Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2011 March 7

= March 7 =

Counting table fields
Is there a quick and easy way to count the number of rows in a specific column of a table? I've been updating List of Yukon Quest competitors, but I need to know the number of competitors in order to update the text of the lede and in another article. Ideally, I'd like to know how many rows are in the first column of the table. How? Thanks. JKBrooks85 (talk) 00:10, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If I need to do that I copy paste the fields into a spreadsheet program (Excel) which has numbered columns. This table might be a bit too complicated for that though. Rehevkor ✉  00:13, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't have any luck with that. Tried a few different ways, but Excel didn't go for it. I guess I'll just have to do it the hard way. JKBrooks85 (talk) 11:31, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know a general way. In your example I marked the displayed table with my browser, copy-pasted it to a textfile, and used the DOS sort command on the file. This gave 374 lines starting with a name, one line starting with "-" (after Ingabritt Scholven in the original table), and a lot of lines starting with a year. This should mean 375 rows in the first column, but the method only worked on this table because the cell content was so systematically letters or numbers. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:09, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Linking to an odd filename
Okay, I'm trying to cite "http://se.sesc.k12.ar.us/gould/1747/March 1, 2004 BOARD MEETING.doc " If I put the url like that, the link is not complete.

But if I link to http://se.sesc.k12.ar.us/gould/1747/March_1,_2004_BOARD_MEETING.doc, the link is broken. In order for the link to work, the web browser must have " http://se.sesc.k12.ar.us/gould/1747/March 1, 2004 BOARD MEETING.doc " entered in the URL box.

Also webcitation.org can't properly archive the document....

How do I properly link to this document? WhisperToMe (talk) 04:44, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * You can replace spaces by %20 to get http://se.sesc.k12.ar.us/gould/1747/March%201,%202004%20BOARD%20MEETING.doc. See meta:Help:URL. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:57, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yay! It worked. Thank you very much WhisperToMe (talk) 05:01, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Superfriends Apache Chief Colossus episode
HELLO MY NAME IS ROBERT ISOM. I HAVE BEEN LOOKING FOR THE SUPERFRIENDS APACHE CHIEF COLOSSUS EPISODE FOR YEARS. I WANT TO BUY THE DVD OR VHS. CAN ANYBODY HELP ME FIND OUT HOW TO BUY IT. THANK YOU. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.28.231.250 (talk) 09:02, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I suspect, based on your question, that you found one of our over 3.5 million articles and thought we were affiliated in some way with that subject. Please note that you are at Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and this page is for asking questions related to using or contributing to Wikipedia itself. Thus, we have no special knowledge about the subject of your question. You can, however, search our vast catalogue of articles by typing a subject into the search field on the upper right side of your screen. If you cannot find what you are looking for, we have a reference desk, divided into various subject areas, where asking knowledge questions is welcome. Best of luck. —teb728 t c 09:09, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Movie/Music/TV relevance
I'm wondering if Wikipedia editors are too loose with our criteria of what counts as relevant enough for an encyclopedia entry, when it comes to topics such as movies, music, and TV. What, exactly, is relevant? "Star Trek," for example, almost inarguably deserves an entry. But there are entries for every episode, most of the races, most of the major characters, etc. Do Cardassians, for example, really deserve their own entry in a collection of general knowledge? I'm just curious what the official policy is, if there is an objective set of criteria, etc. (I'm not picking on Star Trek, I'm just using it as an example.)  Minaker (talk) 11:38, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * We generally define whether a topic can have an entry by looking to the factors of notability and verifiability—that is, respectively, a topic warrants an article if it has been the subject of substantive treatment in multiple reliable sources that are independent from the topic and, through such reliable sources, there is sufficient published information from which an autonomous article can be written (i.e., beyond just a sentences or two).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:09, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

"High database server lag"
Is it just me or is there a wider problem? I can't update my watchlist page - currently I'm getting "Due to high database server lag, changes newer than 2,866 seconds may not appear in this list. "  Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:51, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, but it's catching up now. -- John of Reading (talk) 12:15, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Seems OK now. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:02, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

How do you reactivate mobile site?
The mobile site no longer appears on my iphone. I do not recall clicking the disable link. Is there any way to reactivate the mobile site? Thanks.

Brooks White —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.205.11.22 (talk) 12:33, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol move vote.svg|20px]] If you go to Enable mobile version on your mobile device and click on the link there, you will re-enable the mobile version. -- John of Reading (talk) 12:36, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

letter to Wikipedia
Hi! Just wanted to ask if there's any adress where i can send a message/letter about my problem? I've changed entirely one article and just few minutes latter it was changed agin by someone else and i got accused of vandalism! Even though i had proof for my information, so can I write to anyone to explain my rights? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AtaN (talk • contribs) 14:28, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * There's no need to send a letter; the best place to discuss any changes to the Ptasie mleczko article is the article talk page, namely Talk:Ptasie mleczko. Your changes removed referenced information from the article, so you will to find reliable sources to support your changes. I've left some introductory links on your talk page. -- John of Reading (talk) 14:39, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * (ec) Are you referring to your edits to Ptasie mleczko? What you did there was to change a fairly well written, neutral and sourced article into what was pretty much an advertisement, including trade mark symbols. I do not see where you attempted to provide "proof" for your edits. This is unacceptable. I don't see the word mentioned "vandalism" anywhere. As for your rights, try reading Neutral point of view, Conflict of interest, Spam and Verifiability for some important policies and guidelines that need to be followed when contributing to articles. As John of Reading and Galassi suggested the place you really need to discuss this is the article talk page. Rehevkor ✉  14:45, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

What i meant by "proof" was that Ptasie Mleczko is really a trademark registered in OHIM as a Community trademark and i've added and external link to that page unfortunatlly i couldn't added the direct link to see the registration in their data base but anyone can see that by typing the CTM registered number. In what other way can i show that Ptasie Mleczko is a trademark? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AtaN (talk • contribs) 14:50, 7 March 2011 (UTC) And sorry NNPOV means "not neutral point view" as i'm new i though it meant "vandalism" my mistake — Preceding unsigned comment added by AtaN (talk • contribs) 14:57, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * See MOS:TM. The TM symbol is not used on Wikipedia. If you inserted it into the article, then it was done incorrectly. -- k a i n a w &trade; 15:44, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Was the ® symbol in this case, but MOS:TM still applies. Rehevkor ✉  15:50, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Adding a photo
I just want to add a photo to this wiki page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10th_Transportation_Battalion_(United_States) I have in my personal collection a photo that shows soldiers in front of the 10th Port in Leghorn, Italy, ca. 1944 and I would like to contribute it to the page. However, the upload site won't accept any entry I put in regarding source (my personal collection), ownership (me), or author (me). I am new to wikipedia, and am not finding it user friendly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdpahist (talk • contribs) 15:43, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Try using Upload. Are you the actual author of the photo? ---—  Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 15:58, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * You cannot upload directly to Wikipedia because your account is not autoconfirmed yet. Instead, go to commons:Commons:Upload. Click "It is entirely my own work". On the next page, remember to choose a license in the "Licensing" drop-down box near the bottom. The "Original source" and "Author(s)" fields should have default values you can keep. Did this help? PrimeHunter (talk) 16:04, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Selecting own work in Upload leads to Commons . ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 16:43, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Climate of Saipan
i am looking for information on the climate of Saipan, CNMI. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.69.59.6 (talk) 16:25, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You can look at the article about Saipan. PaoloNapolitano (talk) 16:27, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Symbol_move_vote.svg You might find what you are looking for in the article Northern Mariana Islands. If you cannot find the answer there, you can try asking your question at Wikipedia's Reference Desk. They specialize in knowledge questions and will try to answer just about any question in the universe (except about how to use Wikipedia, which is what this help desk is for). I hope this helps. TN X Man  16:29, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Why does the text appear grey as I type in the search area?
In the past few months I have encountered a problem when searching the site. As I type words into the search area at the top, the text appears light grey, and the site seems to ignore what I am typing. Sometimes a few options appear in a drop down menu, but when I click on them, it doesn't go anywhere. It usually takes me 3-4 attempts before I get normal black text to appear in the search field, as I am typing. Why is this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davez621 (talk • contribs) 17:17, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know. Can you tell us which browser you are using? -- John of Reading (talk) 17:22, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I am using IE 8. Just cleared my browser's history and saved files, and it seems to work OK now.  I'm sure it's only a matter of time before it starts happening again though... would be nice to know what's causing it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davez621 (talk • contribs) 17:33, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I have experienced the same thing a couple of times. Sometimes the word 'search' didn't disappear, but just stayed there in front of the words I typed. Only happened after the recent big update. No idea what causes it. I use Internet Explorer. -- Taketa (talk) 17:27, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I have also encountered this issue multiple times lately in Firefox 3.6.15. When I try to place the cursor into the search box, the cursor would become grey and appears inbetween the letters of the word "Search" that is displayed in the search box by default. Then when I type a search word in, it will appear in light grey, just like the search-word. Pressing enter to start the search will not yield any results, because Wikipedia doesn't seem to recognize those grey letters and seems to believe the box to be empty. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 18:18, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * This problem should be fixed according to 25683. Is anybody still experiencing it after clearing the entire cache? PrimeHunter (talk) 21:39, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Seems to work fine now. During the last couple of Wikipedia sessions I didn't encounter that problem any longer. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 22:11, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

slanderous items in personal biography
I am trying to fix slanderous items and very poorly sourced items in a personal biography. I represent the person who is being slandered. I sent an email to the biography help desk, or whatever it's called, two weeks ago and never got a response. Another person edited out the offensive material, but it has now been edited back in. I would really like for someone with authority to review this issue. What should I do? RMHutcheson (talk) 18:49, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Since this account has made no edits other than the one posting here, can you please let us know what article you are talking about?  GB  fan  18:53, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * (ec) It'd help us to know what the article in question is and what material is problematic? From what you had said it seems you have not edited the article directly, this is a good thing, but please make sure you're familiar with our guideline on conflicts of interest. While not directly relevant, WP:BLPCOMPLAINT may be of some use otherwise. Rehevkor ✉  18:56, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

First, thanks to you both. The article is on Princess Haya bint al Hussein. Here is an example of the type of sourcing that disturbs me -- a yahoo chatroom: Subject: Re: Overthrow the Corrupt Royal Family Attention, here are some private spies of the mad princesses, who observe for the lazy princesses the discussion on these groups! From the iranian emir descendant Kazemi, I heared that he was terrorized some years in order of princess Haya and another unknown princess in Germany. They have offered him nearly 350.000 US dollars and wanted to rename an airport to him, so he heared.

I have not attempted to edit the article. A friend of Princess Haya's did, but the offending material has been put back in by someone operating under the name "Queen Noor." The fact that they use the name of Princess Haya's stepmother is an indication of how they operate. We can go back and forth editing and re-editing, but that seems pointless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RMHutcheson (talk • contribs) 19:18, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I have removed the last 2 sub-sections from the controvery section. IMO they are not adequately sourced. I am still looking at the other sub-section, probably won't get to it for a few hours.  GB fan  19:47, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you.


 * I have gone through the article somewhat attempted to make it more neutral. Having no knowledge or interest in the subject that's about the extent of what I am personally prepared to do. But with that and GB fan's removals the problematic material seems to have been removed. Rehevkor ✉  20:25, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. It is definitely more fair. I know it's a pain, but I would like to a fix of the sole remaining unsourced inaccuracy: There is no source for the assertion that Haya displaced someone who had already earned a spot on the Jordanian team for the Sydney Olympics. The cited source -- a New York Times article —- addresses her lackluster showing at the Olympics, but doesn't mention anything about the supposed "controversy" over knocking someone off the team. Here is the relevant section: Princess Haya was not a standout rider, finishing 70th at the Sydney Games, but she identified with being an athlete. “I was able to interact with levels of society in Jordan that I would have never probably seen in the palace,” she said.

It looks like a cheap trick to tack a falsehood onto the back of a somewhat embarrassing but well-sourced fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RMHutcheson (talk • contribs) 20:55, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You are right, the source did not support the controversy and I have removed it.  GB  fan  21:03, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Wow! You guys are amazing. Thank you for hearing me out. I know that the piece would never be the way I would write it (and that's probably for the best), but I can no longer complain that it is unfair or inaccurate. You have a difficult job, but you're good at it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RMHutcheson (talk • contribs) 21:29, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Linking to user pages...
Hi, very new be gentle,

Can someone point me in the direction of the help page for linking to user areas? I was looking at Category:English_aikidoka and noticed that one of the links was to a user page - is this normal wikipedia practice and where would I find out more about the pros and cons?

Failedwizard (talk) 19:46, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not sure if it says it somewhere but I don't think categories like those should be in the userspace. This is a draft article, so I commented out the categories for now.   GB  fan  19:56, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It's explained at WP:USERNOCAT -- John of Reading (talk) 20:00, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * See also User pages. As for how it happens, I suspect you don't know how categories work. See Help:Category. Placing the category on any page will automatically list the page on the category page without editing the category page. Many users don't know or think about this when they add categories to their userspace or copy articles to their userspace without removing the existing categories. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:02, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * you suspect correctly (although, I've just had an interesting half hour finding out). Thanks all for your help! :) Failedwizard (talk) 21:16, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Gray area in WP:VANDALISM
I reverted insertion of BLP violating material by using the twinkle "vandalism roll back," I thought insertion of blatant BLP violating material would be considered vandalism by WP:VANDALISM. The only mention I see is "Removing BLP violating material"... am I covered here removing Blatant BLP violating material as vandalism? The Resident Anthropologist (Talk / contribs) 19:49, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I probably wouldn't have removed it as vandalism. WP:Vandalism is very specific about the definition of vandalism and I don't think that Frellthat put that information in there "in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia".  I think you should have reverted using the reqular revert in Twinkle and put your own edit summary that includes something to the effect of poorly sourced controversial information about a living person.  You should also link to WP:BLP.  That is how I would have handled it.   GB  fan  20:03, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * This was particularly inappropriate, as a case can be made that your edit was not in fact removing BLP violations. It's not a good idea to use as nasty a term as "vandalism" in a borderline situation such as this one, as it tends to generate ill-will. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  20:19, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

List of my contributions on a specific WikiProject page?
Hello there, Help desk. I am trying to find out how to "list my contribution history" only on a specific Wikipedia:WikiProject page (as well as any WikiProject pages all together)? In the "My contributions" page, it does have a namespace section and if I choose "Wikipedia", I see all my contribs in all areas including RfE, RSN, and MfD. That is not what I'm looking for. I'm more interested in finding all my contribs of this page, for example:

WikiProject's World's Oldest People/Future supercentenarians

The best I can find to date is similar to what this tool does:

Shows the number of edits I have made to the page, but not showing my contribs in chronological order as I would like to see

Can someone help me out? Thank you in advance, Calvin  Ty  20:15, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Before I forget, I had meant to add that I had looked at the FAQ quite thoroughly first, but couldn't find an exact answer I'm looking for. I tried to go over at User contributions in the URLs and links section.  It said:


 * "A user contributions URL looks like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=XX or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/XX (for this wiki) where XX is the user name or IP address.


 * Change the sub-site to view your contributions on that particular subsite. (www.wikipedia.org, meta.wikimedia.org, etc.)


 * Can someone tell me what "sub-site" means here as I don't see it in my contributions page? Thanks,  Calvin  Ty  20:20, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I've been reading at MediaWiki to try to find a good solution to this, but haven't managed it.
 * I could just about do it with the "Contributors" tool that you've found, but it would be very messy: ask the tool to sort by user name and to output in one of the other formats, then grab the part of the output that has your name, paste it into a spreadsheet, sort by date, paste it back into the WP:Sandbox to view the diffs. Horrible!
 * The term "sub-site" here is the project name - "en" for the English-language Wikipedia, "fr" for French, and so on. I don't think it helps solve your problem. -- John of Reading (talk) 20:48, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Here's a much simpler workaround - since that project page has fewer than 5000 revisions, you can display them all at once with this link. Then use your browser's "Find" function to find your contributions quickly. -- John of Reading (talk) 21:16, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The page history links to the tool you found. Uncheck "group by user" and sort by User to see your individual edits, but they are not listed in chronological order. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:21, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks to both John of Reading & PrimeHunter for your help. Both workarounds would suffice just fine; it was very helpful to uncheck "group by user".  The idea behind this was to be able to show any other editor of my contributions to a particular page.  For John of Reading's workaround, showing all revisions then using browser's Find function probably would be best suited for my own review of my contribs.  For PrimeHunter's workaround, I can show another editor the list of my contribs by displaying this link.  Like PrimeHunter said, when they see my individual edits, they are not in chronological order (because the tool is already set to sort by user name and the tool does not have a second sort order).  That's fine with me.  I consider the question answered!  Thanks so much,  Calvin  Ty  21:53, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * There is a tool that I believe does exactly what you are looking for. Create User:CalvinTy/vector.js or User:CalvinTy/monobook.js (depending on which skin you use), with this code: importScript('User:Ale_jrb/Scripts/userhist.js'); //User:Ale_jrb/Scripts Then clear your cache. Now go to any page's history and you should see a new input box at the top with a button beside to labeled "isolate history". Type the name of any user there (do not prfix "user:") and hit the button and you'll get a list of just that user's contributions to that page in chronological order, in the same format of a page history, i.e. with edit summaries, ability to look at diffs, etc.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:06, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Fuhghettaboutit, for letting me know on my talk page to check back here as the tool you found is exactly what I wanted. Perfect.  Thanks again,  Calvin  Ty  20:57, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

COI Issues on Maitreesh Ghatak page
I am approaching the helpdesk to draw attention to autobiography tag added to Maitreesh Ghatak page on 13 February 2011.

Background: I had created the page in June 2009 and as a new inexperienced editor, I fell foul of the COI rules. The specific circumstances which led to creation of the page are on Talk:Maitreesh_Ghatak and User:Kaniket. User:maitreesh edited the page on 17 June 2009 adding some information that does seem controversial. I am in no position to ascertain whether User:maitreesh is connected to the subject of the page or not. User:maitreesh's contribution and seems very marginal and insignificant and has been edited away since. The page seems stable and has grown organically since.

Current Problem: From the perspective of Wikipedia users (see advice from  User:HelloAnnyong - the administrator that undertook the  SPI - and  User:Muhandes  on   COI discussion page), the issue is whether the page should exist or not and whether there is any controversial information on the page currently. The Notability Test test should determine if the page should deleted or not. If the page remains, controversial information on the page should be identified and expurgated.

Autobiography Tag: The editor that added the autobiography tag has not been forthcoming in either identifying controversial information on the page or finding a way forward. An SPI on 17 February 2011 found no sockpuppetry. The autobiography tag says that the article has been "extensively edited" by the subject. The editor has not substantiated this claim, while implicitly accepting the content of the article is not a problem on the  talk page. It would be very useful to get the attention of a proactive uninvolved editor that resolves the controversy and finds a constructive solution, i.e., either to delete the page or identify the problem.

My Involvement: I have acted all through in good faith and made a few unwitting mistake while experimenting with Wikipedia in June 2009. I got involved with the page very reluctantly recently, only once a SPI was filed against me on 17 February 2011. I am not sure there was any suspicious activity by me that would warrant a SPI. Even though I do I want to be involved in the page, I do feel that the current autobiography tag on Maitreesh Ghatak page is not warranted in view of what actually happened and the allegation of "extensive editing by the subject" is extremely misleading for the Wikipedia users. kaniket (talk) 22:14, 7 March 2011 (UTC)kaniket
 * I believe that the reason why the autobiography tag was added is that only 1 reference is provided, and that's to a personal page rather than established secondary sources. I would suspect that this article is in danger of not meeting the notability criteria set out under WP:NPF.  My recommendation to you would be to locate references and add them to the article asap. CaptRik (talk) 13:27, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks you very much for that answer. That is very useful and constructive suggestion. I could easily add a lot of references. Given that I have a COI with the subject, should I do it or does the page have to wait for someone unrelated to make that contribution. My COI is that I was that the subject was my Ph.D supervisor 3 years ago and still occasionally serves as my referee and I would like make sure I do not again contravene the spirit of the Wikipedia. kaniket (talk) 15:49, 8 March 2011 (UTC)kaniket
 * I have added a number of link from established secondary sources. Does this page look better and cross the WP:NPF threshold? kaniket (talk) 22:02, 8 March 2011 (UTC)kaniket
 * Look good from what I understand the guidelines to be, I've removed the autobiography tag from the article now. CaptRik (talk) 10:02, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Great, thank you very much! I am really appreciate the constructive advice and prompt action. kaniket (talk) 08:25, 10 March 2011 (UTC)kaniket

Log Me In Globally
Why is "Log Me In Globally" enabled by default? jc iindyysgvxc  (my contributions) 22:51, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

foxxpatrol editing info
hello, i am vik foxx's publicist. i am trying to edit his page, "Vik Foxx" I am trying to take out misinformation and replace it with factual information straight from Vik Foxx's mouth. It keeps getting erased every time i do an edit??? can you assist me in this process please, thank you, Therese Pascual — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foxxpatrol (talk • contribs) 23:55, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * We cannot create articles based on word of mouth, even the subjects. Can you provide reliable sources for your edits? Are you aware that you are not editing in concordance with our conflict of interest guidelines? I guesst you read that and WP:Verifiability before continuing to edit any further. Rehevkor ✉  00:07, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * But also look at Biographies of living people: you may remove any material which is not referenced. But you should not add unreferenced material, nor remove properly referenced material, even if you don't like it. --ColinFine (talk) 00:21, 9 March 2011 (UTC)