Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2012 August 15

= August 15 =

Hawaiian feather cloaks
Why are the feather cloaks of Hawaii have two different lengths? Some covers half the torso like a cape and others cover the entire body to the legs. Is the ʻahuʻula a name for the short cape or the long cloak or both? Also is there any significance to the lengths.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:18, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The Pocket Hawaiian Dictionary (ISBN 0-8248-0307-8) translates ʻahuʻula as "feather cloak or cape", for whatever that's worth... AnonMoos (talk) 07:30, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't know how reliable this site is, though it appears to have some decent references for further study. The article talks about the rarity and expense of the right kind of feathers for these cloaks and capes, particularly the yellow ones, and at one point says "Only the highest ranking chiefs had the resources to acquire enough feathers for a full cloak. Most chiefs wore the shorter capes which came approximately to the elbow."  So the significance could be to do with resources and status.  -  Ka renjc 19:30, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

IS ABOUT USS NIMITZ CVN 68 SHIP CARRIER
MY QUESTIONS:

1. HOW OLD IS USS NIMITZ CVN68?

2. WHEN IS IT GOING TO BE REFUEL?

3. WHAT TYPE OF FUEL DOES IT USES AND WHAT TYPE OF PROCESSES DOES IT USES TO REFUEL?

4.CAN IT REMAINS OF FUEL BE USE FOR OTHER THINGS WHICH COULD BENEFIT MANKIND?

5. WHEN IS IT GOING TO DECOMMISSION?

FROM SYLVESTER — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.215.160.159 (talk) 04:13, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * 1) USS Nimitz was laid down on 22 June 1968, launched on 13 May 1972, and commissioned on 3 May 1975. StuRat (talk) 04:21, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * 2) The A4W reactor core is expected to last 20 years, so presumably it has already been replaced once, and either was replaced a second time, or is about to be. StuRat (talk) 04:24, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * 3) I'm not positive this info pertains to this reactor, but, according to the Introduction for Section 3, here: "The fuel is an alloy of 15 percent zirconium and 85 percent uranium enriched to a level of 93 percent U235." StuRat (talk) 04:37, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * That document agrees with the fuel composition given by, which in turn cites Director, Naval Propulsion Program (1995), p. 35. as its source. Nitpick: that should be 235U. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 04:41, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I copied it verbatim from the document, including positioning of the superscript. StuRat (talk) 05:36, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, dare I say that Magdi Regheb, Associate Professor of Nuclear Engineering from the University of Illinois got the isotope notation wrong, consistently, throughout that paper? 203.27.72.5 (talk) 06:05, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The ship was launched on 13 May 1972, so it is now 40 years old. It was refueled in 2001 and its A4W reactors are expected to need refueling every 20-25 years, so 2021 should be the next refueling. For details on the refueling process, see Refueling_and_Complex_Overhaul. For details on the type of fuel used in these reactors, see Pressurized_water_reactor and United_States_Naval_reactor. The Nimitz class carriers have a lifespan of around 50 years, so it would be expected to be decommissioned in around 2022. This probably means that it will either be refueled in 2021 or decomissioned. For the possible uses of the spent fuel, see Spent nuclear fuel. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 04:25, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * See USS Nimitz (CVN-68). 203.27.72.5 (talk) 04:12, 15 August 2012 (UTC) (Note: reply moved from duplicate copy of the query. Looie496 (talk) 04:26, 15 August 2012 (UTC))


 * 5) As to when it will actually be decommissioned, this depends on many factors. First, there is it's expected lifespan of 50 years.  However, if it's still useful at that point, it could be kept in service longer.  With refits to add the latest technology, it could be kept in service for several more decades.  As of now, aircraft carriers remain quite useful (unlike, say, battleships).  This could change, however.  For example, we might rely more on UAVs in the future, perhaps launched from the smaller missile boats and caught in a net when they return.  If so, then we would phase out old aircraft carriers faster (while keeping a core fleet for tasks not suitable to UAVs).  Economics also plays a huge factor, and the US may not have the budget to maintain the Nimitz indefinitely.  StuRat (talk) 04:48, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * So the short answer is, no published source indicates that a date has been set, and we are not going to engage in crystal ballery as to when that date might be. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 04:53, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * In other words, we don't have the balls to give a good estimate. StuRat (talk) 09:53, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * 4) The remaining fuel could, in theory, be reprocessed to remove plutonium and/or any remaining enriched uranium, which could then be used in other reactors. At the moment the US does not engage in civilian nuclear fuel reprocessing and has enough HEU and plutonium to meet all military needs, so I suspect it will simply be treated as spent fuel (nuclear waste) and put either into a military repository (e.g. WIPP) or dry cask storage somewhere. --Mr.98 (talk)
 * Reprocessing uranium fuel also produces depleted uranium as a byproduct. This fantastic material benefits mankind thorugh its use in super dense, incendiary projectile ordinace. It's also useful for; making armour plating (to stop the aforementioned ordinace), shielding radiation (as in the radiation produced by the main reprocessing product) and as a tamper in nuclear weapons. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 23:27, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * In theory, sure, but the uranium fuel in said reactor is 93% U-235. Recovering the uranium from the spent fuel is going to get you a lot of probably-not-depleted uranium at worst, or small amounts of "reactor-depleted" uranium at best. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:37, 16 August 2012 (UTC)


 * It's 93% when it goes in, but after 20-25 years of fission, it's going to be considerably less than that. According to Spent_nuclear_fuel, it's only 0.83% 235U, though we should assume that it's talking about spent fuel from slightly enriched uranium or low enriched uranium. If it is still very high, then there is no need for reprocessing at all; just stick the rods into a normal reactor. If for some reason you don't want to do that, you could also always downblend the material to make a lower enrichment grade. Of course any and all DU produced from spent fuel rods is by definition "reactor-depleted". 203.27.72.5 (talk) 02:37, 16 August 2012 (UTC)


 * You might need to reprocess it to remove some of the decay products, even if there is still plenty of U-235 left. --Tango (talk) 11:56, 16 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Right. HEU becomes incredibly difficult to handle after only a few weeks in a reactor. (This is one of the reasons that HEU research reactors don't bother with much security; after a very short amount of time, the fuel becomes deadly to the touch and nobody's going to be able to use it in a bomb or anything else without reprocessing). Also, my point is that I don't think reactor-depleted DU is actually used in any of the applications you are discussing, because it contains lots of other U isotopes like U-236 and probably other weirder ones. The DU that is used in weapons situations is usually derived from enrichment, not reprocessing, and is a lot cleaner. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:30, 16 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Don't take this the wrong way, but I would like to see sources. I can't find much at all of the US Navy's security for HEU used in those reactors, which is essentially weapons grade. Since apparently even 15% enriched uranium can be used in a crude bomb, I'm sure 93% enriched material that has been in the reactor for a week or two could be used without reprocessing. And I can't find anything on the handling of used HEU that isn't way too technical. I know that here in Australia, there was originally a suggestion that certain sources of a very high activity (such as partially reacted fuel) would be considered to be a low security risk with the rationale that trying to steal them would almost certainly result in the death of the thief, and locating the stolen source is easy because its radioactive emissions can be detected at a considerable distance. This suggestion was rejected so the current code requires that such sources "must be protected by, at a minimum, physical security measures capable of providing sufficient delay to allow immediate detection and assessment of the intrusion, and for a guard or police service to interrupt unauthorised removal of the source", and anyone in proximity to the source must have undergone either a background ground check by ASIO, the federal police and every state and territory police service or a comprehensive identity check if their contact with the source is only incidental. They're also required to run annual drills with police/guard services on responding to threats, and daily accounting to ensure the source is still in place if the source is determined to be high risk. There are also additional reporting requirements to the Safeguards and Non-Proliferation Office if the source is fissile. There is currently no HEU in Australia at all, since the last batch was shipped back to the US in 2009. You're right that reactor depleted DU isn't actually used in any of those applications as far as I know, and that the DU is actually sourced from enrichment. Apparently, you may not need to remove those other, weirder decay products before using them in other reactors (though I'm far from sure on this) because the accumulation of neutron poisons is offset by the high enrichment and gradual depletion of burnable neutron poisons that were purposely integrated into the fuel. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 21:51, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know exactly when it becomes deadly, but I've had many discussions with people who operate research reactors about this question. Used HEU is radioactive enough that it'll kill you quick. Exactly how used is has to be, I don't know (the reactor people I've talked to didn't seem to want to talk about that; whether that was out of ignorance or out of security, I'm unsure), but I got the impression it didn't have to be inside a reactor for very long. I know of numerous HEU sources (e.g. research reactors) in the USA that are protected with no more than a heavy door and some cameras. This is in marked contrast to how non-irradiated HEU sources are treated (armed guards). (The term that is used in the technical literature is "self-protecting".) --Mr.98 (talk) 22:50, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Scottish Parliament and Scottish independence referendum
Is there any possibility of an election between now and the Scottish independence referendum in 2014? Should the Scottish Independence Party lose their majority, or lose the government of Scotland altogether, is there any chance that the referendum will be halted? 69.62.243.48 (talk) 06:44, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The next election is not due to be held until 5 May 2016, so there is not much of a chance of the election being called earlier, or for the Scottish National Party to lose its majority. There is still a slim chance that it may lose its majority due to defections or resignations, but that's unlikely. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 07:12, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * As Scottish independence referendum, 2014 notes, there is no more than a proposal to hold an advisory referendum in 2014. The bill to enact that has not been put before the Scottish Parliament, so there is no law to that effect now. Nothing is certain in poltics, so while the SNP government may now plan to put that bill to the vote, they may change their minds. The content of the bill is not decided, and it's not possible to know for sure that all of the SNP's MSPs will vote for it. And if the bill passes into law, as the article notes, it's very possible that the law will be challenged in court (as it's not clear what authority is devolved to the Scottish parliament has in this regard). And the Westminister parliament may, in the meantime, pass a law either preemptivey introducing a referendum on its terms (the current UK government has indicated it is inclined to do so, for a simple in/out referendum sooner than the SNP's preference). Were they to do so, it's likely that would face legal challenge too. So one cannot say with any certitude that there will be a referendum at all, when it will be, from where it will derive its legitimacy, who will write its language, or what it will ask. The electoral fortunes of the SNP in the Scottish Parliament are certainly an important part of that, but there is still much to be decided. 146.90.121.119 (talk) 13:50, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * There can be an early election for the Scottish Parliament if 2/3rds of MSPs (members of the Scottish parliament) vote for it. See question 1 here. Based on the current numbers this would require SNP support. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:55, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

David Davis and the 1876 United States presidential election
Did Supreme Court Justice and Senator David Davis ever write or tell anyone how he would have voted had he remained on the Electoral Commission that determined the Presidential winner in 1876? Futurist110 (talk) 07:35, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Henri, comte de Chambord and the French monarchy
Why did Henri refuse to become King of France while France retained the tricolor flag? Also, why did Henri refuse to give up his claim to the French throne immediately in 1870-1871 if he did not want to be King of France himself with the tricolor flag, so that another claimant could have received the French throne immediately in 1870-1871 while royalist sentiment was still high? Futurist110 (talk) 07:35, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * His article basically said it all. He didn't like the flag because of what it represented and he would never have given up his claim to the throne because in his mind he was rightful King of France and it was his choice which flag should represent his nation. Henri wanted to get everything and wasn't willing to compromise. As for other candidates, the Bonaparte's were out of the question, so the other candidate were the Orleans who would have accepted the tricolors since the July Monarchy used the tricolors but they probably didn't have as much support since they were deposed not to long ago in 1848, plus they joined with the Legitimists to support Henri.
 * (ec) Henri considered himself the sole legitimate pretender to the throne, by divine right; any others were usurpers in his eyes so it was him or no one, and France be damned. It was his entire outlook on life. He was very much a reactionary, and for him the tricolor flag represented the worst excesses of the Revolution, and especially the execution of Louis XVI. The fact that no one in France held that view anymore was of no concern to him - he had lived most of his life outside of the country and had married a foreigner, so he was very much out of touch with public opinion. See here if you can read French . Thus the Assembly decided to go with a president for a term of seven years, which was how long Henri was expected to live. By the time he died in 1883, however, the Republic had won many more supporters, and the constitution was not re-opened because the monarchists had lost the upper hand. --Xuxl (talk) 08:48, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * So basically the Orleans feared that they would not get enough support in 1870-1871 to get their own candidate on the French throne and thus supported Henri? Wouldn't it have been more pragmatic for them to immediately nominate their own candidate in 1870-1871 after Henri declined the throne? Also, what exactly was the rationale in predicting how long Henri will live? You generally can't predict that kind of thing for younger people. Futurist110 (talk) 20:25, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The Orleanists were not a particularly strong group in 1871, and they openly backed Henri's candidacy as the best hope for a return of the monarchy. Plus, since Henri did not have any heirs, their leader, the Comte de Paris, would be his successor in any case. You have to remember that King Louis-Philippe I's time in power had ended in a popular uprising in 1848, and the Orleanist cause had never been particularly popular among the hard-core monarchists. Their support had come from the emerging middle class who wanted stability without the reactionary trappings of the Legitimists. These people had largely supported Napoleon III for the same reason, and were ready to support a Republican system if it guaranteed the same sort of economic climate that allowed them to prosper. The Third Republic was able to do just that. Henri was already 53 in 1873, when the length of the presidential term was decided, and not in the greatest of health. The idea was that the Republic would be temporary until his death, and seven years seemed a decent term (I doubt that there was a much more scientific calculation made), after which the retauration could occur with the Orleanist candidate as the monarch by default. Except that, as I said above, the royalists' time had passed by the time Henri died in 1883. --Xuxl (talk) 08:41, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Candidates for the Greek throne
Who were all the candidates for the throne after the Greek head of state referendum, 1862? So don't mention the candidates that received votes since most were turned down because of their association to one of the Great Powers. I know there were Ernest II, Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha and Prince Wilhelm of Baden (1829–1897). There must have been more since the choice and candidates seem to be all over the place. --The Emperor&#39;s New Spy (talk) 08:44, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The election of the Greek king was very closely tied to the Mediatisation of the German principalities over the long trip towards German unification; there was a strong pressure to give the dispossed "great families" something to rule. Having a ruling class with nothing to rule and several Balkan states with no one to rule them seemed like a "hand-in-glove" solution for the Conservative elements of the Concert of Europe.  I'm sure that active campaigning or announcing one's candidacy publicly for such a position would have been seen in the worst of form for the day (even candidates in Republican governments like the U.S. didn't formally campaign at this time), so there may not be an "official" list of candidates.  It was basically open to any dispossed German prince, of which there were probably dozens.  -- Jayron  32  16:47, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Most of the candidates were younger sons of ruling families or relatives of one of the Great Powers (France, Britain and Russia). Mediatised nobles were hardly ever considered because they were one level below those of the ruling families; the only mediatised German noble who received a throne in the Balkan was William, Prince of Albania. And there were probably no "campaigning", the Greek politicians and the Great Power chosed the candidates and asked the candidates afterwards.--The Emperor&#39;s New Spy (talk) 19:52, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Also who were the other candidates the first time around when Otto was chosen. I know there were Prince Frederick of the Netherlands, Leopold I of Belgium and Prince Louis, Duke of Nemours.--The Emperor&#39;s New Spy (talk) 08:44, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Russian film-maker, Battle of Stalingrad & Battle of Dien Bien Phu
Hello learned humanitarians ! While watching a documentary about war photographers & cameramen, I failed to note the name of a russian film-maker, famous for its views of huge winding files of POW after the battle of Stalingrad & the battle of Dien Bien Phu : something like "Karmen" (???). You know him, of course... Thanks a lot beforehand, t. y. Arapaima (talk) 16:53, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * See Roman Karmen. Alansplodge (talk) 17:51, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot AlanS. ! Arapaima (talk) 18:00, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

CANFORCE ONE
According to Call sign, a Canadian Air Force aircraft will use the callsign "CANFORCE ONE" when carrying the Prime Minister or the Governor General. What if both of them are flying, but in different aircraft (e.g. one goes from Ottawa to Toronto, the other from Ottawa to Vancouver); is it possible for two aircraft to use the same call sign at the same time? 2001:18E8:2:1020:481B:2041:9088:9F9C (talk) 17:25, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thinking back to my days as a pilot (albeit in the US and not Canada), I can tell you that two aircraft in different airspaces can have the same call sign because it's just a call sign. Each aircraft's tail number is unique though.  While both aircraft are in the same airspace, the tower would make it clear which they were talking to by using the tail number.  On occasion while around a busier airport, I'd sometimes here things like "Piper Cherokee N123MW, you are now Cherokee Mike Whiskey" because another Piper Cherokee had entered the same airspace.  The "Mike Whiskey" part are the last two letters of the plane's tail number.  Dismas |(talk) 19:37, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The logical assumption would be canforce two, not that logic ever got anyone anywhere. μηδείς (talk) 19:38, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I think our article might just be wrong. I can't find a reliable source, but Google has found me several unreliable ones saying that CANFORCE ONE is just used for the Prime Minister and RIDEAU ONE is used for the Governer-General. --Tango (talk) 20:55, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I think I've found one of the unreliable sources you mentioned, at http://www.liveatc.net/forums/listener-forum/canforce-zero-one/?wap2. In that post, they quote from the Air Traffic Control Manual of Operations, which can be found here: www.czvr.ca/_Controller_Resources/_Training/ATC_EN.pdf.  I'm not quite sure if it qualifies as a reliable source, but on page 70, or section 132.3, it outlines what flights carrying VIPs are identified: the Governor General (RIDEAU 01), the British Royal Family (ROYAL 01 -09), the Canadian Prime Minister (CANFORCE 01), and other heads of state or government (CANFORCE 02-19) which I am assuming means leaders of other countries.  ROYAL 10, RIDEAU 2, and CANFORCE 20 are used for pre-positioning flights, a term that someone else may be better able to define.  Hope some of this helps. 142.104.135.185 (talk) 22:07, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * A pre-positioning flight is when an empty airplane is moved to where it's going to be needed. (In the case of a VIP transport, "empty" means the VIP isn't on board.) --Carnildo (talk) 01:59, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Meo = Hmong?
I just read some 1960s newspaper articles about Pop Buell, all which speak of him as working with a people called the "Meo" in the Laotian hill country. They're definitely not Muslim Rajputs from North-Western India, and the name "Hmong" doesn't appear in the article at all. Is this an error reproduced across many newspapers, or are/were the Meo a tribe of Hmong, or is there some other solution? 2001:18E8:2:1020:481B:2041:9088:9F9C (talk) 17:53, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * An alternate spelling of Miao people, I think. Rmhermen (talk) 18:05, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Link added to Meos; thank you. Could you please fix the display issues on the Miao article?  I can't figure out how to keep the bullets from overlapping with the left-side photograph.  2001:18E8:2:1020:481B:2041:9088:9F9C (talk) 18:11, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * There are many different people groups in "the Laotian hill country" including various Mon-Khmer, Tibeto-Burman, Hmong-Mien, and Tai groups. The term "Meo" is a transliteration of the Lao ແມ້ວ (Thai แม้ว), an exonym that the Lao use most often to refer to the Hmong people. The Thai/Lao term is probably derived from the Chinese "Miao" but is considered highly derogatory by the Hmong of Southeast Asia, in part because it is used by the Thai/Lao as a type of ethnic slur and also because ແມ້ວ/แม้ว is reminiscent of แมว (differing only in tone), the onomatopoeic equivalent of a cat's "meow" in English. So to answer your question: yes, "Meo" in your articles most probably refers to the Hmong, but "Meo" doesn't equal "Hmong".--William Thweatt TalkContribs 18:42, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Viktor Yushchenko's dioxin poisoning
Some people claim the evidence for Viktor Yushchenko's poisoning was falsified. How did those people explain his chloracne?A8875 (talk) 18:39, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * You want us to explain the unsourced conspiracy theory allegedly held my some random people you haven't named, and supposedly expressed in some venue you haven't specified? How should we know what some unknown crazy person thinks? 146.90.121.119 (talk) 19:28, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Never mind, found it. "It was a mere food poisoning. The diagnose was determined yet on the first day, and every third person in the world often suffers from such poisonings. It is pancreatitis."A8875 (talk) 22:30, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Looking at the source, it just looks like a blatant attempt at a coverup. The evidence was quite clear. StuRat (talk) 23:32, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * It's reasonable to expect that the ones who poisoned him would have claimed that the evidence was falsified. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:42, 16 August 2012 (UTC)


 * As our article makes clear, the evidence was not so clear. To answer the OP's question: says:  "In other words, both rosacea (accounting for Yushchenko’s outward appearance) and pancreatitis (internal symptoms) can be brought on by excessive alcohol consumption."John Z (talk) 00:50, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The person who wrote that about rosacea must be red/green colour blind! Rosacea, by its very nature, results in red skin - not an overall green appearance! LOL! --TammyMoet (talk) 08:03, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Hence its name. --  ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬  [your turn]  09:56, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Agreed. That "source" reads like somebody paid off by the Ukraine officials to distribute misinformation. StuRat (talk) 14:34, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


 * As I said, our article does not treat the dioxin poisoning theory as fact. I think it unlikely that Ukrainian officials were paying off Texan internists, or the medical director of the clinic in Vienna where Yushchenko was treated. As for his coloration, I don't see any tremendously green appearance in the article, and there is no doubt that the internal ailments he had can cause jaundice, yellowish coloration which can even be greenish.John Z (talk) 21:56, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


 * But what does any of that have to do with rosacea ? StuRat (talk) 23:27, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Name of a Washington official brought down for petty theft
I remember a couple of years ago hearing about a guy who I believe was a fairly high-level person either in the White House or in the U.S. government in general who was found to have a history of going to places like Target, buying small to medium sized merchandise, taking it home, then going back to the store, receipt in hand, then going and picking up an identical item off the shelf, and then going to the return desk to "return" it. Who can tell me what the guy's name was? 67.163.109.173 (talk) 19:46, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * You probably mean this. It took about 5 seconds to find with a search engine. 67.122.211.84 (talk) 21:15, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, he gave up a $161,000 a year job to steal a few hundred dollars worth of goods. Sounds like a kleptomaniac to me, who stole for the thrill, not for the money. StuRat (talk) 01:45, 16 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Funny to see that question so soon after this. —Tamfang (talk) 07:28, 16 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Where's the date on that? 67.163.109.173 (talk) 19:28, 16 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Check the receipt. :-) StuRat (talk) 04:49, 17 August 2012 (UTC)