User talk:Brasov

05:40, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Scream!! (talk) 15:20, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

The universe does not exist
seven billion people say it exists, but they're wrong, that's just groupthink. Sophie Wilder  18:15, 28 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Sophie, if you don't refrain to spam my mailbox with estrogene-loaded hate mail I'll report you to the moderators. Is that clear?--Brasov (talk) 14:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That's "from" instead of "to" I think you'll find, Mr Troll. By the way, the Moderators also indulge in groupthink. And you haven't proven to me that the universe exists, so I laugh at your puny arguments. ha ha ha. Sophie  Wilder  12:08, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... this moderating fauna must be the reason for the flood of donations. Quality sells! Ha! Ha!--Brasov (talk) 15:26, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd say the Universe fits in your most popular cavity without much compression, therefore it exists. Now we're talking moderator style.--Brasov (talk) 15:29, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Does everything that swims, swim?
 * Does everything that speaks, speaks?
 * Does everything that exists, exist?
 * That's show silly your challenged challenge was, Sophie.--Brasov (talk) 15:34, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Have you considered the  ? What about just trying to  the   instead? — Unsigned, by: ORavenhurst / talk  Do You Believe That? 16:16, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * With so much  around here I saw no need, really. Thanks for your deposition. --Brasov (talk) 16:21, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Your editing style will not earn you many friends.
Seriously, brah. "Preview." Write it in Word, get it right, then post it. Something. Theory of Practice Still tryin' to figure it all out. 03:19, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Do please learn either to use the "Show preview" button, or to leave your comments as they originally were made. Multiple re-editing of the same discussion page after posting leads to edit conflicts with people trying to answer you.--ZooGuard (talk) 14:09, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Have you considered a 21st century backend for our collaborative site? Wiki is so 90's, and people only talk about how collaborating sucks.--Brasov (talk) 16:30, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Fuck off with the multiple edits (annoying, isn't it?) Innocent Bystander (talk) 15:13, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Blocked
Please respect general practices regarding editing etiquette, or the blocks may lengthen. Theory of Practice Still tryin' to figure it all out. 15:38, 30 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Because etiquette is everything. Hell, Brasov, do you want to be classified as a deviant being? Surely not. --Dirk Steele (talk) 18:04, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Bad fit
You're a hateful little punk, arentcha? And not even especially coherent intellectually. Please leave. EVDebs (talk) 21:02, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You have an opinion, and therefore an asshole. Well, perhaps too, a second one for speaking.--Brasov (talk) 22:19, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Why do you bother? Nobody seem to like you or think you're very smart, and you can't seem to manage basic editing. Maybe you should look for another website. Theory of Practice Still tryin' to figure it all out. 22:27, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * What if I enjoy watching the fits of pissed-up-to-their-necks, pimple-ridden maladjusted preteeners as I show to them that signing-up for a wiki that sports "rational" in its name does't turn a gonzo into a half-gonzo? Am i not entitled to it?--Brasov (talk) 03:04, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You're "entitled" to say whatever. but could you use preview?--[[Image:green mowse.png|25px]]Godot  She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans  03:34, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd also note that you're not necessarily entitled to say it here. So far you've made a misogynistic/transphobic attack against one of our longest-standing community members, implied that you're a Holocaust denier, tried to pick a fight over a rhetorical flourish that is almost always deceptive when it comes up, and generally proven yourself to be a condescending, verbally abusive shitheel with no redeeming qualities to balance your behavior out (although, let's be honest, your behavior in and of itself is enough to make you unwelcome). There is nothing about you that indicates that you are or have any plans to become an asset to this community. I'd ask why you're still here, but really, the only honest answer is trolling, so there's no point in asking. EVDebs (talk) 08:37, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeh Brasov. If you come on this site and have the audacity to disagree with long standing community stalwarts and not be able to take insults without bowing down and kissing arse then you are not an asset and therefore should fuck off. And of course we do not want anyone on this site who cannot use the colons and previews properly so your views are not welcome. So there. You troll. Dirk Steele (talk) 09:05, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Someone rational in Rational Wiki! It may not all be lost. Abuse heading your way in 3...2..1...--Brasov (talk) 12:52, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * He got the oxygen he craved. Seriously, anyone who considers scientific consensus to be a fallacy can't be genuine...on reflection, he probably is. There's another wiki tailored for him, but stupidity of this magnitude has probably hindered his ability to tell one wiki from another.--Brendiggg (talk) 09:19, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * And Brasov, remember if you ever make use of irony be aware that it totally goes over most people's heads on here and you deserve all the bans you will get. Dirk Steele (talk) 09:27, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The guy admitted he's here to troll, so any posturing about "disagreement" rings hollow. And "not being an abusive ass" doesn't mean "bowing down and kissing arse". If you think it does, I pity those who have to work and live with you.--ZooGuard (talk) 09:49, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey, smartass, I pull abuse as an answer to abuse. Look who came taunting into my personal space. She lacked the brains to discuss an issue in the dedicated space. I can put a bitch back in her place anytime, I take no shit from long-standing members, be they female or transexual, my "membership" is longer and it stands upon command.--Brasov (talk) 12:40, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * "you're not necessarily entitled to say it here." When a longest-standing, member-lacking bigot invades my personal space to fondle my balls, she's perfectly entitled to a generous squirt in the eye. And she got it. And she loved it. Now what are you looking for in my page?--Brasov (talk) 12:31, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

And when one has lost the argument censorship is the only method of suppression. Well done Sophie Wilder and Theory of Practise. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/User:TheoryOfPractice. You fanatic mental fundementalists. Dirk Steele (talk) 20:36, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * De-escalation: you are doing it wrong.--ZooGuard (talk) 21:57, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Unblocked
In case you've failed to notice, your 3-month block has been lifted as it was given without community consensus.--ZooGuard (talk) 21:56, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Blocked for "being rude"
Two characters are so very pissed by my overwhelming logic that can't help follow me all over the place for harrassment. My rude replies, as everyone can see, are a response to their rude atatcks. These characters are Sophie  Blonder  and utistic. They harrass, abuse, overreact and can't seem to leave the logs alone. Someone put a leash on them.--Brasov (talk) 20:53, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * "overwhelming logic" [[File:Laughing.gif]] [[File:Laughing.gif]] [[File:Laughing.gif]] [[File:Laughing.gif]] [[File:Laughing.gif]] [[File:Laughing.gif]] [[File:Laughing.gif]] [[File:Laughing.gif]] [[File:Laughing.gif]] [[File:Laughing.gif]] [[File:Laughing.gif]] [[File:Laughing.gif]] [[File:Laughing.gif]] [[File:Laughing.gif]] [[File:Laughing.gif]] [[File:Laughing.gif]] [[File:Laughing.gif]] [[File:Laughing.gif]] [[File:Laughing.gif]] [[File:Laughing.gif]] [[File:Laughing.gif]] [[File:Laughing.gif]] [[File:Laughing.gif]] [[File:Laughing.gif]] [[File:Laughing.gif]] [[File:Laughing.gif]] Cow...Hammertime! 20:58, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Dunning-Kruger. Osaka Sun (talk) 02:29, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It's the extreme unwarranted self-importance that amuses me. Brasov is like a cross between Ted Baxter and Pat Buchanan and has all the self-awareness of a tree stump. EVDebs (talk) 08:13, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Pot in Kettleland.--Putin2.jpg Brasov 11:14, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Golden memories


 * Innocent Bystander (talk) 11:43, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

So, what's next?
As you seem to be going on some itinerary, which is the next stop in your holy quest against groupthink? The Holocaust? JFK's death? The Moon landings? HAARP? Water fluoridation? FEMA camps?--ZooGuard (talk) 09:26, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Next is calling your fallacy salad: Appeal to motives (you're on some itinerary, therefore you're wrong), Association fallacy (conspiracies are dissent, therefore your dissent is a conspiracy) and Appeal to emotion / Ad baculum: (shut up or I'll foist a tin-foil hat on you, and you won't like that). Bon appetit! --Putin2.jpg Brasov 11:11, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Do not feed. Tielec01 (talk) 11:12, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, the "itinerary" comment is a result of empirical observation: your jumping from topic to topic, with the apparent wish to express your "dissent". There's also no association fallacy, just the observation that "dissenters" who don't limit themselves on a single area of "dissent" often tend to develop "dissent" in more and more (and somewhat predictable) areas.
 * As for "ad baculum", you are wrong. I'm not threatening to "foist a tin-foil hat" on you, I already think that you are sporting one. Somewhat less shinier one than the forum dwellers expecting Planet X any moment now, but foil-y nevertheless.
 * And yes, I'd like to hear what will be your next topic of dissent. Making popcorn takes some time if one insists on making it properly.--ZooGuard (talk) 12:18, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Regarding FEMA, HAARP, UFO, etc. you got it all wrong. These are not dissenters because they're postulating theories. As expected, their evidence is as weak as the consensus they get. Logic is a bitch hard to put on a leash, huh?--Putin2.jpg Brasov 14:19, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Regarding scientific consensus, agreement is a by-product of convincing evidence. Therefore, higher internal dissidence is a predictor of bad science. Medicine sports the highest dissidence of all sciences. Together with its local nature (e.g. HIV is diagnosed and treated differently in different parts of the world), it casts doubts about its classification as a Science, which is universal.--Putin2.jpg Brasov 14:19, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * There is very little scientific "dissidence" in respect of AIDS. Where it is treated differently, this is generally due to political, not medical disputes. I can't see any evidence of any meaningful level of scientific dissent from the approach we have in the UK: HAART seems to be the standard of care wherever evidence based medicine is used. JzG (talk) 09:20, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Enough of these games
I've had it with these denialist twats. People die because of scare stories about vaccines, or through being told that "natural" medicines are always better than evil pills. Why allow them even the time of day? If Brasov wants to spout off about how the romans knew more about medicine than us, whatever doolally crap he wa on about last night, let him fuck off to tumblr and say it there. Sophie Wilder  13:21, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Incapable of surviving the debate in the corresponding space without losing face, you come and unload your uterine frustrations in my home page.--Putin2.jpg Brasov 14:19, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Profuse use of Loaded language to support a virtual reality: "Evil pills": a victimization of chemotherapy. "People die": the Vivid picture fallacy. People die all the time, but being vaccines and holy water treatments for the healthy, lack of treatment can never be proven to cause death. In contrast, vaccine-induced death and disease are proven in courts on a regular basis, all over the world. Figure it out if you can, because logic and high estrogens don't mix well.
 * romans knew more about medicine.... Caricaturization of my "...whose causes were known since Roman times (irony for the impaired)" resulting from an obvious anal-retentive Disability.--Putin2.jpg Brasov 14:19, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You know, sexist screeds are not a good way to endear yourself to the userbase.--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 18:00, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Too obvious Sophie  Blonder  is looking for love, isn't it? She's the elephant in the china store.--Putin2.jpg Brasov11:29, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Listen buddy, cool it with this line of sexist attacks. If you don't stop, I will open proceedings to officially block you. Your right to argue here is contingent upon your pursuit of a constructive dialogue. 10:59, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Her harassing is too obvious. If someone needs to be called to order that'd be Sophie. She couldn't debate me without looking irrational, so she resorted to taunting and meddling all over the place. Her excuse to get me into the vandal bin was "altering well established articles", when what I did was opening a new section in a talk page. What vandalism? She's got issues, pal. --Putin2.jpg Brasov 11:29, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I've paroled you and all your IPs. Happy? Good. My previous post stands. I know that Arguing On The Internet is hard to do well, but if you simply debate on the merits of your argument then you won't get blocked. Sophie is one of our oldest and most prolific community members and has nothing to prove about her dedication to the site - you, however, have everything to prove. (This is an oblique way of saying that we welcome disagreement only so far as you stay away from attacks that can be construed as trolling.) 12:07, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh my, not just a denialist fucktard but a misogynist denialist fucktard. I think you meant to register at Conservapedia, you'd be right at home there. JzG (talk) 09:00, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

That there chip on yer shoulder
Please for to lose it. Much thanks! 09:04, 20 December 2012 (UTC) C ® ackeЯ

Please don't
...remove talk page posts without good reason. Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 17:16, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Is there any reason why you don't sign in?
At least a couple of folks don't like your fake-signing posts. Why not just sign in to your account? Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 23:00, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You seem to give a shit, so remove the IP blocks and get me out of the vandal bin. But I you don't I don't give a flying copulation either, because I can post whenever I feel like, anyway. --Vladimir_Putin_12015.jpg Brasov 23:05, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. Please sign in and edit with your account. Thanks, Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 23:12, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The lousy fucked bitch has done it again. I revert to log off. --Vladimir_Putin_12015.jpg[[User_Talk:Brasov|

Hey dumbfuck
Hey dumbfuck, don't call people dumbfuck, it's rude. Sophie Wilder  23:36, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * In your case it's a bad fuck, not rude, just psychoanalysis. --Vladimir_Putin_12015.jpg[[User_Talk:Br
 * But psychoanalysis is pseudoscience! Dirk Steele said so! Sophie  Wilder  23:44, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Another thing.
Okay, now that we've got the signing in/signature thing worked out, I have another question for you: What would it take for you to behave like a little bit less of an abrasive jerk on talk pages? Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 23:55, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Something very elementary, don't allow this: "... You are either a liar or an idiot, or both. You can be ignored. Sophie  Wilder  23:23, 4 February 2013 (UTC)...". My "jerkness" is reciprocity.
 * But that's too much to ask form this pigsty of a forum. --Vladimir_Putin_12015.jpg Brasov 00:01, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * "What would it take for you to behave like a little bit less of an abrasive jerk on talk pages?"
 * Oh oh, I know, I know miss, I know, call on me, I know miss! Is it "Deleting his dumbass comments?"--Token Conservative (talk) 00:03, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Look, man I'm trying to fucking help you out here in order to keep a bit of the peace. Throw me a fuckin' bone and try to be a little less of an ass, okay? Thanks. Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 00:04, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, deleting his dumbass comments would help keep the peace.--Token Conservative (talk) 00:09, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I have no problem as log as you delete Sohpie's "idiot" comment (her own self-OWNED is good enough).--Vladimir_Putin_12015.jpg Brasov 00:14, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Comments don't get deleted. They get ignored. Thanks. Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 00:30, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Real easy to ignore a deleted comment.--Token Conservative (talk) 00:35, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, you reverted my comments deleted by Sophie because comments don't get deleted..., except by Sohpie and a few other bozos around. --Vladimir_Putin_12015.jpg Brasov 00:44, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Yet another thing
Do you know how freakign easy is to write a vandalizing bot that's permanently switching IPs? I'll tell you, it's a lot easier and more of a pest than what Sophie does vandalizing my posts and signature by hand. Keep her in check, Theory of Practice, for if she's got too much time on her hands I migh help her getting them full.-- Brasov 01:01, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * That wouldn't actually do much of anything. Don't threaten.--Token Conservative (talk) 01:35, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * No threat, just disclosing some of my capabilities once we've seen Sophie's at work. To know each other better, ya know, like a big family? --Vladimir_Putin_12015.jpg Brasov 01:41, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * No, you're making a threat. Don't be obtuse.--Token Conservative (talk) 01:48, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Watch out guys, this guy knows how to do something!]--MikallakiM 01:55, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * No I'm not. Sophie is the threat. She indulges in vandalism from the delusion that her misbehaviuor can't bring any harm to this site. But there's only so much shit a knowledgable programmer can take, and she's pushing the envelope really hard. I recommed you to keep her on a short leash. --Vladimir_Putin_12015.jpg Brasov 01:59, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I recommend you stop making threats.--Token Conservative (talk) 02:05, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Glad to see everyone has recommendations. We'll see how it all works out. --Vladimir_Putin_12015.jpg Brasov 02:07, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Tyson reaction.jpg of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 02:08, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You just went personally through the tip of my dick... I mean IP range, so you're in the best position to assess the size of what's being waved. --Vladimir_Putin_12015.jpg Brasov 02:13, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

]]

Your Putins need licenses and attributions.
Thanks. Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 02:39, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The one at Wikicommons will have to do. There's no need for a copyvio just for a vanity signature. Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 02:44, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * But who wouldn't want John C. Calhoun in their signature?  02:46, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

"Do you know how freaking easy is to write a vandalizing bot that's permanently switching IPs? I'll tell you..."
...and so you have, apparently. You must be very proud, there, in your parents' basement. Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 20:33, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I think we need to tell the FBI about this. 20:38, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I haven't been paying attention, did he actually do this?--Token Conservative (talk) 23:31, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes. We waged war for several hours. Email me if you want more information, not everything is strictly public. 23:32, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I have no idea how to email you.--Token Conservative (talk) 23:45, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Special:EmailUser/Blue. What's so secret? Peter mqzp 23:53, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know where that was.--Token Conservative (talk) 00:19, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Wassup haters?
Some guys in black dropped by my basement. They had funny accents and rolled the r's like "Bwwrrazzuf". I told them пошли на хуй and they looked perplexed, but he middle finger they did understand. Это Россия! -- Brasov 00:32, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Nobody likes you and you are probably going to die a virgin.
Or you could dedicate the time you spend vandalizing a marginal website going to the gym, getting some stylish threads, moving out of your Mom's basement, and generally fixing your life. There's still time. Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 21:29, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Vandalizing is such a nasty word... except when you vandalize me. I really envy how you spend your time clicking on "revert" trying to catch up with similar autistic children in the user rankings. You must all be tied to a wheelchair, otherwise it has no explanation. Get some freaking skills like programming or something, and one day you might be able to pay for your own junk food  22:58, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Like half the people here are in college or college grads who do this in their free time. And I don't know if you're in a position to comment on people with autism.--Token Conservative (talk) 23:15, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Let's be clear -- all you have succeeded in doing is to make people who don't like you, like you less. I guess that's something. Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 23:40, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, that is quite an achievement. DamoHi 23:51, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

This whole thing? Why I hate ToP lately. Seriously. "Nobody likes you and you are probably going to die a virgin" is an argument? You used to be better than that. rpeh •T•C•E• 00:08, 7 February 2013 (UTC) Why are we posting messages on a page this guy won't be reading? --Revolverman (talk) 00:45, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The BoN that posted would be Brasov, who has been editting the site via IP Proxys for the month or so he was vandal binned. He's reading, and probably trying to figure out how to continue to fuck with the site, because the dude is an asshole.--Token Conservative (talk) 00:49, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * What's his damage, anyway? I've been reading his bullcrap around and it's all battery of some sort. Anointed in smears of elitist taint.±[[File:knightoftldrsig.png]]KnightOfTL;DR walls of text while-u-wait 00:57, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Rpeh, it ain't an argument, but what else can you say to a guy who threatens to go on an ip vandal spree and then does? Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 01:00, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You could ask for IP editing to be turned off and avoid the temptation to counter troll someone you've been calling a troll and counter trolling for months. That might help avoid yet another absolutely pointless RW meta discussion. [[file:Nuttysig.svg|68px|link=User:Nutty Roux|Nutty Roux]]100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 01:16, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * @Knight, as far as I can tell from his edits over the months, he's a gold bugger who thinks Zionism is a conspiracy, and that the medical community is hiding something about the treatment of cancer and AIDS. My tentative diagnosis is schizophrenia.--Token Conservative (talk) 01:34, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with ToP. Nothing says time wasted like vandalizing marginal sites that not more than a few thousand people know about.  The fact that you would even have the time to dedicate to such a task shows that you aren't getting out or doing anything productive.  You can't call us back for "taking the time to clean up after you;" it's you versus all of us.  Our time commitment is marginal for each one of us, you have to do everything on your side on your own.  And I also agree with Hamilton that you're really not in a position to crap on Autism; I can tell Autistic denial when I see it.  Don't worry about it, maybe you can make friends and get laid, I'm your proof of that, but vandalizing wikis on your basement doesn't find you friends.
 * I would advise against diagnosing people over the internet since you can't get all the causes, though there's plenty of times when you can make a fairly good guess, provided that the information you have holds true.  ఠ_ఠ  Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 08:04, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Plus most rw users actually give a fuck, which Brasov apparently doesn't, or he would have gone about things in a way less guaranteed to ensure his views were excluded from the project and subject to nothing higher than mockery.JzG (talk) 23:54, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Please, tell me...
What good are your current activities bringing to the world? How do they make you happy? Polar Bear in the Jungle Peter Tosh > Bob Marley 23:23, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * it's attention seeking, a way to fill the vacuum in his life. JzG (talk) 00:09, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Kind of, like, say, a user not archiving talk page posts because he thinks he's a special snowflake? Polar Bear in the Jungle Peter Tosh > Bob Marley 00:11, 12 February 2013 (UTC)