User talk:Nihiltres/Archive-28

Please restore and fix protection template
I see that you have "rm non-applicable protection template". Please read this comment from Eubulides. We need the protection template to work and remain in place indefinitely. This article, and several others like it, deserve such protection. You can reply to him on the talk page. -- Fyslee (talk) 05:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The indefinite move-protection is now restored, and the page is now properly using . I'm going through Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates to fix template usage. Cheers, { { Nihiltres | talk | log } } 12:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks so much. This should help to cut down on the trolling and vandalism that often occurs, mostly from anon IPs. -- Fyslee (talk) 15:14, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello, I think I also encountered an issue with this -- The Wife of Bath's Prologue and Tale, which I've worked on, is constantly subject to vandalism, and had been semi-protected; this was removed by you with a similar "m non-applicable protection template" -- could you please restore protection to this entry? Many thanks, Clevelander96 (talk) 17:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * There is not currently a demonstrated need for protection on that page, so I will not restore protection to it. All my edit did was remove a protection template (which only indicates protection) from a page that was already unprotected. In the earlier case above, move-protection on a highly-visible page was justified, but I don't think the same can be said of the page you mention. { { Nihiltres | talk | log } } 18:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Weekly Episodes 69 and 70
Wikipedia Weekly Episodes 69: Sixth Sense and 70: Under the Microscope have been released. You can listen and comment at their pages (69, 70) and, as always, listen to all of the past episodes and subscribe to the RSS feed at wikipediaweekly.org. – wodupbot – 06:26, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

You're receiving this because you're listed on WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. If you'd like to stop receiving these messages, please remove yourself from that list.

Quaoar semiprotection
Hello. May I ask, why was the semiprotection of 50000 Quaoar renewed? I cannot see any vandalism there? Thank you. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 22:12, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ask NawlinWiki about his protection of the page ; I merely updated the page protection template for that article. { { Nihiltres | talk | log } } 22:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I see, thanks. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 23:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion
I notice that you tagged the page Mobilecdn for speedy deletion with the reason "article about a real person, an organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content that does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject". While that's a valid reason for speedy deletion in general, this page does not qualify for speedy deletion under that criterion because the page now suggests that it is the first company to be able to stream live video content to the iPhone, which is an indication of importance. If you still want the page to be deleted, please consider tagging it with a speedy deletion template which does apply, redirecting it to another page, or using the WP:PROD process. Thanks! Stifle (talk) 12:42, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, I missed that point. Good catch, then. { { Nihiltres | talk | log } } 16:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

ReadWriteWeb blacklist removal
I will momentarily remove ReadWriteWeb from the spam blacklist. I feel that this action is justified—I list the reasons after this comment. I will not be available for further comment following this justification, so please do not be alarmed. I will be sleeping, since it's currently around 1:45 a.m. in my time zone and I am already running a sleep debt. Even if this edit is controversial, please remain calm: I do this in all good faith. If the action is extremely controversial (i.e. multiple established users are arguing for its reversion), then feel free to revert it. I will not make this action again if it is reversed. Discussion of the worth of the action should remain at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist, but feel free to comment on my individual conduct and actions here. Follows are the justifications I use for my action: Sincerely, { { Nihiltres | talk | log } } 06:48, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) The use of links to ReadWriteWeb is not disruptive. If an individual editor is repeatedly adding spam links to it, have an administrator block that editor.
 * 2) While ReadWriteWeb may or may not be reliable, non-reliability on its part would not, in and of itself, justify blacklisting the website.
 * 3) ReadWriteWeb is well-known and publicly objects to the inclusion on the blacklist. The perception of Wikipedia as unfairly blocking the use of links to the website is not helpful to Wikipedia, whether or not the blacklisting is otherwise justified.
 * 4) While the participation may be (and is probably) skewed as a result of ReadWriteWeb's public objection to the blacklisting, the great majority of commenters on the applicable discussion page support the removal of the entry from the blacklist. Since the removal is reversible, continued discussion can confirm whether my removal has general consensus. In the meantime, the removal seems less likely to cause problems.
 * I got a couple of concerns regarding you decision, on point one of the editors adding links considered spam included the owner of the site using a different account to that is being used now to request an unblock, the blacklist request included that this site was doing it via multiple accounts. on pt 2 I agree that not being a RS isnt sufficient reason to blacklist. pt 3 we dont remove from the list just because the site objects to it, I asked for more information on the request in the original post yet recieve only an unfriendly response from the site owner. On pt 4 canvassing since you acknowledge that canvassing occured and that its skewed the consensus, the status quo should have remained in place while the discussion is on going. For the record that shows only 81 links on WP at the time of this post. Gnangarra 12:15, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I will address these concerns point-by-point reflecting the numbers of the original points:
 * If the disruption does not continue after the removal of the blacklist entry, then the use is not disruptive anymore, which means that the listing is no longer justified. If disruption restarts, we can then restrict the use of the address again.
 * You agree with point two
 * I agree that objection from the site owner in and of itself does not justify unlisting. My point is rather that, as ReadWriteWeb is particularly popular and publicly opposes the listing, it has bad public relations consequences for Wikipedia to maintain the listing on anything but the strongest bases, which are not applicable. This is the weakest of my justifications, but I feel that it is a valid consideration.
 * Whereas it is unlikely that the unlisting of ReadWriteWeb will not cause significant disruption in the short term, that despite the canvassing there was a great majority of support for unlisting, that the action of removing the listing is otherwise justified, and that the action is reversible, it seems reasonable to say that a tentative unlisting is worthwhile. I am not stopping anyone from suggesting that ReadWriteWeb should be re-added to the blacklist, and indeed I have said that I will not reverse any re-addition of this entry. My opinion on the matter is more that if the blacklisting is justified, it can equally be justified while ReadWriteWeb remains unblocked, as there's no evidence that the unlisting would cause or has caused significant disruption that would make the matter urgent.
 * I suggest that, if you think that ReadWriteWeb should be re-added to the blacklist, you start a new discussion advocating the advantages of blacklisting as though the site had never been blocked—if the listing is independently justified, I would not oppose the action. I do not currently think, however, that that is the case. { { Nihiltres | talk | log } } 20:00, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Please add protection template to homeopathy
Please add a protection template to homeopathy. Not a single IP edit is constructive, and it is just as controversial a topic as the chiropractic article, which you kindly did the same for. Right now we are being hit by two IP socks for a very disruptive indef banned editor from Bangalore/Karnataka India. I have tagged them as socks. -- Fyslee (talk) 17:36, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Yes check.svg|20px]] Done. The page is semi-protected for a week. In future, please use Requests for page protection; it's faster. :) { { Nihiltres | talk | log } } 19:13, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Could you also lock the POV tag since at least 3 editors ( Hans Adler -I assume but not sure-, CW and me ) think that the article has serious POV problems? --JeanandJane (talk) 20:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no means of keeping a POV tag on the page short of full-protecting the page, which I'm not sure is justified yet. Again, please use Requests for page protection for general requests. { { Nihiltres | talk | log } } 20:12, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * According to the wiki- rules if two or more editors support the POV tag it should be there or not?--JeanandJane (talk) 20:43, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the tag. How about making it permanent like with the chiropractic article? This situation will never go away, barring a revamping of the rules here. -- Fyslee (talk) 00:21, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think that protection against socks of banned users is a situation that warrants indefinite protection. { { Nihiltres | talk | log } } 15:45, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I wasn't thinking only of them. Practically every edit by an IP gets reverted as vandalism, uncontructive, or a sock. It's just not worth the effort when nearly half of all edits are reverting such IPs. Just keep them out. They can use the talk page or get a username. -- Fyslee (talk) 18:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I protected the page using a justification that is not generally valid for indefinite protection, and I am not supportive of indefinite semi-protection except in the most extreme cases (such as George W. Bush). I must definitely refuse to "just keep [anonymous editors] out". { { Nihiltres | talk | log } } 18:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay. I wouldn't want you to do something you believe to be wrong. I can respect that. Thanks. -- Fyslee (talk) 18:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Alternative to notability
Hello! I am working on an objective alternate to notability in my userspace. Please read User:A Nobody/Inclusion guidelines and offer any suggestions on its talk page, which I will consider for revision purposes. If you do not do so, no worries, but if you wish to help, it is appreciated. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 01:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Victor Tognola
Re Victor Tognola - Thanks for your correction (if I read it correctly), otherwise if the correct needs to be done, let me know Maxnex (talk) 12:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It should be fine now, I was just removing the page from Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates. :) { { Nihiltres | talk | log } } 12:33, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

customized buttons...
If you still have the time and interest I would like to pursue this idea further. Cheers, Kingturtle (talk) 14:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, just let me know what tabs or links you're interested in adding and I'll come up with some snippets of JavaScript that you can add to your monobook.js page to have the desired effect. If you're curious, you can also look at my monobook.js to get an idea of the sorts of things I have for myself—read the comments beside each snippet of code to see what it does. { { Nihiltres | talk | log } } 15:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * All I really want is a link to User:Kingturtle/Tools and to User:Kingturtle/Toolbox to appear on the user navigation at the top right of the page. Kingturtle (talk) 16:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Add the following code to User:Kingturtle/monobook.js and, while you use the default, Monobook skin, you'll get those links: I've not added access keys to the configuration, as I don't remember which keys are already in use (I have disabled the usual access keys on my account); you can add them by changing each "null" bit to a letter within quote marks, e.g. . { { Nihiltres  | talk | log } } 16:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmm. I tried it, but the links aren't appearing. :/ Kingturtle (talk) 16:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Try clearing your browser's cache. This is usually necessary after updating script pages. { { Nihiltres | talk | log } } 18:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Still no dice. I am using the classic skin. Could that be a problem here? Kingturtle (talk) 18:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, that would be the problem. First of all, your monobook.js only applies if you use the monobook skin (I think Classic uses "standard.js"), and second of all, the elements that are referenced in this script don't exist in the Classic skin. I don't know enough to help you modify the Classic skin. If you switch to Monobook, however, the changes should pop up immediately (as you've already cleared your cache). { { Nihiltres | talk | log } } 19:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Excellent. It works. There's just one small bug now. The links "tools" and "toolbox" now appear atop any page I visit - except when I am on my "tools" page, in which case "tools" is listed atop the page, but "toolbox" is not. In contrast, when I am on the "toolbox" page both "tools" and "toolbox" are listed, which is correct. Any ideas? Kingturtle (talk) 02:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, I made a mistake in the above code: the bit with  needs quote marks to make it , since   is a string and not a variable. Sorry about that. { { Nihiltres  | talk | log } } 03:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, that did it! Thanks!! Kingturtle (talk) 13:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality Schmeutrality
Would it also be good to protect the non-capitalized Neutrality schmeutrality just in case people try to create that instead? r ʨ  ana ɢ  talk/contribs 21:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * If it is created again, I'll consider salting. { { Nihiltres | talk | log } } 22:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

FireflyBSD
Hi, you have deleted page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firefly_BSD for Firefly BSD. Cooicedentially, there has been a recent production release of Firefly BSD (see http://bsd.slashdot.org/bsd/09/02/18/2036229.shtml). Please restore FireflyBSD wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.41.157.237 (talk) 07:18, February 19, 2009 (UTC)


 * The deletion was valid—I don't want to straight-up restore the page. Now, if you want to recreate the page, I'd certainly be willing to give you a copy of the deleted content, or move it to a userpage for you (this would require you to register an account), but you'd of course have to do all the usual things, like providing reliable sources, involved with creating a new article. Your first article is a useful resource, if you need help. { { Nihiltres | talk | log } } 15:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Ending edit war
help me...for many days on the page of Juninho Pernambucano the user paulozin continues to change the number of goals with false numbers without real references please block him!...please--Babboleolr (talk) 13:46, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Nihiltres thank you so much!!!!--Babboleolr (talk) 16:51, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) By all means I would not be unjustified in blocking you both for a rather spectacularly long back-and-forth reversion edit war, using the 3-revert rule, but I don't think that would be productive. I've therefore full-protected Juninho Pernambucano for a week, during which you should resolve your differences on the talk page and perhaps through some form of dispute resolution. Let me know if or when I can unprotect the page. { { Nihiltres | talk | log } } 16:52, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Problem
Since you have the power of the administrator, I was wondering if you could change the images to the portals on the Aviation, Architecture, and Environment templates so that they could reflect the nature of the projects. I noticed that the standard Portal.svg link has 632,937+ links and I thought that it's time to slim that down a bit. Thanks a lot. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:21, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Could you please be slightly more specific in terms of which templates you mean and which (new) images you mean? { { Nihiltres | talk | log } } 02:04, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Hyphen vs range
Thanks for fixing up some hyphen/dash issues and other things at zinc but the "4-42" at explicitly is not a range. That is the actual page number; section 4 page 42 but written as 4-42 in the book. You will notice that I put in a "sic "-"" or "sic huyphen" in HTML comments after those references. Please fix. --mav (talk) 20:22, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Oops, I didn't notice that note. Upon fixing my mistake, I moved the comment inside the template so that it will be more easy to notice. Thanks for pointing this out. { { Nihiltres | talk | log } } 20:41, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

super tight stuff page deleted?
Hey, why did you delete the super tight stuff page. That is a legitimate website that exists. Bryan.Wade (talk) 03:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * As the deletion log says, I deleted the page under speedy deletion criterion A7, which is "An article about a real person, an organization (e.g. band, club, company, etc., except schools), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant". The tag on the page at the time asserted that the page qualified for speedy deletion under speedy deletion criterion G11 (which is for blatant advertising), but I used A7 as the justification instead because I felt that a deletion under G11 would be dubious, as the page probably did not qualify for deletion under that criterion. The page definitely qualified for deletion under A7; it did not indicate that anything was special about the site—by the description it might as well have been any random personal web page. { { Nihiltres | talk | log } } 05:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Emucrazy
Hi, I was wondering why Emucraze was marked for Speedy Deletion under "Blatant Advertising"? I'm not knocking you judgment on it, I was just confused how that applied to Emucraze. oh wait never mind, i think I understand now... :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdkcheatz (talk • contribs) 05:04, February 28, 2009 (UTC)


 * If you understand now, all should be well. If you'd like further explanation, or have another question, just ask. :) { { Nihiltres | talk | log } } 05:08, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

juninho page
oviously paulozin retuns to Vandalism the page i hope you reprotected the page....thanks--Babboleolr (talk) 22:08, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Since you and Paulozin have not discussed anything whatsoever, there is no reason to protect the page again. The purpose of the protection was to give you time without the possibility of editing to resolve your issue, and that purpose was entirely ignored. { { Nihiltres | talk | log } } 22:59, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

"Ending edit war"
He believes any editing my vandalism. There is nothing wrong in them, only that Wikipedia provides. Paulo (talk) 04:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Juninho page wrong version
damn it you protected the wrong version! the number of freekicks goal is 43 and not 42 read this the official page of uefa http://www.uefa.com/competitions/ucl/fixturesresults/round=15277/match=302789/report=rp.html and the number of goal is 97 and not 73 read this the official page of lyon http://www.olweb.fr/index.php?lng=fr&a=43005&pid=101002! paulozin is oviously a vandal and you protect him!--Babboleolr (talk) 13:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, of course I protected the Wrong Version! :) I'll ask Paulozin to give his justification for what he thinks is right. { { Nihiltres  | talk | log } } 18:09, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * 1 Senior club appearances and goals counted for the domestic league ONLY... He inciste in place all the games and goals. Paulo (talk) 18:24, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

ok i understand i dont change the number of goal (not all goal counted but only domestic goal). you can cancel the protection.--Babboleolr (talk) 19:57, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll try unprotection for now. If edit-warring starts, it'll have to be protected again. Try to discuss with each other what things are appropriate for the page, especially on the discussion page at Talk:Juninho Pernambucano. { { Nihiltres | talk | log } } 14:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

PRP (platelet rich plasma)
Hello, I am Anto217, I tryed to post an article of some info about platelet-rich plasma... when I checked it, it was deleted, after placing a helpme tag under my talk page, Mysdaao told me I could ask you about the reason of the deletion, cause I am completely new, so I have no clue, why was it deleted. He told me that probably there was something with mentioning a company or product name. I really apologize, did not know that it was not allowed, I suppose there was some kind of place where they stablished that, but I honestly did not read it. As far as I know, I accomplished all the requirements about the references, cause I actually did worry very much about that. I would like just to know, if the article was deleted because of that, or because of something else? If it was because of that, Am I allowed to mention the new technology at all or not? and is there a possibility to redirect a link to a webpage that gives info about the new techonology? the reason of my interest, is because this page, has a very interesting video of how the method is developed under surgery conditions and I wanted to share it, so I would like to try to post the article again, but this time I would like to be sure I'm doing it as it should be done, that is why I ask so many things... thank you very much. --Anto217 (talk) 15:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * This might be a misunderstanding. Platelet Rich Plasma was deleted under general speedy deletion criterion 11 (G11) as an advertisement. The article consisted of a few paragraphs of dense, technical details about platelet-rich plasma followed by a rather enthusiastic pair of paragraphs which said first a) that most current methods of production fared about the same and b) that there was a particular new, better way of production in a particular company's offerings. This pair of paragraphs was then followed by (what appears to be) a borked email address and a link to the company's website. This is a pattern that repeats itself often in articles which use some more-or-less neutral technical details and general description as a coatrack upon which to hang an advertisement or other bias. This is a method of "gaming the system" that we see often from spammers who do not mean well but merely want to promote their product.
 * While the article fit the pattern of a blatant advertisement "disguised" somewhat using the earlier details, I'd understand if it's merely a new development about which you're enthusiastic. The trick is in remaining neutral about what you're describing and allowing a reader to make up his or her own mind. You need to avoid, in particular, placing undue weight on any one topic. If you want, you can restart the article—I'll even provide you with the text of the deleted article if you like—and rewrite it so that it presents a more balanced view of the subject by not placing so much weight on the bit at the end. An idea would be to mention the process in a note (using  and  ) as opposed to devoting a whole paragraph to it. :)
 * If you're still not clear on what I mean, if you'd like the text of the deleted article, or if you have any other questions, feel free to ask. { { Nihiltres | talk | log } } 04:26, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very very much for being so helpful... I really apologize if i was a little subjective in the article... what I could do is try to get some other techniques over there in the paragraph... like comparing or something like that, like mentioning them.... on the other hand, I would really appreciate if you could send me back the info that I placed, because I'm a beginner, it took me a while to place it, and if you facilitate it to me, it wouldn't take that long to retype it all over again...

Probably, when I get the info from you, I will ask again how to use this "note" you told me to... cause I didnt understand very well how to use it... and, just to be sure... is exactly the last paragraph the one that you want me to publish as a note? right?

I'm gonna propose something to you if you are so kind... What if I try to fix what you told me to... and before publishing it... I send it to you, so that you can review it and let me know if it is fine to publish or if I should fix something else... would you mind?

once again... thank you very much. I'll wait for your answer.--Anto217 (talk) 17:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Please Restore Not A Tad Bad wiki Page
I recently noticed that the Not A Tad Bad Flim Co. wiki page was recently taken down. It was originally posted here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_A_Tad_Bad_Flim_Co.

I'm no wiki expert, but from what I can tell I need to provide some external, third party references to Not A Tad Bad's relevance/existence. Well, here are a few:

Patriot Ledger Article (South Shore of Massachusetts) http://www.patriotledger.com/entertainment/x169545208/flim-fest-lets-local-artists-be-seen-heard

The Pembroke Reporter http://www.wickedlocal.com/halifax/archive/x2050106014/Silver-Lake-grads-prepare-for-latest-edition-of-annual-movie-and-art-celebration

Kingston Reporter http://www.wickedlocal.com/kingston/fun/entertainment/arts/x1542104837/All-day-Flim-Fest

While our YouTube is not a third party reference by any real means, it does show we have an audience. One of our videos has over 50,000 hits, if that helps persuade you.

YouTube Page: http://www.youtube.com/notatadbad — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.67.194.106 (talk) 00:29, March 4, 2009 (UTC)


 * The article was deleted by proposed deletion, which means there's no prejudice against recreation… except that you say "we". You've admitted a particular conflict of interest in the matter. Wikipedia has a guideline about conflicts of interest which you should probably read. I don't particularly mind—I can't send you the text of the article, though, as you provide neither an email address nor a userpage. I also don't think there's much worth restoring from the old article. { { Nihiltres | talk | log } } 01:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Weekly Episode 71
Wikipedia Weekly Episode 71: We have no shame has been released. You can listen and comment at the episode page, and, as always, listen to all of the past episodes and subscribe to the RSS feed at wikipediaweekly.org. WODUPbot 05:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

You're receiving this because you're listed on WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. If you'd like to stop receiving these messages, please remove yourself from that list.

The work of deleting IP vandalism on chem element pages
Since you're involved, I wonder if you'd like to comment on this discussion on semi-protection for element articles: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Elements Thanks! S B Harris 00:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Funny, I was thinking of commenting on that earlier. I'll certainly comment. { { Nihiltres | talk | log } } 02:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Template:Canadian Newsmaker of the Year
Hi, i am new at designing templates. And copied most of it from the time person of the year template. Could you please explain what you removed and why? Thanks. Ntb613 (talk) 19:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * My change to Template:Canadian Newsmaker of the Year removed a line containing . Since the "Canadian Newsmaker […]" template isn't protected,  (to which  redirects) only outputs a category, Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates, instead of falsely indicating that the page is protected. My edit, removing the incorrect protection template, serves only to remove the "Canadian Newsmaker […]" template from that category. It won't otherwise affect the template—it's merely basic maintenance. { { Nihiltres  | talk | log } } 20:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)