User talk:Peridon/Archives/2012/June

June 2012
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on User talk:FusionGuy. Please comment on the content and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Thank you. ''C'mon man. You know better than this. AGF? Maybe you need a cup of tea?'' Gtwfan52 (talk) 22:37, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I was commenting about the content. BTW - I'm not worrying about it, but there's a thing somewhere which advises rather newer editors not to 'template' rather more experienced editors. Doesn't bother me, but there's some that would go ballistic about being 'welcomed to Wikipedia' when they've made over 20,000 edits. Don't think it's a policy, but it's a well-respected guideline. AGF works when the other person is listening. Sometimes the other person's ears aren't switched on and their attention has to be gained, which is the reason for my semi-rude second post. The one you commented about was quite neutral. You haven't seen me get really rude yet. It's sorted out more than one edit war here. (And real-life committee meeting when I was in the chair...) Peridon (talk) 23:06, 3 June 2012 (UTC) PS I too liked your comment that kelapstick liked - I'm going to nick that and use it.
 * I wasn't trying to upset you, just get your attention. It has been my real world experience that when your communications are not being heard, your best bet is to stop trying to communicate and leave it to someone else.  I don't type that fast and that was actually directed at your prior comment.  You are a well-respected editor here and I do believe you have helped me before.  Thank you for all you do here.  Signed, POTUS.  Oh, wait...  Gtwfan52 (talk) 23:23, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Arash Howaida June 2012
Hi Peridon,

My Name is Said Hashimi and I'm writing to you because i have seen you deleting the page Arash Howaida. First of all before I ask you any questions i would like to tell why I wrote this page. Arash Howaida is one of my best friends, he is an afghan musician and realy one of the bests we afghans have in the afghan music industry right now. I have seen many Persian, Arabic & Indian musicians pages here on wikipedia, so i felt that he should also deserve one article on wikipedia. I took aricles such as Andy & Googoosh (both Iranian Artist) as an example for this article for Arash Howaida. I didnt intend to promote him this way, but more like I wanted to have an article about an afghan singer/musician for the afghan community here on wikipedia. In other words its a point of honour :) So my first question to you Peridon is ... Why did you delete this article "Arash Howaida" ? My second question is ... Is it possible that you could "please" re-activate this article again ? My third question is ... If not, what can I do that you (or Wiki) will allow me to create a article about Arash? And last but not least ... Could you please send me a copy of the article ?

Thank you very much in advance and im seeking for your reply already btw I'm very sorry for my english ... hope you can understand it >Said Hashimi< — Preceding unsigned comment added by Said187 (talk • contribs) 23:12, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Your English is way better than my Dari or Pashto... I will answer you tomorrow - it's bed-time here. Peridon (talk) 23:22, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * OK. Quick look at things. Some of the text was removed because it was a copy of the tasvirafghanistan.net page. Text that's already published somewhere else can't be used here - see WP:COPYVIO. That left a bare statement that the subject was a musician, and son of someone famous. Being someone's son doesn't make someone notable (except when certain very high position people are involved), and there is no other notability shown. I'd suggest doing a re-write at User:Said187/DRAFT, but after you've found better references. What we look for is not profiles like those you gave - which are usually supplied by the subjects themselves - but articles about them, reviews of their work, etc. These must be reliable independent sources - not their own site, blogs, forums, editable sites (like wikis), and so on. See WP:RS for more details. The text from a profile is not good to use for another reason - it will have been written to promote the subject. Here, we insist on Neutral Point of View WP:NPOV. Have another go in your user space (using the link I've put above), and then ask for advice. Most editors and admins are willing to give an opinion, but get two to be sure. Good luck. Peridon (talk) 12:09, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your help ... great advices from you :) I just have one more question ... you told me to re-write an article and save it in the drafts (what I will definately do) ... BUT ... how shall I use better references, if there is none in the world wide web ??? i used all of those which i found, like Facebook, Myspace, tasvirafghnistan and Youtube... I already tried to write in a Neutral Point of View, how could i improve in this aspect ? Once again thank you very much and I'll be waiting for your respond :) kindest regards Said Hashimi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Said187 (talk • contribs) 23:24, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I would hope that as a good musician, he has had something recorded and sold? Maybe an article in a newspaper? Those both help ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 23:40, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually the point is that he has recorded 8 songs for himself, produced mininum 50 songs for other afghan musicians and recorded 4 videos as a director. to the point of sold, he is independent, means he has no major deal or something like that as far as i know. and trust me, afghans never buy anything, they are the one's who always download for free lol. I honestly don't know where i can get better references from ??? I've never wittnessed afghans supporting their artists during their livetimes, once they die, people cry for them, that's why i can't find sources. I know him personally and he told me his biography, can't I use myself as a reference or him ??? kindest regards Said Hashimi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Said187 (talk • contribs) 00:41, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, "he" is a not even a primary source, you are original research, and Wikipedia requires third party reliable sources - especially for people who are still alive (make sure you click the blue links in what I typed) ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 00:44, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I can't add much to that. The only answer really (not counting murder...) is to get him popular outside Afghanistan - it can be done, look at Tinariwen. Unfortunately, we can't help with the publicity. Good luck. Peridon (talk) 09:10, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

"Please don't bite the newcomers"
 Peridon,  ConcernedVancouverite, and  DGG:

There was a simple editing mistake involved with the Rocket Air Labs, LLC article. The page was accidentally saved without it being complete (and any association with CME Group was accidental too).

I am working on improving the Toluca, Illinois article, part of which is including some of the prominent businesses in its local economy. I tried to fix the Rocket Air Labs, LLC article after the mistake happened, but got 'locked out' within seconds, and now the page was deleted altogether.

According to the rules "A creator who disagrees with the speedy deletion should instead click on the 'Click here to contest this speedy deletion' button which appears inside of the speedy deletion tag. This button links to the discussion page with a pre-formatted area for the creator to explain why the page should not be deleted." That is what was done. An explanation was provided, but there was no discussion. Where was the discussion period that was supposed to happen?

This violates: "Administrators should take care not to speedy delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases. If a page has survived its most recent deletion discussion, it should not be speedy deleted except for newly discovered copyright violations. Contributors sometimes create pages over several edits, so administrators should avoid deleting a page that appears incomplete too soon after its creation."

To summarize, the real focus is on improving an existing article for Toluca, Illinois. CME Group association was accidental. Premature submission of the Rocket Air Labs article was accidental. I was locked out. The speedy deletion tag was officially contested, but nobody appears to have seen the comment. And no discussion was certainly held. Don't bite the newcomers, guys!

Can we reverse the deletion,  Peridon, and allow time? I'm sure there's a way to safely edit the page and finish it this time before resubmission.Dalasc (talk) 08:10, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Part of the trouble is that the company appears to be non-notable under our standards. Article creation to change red links to blue is a good thing on the whole, but where the only sources to be found are from the company or group site, the article won't survive. Your reason for not deleting was "This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because it is a notable business in Toluca, IL and before it can be included within the Toluca, IL Wikipedia article, the rules are that the notable business must first be a linkable Wikipedia article." Being notable in Toluca is not being notable on Wikipedia. The company can be mentioned in the article without necessarily having an article. It should either be redlinked for article creation at a later date, or just put in in black. I've just looked on Google again, and there is nothing that I consider a reliable independent source. All I found, apart from Rocket's own site, were profiles and directories, alexa and whois, and such like. Not all companies get articles. Some small ones get plenty of coverage. Others don't, because they are 'backroom boy' type businesses. Notable to their customers (and the Infernal Revenoo...), but not known elsewhere. Probably doing a good job, but not getting coverage until the CEO murders the CFO (with a hose in the laboratory), and it's discovered that the offices are a thin spot where vampires are getting through. Until some WP:RS sources turn up, there's not much point in re-creating the article. If these are forthcoming, either I or DGG can restore the article (or indeed any other admin can). I will say that DGG is very much a stickler for checking things before tagging or deleting, so if he can't find anything I'm not surprised I can't. Sorry... Peridon (talk) 17:21, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

 Peridon: A national test lab isn't important enough? Oh.

It's got to be notable to some people, I'm sure. Roughly how many people is the cutoff, now that I'm a contributor and I need to know what to code. To help me, can you please check the Beer Nuts Wikipedia article for a second? Why does that have a Wikipedia article?

I am a very heavy user/reader of Wikipedia. I have come across many "small" things I was surprised to find a Wikipedia article on. But glad too, because the web had no other good objective source of information. I got the help/info I needed to make an important decision. I have found Wikipedia to be helpful many times, precisely for the reason that private companies tend not to have lots of press and there was at least one place out there I could get some objective deeper insight.

Anyway, not that big of deal to me. Just trying to figure out where the proverbial "line" is. I'll look deeper into the black vs redlinked for later article creation vs full article link question for the Toluca, Illinois edits that need done. Seems like it isn't so black and white sometimes. Dalasc (talk) 14:19, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I would agree that the Beer Nuts article is well back down the field for winning Featured Article status - hell, it probably hasn't even even left the stable... I will point out that in 2005 there doesn't seem to have been the level of patrolling that there is now, and that referencing was slacker (as it still is on quite a few foreign language Wikipedias). Feel free to tag it or AfD it. as to the current subject, a national lab is notable if it's notable (Wikipedia notable). Neither operating at national level nor being a laboratory are notability factors per se - but the national bit can help is there's stuff to prove it. Independent stuff. We had a case of a multi-national corporation only referenced to its sites (and the owner to a load of dubious guff and puff). After a bit of digging, it turned out that was all there was of it, apart from a dream in the author's mind. That's an extreme case, but illustrates why we do not trust own sites. For now, you can add the company in red or black to the Toluca article. Someone may change red to black - you can use the lab site as a ref if they 'citation required' it. It's notability that requires the independence. Talk to someone else too - don't trust a single source... Peridon (talk) 17:37, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 June 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 09:49, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
TheGeneralUser (talk) 22:28, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Notification
I have mentioned you at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ/Evidence. If you wish to comment please take note of the guidelines at the top of the page and either the same page or Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ/Workshop may be suitable. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 09:45, 7 June 2012 (UTC) Fæ (talk) 09:45, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't have any evidence to offer, but I stand by what I said at the RfC and cannot see what difference there is between exposing someone and harassing them (that way round - harassing is not necessarily exposing but can be other forms of nuisance). Peridon (talk) 17:18, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 June 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 22:30, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

The Determinator
Hi! Thanks for commenting on my talk page. I've seen may RfA's before, but when you wrote me Determinator's RfA i thought it was an old one. I'm not seeking admin rights soon, i feel better as I'm now, but i'd say that RfA was disastrous o.0. I've seen some terrible RfA's, but this was embarrasing. Anyway, thanks for the comment =). — Hahc21 [ TALK ] [ CONTRIBS  ] 20:41, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No, it wasn't total disaster - as I said there, no skeletons or age problems came up. It was 'not yet' rather than 'gawd, how did he get in here?'. I think he'll learn from it, and I hope you and Catfish do too. Whether or not you want to be admins, it can be useful to get into areas that are different. I've not come across you, and it was only by being nosy and following a tb that I did. If you don't do any new page or new account (my old area) work, or AfD or MfD, look in there. The more you learn, the easier life gets for everyone (unless you're in jail and reading books about the law...). If you are a writer, you should enjoy finding ways to explain things to newbies. (I know I do - I've even created a fictional community based on Downby in the Swanp, Wetleigh and Sunquern with a load of rather damp sounding people to help get messages across.) And I find people learn by teaching people who know less than they do. We need more explanation when newcomers get it wrong. Peridon (talk) 20:59, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd love to help newcomers get in the mood when they start here. I've worked on every section of WP, from AfD to content creation to File management to automated tools to vandalism. And I feel that, as I am now, I can help build WP. If, in the future, I ask for adminship, it surely may be because I feel I need the tools. Catfish wants to become an admin. Why? I don't know; but everyone has their reasons. I'll be at his side all the time, and if his RfA is unsuccessful, i'll try to help to avoid losing him as the amazing vandal-fighter he is (even though he lacks work on some other vital areas as content creation, XfD's, etc.), as some people get depressed when the fail to get the tools. — Hahc21 [ TALK ] [ CONTRIBS  ] 21:10, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

deleated page
Please may you re instate `dembascameby2 page on wikipedia http://www.eafootballworld.com/en_GB/clubs/492A0001/1998985/members this link shows that the club is 100% legitament and also i strongly believe that it will be benifitial as many people who like gameing will view this page. i hope that after reading this you understand the importance of this page as i do after all i have made some very helpfull contrabutions towards wikipedia and i understand that this also will be one of these so i will look forward to seing it back in action. i also understand and admire that you deleate pages which could be unsignifagent and unimportant however my page was not one of them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toonfanjoe (talk • contribs) 14:05, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm very sorry, but although the club is legitimate (and we're not saying it isn't), that's not enough to get an article here. Firstly, there are no reliable independent sources given (and I can find none) to show notability. Being in a top 10,000 (in the 8,000s, I think) isn't a claim to notability, nor is winning a 'cup' eleven times since April. I'm afraid that many gaming things are not regarded as notable - although the games themselves may sometimes be (as this one is). Please look at WP:GROUP which is our policy on notability for groups of people, and WP:RS which is our policy on reliable independent sources, needed to prove the notability. No profiles, blogs, forums, or own sites are considered both reliable and independent. You have possibly made the mistake that a lot of people make - "Wikipedia is free to edit" doesn't mean that anyone can add anything. It means that anyone not banned or blocked can edit subject to the rules. Some of these are 'imposed' by the Foundation for legal reasons, but most of the everyday running rules are decided by the community. In practice, this means by the most active editors discussing things and establishing an agreement. This is needed mainly to protect the encyclopaedia from vandalism, but also to stop it getting clogged up with things that are of little note in the general scheme of things. Good luck with advancing up the table, but please don't post the article again until there is a real chance of passing the policies - and then, please get your evidence together and ask an admin or regular editor for advice first. Peridon (talk) 15:26, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

YouthTrade Deletion
Hello, I do not know if I am doing this right and that is why I was advised to talk to you about creating the YouthTrade page team. I do not wish to give any false information or not cite, I want to edit and provide all this information about YouthTrade - a nonprofit organization. I understand it was deleted before so I want to make my edits privately so I can cite and do it correctly before publicly sharing. So I wish to continue and move forward with creating YouthTrade, please let me know the next step. In the meantime I promise I am reading the tutorials so I can become accustomed to Wikipedia better.

Brianna Aloisio (talk) 18:52, 18 June 2012 (UTC) Brianna Aloisio
 * I can't remember the page offhand, but I'll look tomorrow (unless I get landed with something...). I'd recommend reading WP:GROUP, WP:RS and WP:NPOV. Also, remember that text from outside cannot be brought in here if it has been published - even if you wrote it! That's in WP:COPYVIO. Found it - it was deleted for being promotional. Read WP:SPAM as well. RS is about the reliable independent sources needed to prove any claim of notability. This lot should keep you out of mischief for a bit... When you've found sources (not own site, blogs, forums, wikis, National Enquirer, profiles, LinkedIn and so on), write it on paper first and leave it for a day or two before looking at it again. When you're happy that it doesn't sound like something from the PR department, set it up at User:Brianna Aloisio/DRAFT and head it DRAFT UNDER CONSTRUCTION - Please comment. Then get someone here (admin or regular editor) to look at it. If it gets tagged for promotion, it's not right. In userspace, only spam, copyvio and attack are the ones usually tagged. They're not allowed anywhere in the place. Even in drafts. Other stuff gets tagged when it's been hanging around for so long it's obviously not going anywhere - six months or more. BTW being non-profit means nothing here - even charities have to follow the rules too and show that they are notable enough to be in an encyclopaedia. In directories like LinkedIn and others, this doesn't apply; a lot of people don't realise this and get very upset when they find their article has gone. Peridon (talk) 23:07, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 June 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 03:08, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Raymy Doria Medina Pozo
Hi! help to delate the name of the articel Raymy Doria Medina Pozo Could you help me to delate the name of this articel please Raymy Doria Medina Pozo Thanks!--Alexdalesandro (talk) 05:46, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Question on deletion
Hi, I was wondering if you can be a little more specific on why you deleted the gamma labs page. thanks. --sinlenium (talk) 11:38, 21 June 2012
 * Not really... The tag says it: the article did not "credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject". The article was about some sort of supplement being produced by a company with no indication that it is really significant. Being an 'official' something is not an indication of significance - it just means someone's done a deal, usually. None of the references met WP:RS, as I saw them. Two were company site, the third was a press release ad the Forbes one reads a set piece interview where the company promotes its wares. Please look at the RS policy, and at WP:CORP for more info on corporate notability. (Speedy deletion talks about 'significance', a lower standard than 'notability' which is what the other tag was about. Always aim at notability.) Note that we are not saying that the company is not notable. We are saying that you didn't show it. Please look at WP:NPOV (neutral point of view) as well - bits of the article sounded slightly promotional. Peridon (talk) 19:11, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Codecademy Deletion
Hello, why was the article about the Codecademy deleted? Bit spark (talk) 15:13, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Please sign talk page posts with four ~ things. Basically, it's a start-up with no indication of significance. The two refs consisted of a promo profile and an article that was partly about the mayor of somewhere, and the rest was talk from the company. Start-ups haven't usually had time to gain enough significance to merit an encyclopaedia article. Places like LinkedIn and AboutUs are more like directories and don't bother about notability. We do. Please look at WP:CORP for corporate notability, and WP:RS for details off what are considered reliable independent sources. (Not own sites, blogs, forums, wikis, PRWire etc, Facebook etc, and not set piece interviews with the CEO or brief mentions...) Peridon (talk) 09:06, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh woops, I forgot about those ~. So what you're saying is if it meets the notability requirements then there's no reason not to have an article on it.
 * Well, the Codecademy is still a startup, but it's been growing fast, and there are now plenty of reliable independent sources reporting on it such as:
 * Bloomberg news
 * Mashable
 * TIME Business
 * cnet news
 * Forbs
 * GIGaom
 * THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
 * Just to name a few... Does that not earn notability? Bit spark (talk) 15:13, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Scrub TIME - that's by Zach, and so is not independent. Most of these look to be about the money raised which is not notable - all start-ups need capital. Even the chap selling roses at the traffic lights needs a bucket or two and a stock of roses (or a pair of secateurs and some running shoes...). Anything else tells of what the company is going to do. We need reviews and articles on what it has achieved. There might be a different view from a talk page stalker soon. (Quite a few people seem to monitor this page. Comes in handy at times.) Peridon (talk) 15:25, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of Venmo
Hey Peridon, I just learned about the Venmo online payment service (and got an account) a few days ago, but was surprised to see there wasn't a Wiki page for it. I did some research and was planning to write a Wiki page, but see that's it's been deleted three times. I thought it passed the notability requirements, but then again, this is the first time I've considered creating a Wiki page about a company and I wasn't sure precisely what they meant in the guidelines by "significant media coverage". Here were some of the articles I found on Venmo:


 * TechCrunch
 * FinancialContent
 * San Francisco Chronicle
 * NYTimes Blogs
 * NYTimes Blogs
 * CNN
 * PCWorld
 * The Atlantic Wire

Monsterman222 (talk) 22:04, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It was deleted as pure spam twice. OK. Scrub blogs, and Techcrunch - that's Crunchbase which is not considered reliable by most of us. I don't know who FinancialContent are, but that article is pure PR. The CNN is borderline OK, but not by itself. PCWorld and Yahoo! News are brief, and like the others seems to just say how it works. It's a start-up company just coming out of beta, and they are notoriously hard to show notability for. If you think you can show in an article that it is notable, without going into 'how-to' or sounding like PR, do it in userspace with the best refs you can find. What we like to see (but rarely get) are things like the NYT, the CSM or similar circulation papers, or good magazines. Leave alone blogs, forums, wikis (yes, including us...) or own sites. Things like AboutUs, LinkedIn, FaceBook & Co, PRWire and similar are also out. You need about three to back up claims of notability - but there must be something that is shown to be notable. See WP:CORP and WP:RS for the policies. You probably have already. Peridon (talk) 19:08, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks for getting back to me on that one and thanks for doing all the dirty work of cleaning up ads and what not. I'll take a look to see if I can find a few more good sources for Venmo. Monsterman222 (talk) 23:42, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 June 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 07:03, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

When Flying Was Easy
Hello Peridon. I've removed the db-a9 tag from this article and I added two good sources. I also added a mention of a notable musician who contributed to the album. The nominator, User:Singularity42, nominated the article again, under the same criterion and with the rationale: restoring speedy deletion template - the issue is not sourcing - the issue is that no article for the band exists, and there is nothing particularly important about this album on its own. You've deleted the page. I thought that two independent and reliable sources could be enough at least for a proper deletion discussion, no matter if the artist has own article or not. Would you mind to restore the page? I'd like to work on it. This is a new album, but it might be notable. I think it deserves proper discussion and maybe a chance. Thanks for your consideration. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 12:56, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * As it stood, I think I was right to delete. The article didn't properly state that this is a Brendan Canning band, but implied that he'd just done something (possibly minor) on it, and while he's got enough status for an article, he's not reached the point where he only has to look through the door for something to be notable... I've moved it to User talk:Vejvančický/When Flying Was Easy as it could easily get retagged in article space until the provenance of the band is made more clear - and if anything can be found, an article on the band started. Personally, I'm not in favour of any albums (even worse, singles...) getting articles unless they have considerable note, but setting the cut-off point would be rather hard. (Sorting out the Turkey-Armenia-Azerbaijan disputes would be easier, perhaps...) Peridon (talk) 13:16, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think the deletion was wrong. Personally, I dislike a lot of stupidities around here, but I respect WP:GNG and the right of our readers to find good information on various nonsense (among other things), if the notability guidelines allow that. The album might be marginally notable, however, it received multiple reviews by notable media, so I think it's worthy of consideration. Thank you for the move. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 13:47, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

progress report?
"When the weather's better, I do plan to photograph stations as I travel around. Peridon (talk) 12:19, 31 January 2012 (UTC)"

Get any done? 64.134.165.46 (talk) 01:16, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Not yet. Putting camera into bag. Peridon (talk) 10:09, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Good man! I will shake your manly hand after you do your first upload. Don't let the upload form slow you down...it's really not hard.64.134.165.46 (talk) 21:59, 30 June 2012 (UTC)