User talk:MishMich/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Started,

[ED. showing where previously suggested items could go], see draft. -- Banjeboi 20:30, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

OK. I'll work my way through formatting citations - will take a bit of time. Still catching up on Wiki standards etc.

Mish

It would be helpful to just bundle her writing articles together so we know which ones concern which topics. Those refs will be a little trickier because we'll have several articles bundled in one ref note like <ref>Bindel's writing on lesbian issues include; *[link "Article name"] 25 March 2009, ''The Guardian'', *[link "Article name"] 9 June 2006, ''The Guardian'', etc. </ref> If it's mind-numbing just tack the link to each article and i can sort through it. -- Banjeboi 23:48, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Appended links. Is there a representative enough sample now, or should there be more? Mish (talk) 01:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Dare I ask ... how many articles has she written? We'll need to review all the ones that cover bi and trans communities. -- Banjeboi 09:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

• Over 160 for the Guardian, plus at least one each for the Telegraph and the Independent (these two are cited) - to go further back than ten years would involve my trawling an academic database, and that would start taking us into original research.
• We have all the ones that deal with trans issues I am aware of.
• One for the Telegraph,
• one about a rape crisis center, her views phrased in a way that is offensive about trans people,
• one about the issues raised in a GMC disciplinary of a psychiatrist, an interview with a trans regrettor, and her views
• one about the Hecklers debate & her views,
• one a mention in the context of discussion about gender-neutral toilets,
• one in response to the protest in the context of the expansion of L&G into LGBTQQI..
• Bisexuality? She's written nothing apart from the post-protest piece that I am aware of, nor can I find anything.
• The only reference seems to be the one which includes bisexuals in the 'list' of LGBTQQI inclusions as people seen as having 'odd sexual habits' that she questions lesbian inclusion with.

• The bisexual aspect is news to me, so ask the person who had it inserted to verify she has singled out bisexuals?
• As with the claims that she has written substantively more about trans than the articles cited - instead of saying 'she wrote more' she needs to show where she that she did this.
• No?
• If I get time I will go through them all again, see if anything pops out, but I have been over them a couple of times already. Mish (talk) 09:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Wow and thank you. My brain hurts so I have to take a break but will more fully respond. It sound like bisexual stuff should be dropped - if it's included we can state of the 160 articles Bindel has written only one mentions bisexuality, etc. -- Banjeboi 10:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I've finished with the draft for now (see link above), and pointed Rebecca to it for her comments. Mish (talk) 11:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

user page

Saw the note on your current user p. The old versions of your user page have not actually been deleted. They are visible in the page history to anyone who looks--and its perfectly alright that they should be so. If for some reason you would like them actually deleted so only administrators can see them, this can be done--ask me (but I see no reason that it is necessary to do this). DGG (talk) 02:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll think about it. The purpose was not to 'hide' the information, but remove it from view (following an objection to what I put there). Mish (talk) 09:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for trying to work collaboratively

I appreciate your taking the time to work on User:JamesMLane/Robinson sandbox, but there's really no point in continuing. My idea was that all of us would collaborate to create the RfC with a fair and concise statement of each position, and that only after that language was in place would the RfC be posted. Instead, however, Banjeboi disdained participating in that process and posted the RfC unilaterally. A few people responded before I could even present my side.

The RfC is now in full swing. Banjeboi's action has rendered the sandbox page a dead letter. I personally don't intend to work on it any more, despite the time I already invested in it. JamesMLane t c 11:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if you felt that was disrupting, luckily we are communicating with the subject to get their views on the salient issues so we should be able to resolve this soon enough. -- Banjeboi 21:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Tamsin Wilton

Hi, good job on that article! I have three comments:

• The list of her works is quite exhaustive and I think it is only a matter of time before somebody slaps a {{laundry}} template on it. It is more usual in this kind of bios to limit such a list to the most significant works of a person.
• I am not sure that the LGBT/Queer studies portal template at the bottom is at its place here, as the article concerns a person, not those studies themselves. But I am not familiar with that portal, so I may be wrong (but there is not a link to something like "bios" in it...)
• Notability has not yet been established conclusively, I feel. For an academic to become notable it is not enough to have published, all academics publish. Those publications should have been noted. Perhaps you have a reference somewhere that shows the impact that her works have had on her field(s). The award named after her would go a very long way, if the organization that established it would be very notable in itself. At this point, that is not clear. (I am not saying that I don't think she's notable, I'm pretty sure she is, I'm just saying that the article does not yet establish this beyond doubt. I am in the life sciences myself, so I know less about how to do this in this field, otherwise I would already have tried to find some sources for this myself).

Hope this helps! Happy editing, --Crusio (talk) 08:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the help & feedback. Mish (talk) 08:23, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

IfD for LawrenceFobesKing.jpg

Hi - Your last comment seems to need better formatting to read clearly. It's hard to follow the way it is. Thanks. — Becksguy (talk) 19:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks much. — Becksguy (talk) 02:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Article

What article exactly is being contested? Homophobia? Let me know I'll try and see if we can reach a consensus, Have we sent the legal threat template to whoever is threatening you? I am not admin but I'll try and helpHellinaBucket (talk) 11:22, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I saw the diffs he left on the Admin board, if that is what you are reffering to that wouldn't be a legal threat. Is there somethign else we're missing?HellinaBucket (talk) 11:25, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion

Hi, I've come across several of your posts recently, and they're thoughtful and interesting. I do have one suggestion though, if you don't mind: splitting long posts into paragraphs makes them much easier to read. Exploding Boy (talk) 14:41, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Buggered

You said "I'm sure for a lot of people who don't like it, it's because they simply can't be buggered with it." I'm not a native English speaker. What does this mean (the "buggered" part)? Debresser (talk) 19:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

It is a 'Double entendre'. 'Buggered' was a common term used in various way 'Your car is buggered, mate' (broken), 'I can't be buggered with that' (can't be bothered), 'Silly bugger' (fool). The other meaning of 'buggery' is 'sodomy'. Like 'bugger', the abbreviation of sodomy could be used in similar ways too: 'Silly sod' (fool), 'Sod off' (get lost), 'Sod that for a lark', (I don't fancy that). The use of 'bugger' in this way was quite common amongst both 'upper' and 'lower' class men up till the 1970's, but is less used nowadays outside of the upper classes. 'Sod' was more common amongst the working classes. People today are more likely to use other terms that are more obviously swear words in this way like 'fuck that for a game of tiddlywinks', 'fuck that for a game of soldiers', or 'I can't be fucked' (can't be bothered). I doubt I could find sources to substantiate this, but it was quite common in some circles (some would see this as swearing, of course, so it was not always acceptable). The way I used it was a humorous way of playing with the dual meanings - the obvious intention 'can't be bothered', juxtaposed with an aspect of homosexual practice, namely, buggery. In other words, some people will have an aversion to 'homosexuality' (in your comment) as personal practice because they are not homosexual. Mish (talk) 20:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the extensive explanation. Sorry I missed the joke. Debresser (talk) 22:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Well done on, er, slipping that one in, Mish. Are you in a part of the Anglosphere where "Can't be fagged" would have a suitably multifacted meaning as well? Orpheus (talk) 23:36, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Plenty of scope for 'fag' double-entendres here, because that is what cigarettes are commonly called. So, 'fancy a fag?' is the most obvious one. People tend not to say 'can't be fagged' here, but more likely to say 'can't be arsed', although we do say 'fagged out'. Problem with me is that I tend to operate slightly tongue-in-cheek 60% of the time, but it gets lost in the medium. I've been bending over backwards to try and come up with a retort to the innuendo you inserted - but as you can see, the possibilities are limited. It would be good to pull together a list of derogatory words, innuendo and double-entedres - but where would you find the sources? And would Wikipedia cope with all the depravity? I'd hoped the comment might raise a slight smile and diffuse some of the angst. It has been an interesting discussion, not least because my own views shifted to some extent. I do like changing my mind, believe it or not, as it reminds me I am still alive, not a fossil, do not know it all, and still have much to learn - but it is not aways easy). Mish (talk) 23:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

You'd be surprised what's already in Wikipedia. Euphemism has a large-ish collection, and profanity illustrates with examples. Also see Category:Profanity and List of ethnic slurs. Regarding retorting, fire away - as I said on the category talk page I try to avoid taking these things too seriously. I'm more likely to misunderstand during the 40%.

Incidentally, you mention on your user page something about an intro - I wouldn't mind seeing it, if you have no objections. Orpheus (talk) 01:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I got an admin to delete it - I decided that because there were some people whose paths I crossed I would rather not be able to work out who I am, I felt more comfortable having it removed. Mish (talk) 08:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

A favour

Having seen the work you were able to do on a compromise for the Bindel article, I wonder if you might be able to pop by the brewing mess at Michael Flood, which I stumbled across this morning.

He's a respected feminist male academic who used to teach at my university, and has evidently antagonised some men's rights activists, who are trying to have an article that's about 90% about their disputes with him. He's already complained about his article and unsuccessfully tried to get it deleted, and it seems the quick BLP rewrite someone did is going to be vigorously resisted.

I realise that it's a bit ironic considering we were on opposite sides of the Bindel dispute, but resolving these sorts of conflicts aren't really my specialty, and you did a damned good job with that. Rebecca (talk) 10:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll have a look. Not on opposite sides, it is just that I respect Bindel for most of what else she has done, and feel it is time we put the 1974 article behind us. She said what she said, and she has the views she has. She shouldn't have said what she said, but I can live her having her views. Mish (talk) 11:25, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I know it's a pain, but I appreciate another eye on the thing. I've watchlisted the GLF draft; looks pretty good to me at a first glance at least. Rebecca (talk) 14:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

FAQ

Please see my suggestion to Exploding Boy. (Discussion continues on my talk.) Rivertorch (talk) 17:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination

Hi. I've nominated UK Gay Liberation Front 1971 Festival of Light action, an article you worked on, for consideration to appear on the Main Page as part of Wikipedia:Did you know. You can see the hook for the article here, where you can improve it if you see fit. Bruce1ee^talk 14:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I've adjusted the DYK hook to only quote "biship" and "keep on sinning". The reason I haven't quoted the entire segment is because I had modified (shortened) the text of the original quote. If you would like the entire segment to be quoted then the text from the original quote must be used. --Bruce1ee^talk 05:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

A shiny barnstar!

Thanks, Benji, I have learned a lot in the process - not least to try and take a step back now and then. I still think the detail is too much, but if it gets round the concerns about how things are represented than let's see if it stands. The Wikipedia policy of reflecting sources as accurately as possible seems to be the way to go. I have put this on my user page. Mish (talk) 12:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Category:Transgender topics and religion

Hi, i just wanted to let you know I created the transgender religion cat above, but haven't added any articles other than the main transgender/religion article, except for Two Spirit, and Hijra (South Asia). I checked kathoey, but didn't see any religious content mentioned in the article (except that Buddhism was generally tolerant of it), so I didn't add to the cat (in case you want to add it, or know any other articles which would fit). :-) Wikignome0529 (talk) 22:07, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I looked at Kathoey, and you are right - but this gives some scope for development of that theme within the category. I am sure there will be others in the future, and this provides a basis for them, as well as sexuality, under LGBT issues and religion. I will get around to looking at the CofE, EA, etc., as I get time. Mish (talk) 08:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

DYK for UK Gay Liberation Front 1971 Festival of Light action

On May 27, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article UK Gay Liberation Front 1971 Festival of Light action, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 14:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Glory hole (naval)

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Glory hole (naval), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

WP not a dictionary

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Passportguy (talk) 15:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Dawn Langley Simmons

I'm rarely active on the LGBT WikiProject, but these days I'm not all that active here at all. Life is busy. I have to admit I had never heard of Dawn Langley Simmons before reading about the new guidelines for transgendered people. Looking over her life, this is exactly the kind of biography we all should be pushing towards at least good article status. I've known of her for little over 24 hours and am already fascinated and there must be reams of material about her. I look forward to working on this subject more than I have on any in a long time. AniMate^draw 08:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Take a look at the article now. I've removed some copyright violations from the NY Times obituary, sourced everything I could, and did some rearranging. There are a few facts that need verifying, but very few. The Mae West interview seems legit, but the article from the Independent has been purged from every online source. I also can't find verification of he appearance on Tomorrow with Tom Snyder. Still, I think it's in okay shape, and with some more work and fleshing out, could get promoted one day. AniMate^draw 22:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I did a couple of minor textual edits earlier. I have found a couple of cheap books that cover her life, one by herself and one that does so critically. So leave the fact tags, and I'll see what is in them to verify the information. It is odd, because the independent has items by the same contributor around that time, and items (including obituaries) that go back before 2000. So I'm surprised there is nothing there, if there was something, but given how noteworthy she was, I am more surprised that there is nothing in the Guardian or Times either. What is odd is that this is not the only missing link - the LGBT wiki had a link to a page on Jeannette Winterson's site, and another site to Newsweek, both are dead now too. It is as though references to her have been erased at some point over the past two years - yet I cannot see why or how that would happen. It is intriguing. he book on her was published in 2004, yet it seems odd that it is already unavailable on Amazon apart from through resellers. I find it exceedingly odd that apart from her books and wiki sites, a search on Google tyrns up so little. I'll see what my media hardcopy on her is tomorrow. If the source is no longer available online, then it is still valid if it once existed, but without a link. Mish (just an editor) (talk) 02:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

For the most part everything was verified, either through the NY Times or Peninsula of Lies, which is hardly complimentary. From what I've read, Ball seems rather hostile, dismissive, and skeptical, but he did a thorough job of tracking everyone down who was still alive. If anything, I'd be interested in finding some reviews of her works. Critical reception of her biographies would help flesh out the article, because aside from knowing she wrote the books, we don't really know anything about how they were received. AniMate^draw 02:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Ravel theories

Given Ravel's Bolero, I'm wondering if you have any psychosexual theories about Maurice Ravel. James470 (talk) 22:49, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

That is well known for its sexual connotations, although probably only through anecdote; I am sure somebody did a comedy sketch full of sexual innuendo once based on it (Dudley Moore?). It would make for an interesting artcile, though, the psychosexual connotations of works of classical music. I am sure there must be others. Hate to think what Stockhausen was into... Mish (just an editor) (talk) 00:32, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Glory hole (naval)

I have nominated Glory hole (naval), an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glory hole (naval). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Passportguy (talk) 10:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The Yogyakarta Principles

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of The Yogyakarta Principles, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://www.yogyakartaprinciples.org. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 08:57, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Start by rewritting or adding quote marks to any phrases, sentences etc that are from that website. Work on rewriting each, since the document is 2006 it is most likely fully copyright so everything will have to be rewritten and trimmed back. Also add a note to the talkpage taht you are working on rewriting it all to satisfy Copyvio concerns. -- Banjeboi 11:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Project rationales

I couldn't tell from the talk page if you knew how to add these, so i put an example below:

{{LGBTProject |nested=yes |class=C |explanation=This article is within the scope of the '''WikiProject LGBT studies''' project, because... }}

So you simply add another field with |explanation=xxx. Hope it is useful to you!YobMod 14:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Ahhh - I didn't know that, thanks. So much to learn, so much to do, so little time... Mish (just an editor) (talk) 14:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject LGBT studies Newsletter (June 2009)

• Newsletter delivery by xenobot 17:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for support

Thank you for support on Conversion Therapy Talk Page. Maybe you could post your opinion to the very similar issue on LGBT parenting Talk Page. --Destinero (talk) 12:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I have had a look, and tried to edit some of the writing in a way that neutralises it a bit. I'm not really familiar enough with the position in the USA to comment that much, but when I have time I will see if I can dig out anything from Europe/UK to add. I have begun editing down the history section from the CT article, it is accessible in a sandbox off my main page as User:MishMich/CV_history.Mish (just an editor) (talk) 14:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Incivility

Misch...Thanks for the heads up. Note that each comment I made is accurate and factual, not suggesting incivility but rather constructive criticism. I admit to the isolated question about IBM and Control-C, but I am sincerely interested in the answer that question. Most everything the editor in question has contributed has been a copyright violation, hurting Wikipedia.Tobit2 (talk) 18:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, it is just that reading this, it came across as quite sarcastic, and could be read as baiting. I think you need to make it clearer what you are referring to when you say things like that, because I read this as a response to what was in the preceding paragraph - which was linked to the source, and used in discussion rather than on the main page. Copyvio does apply to what is on main pages, but when used in talk pages to substantiate a point that is less clear. I am not familiar with these discussions myself, as they are about US issues, and am not that familiar with the discussions in Europe either, so I am approaching this from how it looks from the 'outside'. I rephrased some of the text on the article, because the language is not quite what we expect in an encyclopedia (emotive words like 'remarkable' are not neutral). If you are saying that this passage itself was lifted from somewhere, then do point me to it, and I will compare them. I also think that what was said in the part of the section I edited could have been said more succinctly (it was quite repetitive), but will refrain from condensing until it is clear that the edit war has ceased. I feel that balancing views do have to be presented, but where they are marginal and contrary to established opinion, they need to be clearly highlighted as such, and this is well covered in the guidelines. Mish (just an editor) (talk) 20:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello again MischMich. I am no expert in this area. I'm aware of the parenting studies based on some adoption research, but that's the extent of my knowledge. So I be much obliged if you could improve the text. I think the previous edits you made already caught most problems. However, the first and fourth paragraphs appear to have some lifting from Ref. 20 still. For example, the sentence beginning "Empirical research," and the one containing, "inherently better parents." The fourth paragraph seems to be lifting large phrases from Ref. 24. Thanks again.Tobit2 (talk) 01:18, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Mish, please be careful with using such a loaded term as "vandalism." I have been fair and patient in removing the plagiarized material, documenting where it occurs line by line.Tobit2 (talk) 21:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Misch, I am sorry, but you have re-inserted plagiarized material. This is against Wikipedia's rules. You should be adding back only valid material, line by line, after discussion on the Talk Page. I will give you a short period of time to correct the situation and then if the plagiarized material continues to exist, I will need to report it. Please take this up on the Talk Page so that we can do it the right way.Tobit2 (talk) 21:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Rather than threatening me here, I would prefer it if you did address this on the talk page. Mish (talk) 22:25, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

You have not been threatened, but advised of Wiki policies. I thank you for understanding the importance of this situation and removing the plagiarized material. If you work on it off-line and remove the offending issues, that would be wonderful. That said, since the paragraph in question is a major addition to the article, I do ask that the addition be proposed and discussed on the Talk Page as well.Tobit2 (talk) 22:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Homophobia at The Hardy Boys

Hi, I found your name through the LGBT project page. There's a massive amount of homophobia going on at Talk:The Hardy Boys - the article has been purged of all sources that discuss the issue b/c homophobe-editors say the issue is "fringe". I am way outnumbered, so I am trying to raise awareness of the problem. Any help would be appreciated! Ricardiana (talk) 17:13, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid that this is the first time I've heard about them. If you would like me to have a look at some material or sources, as an uninterested observer, I can give an opinion, but TBH I don't think I have much to offer on this. Mish (talk) 20:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

		The LGBT Barnstar
		I am awarding MishMich this barnstar for LGBT studies, for taking an active interest in all parts of the project, and usually getting to things before the rest of us, and actually fixing problems when he finds them. It's great to know you are keeping an eye on articles that can cause controversy and may fly under others' radars. Thanks!YobMod 17:30, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

LGBT parenting

Thank you so much for your contribution, Sorry, I had a really hard time trying to explain what you eloquently expressed. For me that settles it. I was worried that a previous framing of the question would undermine what the authors really were trying to get across. But your edit really convey what it says. gorillasapiens sapiens (talk) 02:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

That's OK, I tried, but I doubt I will be persisting. Mish (talk) 17:32, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

ANI

Hello, MishMich. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Refusal to engage arguments regarding the failure of some editors to engage arguments. The discussion is about the topic Martin Luther King. Thank you. --Årvasbåo (talk) 10:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for this, because I removed the page from my watchlist after the RfC was closed, and though the matter was settled, I was not aware of the situation. Mish (talk) 17:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

E.O. Green/Lawrence King

Hey MishMich,

You're right that the thread you participated in here (btw, you forgot to sign) started two weeks ago. However, it contains (four comments from the top) a link to a thread from last month that ended very differently from this one. I inserted that link in the hope that anyone who happened along would be sure to read the earlier thread and realize the new thread was part of a larger, longer discussion before drawing conclusions.

Incidentally, if you're new to watching this article, it has an extraordinarily contentious history. I'm rather enjoying this spirited discussion among thoroughly civil people, considering some of what happened there over the past year. Happy weekend to you! Rivertorch (talk) 18:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I am new to this article, although I did visit it before over the issue of the photo, which featured on another article as well. I wish more discussions could be civil. Happy weekend to you to. Mish (talk) 20:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)