 04:00, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Graphic_Lab/Image_workshop
I responded to your request on that page, thanks! — raeky ( talk 00:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)