User talk:Bicycle Wheel/RationalWikiWiki T

=TK=

TK active socks.
Does TK have active socks on RW? We have no "no sock outing" rule here. If they are suspected perhaps we should name names?
 * Yes, there are a few. How much evidence is required?  19:10, 11 March 2008 (EST)
 * I think TK risks getting himself blocked the way he does because he is a computer expert and can create socks easily. If his socks behave in a TK way he'll get "BLOOKED" again and they won't "UNBLOOK" him easily.  I'll watch out for him after 26th June.  I hope he's got the message by now that he's unwelcome but you never know. Proxima Centauri 13:04, 23 May 2008 (CDT)
 * Proxima, anyone can create socks. One merely registers a second account under a different username. Furthermore RW's checkuser is deactivated, thus TK needn't worry his IP will be traced. 20:18, 23 May 2008 (CDT)
 * A computer expert like TK knows how to find out when checkuser is deactivated. I wouldn't have known. Proxima Centauri 06:00, 25 May 2008 (CDT)
 * Well, we did discuss it and announce it. There's no way to tell if it works unless you're a sysop and try to use it.  But anyway, RW almost actively encourages the use of sockpuppets, at least for humor - look at J McC, HRC and BO, all obvious, but funny, socks.  Trent uses socks all the time to edit "undercover".  But, as PC states, if TK socked in and acted like the TK we learned to hate, the new account would not be liked.  If he succeeded in creating a new user account that was not like the bad old TK, we wouldn't care. human  20:54, 25 May 2008 (CDT)

"unblocking"
"unblocked on time on 10th March by AKjeldsen" - things like that should be footnoted. As far as I know, he was simply automatically unblocked by the software when the block expired. Also should have links to the Bohdan message, etc. 19:10, 11 March 2008 (EST) Also, why isn't that reported in RWW time?
 * I will look for them. If it's not too much trouble, do you remember what page TK voiced his objections to the "beauty contest" of electing sysops? I am not able to find it, although I remember reading it somewhere. 04:51, 13 March 2008 (EST)
 * Does this meet your requirements? Still missing links to TK's campaigns for sysopship, though. But like I said, I cannot seem to find them. -- 05:41, 13 March 2008 (EST)
 * Is this what you're looking for? Night Flare 15:16, 15 March 2008 (EST)
 * Indeed. Thank you. 20:41, 15 March 2008 (EST)

DO NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES UNBLOOCK THIS USER
I saw that earlier today when unblocking ttamesp, and seriously considered unblocking and reblocking to get the spelling write. But then the bloodstains on my hands would be fresher ;) human  17:57, 31 March 2008 (CDT)
 * And really, there's so many more lulz this way. Every time I see that I giggle a bit. Hey, if you make Lurker sysop, I'm sure he'd unblock and reblock TK. Not that I'd know, because I'm Definitely not lurker 22:33, 31 March 2008 (CDT)

Best of RWW
This article provides a standard we should strive to meet in all our articles. I propose we add it to category:best of RationalWikiWiki. 14:24, 16 April 2008 (CDT)
 * Please see talk:Ungtss for an explanation. 14:26, 24 April 2008 (CDT)

So what happened next?
No update since the block expired. . . . JuanK 21:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Nothing happened, basically. We haven't seen the good gentleman since. --AKjeldsen 08:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

He came back in early November. He made one edit complaining that he was a "lowly editor". Presumably he meant that he wanted to be a sysop. I sorted that out and changed him from a lowly editor to a vandal. I let him out later as he caused no trouble at RationalWiki. I'll be watching him if he comes back again. I've got more power than that known bully at RationalWiki. So have any number of other sysops. Mahaha! Proxima Centauri 09:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * More power than you deserve... 11:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

TK's Behaviour
When I was still studying Psychology, we learned that sometimes psychopaths don't commit violent crimes. These "subclinical psychopaths", as they are known, have a tendency to play people off against each other, instigate chaos in the workplace, and then get promoted as the only competent worker out of a bad bunch. Sound familiar? 121.73.11.43 11:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Eerily. 19:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Occupation
This article identifies TK as a computer consultant, per the LA Times article. But there's some stuff at RW about him being a used car salesman. Any ideas where that originates from & whether it's accurate?  w easeLICIOuS B ite M e 15:00, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Controversial
I think I tie with TK. Unfortunately. --ConservapediaUndergroundResistor 21:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No you don't.  Phantom Hoover  21:10, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, good. --ConservapediaUndergroundResistor 21:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Current events
Anyone gonna update this with the current 2 year block of TK, or do I have to do it myself? MNpunkboy 21:55, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You can update? :p I've been thinking of a few more things that need adding, but... I'm too lazy. Feel like sticking in the "user88 name template" too? Refugee 00:05, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Damn, I knew I was gonna have to do all the work!!! I suppose this is what I get for opening my internet mouth! MNpunkboy 03:20, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

TK's Parthian shot
TK wrote,  "it is simply not worth my efforts to be humiliated and abused" shortly before he left the CP project for good. RobSmith 22:17, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No he didn't. He wrote that before continuing to edit block people and post shit on MPR at CP for another month.  The then 'left the project for good' when he died of a heart attack caused by coronary artery disease.
 * Feel free to post that quote elsewhere in this article, but don't deceitfully phrase it as a parthian shot. Because it clearly isn't.  DeltaStar 22:27, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, so Rob has to come here and be a lying sack of shit too. Of course, we only have his "word" for it that that was what TK said. he certainly showed no change in attitude on CP. Sounds like commie agitprop to me. --Psygremlin 20:42, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Quiet all of you!Tyrannis 20:46, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Awww, mum! But he started! --Psygremlin 20:50, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * As a staunch Post-Conservapedian.... keep it civil. Tyrannis 20:56, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Rob is such a disgusting person it's hard not just saying it out loud whenever he shows up to tell bizarre lies like this. Nutty Roux 21:31, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Rollback
I rolled back Proxima's edits because they were shit. Ace McWicked 19:49, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok. Ty 19:50, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well-reasoned and succinctly explained. SuspectedReplicant 19:51, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

vicious homophobic attack
I haven't looked at the context and I wasn't around at the time, but his last edit doesn't seem to match the description.--Brxbrx 17:31, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Assuming someone is a lesbian when they have never come out as such, and then using that assumed sexual orientation as a way to score cheap points against them qualifies as homophobia in my books; anytime you bring sexual orientation into a debate that has nothing to do with sexual orientation, you are, essentially, "weaponizing" that person's sexual orientation. "Viscous" might be a little over-the-top, though. RationalwikiwikiUndergroundResistor 19:27, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I'm sure TK had average fluidity for a male of his age.--Brxbrx 19:43, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

=Talk pages= Holy seals Batman, this is meta! I'm on the talk page of article 'talkpage' of a wiki that analyses a wiki that analyses a wiki that analyses a wiki that analyses real life! --Interpreted
 * Quite. Any more of this, and I fully expect the infinite regress to bring down teh intarnets. --AKjeldsen 20:59, 28 December 2007 (EST)

=TheCheat= We should have a category for people sad enough to have requested their own RWW article. Rennie McGreet 17:34, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Category: Sad lonely people? TyComplain 17:47, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't we have that already? Rennie McGreet 19:59, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * People desperate for recognition? Oh wait. TyComplain 20:09, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * This would be a subset of that. "people who request their own RWW article" sounds good. Also, "People who started their own RWW article" who belong in the ninth circle of sadness. Rennie McGreet 20:59, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Does this mean you'll be adding Nutty Roux to the category, or is he part of a protected class?
 * Frankly I don't know why they keep calling it RationalWiki, TheCheatWiki has a much nicer ring to it. And I deserve recognition after I have tirelessly created no articles and have edited over -1. Also from my now tireless edits to this rag of a wiki, I think it should be renamed TheLegitCheatWiki. Yall put me on the map, TY ty. TheLegit 21:28, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No. TheCurtlyKnave 21:36, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You have as much personality as a brxbrx wall sir. TheLegit 21:44, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Likewise. Well met.TheCurtlyKnave 22:10, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

=The Great Block War= This has the potential for greatness. I have to go now, but try to add more to the timeline, like who joined and when. 22:01, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You guys have way too much free time. Sterile 23:05, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Or rather a fair amount of free time with little idea of what to do with it :D MrFish 23:44, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * F'ing lame. There have been far better. human  03:45, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * And sysops blocking each other for 30 secs apiece is pretty much meaningless, isn't it? human  03:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Pft, fun killer. But maybe we could dig up the block logs from some of the more interesting past ones, it didn't seem like any good ones were documented yet. MrFish 03:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

epic lame --Test fail 08:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I must point out that my deletion of the image was due to the fact that it was several megabytes, and unopenable. 16:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Suuure it was. Next you're gona tell me they didn't cover up proof of aliens at Roswell. And I also must point out that the image is openable on a decent browser, just takes a minute for the whole thing to load.MrFish 19:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * On RW the download rate is a couple of Kb/sec even on a high-speed broadband connections. 19:27, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a rename to "minor block war"?--Bob M 10:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you tell me of a bigger block war? It was great in the context of block wars, not that of the wiki overall. 17:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Wait, Human has implied that there was a bigger one. If evidence is provided, feel free to change it. 17:12, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I demand blood samples from the victims! Or at least a copy of the block log. That works too. MrFish 23:22, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Bugger!, I missed it--219.105.34.151 01:11, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to remember what I can... while not "wars" per se, Kels was the first to block all RW sysops in alphabetical order, back when there were about 25-30 or so IIRC. More recently, someone else worked through over a hundred of them to do the same exploit. But as far as block wars... there had to be more protracted ones - like going on for days - back in, say, the Bohdan days. Of course, the RW block log is so voluminous due to humorous blocks it's really hard to research. human  01:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, and I'm not demanding proof from the block log. Sifting through hundreds of pages of raw data is beyond our mere mortal capacities (well, except for LArron, and he's probably got better things to do). Enough testimonies to a larger one will be fine. 16:20, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I haven't gone further than 1 click & look here. & that's just 1 "person". 217.171.129.nn 17:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

=The Great Deconservapediafication= I started it. I'm not sure if I should remind anyone of that since my motives were likely different that those of the post-CP people who jumped in. What's Foster's take on this. I thought he was still a CP watcher. Why am I posting here? Nutty Roux 22:26, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I would think that Foster's take on it is that while he's still a CP-watcher, he sees WIGO-CP as something apart from the more encyclopedic/informational part of RW, and thinks there should be as little CP as possible in the bulk of RW; moreover, that stuff should be dedicated to analyzing the worst of CP's nonsense in a humorous style without degenerating into mere name-calling and dumb ridicule. Ideally, I think that Foster would love to see WIGO-CP spun off onto a separate web identity that is only nominally related to RW. He would watch the shit out of it, and would think that RW would look way smarter in the process. That's what I think Foster's take would be, but you'd have toa sk him. RationalwikiwikiUndergroundResistor 22:35, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Wow
How much meth does Tyrannis take? Copperhead 02:47, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Depends on how much coffee I have. TyComplain 03:06, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Given my current voting spree, I'm not one to talk. Sorry man. Copperhead 03:20, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I've been accused of worse. ;} TyComplain 03:43, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

"80% of these pages are beyond question."
Did Nutty mean that 80% needed to be deleted, or should be safe from deletion? Tobul Oltarolin 07:25, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You'd have to ask him. Rennie McGreet 07:57, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd go with the former--Mikal 15:18, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * 80% are fine. That number is PIDOOMA but yeah. I'm NOT involved in turning this into some kind of purge. Nutty Roux 18:30, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It's worth noting that if that figure wasn't a PIDOOMA...we're probably still below having deleted 20% at this point. That's a lot of pages. Tobul Oltarolin 08:23, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Common sense seems to be prevailing, which is actually a surprise. Where's the massive HCM? Rennie McGreet 08:06, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * People don't what to start the 1st anniversary 'festivities' early? Tobul Oltarolin 08:23, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Sterile....
...took a break to take a break; has nothing to do with this. I'm actually quite supportive, I just want it not rushed and well communicated so as to not create uber-confusion. Sterile 04:29, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Alrighty, editing now. TyComplain 04:41, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

An idea
I think this would have been far more interesting if we had a list of articles and everyone only got, say, 20 votes, maybe 30 since there are a lot of articles. And you could vote either for keeping or deletion on any number until you expended those couple of dozen votes. There are more articles than votes, so think very carefully! MWAHAAHAAHAA! Armondikov 09:04, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That would be mean (and dangerous). Tobul Oltarolin 09:15, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Bummer
I wish I had been there for this. Good for everyone for cleaning it up. Socal212 04:33, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I gotta say, this seems to have ruined a long period of people being nice to each other. You'd probably have rather been there instead. Tobul Oltarolin, Expedition Leader 05:03, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

=The goat vs. jerboa controversies= The lack of mention of the ferret overlords reduces the utility of this article somewhat.--Bobbing up 16:14, 28 December 2007 (EST)
 * What ferret overlords? Just silly. --98.17.9.82 16:16, 28 December 2007 (EST)
 * The ferret overlords are the secret masters of RationalWiki.--Bobbing up 16:18, 28 December 2007 (EST)
 * Well, if they're secret overlords, they shouldn't really be mentioned, should they? --AKjeldsen 18:44, 28 December 2007 (EST)
 * Good point. But this is rationalwikiwki.  Isn't it our duty to tell the truth?--Bobbing up 04:21, 29 December 2007 (EST)

=Third Wave= Archie Goodwin and Mikalos add nothing to mainspace. Why are they mentioned here?--24.251.69.25 22:48, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Some of us are chopped liver. --Seth Peck 23:18, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I still contribute to other major spaces, and sometimes do namespace! plus a category consisting of 2 main people isnt much of a group--Mikal 03:22, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yay! I've made an impression! Copperhead 01:37, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Damn it!
I was about a week to early. --Ullhateme 23:22, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That's exactly why I argued for "Third Wave RWians." If we're going to arbitrarily group RWians, we could at least have the divisions reflect their interactions on the wiki, as opposed to the timestamp in their user creation log.   05:55, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, my favoured arbitrary division would be "post May 2011." :) Tobul Oltarolin 06:28, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Which id still be a part of despite joining 4 months early. so i endorse this idea :D--Mikal 06:50, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Feel free to change it, the whole thing is vague and arbitrary. Rennie McGreet 10:02, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Is this "first wave = cabal", "second wave = post-cabal", and "third wave = post-May 2011 Fun Time Hour" Armondikov 11:58, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Basically, yes.  22:38, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe we need to label 'em by waves instead of "class of 2xxx" then. --Seth Peck 23:17, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Okey-diddley. Rennie McGreet 18:12, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * First wave (RW 1.0 and cabal): 2006-2007
 * Second wave (first generation of new editors to join RW 2.0): 2007-2009
 * Third wave (Nx, Armondikov, Nebby, etc... the first non/post CP folks): 2009-2011
 * Fourth wave (Osaka, PeterL, etc.): 2011-2012. Liveware Problem 20:29, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * ADK joined before you did. :P TyrannisAn iron, yet caring fist 20:33, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, my bad. I don't remember him being around much back in 2008. Liveware Problem 20:41, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Classify us once, dammit! --Seth Peck 20:30, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * And don't you dare classifying him twice! You don't want to know what happens if you him classify twice! --Ullhateme 20:38, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I don't want to be classifyinged again! --Seth Peck 20:40, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

(ECx2) (must be an RWW first)
 * I'd restrict Second Wave to 2007, with CP making the news and the Night of the Blunt Knives. then perhaps other waves around the Lenski affair, Conservative bible project etc. Good idea? Perhaps a delve into the user creation logs? Rennie McGreet 20:42, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think the "waves" correspond with specific events as such, more with gradual changes in the site/community dynamic. & I agree with Livewire's four eras as above.   W easelicious  B ite M e 20:54, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Alrighty. TyrannisAn iron, yet caring fist 00:56, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * LP's eras are probably accurate, although there were always post-CP folks around. Sterile 04:39, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I no longer agree with anything Liveware Problem says as a matter of course. Suck it. Nutty Roux 07:24, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Does that mean you change your mind if she agrees with you? :-)   08:30, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course he does, and nobody will remember what his original position was, either. He's like an etch-a-sketch. Though, for the record, I think Liveware's eras are probably the most accurate. Punky McPunkersen 09:09, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I would put it more like:
 * First wave: (by invitation only) largely precipitated by the Guardian article of CP, the creation on RW1; RationalWiki was a pain in the ass to log into focused on CP, when it was a page of pages (there is no cabal), ending in the Night of the Blunt Knives; silliniess at CP, such as the doughnut affair, Icewedge edits to CP and Richard at CP; it sounds all glorious, but it really didn't last that long.


 * Second wave: (the initial public RW) Creepy E.Wig conversations and the first real trolling by HeartOfGold; the LATimes article; the countdown to the 2008 election; PalMD and Caius around but eventually faded away to their own blogs, and the WIGOs and Article of the Weak stuff; forums were a separate page with the separate cabal and cabal within cabal forums; side-by-sides were common (Expelled: Leader's Guide); CP was still the real focus (click-bots, Lenski affair, lots of focus on TK; unearthing their forums and e-mails), although there were a lot of general skepticism articles, honest; lots of user templates; the Constitutional Convention (that went nowhere); the Great Pissing Contents (which was a huge deal at the time); probably the height of the era of Human; William Demski's legal threat; RationalBlogs; the vandal bin (?) it probably ends with the Colbert influx; really the most fun the wiki ever was (no offense), nobody really knew what they were doing (but that was the fun of it)


 * Third wave: the formalization and branding stuff; moving from .com to .org (right?) the forums went mothballed in favor of the Saloon Bar (maybe earlier); the new logo; more looking past CP (although there was a lot of post-CP initially, honest; it was Trent's intent); focus on other projects (ASK, WikiSynergy); eventually Facebook page comes on-line and Marcus becomes a problem in the eyes of lots; current form of Main is pretty much set; height of 'crats and sysops (don't remember when that started) and the coup; the great blackout for a month; the formation of the foundation; Loya Jira; Susan dies, and TK over at CP dies; definite ending in May 2011 because you all couldn't figure out how to 'crat me (according to many), although I still think the inability to figure out what to do with Marcus (or diffrences thereby) is the real reason May happened.


 * Fourth wave: (post-uber HCM) I suppose the editors are a big part of this, but it's also the mods and the reshuffling of "power" (whatever that means), which I still think led to the alienation of lots, ergo oldtimers leave like Elves going into the west; bizarro trolls (and troll-like-ness); promise of podcasting and other forms of social media.


 * There are definitely things in the wrong place, but that's what I remember of it. Actually, it is event driven except perhaps between the second and third waves (Blunt Knives & May "throw out the 'crats"-fest). Sterile 05:33, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The way I'm intimately familiar with everything you mentioned about the Second Wave, but kept going "Huh?" to the Third and Fourth Wave stuff, makes me feel painfully dated. But regardless, I agree with how you differentiated the eras.   06:18, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That piece of halibut history was good enough for Jehovah mainspace. Rennie McGreet 11:08, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Wow! Terrific summary! Good memory, Sterile. Make it into a page of it's own - that was great. Refugee 21:13, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * There are others, many others, around that remember stuff, too, many from late 2007/early 2008. Sterile 23:10, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

=Tmtoulouse= I do not disappear completely.........Tmtoulouse 17:23, 4 March 2008 (EST)
 * Yes you do. Then you reappear.  Once a month, to reset the WIGO numbers!  No one is saying you don't lurk, or work on articles on your own hard drive... But mostly, you play "Frazier" (not from Cheers, from Walden Two, you dolts!)  01:40, 6 March 2008 (EST)

Facts!
I am a US citizen but currently live in Canada..and I am most emphatically not a law student. I am a graduate student in psychology/neuroscience. Proof if needed. 24.36.229.24 19:15, 6 March 2008 (EST)
 * Additional facts to fill in blanks: I am 27 (28 on September 19th), my tolerance of religion is pretty slim but I frankly don't care enough about it to engage it unless it is messing around with something it shouldn't be. This is why I don't edit article about the Bible, Christianity, or theology in general if they don't overlap with the philosophy of science. But I certainly think the world would be better off if it was secular, though that is not happening. Tmtoulouse 02:43, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, I fixed your stalkbox facts. It's only been 9 months since you posted this... and as usual, I'm ON it! lol. Refugee 07:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

This article
Surely we can do a better service to Trent by expanding this article and making it better. Punky McPunkersen 22:45, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

*RationalWiki's editors are just vandals that are too scared of Trent Toulouse to do any vandalism.
lol, great job ADK--Brxbrx 01:39, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Incense
Isn't that on the list of block reasons, presumably to make fun of Karajou or similar originally making that mistake? Tobul Oltarolin 02:19, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * looks like it TyComplain 02:30, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Seems to have been Weaseloid's addition, after RA removed the correctly spelt version (which had been there since the beginning). Tobul Oltarolin 02:53, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I feel silly now.  03:10, 23 April 2012 (UTC)