User talk:Go Phightins!/Archive 5

You might want to look at this, if you haven't seen it already -- relist and I'm happy to give it a full review. --Batard0 (talk) 18:07, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I really don't understand what Portland's problem is...other than a dead link, I see nothing in his review that is more than a few nitpicky items...Go Phightins! 20:13, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, it's hard to justify failing the article under the quickfail criteria, in my view, and no such justification was put forth. To me the manner in which it was done was a bit off, but I think the user is new. I was thinking perhaps you could relist it, I'll pick it up and invite Portland in a friendly way to make some comments, etc. Perhaps he/she would be receptive and learn more about the process. Then again, there's no reason to invite conflict if that's what's going to happen...I dunno. --Batard0 (talk) 16:34, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Did he already fail it? If so, I'll relist it and you can give it a review. Sorry about your GA nominee, I got started, and things have been nuts in pre-Thanksgiving mode around the house, so I am not sure when I'll be able to finish, but I just wanted to let you know I didn't forget about it. Go Phightins! 17:31, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Renominated. Go Phightins! 17:35, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

No worries at all -- take your time. --Batard0 (talk) 17:47, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Hope all is okay. Cheers mate, Stalwart111 00:58, 22 November 2012 (UTC).

Yeah, that was moderately crass, I suppose. There is something going on in real life that is a little stressful. Still, I should have caught that. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Go Phightins! 01:12, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Couldn't care less about crass (especially given some of the other comments there) - but almost thought you'd been hacked there for a minute... All good mate; good luck sorting everything. Let me know if there's any WP stuff I can help with. Cheers, Stalwart111 01:52, 22 November 2012 (UTC).

Well, no I didn't get hacked. I agree that was rather uncharacteristic of me. I struck the comment. Thanks for your support, but at the moment, I'm all right. I'll keep you in mind should the situation deteriorate. Thanks. Go Phightins! 01:56, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

A bit early, but not sure if I'll be able to send it tomorrow. Hope you have a good Thanksgiving! gwickwire | Leave a message 01:07, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Happy Thanksgiving Phightins! AutomaticStrikeout 01:24, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks and the same to you. Go Phightins! 01:44, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to pursue this if you disagree, because I don't care that much, but FYI, I'm a little leery about a NAC speedy keep on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diamonds World Tour. It's only been open for one day, and most of the keep votes weren't really based in policy. I don't know what we usually do for articles about future tours that are more than 3 months away, but I'd be pretty surprised if these are always kept, and I wouldn't have been surprised at all to see some delete votes come in a little later. In the future, consider holding off until the 7 days are up; there's no harm in keeping a discussion open for more than 1 day.

p.s., yes, it will be Felix. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:31, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

There seemed to be a pretty strong consensus; I don't really know what we usually do for those either. I probably could've left it open and if someone else feels strongly, I suppose I can re-open it...it just seemed relatively uncontroversial as there were five people saying relatively strong keeps and the nom. That may have been borderline and perhaps I should have waited. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. If you want to re-open it, go ahead. I don't really, however, think there's harm in leaving it closed. Up to you. Go Phightins! 01:37, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to reopen myself, but if anyone else (including the nominator) disagrees, then you should self-revert. But in future, I think there's fairly solid agreement in the AFD community that AFD's should run for the full 7 days unless there's a really good reason not to. I think 5 quick keeps (with not very strong rationales, IMHO) isn't a really good reason. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:42, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

OK; thanks for bringing it up. Hopefully someone will come to my talk page rather than open a DRV if they're in disagreement. Go Phightins! 01:43, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I posted a message on the nominator's talk page offering to revert myself. Thanks again for bringing this to my attention. Go Phightins! 01:57, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I object, for several reasons. AfDs should be open for seven days. what we have right now is a preponderance of Rihanna fans voting to keep an article related to their favorite artist, so of course it looks like a snow keep, but it's really a lot of COI and ILIKEIT. Check contribs for Tomica, see Calvin999's userpage, check Jagoperson's contribs, etc. and see what it is they've been working on lately.

Second, in weighing the merits of the arguments for closure, you have not noticed that not one of the keep votes has cited a policy-based reason. As a matter of fact, they've cited things that specifically do not establish notability (per WP policy). For example, my initial argument is basically WP:CRYSTAL, and one part of CRYSTAL states that "no date is definite until the event happens." Two or three voters nevertheless indicated that because the tour date has been announced, "it's going to happen and should be kept." Another said, "it hasn't happened yet, but we should keep it anyway." Another one or two claimed that because the album the tour is for is out, the tour is notable, which is a pretty clear violation of WP:NOTINHERITED. I'm surprised there wasn't a "Keep, because MSJapan hates Rihanna" - that cites just about as much relevant policy as anything else.

That is why AfD is not a simple votecount, but a weighing of policy, and why the AfD needs to stay open to allow uninvolved heads to weigh in. MSJapan (talk) 02:34, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I have re-opened the AfD. I saw your post at Floquenbeam's talk page first, so there's a lengthier reply there, but basically I got this AfD and this one's dates confused, thinking they were from the same day. I apologize for the confusion and am glad that Floquenbeam brought it to my attention. I will try to do a better job in any future NACs. Thanks again. Go Phightins! 03:24, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

OK, problem solved. Great! MSJapan (talk) 04:36, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I wanted to thank you for assuming good faith. It was an honest mistake. By the way, do you have any objection to my !vote? I wanted to make sure you didn't think it appeared that you canvassed (note: I don't think so, but it would be you painted as the canvasser if someone were to make that argument) me. I certainly didn't feel that way, but I have been around long enough to see that happen. Thanks. Go Phightins! 04:39, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

John Philip Sousa (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Posthumously

Zach Zwinak (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Fullback

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:05, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Just wondering, how exactly do you go about finding XfD's that you close as NAC's? Do you just search old ones, and is there a page/category for old ones that need closing? What else should I know before trying that? Thanks! gwickwire | Leave a message 05:16, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

On my way to bed, but I'll just quickly say that I just look through the daily logs of AfDs and find ones where the consensus is clearly keep or speedy keep and close it as such. Go Phightins! 05:18, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Coinkidinkally (if that's a word) I was too. So, if you want to wait until tomorrow to even reply to this feel free. gwickwire | Leave a message 05:20, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I don't know about Go! but, I use {{Deletion debates}} and click on closing from the Articles (today, all, closing). Do read WP:NAC properly before performing any closure and yes, do use this amazing script which helps to close the discussions and help relisting the debates with a single click (it is so fast, trust me, I've closed 200+ AfDs). TheSpecialUser ^TSU 08:23, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Just installed that script. Whoa! That's cool. Go Phightins! 14:36, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I learned quite a bit. Go Phightins! 16:12, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Some day, maybe I'll start up an adoption course of my own. Though I'd have to sub-contract the templates lesson to you   Go Phightins! 16:14, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Fine, I like ambition. And I'm happy you learned some. Although, actually I sort of nicked the lessons off Worm That Turned and transferred them to my userspace - but I'm sure he won't mind. Incidentally, he's running in this year's ArbCom election which you can vote in tomorrow. Rcsprinter (rap) @ 17:57, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I fully plan on voting for him. I originally asked him if he would adopt me; he was busy but recommended you and Ryan Vesey, who essentially run his course. Thanks again, Go Phightins! 18:18, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Go Phightins! 19:19, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello! I noticed you flagged Warrior xmen for Speedy Deletion under G2. However, the article doesn't seem to qualify under G2 since the page is about a username, and doesn't seem like test edits. Vacation^nine 03:02, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, I don't know. It should definitely be speedily deleted, but there's really no criterion that it meets. It seems to sort of be a test edit; maybe no context? Go Phightins! 03:05, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Hey Go! Can you please revert your closure of the AfD and let an admin perform the closure. Nomination itself is a delete vote so there exist one delete vote with no support whatsoever for keeping the article. Such articles usually get Softly deleted. Thanks! TheSpecialUser ^TSU 01:58, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh, based on my reading of WP:NAC as the second clause in appropriate closures, I thought closing it as no consensus when there was little or no participation was acceptable. Go Phightins! 02:00, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes I agree. But in past I've seen many discussions where an admin usually deletes the article (never really saw such debates getting closed as NC). I'm too busy to search such discussions out so its okay to leave it like this. It is always open to a re-nom and I'll go for it after a month or some. Thanks! TheSpecialUser ^TSU 02:19, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay...thanks for bringing it to my attention. Go Phightins! 02:21, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

The no consensus close was correct, but I think you should have closed it with no prejudice against speedy renomination as there were no comments or !votes in this debate. This means that anyone can re-nominate this article at any time. →Bmusician 04:51, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Is there any policy that would otherwise prevent anyone from starting another AfD right away? AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 04:59, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

  Done I added NPASR. Go Phightins! 11:38, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

How am I editing in a disruptive way? I have provided a reliable link and this is accurate information (REfreakk5555 (talk) 02:47, 28 November 2012 (UTC))

Hi, and I apologize for the poor choice of template. Basically, what I was trying to say was that your edits to the Petraeus article were not from a neutral point of view and violated the policy on biographies of living persons. If you have any additional questions on how to edit constructively, please don't hesitate to let me know. Go Phightins! 02:50, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Phigtins, again, please don't take this otherwise. May I please request you to not close or relist AfDs unless you gain experience in seeing how they're actually closed/relisted? Please allow an administrator to handle borderline closure or relisting of discussions. What you did here, here, here, here, here, here are clearly problematic. And why did you close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WBBA before seven days? Please immediately stop closing any AfD. Best regards. Wifione ^Message 17:50, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Can you explain the problems that you see Wifione? I followed a few of your links, but didn't see anything egregious. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:11, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Sure. In order listed above. First one might have been deleted by an admin. Second one should have been closed by an admin, given there were two keep !votes and one nom's delete !vote, despite there being apparent strength in the keep !vote. Third one could have been deleted by an administrator instead of getting relisted. Fourth one should have gone to an admin, who may have deleted the article. Fifth one again should have been relisted. Sixth one should have definitely been closed by an admin because of the borderline nature of keep !voters. The reason I request Go_Phigtins to not close AfDs is because there are simply too many of them which are borderline and are being closed/relisted en masse by him. My request is not intended to put him down; far from it, I'd appreciate it if Go handles only the sparklingly clear cases of keep closures than those that are borderline and could go either way. Wifione ^Message 18:23, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll let Phightins! worry about the other ones, but I see nothing wrong with this closure. The article had already been redirected and the AfD had not seen any participation since. It was basically just housekeeping. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 18:30, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I understand what you're mentioning. I feel that there should have been no hurry to undertake the said housekeeping. If, after seven days of relisting, there's no editor who has added new content claiming that WBBA is actually "Washington Biotechnology & Biomedical Association", then this bold redirect close would have been viable. Wifione ^Message 18:40, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 18:51, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

First off, someone had already redirected WBBA so I simply closed the AfD as such. I haven't looked at the other ones yet. Give me a few minutes. Go Phightins! 20:03, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I understand Wifione's point that you could have left it open, but I have no real problem with your closure there. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 20:10, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

All right, I'll reply to these one at a time.

1. I'll concede that this one wasn't a great closure. Sorry about that.
2. I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with you here. The nominator stated that he couldn't tell if it was notable based on foreign language refs, and two others !voted keep with additional sources. Even if an administrator closed this, they would have had to close it as either keep or no consensus, which has the same de facto result, WP:NOHARM may apply. I understand your point, but I think that I would stand by that closure.
3. Not sure why you object to a relisting where the !votes thus far were delete, delete, delete, an explanation for why it was created, and a strong keep. There's no consensus there, and if an administrator wanted to override the relisting and close it as delete, they'd have been welcome to do so, but they haven't. Additionally the newest !vote is to redirect, a scenario that hadn't been considered. I'm going to stand by my relisting of this one too.
4. I just discussed this with someone else. I closed this immediately after re-reading WP:NAC. I double-checked because I didn't know what the protocol was, and I closed it as was listed as an appropriate closure.
5. Why should the fifth one have been re-listed?
6. There were new references since the article had been nominated with the primary concern as notability, and every !vote since then was to keep. All votes prior to this were delete on account of there being no references to confer notability.

--Go Phightins! 20:47, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

• I appreciate your reply. I hope you see this in the right perspective. As an administrator, I would have closed these six AfDs differently. It means that I am disagreeing with your closures in my administrative capacity. It also means that I believe these closures are either clearly opposite to my closures or are borderline closures and you should not from now on perhaps be closing such AfDs. If you had been an administrator, I would view your statement, that you stand by your closure, in a different light. You are not an administrator. And I am not comfortable with you closing AfDs that can be closed differently from what you've done. I've listed my replies sequentially again:

1. First AfD: I appreciate your acceptance of it not being a great closure.
2. Second AfD: You should have left this to an admin to close it as No consensus. I don't know whether you checked the sources given by the second keep !voter. First one was a primary source of the channel. Second mentions it's a press release. Third source has the starting copied from the press release. Fourth is a blog review written by a visitor. In other words, if it's a no consensus closure, you should leave it to an admin.
3. Third AfD: I don't know whether you checked the sources provided by the one keep !voter. Both are primary links, being those of the media house organizing the fest at the institute. And you seem to be not considering the nominator's delete !vote in your final list. In other words, I see four delete !votes and one keep!vote based on primary sources. I would have deleted this at this point. It doesn't matter whether you stand by your closure. These relistings should be left to an admin to decide.
4. Fourth Afd: It is the closing administrator's judgement to either delete the article or not as per No Quorum. In other words, you should not have closed an AfD which can go either way. Please don't close such AfDs again.

   Then what is your response to the second (it might be third, but I think it's second) type of appropriate closure under WP:NAC? Go Phightins! 21:56, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

   It's a dated essay that has not been updated, has no view on BLPs, and goes in some perspectives opposite to what policy mentions. What you should be following is not the essay, but the guideline on non admin closures. Wifione ^Message 22:08, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

5. Fifth Afd: This would have been relisted when you consider that an editor could have believed there were two keep !votes and one delete !vote of the nominator, who mentions that the sources he's seen don't seem reliable. Again, it doesn't matter if the final result may have come out as keep. This is a borderline case and you should not be handling such AfDs, irrespective of whether you stand by your closure or not.
6. Sixth AfD: Four delete !votes including the nominators. The first keep !vote gives no additional citation, only subjective opinion on what he/she thinks of Sigma Theta Pi. Second keep !vote mentions just one line that "This article is in need of expansion not deletion". Third keep !vote mentions "Keep if expanded as Drdpw has said above", additionally mentioning some references added look good. In other words, this is a case that should not be undertaken by a non-admin. If you had relisted here, I wouldn't have complained.

Please do realize. My intention is not to slight you or question your motivation. These are AfDs that you as a non-admin should not be taking a chance with. Please go ahead and close clear cut keep AfDs. But other AfDs, please be extremely careful and avoid closing borderline AfDs based on your conviction. Please do ask me for any assistance at any time on this. Best. Wifione ^Message 21:52, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

And just for clarification, you would be OK with my closing of this AfD because the nominator withdrew his request for deletion? Go Phightins! 22:02, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll have to read any further replies in a few hours, I'm on my way out, but thanks a lot for bringing all this to my attention. Go Phightins! 22:10, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

No issues. Good to see you around. Best. Wifione ^Message 22:12, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I think a stale chocolate chip cookie will have to suffice as far as real life, but thanks anyway  . Thanks for the sentiment; I needed it. Go Phightins! 01:18, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Dear Go Phightins, I would like to be adopted by you. I might not be able to come for days on end(perhaps) but I'll be here most weeks. I want to get some experience in editing articles as well, and I thought adoption might be really useful. Thanks-Clockery (talk) 14:57, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

OK, great! I'll set up a classroom for you. Go Phightins! 20:03, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Your adoption classroom is here. Post everything pertaining to adoption over there. Thanks! Go Phightins! 20:35, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, at least we tried. Had he not been a 3x sock, I honestly thought we might have gotten somewhere. Oh well. There's always more people coming to edit! gwickwire | Leave a message 23:34, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah. Too bad. Go Phightins! 23:35, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I feel like what happened there was editor retention to the extreme. gwickwire | Leave a message 23:38, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Yup. But as you said, there'll be more editors. Go Phightins! 23:39, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I did hope to be adopted by someone. I have been less active as of late due to school commitments, but I still want to learn how to contribute in a way with less potential to produce a giant mess. My first edit was about a year ago as an IP, but I have never really become truly active. I have always contributed by looking at the syntax of another thing that I thought was what I wanted to do, and then mimicking it, which seems...disaster prone. It seems like there is a lot of jargon thrown around, and while I'm starting to get the hang of it, I still can't get through something like an AN/I discussion without looking at about three separate linked esssays.... I have created an article, a BLP chess grandmaster stub Throstur Thorhallsson (before I knew that there were separate rules for BLP's), and translated a few articles to simple:. I am thinking that wikipedia is very close to done, and so am mostly focusing what time I do have in the project in simple. (I have the same username over there.) I am hoping to learn what exactly I should be doing, and the correct way to do things around here. Thanks for volunteering to adopt me! Tazerdadog (talk) 06:12, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Outstanding! Well, I think the best way to do this is to run you through a series of lessons that cover all the basics of Wikipedia. I will post a link to the first one as soon as I get it up, which will probably be some time this afternoon (I'm on the Eastern Time Zone, so when I say some time this afternoon, that's in about six hours). See you there. Go Phightins! 13:15, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, I had a few more minutes than I thought, so lesson one is up. Your adoption headquarters is located here. Post any questions you have relating to the specific lesson in the questions section of the lesson, and about the adoption in general on the adoption page's talk page. Thanks, and let's get started! Go Phightins! 13:36, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I have read it, and posted my response in a new section under the lesson.Tazerdadog (talk) 18:35, 25 November 2012 (UTC) I found the test, and finished it. You hid it well. Tazerdadog (talk) 18:54, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

All right. In the future, let me post the tests on your adoption page...I want to keep blank copies of the test where I had them so I can have them for future users. I wasn't quite finished with writing questions, so I'll post a few more on your adoption page. Thanks. Go Phightins! 19:07, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I have posted the rest of the test and will begin writing the next lesson. You really jumped in! Great work on those first few answers! Go Phightins! 19:15, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I have finished the test.Tazerdadog (talk) 20:28, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll take a look. Thanks. In the interim, I'll post the next lesson for you to read over. Go Phightins! 20:29, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, it seems I'm getting my dispute resolution test early. See my talk page. Tazerdadog (talk) 01:51, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

That was a great reply! Maybe I'll give you an extra credit point or two on your DR test  . I'm about to grade your vandalism test. If the IP replies and you need help, let me know. Go Phightins! 03:13, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

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) 01:36, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi there, I am really glad to know that you are willing to help me. I am interested in doing your course. I don't have any pressing engagements for at least 3-4 months so I think I can contribute a lot. Although, I am going on a vacation this week and will be back by 12th December. I can start after that. So please tell me what I have to do about it. I am really looking forward to working with you.

Aditya Roongta 14:27, 30 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adityaroongta40 (talk • contribs)

Your adoption classroom is located here. Please sign at the top of the page to indicate you've found it. I'll post the first lesson momentarily. Good luck! Go Phightins! 20:24, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

  Done here Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:52, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I really appreciate it and will heed your advice. My only question would be, if this summer gets crazy (which they always seem to) and my contributions fall off, would it be prudent to wait until I've been around for a few consecutive months (e.g., target next November) if my contributions are minimal in the summer? Go Phightins! 20:10, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

• • • I think so. Having three solid months behind you, with at least 12 of the last 18 being solid is best. You can always do some minor sourcing and gnoming in your busy months, staying away from admin related areas, which will make it easy to keep your edits over 200 a month without requiring you follow up a lot. I expect to do the same myself in a couple of months, as three months of the year I tend to work 14+ hours a day, plus drive a couple hours. Plus I have a home life. The key is to put these edits in article space, as that is where you want most of your edits to be anyway. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:38, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
      • That's what I thought. Thanks. Go Phightins! 20:45, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Phightins!, I would suggest that during the summer, if you want to do gnomish stuff like Dennis suggested, you could try something I did a lot of during the season: update the infobox stats for baseball players. I'd even recommend it to Dennis if he wanted something gnomish to do. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 20:46, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Not a bad idea. My edits are football related now, but in the spring I'm sure they'll shift toward baseball. Speaking of which, I am about to finally get an article to GA. Jim Thome is finally going to be a good article. Go Phightins! 20:49, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm sure Eric and I would appreciate it if you'd take one last look at Hawk Harrelson's favorite person. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 20:54, 30 November 2012 (UTC)