User talk:Avanu/Archive 4
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Avanu. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
Have any opinion on an amazing and unprecedented Rescue tagging run?
A comparatively new user tagged almost 150 articles last week, and predictably the usual folks came out to justify the aberrant behavior. The discussion is here. The user's behavior sends up all kinds of red flags for me, but so far I've stayed mostly out of it. Nice to see your datestamp. Have a nice morning. BusterD public (talk) 12:07, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
- Nicely worded. Very revealing answer, too. BusterD public (talk) 11:24, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the readership of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low 
to High 
.
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 14:03, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the readership of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High .
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:34, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Office Hours
Hey Avanu/Archive 4! I'm just dropping you a message because you've commented on (or expressed an interest in) the Article Feedback Tool in the past. If you don't have any interest in it any more, ignore the rest of this message :).
If you do still have an interest or an opinion, good or bad, we're holding an office hours session tomorrow at 19:00 GMT/UTC in #wikimedia-office to discuss completely changing the system. In attendance will be myself, Howie Fung and Fabrice Florin. All perspectives, opinions and comments are welcome :).
I appreciate that not everyone can make it to that session - it's in work hours for most of North and South America, for example - so if you're interested in having another session at a more America-friendly time of day, leave me a message on my talkpage. I hope to see you there :). Regards, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 14:29, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry not to see you at the session; the logs are here. In the meantime, the Foundation has started developing a new version of the tool which dispenses with the idea of "ratings", amongst other things. Take a look at WP:AFT5 and drop any comments, criticisms or suggestions you have on the talkpage - I'd be very grateful to hear your opinions. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:37, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the readership of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High .
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 04:44, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the readership of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High .
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 14:13, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the readership of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High .
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 13:40, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Mediation Cabal: Request for participation
Dear Avanu: Hello. This is just to let you know that you've been mentioned in the following request at the Mediation Cabal, which is a Wikipedia dispute resolution initiative that resolves disputes by informal mediation.
The request can be found at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/27 February 2012/Wikipedia:Verifiability.
Just so you know, it is entirely your choice whether or not you participate. If you wish to do so, and we'll see what we can do about getting this sorted out. At MedCab we aim to help all involved parties reach a solution and hope you will join in this effort.
If you have any questions relating to this or any other issue needing mediation, you can ask on the case talk page, the MedCab talk page, or you can ask the mediator, Mr. Stradivarius, at their talk page. MedcabBot (talk) 14:07, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
WikiProject Cleanup
 You are invited to join WikiProject Cleanup, a WikiProject and resource for Wikipedia cleanup listings, information and discussion. |
|---|
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the readership of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High .
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 02:06, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Republic of China article
Since you have previously discussed about the Republic of China, I guess you are interested to share your insights at Talk:Republic of China#Requested Move (February 2012). Thanks for your attention. 61.18.170.205 (talk) 19:06, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the readership of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High .
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:15, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the readership of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High .
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:01, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Please take a look
Hi. Please take a look at the Shooting of Trayvon Martin talk page and the latest comment from "Doc of Soc": "IMO it has always been reasonable to believe that Zimmerman was bound and determined to get himself a "F'ing Coon". Total Bias acknowledged. I feel better now. Back to trying to be fair and balanced. Namaste — DocOfSoc • Talk • 00:46, 4 April 2012 (UTC)" Can a comment like that be made and allowed to stay on an article's talk page? Aren't the rules for biographies of living persons the same on the talk pages for biographies of living persons? I still can't believe he said what he did and no one else has done anything about it. Thank you for your help. Rollo V. Tomasi (talk) 02:03, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Trayvon's suspension
Hi - I agree with your point and I get why some people might think that even-handed unfairness is fair, but that's exactly why I think we need to stay away from it unless there is something real, not people positing what might have happened based on unrelated facts and their own imaginations. Really there's no more reason to think that Trayvon would have perceived the unidentified man following and verbally accosting him at night as an authority figure, than as a threat to him - a mugger or someone "up to no good". Zimmerman wasn't after all, in uniform, and we have no reason to think he lied and said he was a police officer - so why would he necessarily be perceived by Trayvon as an authority figure? We'll never know the truth, and we'll just have to hope that the decision of what happened is taken out of the unilateral hands of the police and put into the hands of the marginally more objective justice system. And good luck in seating a jury. Cheers - always good to run into you and your clear thinking. Tvoz/talk 08:37, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- Any intention to open up discussion on why you are removing well-sourced information from a non-BLP bio? I will appreciate your prompt response, on the talk page, for your actions here, which a unenlightened observer could interpret as being contrary to the directive to "explain the major points of view in a balanced and impartial manner". Of course, that's only one of the five pillars of Wikipedia. Cheers :) Nevard (talk) 06:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, it is unnecessary and irrelevant to the article, and only serves to tarnish the subject. There are many irrelevant details that people feel are necessary and in the proper context they *might* have a place in the article. I'll remind you: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives...."
- You want to include information about the suspension, then make it relevant. Include information about WHY the media or others felt the need to dig this up and include it. We have no information about Trayvon Martin's behavior that night and this information has zero clear connection with his behavior on that night. Find a reliable source for a connection that is in line what what FACTS we have about that night and it deserves to be included. Fail to do that, and it is merely titillating gossip. -- Avanu (talk) 06:21, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- No. I don't. It's mentioned in numerous reliable sources. Read Wikipedia policy much? Nevard (talk) 07:23, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- And bra.. nice quote from the Biography of Living Persons policy (cheers for not linking to it). Do you have some information indicating that Mr. Martin is not actually dead? Nevard (talk) 07:25, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- The fact that it is a quote from BLP does not diminish the point. We're not a gossip rag. And since it seems to bear repeating, there are three pillars for a "reliable source", and sadly people have to keep repeating this all the time because of people who see "BIG NAME NEWS" and think that's sufficient.
- The word "source" as used on Wikipedia has three related meanings: the piece of work itself (the article, book), the creator of the work (the writer, journalist), and the publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press). All three can affect reliability.
- Please address the points I made in my earlier post that addressed your concerns. You cannot simply include gossipy information because a supposedly reliable source quotes it. It must also adhere to the NPOV policy and have a rationale for being included. -- Avanu (talk) 07:34, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- Um. No. Reliable sources don't mention that people have said that Martin was suspended three times. They document that this was the case. Given that you seem to be advocating that the inclusion of information from reliable sources be determined on the outcome of some sort of subjective critical reading- more critical reading than required by the actual policy on reliable sources- how about some critical reading of the BLP policy? I have some vague memory that it applies to Living Persons. Pretty sure that diminishes a point- and it's not my point. Nevard (talk) 07:39, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- I am not sure why you are so hung up on the BLP policy as being the crux of my debate here. The quote I mention is from one of Wikipedia's most important policies, which is often misunderstood -- Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. We're not here to promote scandal or advocate for one side or the other. The Trayvon article has two facets. The actual event on the night of the shooting, and then the media-driven, contentious debate over race and vigilantism. Where does the suspension fit into that? Clearly the second part, unless you can provide some rationale for its relevance to the actual event. Please try to look past BLP and see the various policies that fit here. -- Avanu (talk) 07:50, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- Sweet as bro. Could you link to a source for this quote? Because I'm having a lot of difficulty finding it on WP:NOT. I'm really pretty sure that that guideline, intended to address various dubious arguments put forth by people playing silly buggers around the edges of policy, doesn't endorse the censorship of facts mentioned in numerous reliable sources because It Just Feels Like Something The Daily Mail Would Say. But then, I could be wrong.. you did start your WP account before me. I may not have heard of the Wikipedia:MustAlwaysTakeTheSameToneTheGuardianWould policy. Nevard (talk) 08:17, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- This debate is getting tiresome. Please explain the relevance of the information to the article. Thanks. -- Avanu (talk) 08:34, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- Please explain- on the article talk page, as I requested- why you want to suppress information mentioned in oh, only a few thousand reliable sources. You can link all the Wikipedia policies you like which have any actual relevance there too. Cheers :) Nevard (talk) 08:52, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- I'll quote, but I expect this discussion to be ended here at this point. There is an article talk page for a reason, and there are certainly other editors who might wish to weigh in on this besides the two of us. WP:NPOV (This is a Pillar of Wikipedia, not just a policy), WP:ATTACK (This is a Wikipedia policy), WP:NOT (Also a policy), WP:CON (Is there general consensus for the inclusion of this material in the manner that it was included within the article?). I'm fairly certain I can find more, but really what's the point? -- Avanu (talk) 09:03, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- Please explain- on the article talk page, as I requested- why you want to suppress information mentioned in oh, only a few thousand reliable sources. You can link all the Wikipedia policies you like which have any actual relevance there too. Cheers :) Nevard (talk) 08:52, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- This debate is getting tiresome. Please explain the relevance of the information to the article. Thanks. -- Avanu (talk) 08:34, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- Sweet as bro. Could you link to a source for this quote? Because I'm having a lot of difficulty finding it on WP:NOT. I'm really pretty sure that that guideline, intended to address various dubious arguments put forth by people playing silly buggers around the edges of policy, doesn't endorse the censorship of facts mentioned in numerous reliable sources because It Just Feels Like Something The Daily Mail Would Say. But then, I could be wrong.. you did start your WP account before me. I may not have heard of the Wikipedia:MustAlwaysTakeTheSameToneTheGuardianWould policy. Nevard (talk) 08:17, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- I am not sure why you are so hung up on the BLP policy as being the crux of my debate here. The quote I mention is from one of Wikipedia's most important policies, which is often misunderstood -- Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. We're not here to promote scandal or advocate for one side or the other. The Trayvon article has two facets. The actual event on the night of the shooting, and then the media-driven, contentious debate over race and vigilantism. Where does the suspension fit into that? Clearly the second part, unless you can provide some rationale for its relevance to the actual event. Please try to look past BLP and see the various policies that fit here. -- Avanu (talk) 07:50, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- Um. No. Reliable sources don't mention that people have said that Martin was suspended three times. They document that this was the case. Given that you seem to be advocating that the inclusion of information from reliable sources be determined on the outcome of some sort of subjective critical reading- more critical reading than required by the actual policy on reliable sources- how about some critical reading of the BLP policy? I have some vague memory that it applies to Living Persons. Pretty sure that diminishes a point- and it's not my point. Nevard (talk) 07:39, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- The fact that it is a quote from BLP does not diminish the point. We're not a gossip rag. And since it seems to bear repeating, there are three pillars for a "reliable source", and sadly people have to keep repeating this all the time because of people who see "BIG NAME NEWS" and think that's sufficient.
- I decided to address your fixation on the WP:BLP policy, which actually does apply here as well, given the statement "material about dead people that has implications for their living relatives and friends, particularly in the case of recent deaths, is covered by this policy". The characterization of Trayvon Martin, whether good or bad, most definitely has implications for his living relatives. They are at the center of the 2nd aspect of this story, if you will reference my response above, and while the media has no problem apologizing later for its awful behavior, see articles like http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/01/bill-kristol-trayvon-martin-media-coverage_n_1394815.html , one of Wikipedia's goals is to be better than that. If you cannot see this, then it might be good to examine your role as an editor. I'm not interested in suppressing relevant or factual information, but it must have a legitimate place in the article. -- Avanu (talk) 08:47, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- So why the failure to attempt to achieve any sort of consensus on the talk page, then? And uh, why exactly are you attempting to suppress facts mentioned in numerous reliable sources? Nevard (talk) 09:20, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- So, let's suppose we have a list of every curse word uttered by either of them, should we include that? Or maybe we know how many times they have each yelled at their girlfriends? Maybe we should include any of every bad deed that they've every done simply because we have numerous reliable sources for it? We are here to build a good article reflecting the events of that night, not a total picture of the person. In journalism, this is considered responsible, in law, it is a requirement. But yet here I am repeatedly asking you to show the RELEVANCE of these facts, and you simply say "We have the facts, therefore we must print them". Just because you know the cost of his skittles, or the nutritional information of those, doesn't mean it goes in the article. It needs to have more than just a casual connection to this event, but a causal connection to it. We could almost certainly paint either of them as monsters or as saints by selectively using facts from their lives before that day. But it doesn't matter unless we can show cause. Exercising judgement and thoughtfulness in what is included and excluded is part of being a responsible editor here, and the policies and guidelines that were created are built on this kind of foundation. I'll give you a few quotes from the WP:NOT policy again in closing.
- "In any encyclopedia, information cannot be included solely for being true or useful."
- "editors should be aware of creating undue bias to any specific point-of-view"
- "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia"
- Cheers. -- Avanu (talk) 14:21, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- Hmmm... soooo the fact that numerous reliable sources have mentioned Mr. Martin's recidivism doesn't do it for you. How... interesting. Nevard (talk) 06:39, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
- You'll find a similar discussion taking place at Talk:Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin#Lack_of_discussion_of_Martin_.2F_Zimmerman.27s_history. They're discussing why you might choose not to include details that are not relevant, and it covers much of the same ground that you have questioned me about. -- Avanu (talk) 14:03, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
- Hmmm... soooo the fact that numerous reliable sources have mentioned Mr. Martin's recidivism doesn't do it for you. How... interesting. Nevard (talk) 06:39, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
- So, let's suppose we have a list of every curse word uttered by either of them, should we include that? Or maybe we know how many times they have each yelled at their girlfriends? Maybe we should include any of every bad deed that they've every done simply because we have numerous reliable sources for it? We are here to build a good article reflecting the events of that night, not a total picture of the person. In journalism, this is considered responsible, in law, it is a requirement. But yet here I am repeatedly asking you to show the RELEVANCE of these facts, and you simply say "We have the facts, therefore we must print them". Just because you know the cost of his skittles, or the nutritional information of those, doesn't mean it goes in the article. It needs to have more than just a casual connection to this event, but a causal connection to it. We could almost certainly paint either of them as monsters or as saints by selectively using facts from their lives before that day. But it doesn't matter unless we can show cause. Exercising judgement and thoughtfulness in what is included and excluded is part of being a responsible editor here, and the policies and guidelines that were created are built on this kind of foundation. I'll give you a few quotes from the WP:NOT policy again in closing.
- So why the failure to attempt to achieve any sort of consensus on the talk page, then? And uh, why exactly are you attempting to suppress facts mentioned in numerous reliable sources? Nevard (talk) 09:20, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- I decided to address your fixation on the WP:BLP policy, which actually does apply here as well, given the statement "material about dead people that has implications for their living relatives and friends, particularly in the case of recent deaths, is covered by this policy". The characterization of Trayvon Martin, whether good or bad, most definitely has implications for his living relatives. They are at the center of the 2nd aspect of this story, if you will reference my response above, and while the media has no problem apologizing later for its awful behavior, see articles like http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/01/bill-kristol-trayvon-martin-media-coverage_n_1394815.html , one of Wikipedia's goals is to be better than that. If you cannot see this, then it might be good to examine your role as an editor. I'm not interested in suppressing relevant or factual information, but it must have a legitimate place in the article. -- Avanu (talk) 08:47, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- I have no fixation on BLP. You quote BLP at length, while claiming to be referring to other policy matters. We aren't talking about things which actually impact on his relatives- even their ambulance chasers have admitted that Mr. Martin was suspended several times, while denying that his failure to comply with the highly stringent rules of a 21st century lazy teenager chillout system might have anything to do with the fact that he chose to throw down on a guy who happened to be carrying a concealed pistol. Nevard (talk) 08:52, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- I initially didn't quote anything but a tiny piece talking about editorial restraint. -- Avanu (talk) 09:03, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- I have no fixation on BLP. You quote BLP at length, while claiming to be referring to other policy matters. We aren't talking about things which actually impact on his relatives- even their ambulance chasers have admitted that Mr. Martin was suspended several times, while denying that his failure to comply with the highly stringent rules of a 21st century lazy teenager chillout system might have anything to do with the fact that he chose to throw down on a guy who happened to be carrying a concealed pistol. Nevard (talk) 08:52, 3 April 2012 (UTC)