User talk:DarknessShines2

Nguyen

I want to delete those incorrect infomation from the Nguyen article.

This surname is not originally Chinese. So, there is no point to put some Chinese legends here. Plus, there is no way to prove the correctness of some unknown legends. People might have some misunderstandings that 40% Vietnamese are Chinese which is not true. Nguyen is a Vietnamese surname, NO Chinese.

This article is about Nguyen, a Vietnamese surname. So, there is no point to put some notable Ruan people here. List the notable Ruan people in a Ruan article, please. Notable Ruan people has nothing to do with Nguyen article. Ducdung (talk) 15:24, 7 April 2010 (UTC+8)

your Al Gore image

That image belongs on imageshack and not on Wikipedia. Heroeswithmetaphors (talk) 16:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, I still think it`s funny though :) mark nutley (talk) 16:46, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Its not at all funny. Try this for a start :) http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/denial?page=2 Polentario (talk) 01:16, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

1rr

Aren't you on 1rr? Do you think that 16:15, 16 June 2010 and 13:55, 17 June 2010, both reverting the addition of Confirmation bias and Cherry picking less than 24 hours apart is yet another violation of your 1rr restriction? Hipocrite (talk) 14:06, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Self reverted, got the time wrong, thanks mark nutley (talk) 14:12, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Your revert [1] did not reinclude the two see-also links. Hipocrite (talk) 14:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Further, do you intend to discuss those see-also links on talk, or merely remove them every 24 hours? Hipocrite (talk) 14:16, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Just remove them, they are only there to be pointy, cherry picking has bugger all to do with the gore effect mark nutley (talk) 14:18, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. If you want to remove those see-also links, please discuss on the article talk page before reverting again, where I will happily make my reasoning clear. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 14:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

FYI. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:54, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

• WP:Edit warring is defined by an editor reverting to a preferred version without consensus and not attempting to create one, and as such is disruptive and makes the editor liable for sanction. As 3RR - or 1RR - is not an entitlement but a maximum limitation, non violation of that technicality does not mean an editor is permitted to continue reverting forever (or even an short period). If the reverts are contested, then there needs to be a resolution. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:57, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Q

Do you consider I will give my word to be civil at all times from this moment on. This will mean if i`m insulted or other crap is chucked my way i will get up, go for a fag and then respond. binding? William M. Connolley (talk) 23:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry what? Am i under a civility parole or not? And yes my word is good, I do not think saying to someone they are full of crap is a personal attack. I am a builder, that`s kinda how we talk to each other, now saying, fuck off you wanker or i`ll cave your fucking head in, that`s an attack. You obviously come from a fer more genial background than I mark nutley (talk) 23:12, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for the supportive link for Familypedia. Robin Patterson (talk) 10:51, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

re: Request

Sorry, just got time to look at my messages and saw your request. I'll try to look this afternoon and comment here. Ravensfire (talk) 16:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'll give you my 2 cents right now - i've been following your development of the article: I have seldomly seen a worse example of POV cherry-picking (SYN) by google. And don't misunderstand me, i certainly think that there is a great potential for an article on this particular topic. One example is your cherry-pick from Desslers book - while this without doubt is in the book, it most certainly is neither the gist nor a significant point in the book - it simply is a cherry-pick of a quote from you. Another example is your description of the Malaria debate, you are selecting Reiser, not because he is significant in the debate (weight), but because his views fit.

There is little secondary source description of the topic, instead you are creating your own essay from various sources that you picked that say something that you feel fit. (that is a synthesis). Look around instead and try to find references that actually describe the concept, instead of examples of the concept. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:15, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

My comments

Source - http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE60H3VE20100120

• Seems a reliable source for the political impact of the accusations to me. I think you should adjust your phrasing some, however. You say "was accused of exaggerating", but don't mention who was accusing. The article mentions Indian Environmental Minister Jairam Ramesh (plus "some climate researchers"). I would also add some of the quotes from the IPCC statement, as they are pretty powerful, plus mention that this was pulled (shows the impact of the accusations). Something like "An IPCC statement in response said that checks were not done properly and that projections used 'poorly substantiated estimates of rate of recession.' This projection was removed from the final summary in the 2007 report."

Source - http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2010/jan/18/climate-change-himalayan-glaciers

• Seems decent, but you need to change how you use it. You say "The date was based on a report submitted by the World Wide Fund for Nature" which is true, but not complete. The paragraph from the source say "The environmental organisation WWF has admitted that a report on the impacts of climate change on glaciers in India, China and Nepal, which it published in 2005, included an erroneous reference to a report by the Working Group on Himalayan Glaciology of the International Commission for Snow and Ice, indicating that it stated "glaciers in the Himalayas are receding faster than in any other part of the world and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 is very high". In fact, nothing like this quote appears in the cited document, and the magazine 'New Scientist' has reported that one of its articles from 1999 was the source." You need to include more of that in your statement. There's some other material in the Guardian source that you might want to include, such as the error might have been noticed if it hadn't been buried. Maybe also something about the World Glacier Monitoring Service saying that the Himalayas are "strongly underrepresented". Not sure about that though - too easy to coatrack/OR on that line to get some useful meaning. (IE - if this data is so important, why underrepresented? Just a sign of the pro-AGW trying to hide data ...)

Source - http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/sunday-mail/hidden-doom-of-climate-change/story-e6frep2o-1111114372364

• Interesting piece, but I'm concerned about how you use it. His main point in the article is that the true dangers are hidden. The way you're using the source it appears that his main point is that the claims are exaggerated, then add the "however" clause. I don't like how this is used.

Source - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8571353.stm

Source - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/16/uk-government-rebuked-for_n_500622.html

• Some problems here. The quote you attribute to the ASA about mainstream science is not supported by the source. The article uses the phrase without saying it is a quote. Unless you know for certain that's an exact quote from the ASA, just leave it as the ASA's position. Also, add a bit more detail about why the ads were found bad, pulling from "It noted that predictions about the potential impact of global warming made by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) "involved uncertainties" that had not been reflected in the adverts. " I'd change the last sentence to "Then Climate Change Secretary Ed Miliband defended the advertisements, saying "We probably should have made it clearer that this was a prediction and we should have made it clearer the basis of the claim."
• I'd pull the HuffPost source, its short, adds nothing and not needed here. Stick with the BBC source.

Source - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/7778917/Royal-Society-to-publish-guide-on-climate-change-to-counter-claims-of-exaggeration.html

• Seems pretty good. If you can, add a mention of this "The Royal Society will look again at the public communications on climate change after 43 fellows complained that so far the message has not reflected the uncertainty in the debate. " Gives something for why he had to say this. Could also add 'Benny Pesier from the Global Warming Policy Foundation responded to the Royal Society's statement with ""I think it is very wise to accept that while the basic science is solid, we have no idea what is going to happen in the future." '

There's a feel of cherry-picking in the material. Yes, I realize you're trying to work on an article called Climate Change Exaggeration. As it's written right now, I'd call it a POV fork and recommend it for deletion. It's a fairly one-sided article without much balance. Even in just the section I reviewed, there was some obvious skewing in the quotes you used. You need to include both sides when it's there. In particular, if a side is accused of something, you really should include their response. WP:WEIGHT, WP:NPOV and all of that. Ravensfire (talk) 17:28, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks guys, i will do what you both have mentioned, @ Kim i`m not cherry picking mate, that Desseler quote came up on google books, so i don`t have access to the whole thing. I`ll look through what i can of it in the previews to try and balance out that quote. Dr Paul Reiter, an expert epidemiologist at the Pasteur Institute in Paris you really think he carries no weight? mark nutley (talk) 17:51, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Mark, what i mean about cherry-picking is that you are, actively selecting quotes broken out of context, that support your personal proposition. That would be acceptable in an essay for school (or whatever), but not in an encyclopaedic article. It is POV and a synthesis. [As i said: "Synthesis by google" and you just confirmed it]--Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:18, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Kim, would you like to help with the article? Or copy and paste sections you think suck and suggest changes on the talk page of the article? mark nutley (talk) 21:30, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Another issue is that you are (from what i can see) actively rejecting references which do not support the position that you quote. As an example ub the malaria controvesy is one such - you are dismissing the mainstream, and focusing entirely on a single sceptic [who happens to make a quote that fits the google search]. Thats not good. It is POV by omission (and weight). There are many other such issues.

But the major problem with your text, is that you are collecting "evidence" yourself, instead of relying on secondary reliable sources for it. For example the lede: You pick 2 quotes you like and turn that into a conclusion.

Summary: Find sources that about the concept not examples of the concept. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:39, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

As an addendum to the above: I would be very surprised if there aren't scholarly papers on this particular subject. The most relevant focus (as it is in your essay) is media exaggerations, of which there are a rather abundant supply - and thus i'd be surprised if there aren't papers about it. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:44, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry kim, but i reject your assertions with regards to malaria, there are sources from The Lancet, Nature National Geographic in there which also say that the claims have been exaggerated, are you really saying those are sceptic journals? Come on. The mainstream with regards to malaria is not what the IPCC says i`m afraid. I will listen to epidemiologists on this subject, not climate scientists mark nutley (talk) 21:56, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Mark, you are confusing your references. None of the references to Malaria are from The Lancet (although interestingly enough that particular article disagrees with your view). Your usage of the article in Nature (full version here[2]) is first of all WP:OR, but secondly is also a POV summary (ie. you present it as POV - since the paper does say that Malaria spread is caused by warming - you simply focus on what you want to say). I also wonder whether you have read the IPCC conclusions on Malaria - your comments certainly indicate that you haven't - and that you are taking a POV view. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:05, 22 June 2010 (UTC) [to summarize: There is a nuanced picture about Malaria and climate change - you aren't presenting it - but are instead picking the black dots out of shades of gray, to present a one-sided view --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:09, 22 June 2010 (UTC)]

Sorry kim but no, First, widespread claims that rising mean temperatures have already led to increases in worldwide malaria morbidity and mortality are largely at odds with observed decreasing global trends in both its endemicity and geographic extent. Second, the proposed future effects of rising temperatures on endemicity are at least one order of magnitude smaller than changes observed since about 1900 that is a direct quote from one of the ref`s. How can you say i am cherry picking stuff when what i am doing is reading the previews? Are you saying this paper is wrong? And that malaria cases have actually risen? Come on man, the paper is quite clear in what it says, that malarial cases have decreased since the 1900`s mark nutley (talk) 12:11, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Mark, please try to actually understand what the paper is saying, and what/where the debate is. The paper is not saying that Malaria will not become more widespread caused by climate change (it says the opposite in fact - Africa will see a significant increase), it also doesn't say that there won't be an increase in malaria infections in some regions (it says the opposite in fact). Morbidity and mortality is not the same as spread (people may get it, and not die). It does say that the increase in Malaria will be smaller than the decrease since 1900 - but that is not where the debate is (and it is not what the IPCC says). You are inventing a controversy - and cherry-picking papers and sentences to support your personal viewpoint. [please also note that Malaria spread in 1900 was extremely bad, and that going back to even a fraction of the cases then will be bad]. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:24, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Punctuation

Please take this as constructive criticism and not an attack or anything else. When you write contraction, you incorrectly use the grave accent ( ` ) instead of the apostrophe ( ' ). That's fine on talk pages, and I'm sure everyone understands what you're saying, but it would be incorrect if you used it in such a way in an article. Kind regards, -Atmoz (talk) 17:05, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, my grammar was always terrible :) mark nutley (talk) 17:52, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Check there history

The poster on Chzz talk page has a point. If you look through all 3 person's edit history you will see that they edit the same pages. 190.136.178.239 (talk) 22:10, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

The Gore Effect

...which is about gore telling everyone there gonna die if we don`t stop this global warming...

Really.not.helpful Mark. JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:17, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, just a little humour, to try and lighten the atmosphere over there :) mark nutley (talk) 14:20, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Mark...for your consideration. While I haven't yet grasped the rationale for your recent undiscussed article edit(edit summary: "(remove duplicate stuff)", whether it is defensible of not is less important than the propriety of "drive-by" editing given the current instability of the article. Assuming your edit to be "substantive", wouldn't it be better (at least in the short term) to discuss it (if only briefly) in "talk" before editing the article itself? Thanks. JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:39, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Bollocks

Extended content

Removing this is complete and utter bullshit. Stop it. Bradley specifically pointed to that link in written testimony toreply to an official request from a chairman of a committee of the United States Congress. There are absolutely NO BLP concerns with linking there. -Atmoz (talk) 16:15, 23 June 2010 (UTC) Really, were is the ref for that then? I sure don`t see it in that article. That link to a blog is a breach of wp:blp and does not belong there. Another thing, do not call me a vandal again or i will file an rfe against you mark nutley (talk) 16:23, 23 June 2010 (UTC) (Personal attack removed)The link is here. It's in the sentence immediately preceding the one you removed. Surely you read it. Perhaps you (Personal attack removed) click on the link. -Atmoz (talk) 16:42, 23 June 2010 (UTC) No Atmoz ref 3 is the one preceding ref 4 which is a link to a blog. And i just searched the pdf here [3] and there is not mention of realclimate, nor of a dummies guide mark nutley (talk) 16:53, 23 June 2010 (UTC) Mark, that's not true in any version of the article. The article before your edit was [4], where ref 4 discusses realclimate but is not a blog, and the article when you made the above comment was [5], where ref 4 discusses realclimate but is not a blog. Would you care to revise your comment? Hipocrite (talk) 16:57, 23 June 2010 (UTC) Mark, the PDF you linked to is not Bradley's reply, but rather Barton's letter to Bradley. You are confused. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:01, 23 June 2010 (UTC) Err if you search the wrong document, you won't find what you're looking for. Atmos has provided a link to a letter written by Bradley to Barton which states quite clearly the RC link William M. Connolley (talk) 17:03, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism warming

This, in addition to removing one comment (which is fine), modified one of my comments. This is not allowed under the talk page guidelines and is classified as vandalism. Please do not further modify other users comments. -Atmoz (talk) 19:09, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Your taking the piss ain`t ya, stay off my talkpage mark nutley (talk) 19:11, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Acknowledged. I will stay off you user talk page unless issuing further warning. This edit is also vandalism as it removed my comment. Do not do so again. -Atmoz (talk) 19:15, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

you have edited my posts, by your reasoning then your a vandal and i am right by reverting you mark nutley (talk) 19:16, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Unblock Request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

DarknessShines2 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I was on 3 reverts on the talk page, but as my comments were being edited by Atmoz i fail to see what choice i had. My probation is 1r on articles, not talk pages. I was called a vandal by atmoz when he edited my posts, for christs sake what do you expect me to do?

Decline reason:

Take a deep breath and not get caught up in back and forth editing like that. You've admitted you were edit warring, so I do not see a reason to lift your block early. TNXMan 20:17, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Another edit warring block

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for repeated abuse of editing privileges. Please stop. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

24 hours. I assume that you are still under the 1RR restriction, although it would not matter since there must have been a violation of 3RR at Talk:Michael E. Mann, but I should note that no number of reverts is a right - it is a bright line. Further, I am sure you have not forgotten that there is a ArbCom in respect of the entire AGW/CC article editing situation; I have no idea what you think you were doing today, but you have fucked up big time. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:30, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I fucked up? Bollocks, let atmoz call you a fucking vandal in edit summaries and on your talk page, see how you like it. My 1r is on articles, not talk pages. This is bullshit mark nutley (talk) 19:33, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Mark, I looked through the edits. Atmoz crossed the line but so did you. I found no BLP concern with the edit in question (the RC blog was referenced by the person himself in his own paper, hardly a BLP concern) and removing Atmoz's comment in the RFC was ill-advised. You both deserved a block here. ATren (talk) 19:49, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

~I did not notice he had put a comment in there, he had not the first time he edited my post. The third time i reverted his editing of my posts i moved his comment mark nutley (talk) 19:50, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I was referring to the RFC edit, which I thought was a removal but I now see was a move. I still disagree on the BLP exemption; it wasn't a BLP issue IMO. ATren (talk) 19:55, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

A suggestion - take it or leave it

Mark...I note you have removed the unblock request from your talk page which, at least as I read the text, might be interpreted as a further violation of the terms of the block and, hence, may be grounds for further action against your account. Despite your obvious pique at the circumstances and imposition of the block (about which I will remain ambivalent), you might want to consider restoration of the required content prior to the expiration of your block so as to mitigate the chance for further fallout. Just a suggestion. Take it or leave it. JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:23, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Dismissal of General Douglas MacArthur

I happened to stumble upon Dismissal of General Douglas MacArthur and noticed your name in the edit history.[6] I was thinking that it might be a good idea for you to take a break from the climate change articles and work on something else. Perhaps you might want to help me improve the MacArthur dismissal article, maybe we can even try to get it to good article status. What do you think? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:45, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Not a bad idea truth be told, my name is in that particular article as i happened upon it on RC Patrol and reviewed it :), I`ll help out on it happily mark nutley (talk) 18:49, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Cool. :) There's currently a {Cleanup} tag on the article. I just posted a question on the article talk page[7] to find out if there's anything left that needs to be cleaned up. While I wait for feedback, I'll read through the article to see if I can spot anything else that might need to be fixed. Have you gone through a WP:GA review before? I haven't. But one of my articles is about to go through the process, so I'll have a better idea of how WP:GA works, hopefully soon. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:09, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I have tried with The Hockey Stick Illusion but you can guess what happened there :) mark nutley (talk) 19:21, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Hide the Decline music video

Do you remember if we ever had an article on the Hide the Decline music video? If so, was the article deleted? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:08, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I don`t think we did, but did`nt Mann try to sue those guys for that video? mark nutley (talk) 21:10, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

If he didn't, Tommy James should. Hide the decline briefly pointed to the music video (e.g. [8], [9]), although currently it is of course a redirect to Climatic Research Unit unfortunate event involving computers and unapproved access to accumulated electronic correspondence, or whatever the article is currently titled. :P MastCell ^Talk 21:14, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

If I can find enough sources to establish notability, I'll look into creating an article on it. For now, I've created a section on my talk page with a list of potential sources for such an article.[10] If you (or anyone reading this) come across any more sources, please add them to this list. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:32, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I guess I could put in my usual plea about whether such an article would be a good use of effort, but what the heck. I see amongst your sources that The Guardian ranked it the #6 viral video in November 2009. Should we work on articles for the 5 viral videos that ranked ahead of it? If we do, let's start with this one (bonus points for sitting through all 8 minutes). :) MastCell ^Talk 21:55, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

What? You think it might cause unnecessary drama?

Seriously, I would first complete the article in my user space. That should limit the fighting. Once it's promoted to article space, it will probably be nominated for deletion, and the vote will probably go down partisan lines. Which is why I need solid sourcing because the only thing that will save the article will be uninvolved editors. So I won't create the article unless I'm sure it will survive AfD.

In any case, I'm not sure I should have to limit which articles I work on because we have editors who are out of control. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:16, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

No, you're right - it's not really my place to tell other people how they should spend their volunteer time here, and I apologize for any condescending aspect to what I said above. You seem reasonable, and obviously you've got a realistic understanding of the likely course that things will take, so it's your call. MastCell ^Talk 23:06, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

No apology is necessary. It's a low priority and I'm working on several different articles anyway. For now, I'll be happy to just get the sourcing done. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:17, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Why start with a video, when its authors havent an article? I doubt sdo far minnesotans for globalwarming being notable. Correct me if I am wrong however. Polentario (talk) 16:41, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

The video was actually a pretty big hit, over 500k hits on youtube and got mentioned in the press a fair bit. M4GW is fairly well known but i dunno if there would be enough sources for them to create an article mark nutley (talk) 18:12, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Who verified the sources in the Hide the Decline article, please? Hipocrite (talk) 07:42, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Look on the article talk page mark nutley (talk) 07:50, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Do not use NSAA in the future. NSAA failed to notice obvious information sourced to a blog. If you use NSAA again, and NSAA fails to remove blog-sourced content, I will seek sanctions against both of you. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 07:54, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Do not tell me what i can and can not do, which blog sourced content are you refering to? mark nutley (talk) 07:55, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

The content sourced from a blog. Hipocrite (talk) 07:57, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Responded on the article talk page, watts up is good for watts opinion there is no problem with that ref mark nutley (talk) 08:05, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

(undent) Do not call me "laddie" again. You may refer to me as "Mr," "Sir," or "Your Lordship," along with "Hipocrite," "H," or "Hip." Hipocrite (talk) 08:07, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

As you probably expected, I've filed a request that your ongoing sourcing sanction be modified, again, due to your use of blogs as sources. You may comment at Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement#marknutley_.26_Nsaa. Hipocrite (talk) 08:19, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Civility parole

Hi Mark, I've placed you on civility parole per the WP:GS/CC/RE report dated June 17th. [11] If you make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, then you may be blocked. Email me or post on my talk if you've got any questions or comments. — east718 | talk | 19:27, 27 June 2010 (UTC)