User talk:Purplebackpack89/Archive 4

Archives
2009 (May-Oct) 2009 (Oct-Dec) 2010 (Jan-Apr) 2010 (May-Aug) 2010 (Sep-Dec) 2011 (Jan-Aug) 2011 (Sep-Oct)

Supreme Court

I have reverted your edit at the Supreme Court page. John Paul Stevens is still a member of the court. He will serve through the end of the court's year (it should end in late June or early July). Kagan would replace him at the start of the '10-'11 term if her nomination succeeds. Either way (talk) 19:49, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

OK. I put him back, but noted that he's retiring this year, and Kagan's been nominated Purplebackpack89 19:51, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

==

Reconstruction era of the United States (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)
==

I wrote this article. I am going to expand it. πr² (talk • changes) 21:50, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Fine by me. I ain't stoppin' you Purplebackpack89 21:53, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Revert undo

That was a large removal. πr² (talk • changes) 19:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

That's on me...I got mixed up and though he was adding instead of removing. My fault Purplebackpack89 19:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. :) πr² (talk • changes) 19:57, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK

When someone undoes your edit, you discuss before you redo it. If you don't it is edit warring! I'd recommend you restore the edit or you will be reported for the offence. fr33kman 01:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Fr33kman here. You may not move your own hooks, regardless of who supports it. Additionally, hooks should be supported/approved by more than just one person before being moved. Generally we wait until we have three supports before moving it to a queue, sometimes two if it's been sitting for awhile. But definitely not within ten hours of the sole support. Either way (talk) 01:33, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

It was only that short? Thought it was longer than that. Also, I couldn't find that policy anywhere. Purplebackpack89 02:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

And fr33k, the reasoning for my edit was in the edit summary, which is usually significant. You must've missed it Purplebackpack89 02:58, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

undo

I recently undid your edit. While the state of Utah is predominately Mormon, and I'm sure that most decisions made by the government reflect the views of Mormons, that specific ref only mentions the government making that call. Unless you can find a source that says that the Mormon church agrees with the execution, I'm afraid it's going to have to stay out of the article. Griffinofwales (talk) 01:56, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I can understand why you did that; I was merely referencing the part of the piece that says that Utah using firing squads (in all firing squad executions, not just that one) comes from a belief in en:blood atonement, which I simplified to "if you do too many things the church doesn't like, you have to die". Utah's firing squad and blood atonement dates back to the days of the Utah Territory, at a time when the Utah government and the Mormon Church in Utah were one and the same. Did you get a chance to listen to the radio story that went along with it? It's quite interesting. Purplebackpack89 02:17, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Don't template the regulars....

Now you are being disruptive. I did not mean anything by my comments at DYK. We genuinely thought you didn't understand. It was discussed on IRC. Continue trying to make a point and you will probably encounter some issues. -DJSasso (talk) 23:28, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I doubt it. The point is, you need to cool down. Purplebackpack89 23:30, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you both? en:WP:TEA πr² (talk • changes) 23:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Doubt what? People are saying IRC right now that they still don't understand what you are trying to get at on that page. As for being uncivil, just because someone has a strong opinion doesn't mean they are being uncivil. Also you might want to read upon civility, its considered uncivil to tell someone they are being uncivil. You might want to calm down, I am perfectly cool. I come from Canada. -DJSasso (talk) 23:34, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

...that would explain why there's no civility template. As regard to the DYK, that's great. Just great. Purplebackpack89 23:42, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey

Hi! I saw you were running a User:Purplebackpack89/Purplebackpack Challenge Cup and wondered when it was going to be held (recommend 2 weeks to get enough interest). Even though the Stub Cup failed after a few weeks, it helped a bit and that's all that counts so I like the idea.

On another note, I wanted to apologize for blocking you a while ago. I was (not literally) another person, and my judgment has improved with time and a fairly long break from editing. Looking back on that time, RL events affected the decision. Please accept my sincere apology :)

Anyway, see you around. Yottie ^=talk= 20:50, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I accept your apology. I probably deserved it. It won't be held until we get at least 8-10 participants Purplebackpack89 21:34, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks :) I shall Sign up and wait till we have the required number to begin ;) Yottie ^=talk= 21:41, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

How will it be judged? πr² (talk • changes) 19:15, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

How may not the question...who, perhaps? Purplebackpack89 19:52, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Are you going to go through looking at every page on the lists, look at the contribs of each entrant, or have each entrant put the pages that they create, revert vandalism on, etc. on a list? πr² (talk • changes) 20:02, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

The second, and double-check to make sure they're telling the truth Purplebackpack89 20:55, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK Updating

Hi PBP,

When updating DYK, please make sure that you complete all of the steps listed in the instructions, including the archiving of the previous hooks and the talk page accreditation - it's not just moving a couple of pages.

If you do not think you can complete the required steps, I do politely suggest that you refrain from updating DYK as it creates more work for the rest of us and leaves an incomplete record.

Regards,

Goblin 17:14, 5 July 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Fr33kman!

(Thinks DYK is too bureaucratic). It was due; past due, really. Y'all could have updated it last night while I was celebrating the 4th. I'd have updated it earlier myself, but I wanted the American History DYK to be up on the 4th if possible Purplebackpack89 17:32, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Hardly. It took months to get to the system we have. It appears on the Main Page, we need to be accurate. I agree it was past due, but the rest of us have real lives too, you know. We also don't fix the articles that are appearing by delaying updates. But I don't see how any of this relates to my comment above about completing all of the steps - I re-iterate, if you can't complete them, don't update DYK. Goblin 17:38, 5 July 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Yottie!

I think I completed them Purplebackpack89 18:13, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Purplebackpack89. You have new messages at PiRSquared17's talk page.
Message added 21:31, 6 July 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

πr² (talk • changes) 21:31, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Stub cup 2010

Hi there Purplebackpack89! I've closed the stub cup and announced the winners. The winner is Either way, the second Sonia and the third PiRSquared17. I'd like to thank you for taking part in our stub cup! Keep up the good work! -Barras ^talk 09:36, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

re: CIVIL

Hello, Purplebackpack89. You have new messages at Bluegoblin7's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Goblin 15:58, 17 July 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Juliancolton!  

If you can recall ...

We agreed you'd remain calm regarding the Lincoln issue! Let's remember that, okay?! Feel free to partake, just relax a bit; it's only a webpage. fr33kman 16:50, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Goblin called me a liar! That's blatently wrong, and honestly blockable Purplebackpack89 17:05, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Personal attacks

This edit http://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Simple_talk&diff=prev&oldid=2313151 really borders on constituting a personal attack. You were already warned for it the other day, so please be careful about how what you say is perceived. I understand that how he read what you said is not what you intended, but it was a possible reading, so please assume good faith. You could end up being blocked again if there are any similar edits. Kansan (talk) 07:17, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Blocked

This is a bit of a slur towards a group of people. You have had a history of this kind of thing. Remember, in all things, comment on the edit or change, and not the editor. I'm willing to review this block if you promise to be more careful about this kind of thing. Otherwise, the block will expire on its own in eight hours time from the time of this writing. Thanks, Jon@talk:~$ 17:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, but the addition of "redneck" just today is where I find issue. Some people self identify as "rednecks" and are some of the most literate people... so, you do understand what I am getting at, and that you will be more careful in the future? Jon@talk:~$ 17:27, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I get it. What "history" are you referring to? (The redneck joke came first, it was up for a year, and nobody cared until Tele came along) Purplebackpack89 17:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Not necessarily. It's been up there for quite some time, and I only joined this wiki half a year ago, so of course I took no notice of it. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 17:31, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

We are done here. Jon@talk:~$ 17:32, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah...less points, more wiki-building Purplebackpack89 17:33, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Next time, WP:DTTR, except occasionally (that means me). :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 20:11, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Block

You have been blocked for 72 hours for violation of NPOV & CIVIL. fr33kman 21:35, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

This blocked user asked to be unblocked, but one or more administrators said no to this unblock request. Other administrators can also review this block, but should not unblock the user without a good reason. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Purplebackpack89/Archive_4 (contribs · deleted contribs · block log · filter log · global contribs)

---

Request reason:

No controversial edits since block earlier today

Decline reason:

This block is not for any particular edits. It is due to your attitude over the past few days in total. Exactly what fr33k said. Block keeps. --Barras ^talk 22:09, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Purplebackpack89 22:04, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Challenge cup

Hi! I have a question. I do not understand the bonuses section:

• +250 points if you can get a date or year to an article milestone
• +20 points for expanding or milestoning any article related to Boy Scouting (happy 100th!)
• +50 points for what I like to call the Thomas Edison bonus: A non-stub article at least once every ten days, plus an article milestone.

Could you explain? Thanks, Yottie ^=talk= 15:21, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Sure thing. When I say "article milestone", I mean DYK, GA, or VGA. (That term is often used on EN; but it hasn't been used much here. With regard to the points, you get the # of points you would normally get, plus a bonus Purplebackpack89 15:23, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, great, thanks! Yottie ^=talk= 15:26, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you know when it's going to start? Kansan (talk) 02:43, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

It has started (it started today). πr² (talk • changes) 02:45, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, today UTC...feel free to start a subpage, I'll fix the formatting in a little while Purplebackpack89 03:41, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Note

I think you need to take a step back and be prepared to discuss the issues you raise, instead of complaining about how people are acting. Do not tell me, or anyone else for that matter to get a life, that is rude. I was very polite. Please be mindful in the future. Otherwise, keep up the good work. Thanks, Jon@talk:~$ 15:29, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm honestly appalled that you all jump all over me when I said I was only a BIT concerned. If I had thought it was a major issue, I probably would have a) been more than a bit concerned; and b) voted "oppose" rather than "comment" Purplebackpack89 15:33, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Stop the hyperbole. Nobody jumped all over you, but sure, we did take the opportunity to discuss your concern. If you can't handle discussing your concern, then perhaps you might think next time before raising it. Remember, the key word is collaboration. Communication. Don't be upset if your in the minority, just be willing to discuss. Thanks, Jon@talk:~$ 15:42, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Hilo, Hawaii

I fixed the refs. Can I have the points back? πr² (talk • changes) 17:09, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Sure. P.S.: In the future, leave comments about the scoring on the Cup's talk page Purplebackpack89 17:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I will. πr² (talk • changes) 17:33, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

User talk:98.222.140.138

That's enough. Are you purposely trying to start an edit war? That's the third revision you've made so far. I explained as much in the edit summary; you're not supposed to bite the newcomers. And instead of helping the IP, you decide to attack me for erasing your template. We're supposed to be concentrated on assisting the IP editor, not whether I can erase your comment or not. And where does policy say that I can't do that? That's disruption. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 00:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

BITE a) doesn't apply in the same sense if they're vandals; and b) doesn't apply to boilerplate user warnings. What is disruption is removing another editors' comments on a talk page other than your own. See [here. Stop making trouble. Purplebackpack89 00:49, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

 (change conflict)  That editor was not vandalizing. I simply see a bit of testing. The other IP warned him as much, so why do you have to pile on the guilt? Yes it was biting, especially if you templated the regulars. Why do you insist on placing the template just to prove the point that I can't revert your TP template? Don't template the regulars and don't disrupt wikipedia just to prove a point. We're here to help the IP editor, not insult him as a vandal or place unnecessary templates on his talkpage when the other IP already made his point. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 00:56, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Tel might also be interested in the bolded words of the first sentence of en:WP:BLANKING. Either way, even if something is not specifically enumerated elsewhere, there is such a thing as common courtesy. If Tel had a problem with a perfectly legitimate, though perhaps superfluous warning, that PBP left on an IP talk page the appropriate course of action would to have been to bring it here first, as opposed to trying to communicate through revert summaries. Additionally to the above, I would like to make you both aware of the fact that you're getting close to 3RR and to discuss further edits you intend to make with regards to the talkpage in question. @Lauryn (parlez) 00:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

 (change conflict)  I've stopped reverting already, but Purplebackpack has continued to revert unheeded of the warnings I gave out. We're discussing it right now. Common courtesy says that he shouldn't bite the newcomers or disrupt Wikipedia to prove the point that I can't remove the warning on the IP's talkpage. (BTW, the first sentence of WP:Blanking says "Policy does not prohibit users, including both registered and anonymous users, from removing comments from their own talk pages, although archiving is preferred.") :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 01:02, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

And he's done none of that. Kindly stop beating a dead horse. The part of that page which I wanted you to take note of, which you apparently did not, was their own talk pages. It's perfectly acceptable to remove comments from your talk page that others place, but generally not from others talk pages unless the circumstances warrant it (e.g. vandalism). Now, let's all do as Griffin said and go work on something in article space. @Lauryn (parlez) 01:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

From what I can tell, the initial edit I made violated no policy, the removal of them does. the reversion of removal of content is most likely an exception to 3RR, and they should stay up. I am surprised that Tele is "concerned" about an IP that has made no good-faith edits, rather than trusting a boiler-plate warning from someone who has made thousands of them. Purplebackpack89 01:00, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Both of you, stop. Step away from this page, and go do something else (preferably in article space). Let's move on. I don't want any more comments. Griffinofwales (talk) 01:00, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Hamburger

We're not going through this again, are we? Stop adding the unsourced content that I specifically removed. Thank you. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 03:58, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

TeleComNasSprVen, you've already been told above to step away from this talk page for a while. Please do.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 04:04, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The revisions your edit is bookended by different significantly Purplebackpack89 04:32, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Note

The outcome of an administrative discussion has found:

Findings of fact

• Both User:TeleComNasSprVen and User:Purplebackpack89 have a propensity to be involved in disputes with each other.[1] [2]
• User:TeleComNasSprVen has on multiple occasions made problematic bot like edits, and administrative tasks, to the point where he has been warned multiple times. [3] [4]

Principle

• Editors must collaborate in a calm atmosphere with respect for each other.

Remedy

• User:TeleComNasSprVen and User:Purplebackpack89 are directed not to revert each other, even once.
• User:TeleComNasSprVen and User:Purplebackpack89 are directed not to interact with each other outside of article and project talk space, however, either is not limited to consensus building discussion within article talk and project talk space.
• User:TeleComNasSprVen is directed not to edit other users' userspace, excluding talk space.
• User:TeleComNasSprVen will not make repetitive changes so fast as to flood the recent changes.
• All remedies are effective for six months from today.
• Remedies are enforceable by blocking, for 24 hours, increasing 24 hours each event, up to a week.

Yours, Jon@talk:~$ 13:24, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Blocked

I have blocked you for 24 hours for this comment. It is an obvious attempt to comment on TeleComNasSprVen and goad him into conflict. You two are to stay away from each other as per the restrictions placed above. Your comment is in regards to something that happened over a week ago. To bring it up now, after the restrictions have been placed, show that you desire to draw conflict. Because of this, I have blocked you for 24 hours. Please disengage from commenting on him even in veiled ways like this. Thank you, Either way (talk) 17:30, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Either, that is clearly not about NonvocalScream and about the removed comment made on my talk page this morning! The block was completely uncalled for, hence the unblock template below Purplebackpack89 19:39, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

You are talking, in the second part of the comment, about "rogue edits" made to your challenge cup page by TeleComNasSprVen. That comment has nothing to do with NVS's edit to your talk page and all to do with TeleComNasSprVen's edits. Either way (talk) 19:44, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

We don't know that they were made by TelCom. A one-day block for a good-faith comment by restrictions that I barely even got to read is utterly ridiculous. Purplebackpack89 19:47, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, the restrictions make no comment about third-party pages. If one of us thinks the other's edits are out of line, he should clearly have the right to mention it on AN or an admin's talk page. 19:50, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Unblock

This blocked user asked to be unblocked, but one or more administrators said no to this unblock request. Other administrators can also review this block, but should not unblock the user without a good reason. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Purplebackpack89/Archive_4 (contribs · deleted contribs · block log · filter log · global contribs)

---

Request reason:

That was a reference to NonvocalScream's edits on my talk page this morning, not to anybody else

Decline reason:

You specifically mention the edits being on your Challenge Cup page which you had to revert which was a week ago... -- DJSasso (talk) 19:39, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments for AN: Somebody copy these to AN

The editing restrictions don't really delineate a ban on talking about the other on third-party sources, such as other user's talk pages (though apparantly not AN, as I have been criticized as "asisine" there). However, it has been interpreted as such (even for my edit that really didn't have anything to do with him), hence why both of us are blocked right now. I propose interpretation as such be stopped. It seems perfectly reasonable to come to another user if you have an issue with something but can't do anything to edit it Purplebackpack89 20:05, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

blocked

You have been blocked for a period of 48 hours for violating the interaction ban terms here. Please review the terms and come back in 48 hours. I don't want any excuses. Griffinofwales (talk) 21:51, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

This blocked user asked to be unblocked, but one or more administrators said no to this unblock request. Other administrators can also review this block, but should not unblock the user without a good reason. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Purplebackpack89/Archive_4 (contribs · deleted contribs · block log · filter log · global contribs)

---

Request reason:

block clearly deliniates that it does not apply to talkspace involving improvement of pages

Decline reason:

As long as you two stay on topic and not degrade into bickering with each other. Seriously, ignore each other. If he comments, don't reply. -- DJSasso (talk) 00:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

It's becoming harder and harder to avoid him. DJ, I clearly didn't violate the letter of the restrictions. Spirit, maybe. Letter, no Purplebackpack89 00:20, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

This blocked user asked to be unblocked, but one or more administrators said no to this unblock request. Other administrators can also review this block, but should not unblock the user without a good reason. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Purplebackpack89/Archive_4 (contribs · deleted contribs · block log · filter log · global contribs)

---

Request reason:

see above, never violated letter of restrictions. At least knock it down to 24 hours

Decline reason:

Blocks increase in duration, seeing as how this is your second block for this, 48hours is appropriate. Please take DJSasso's advice. @Lauryn (parlez) 00:23, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I won't touch this one since I already made my call on this one, I will let another admin. Believe me I feel bad for you, I was going to block TeleCom myself because he is clearly trying to push your buttons and hound your edits. I really really suggest that you ignore him, let him make himself look like an idiot. That way we don't have to do this to you. -DJSasso (talk) 00:22, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I've been trying to do that, but it's getting harder and harder. My every edit is hounded or tagged to oblivion Purplebackpack89 00:27, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I know, and I too feel bad for you. Please try to ignore him in the future, if he continues to try and provoke you, one of us will deal with it. Just don't reply to him. @Lauryn (parlez) 00:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Exactly if he continues he will find he ends up with a lot more stringent block than what these editing restrictions provide, because it will have moved on from being simple incivility to outright harassment. -DJSasso (talk) 00:36, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Cup

Hi there! Do you still update the cup? I'm just curious since my subpage hasn't been checked in a while. Best, -Barras (talk) 08:50, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

In good time, Barras. In good time. I probably should update it this week. The thing is, after I update it, I'll need to poke Griff and the others who haven't mentioned anything Purplebackpack89 14:53, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Purplebackpack89/Purplebackpack Challenge Cup

What are the rules of the cup and when you started it? Nataly8 (talk) 05:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Rules are on the Cup page. It started three weeks ago. By the way "when you started it" doesn't make sense in English for some reason, usually one would say "when did you start it" Purplebackpack89 06:00, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Can I take part on this cup? Nataly8 (talk) 06:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I guess. Sign your name under participants and copy the contents of this page here. Take part in, BTW Purplebackpack89 06:05, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

 Done Thanks. Seems very interesting. I will compete with second group? How you will check my changes? Good luck to everyone! Nataly8 (talk) 06:10, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, for the articles you can see my user page. How you will check my changes? Nataly8 (talk) 15:40, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

If the articles you created, expanded, referenced, or reverted vandalism on are on the lists we're using in the rules, you place a diff in the appropriate category of the Challenge Cup subpage I had you create Purplebackpack89 15:47, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I "work" here for 20 days, I started 6 (or more) big pages, I completed 6 articles (2 of them more than 10 KB, the second I completed it with 50 KB). I reverted many changes. How I will complete my "cup" page? Every day? Nataly8 (talk) 15:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Can you have a look to my subpage? Nataly8 (talk) 16:27, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

What means not in the list? Nataly8 (talk) 18:28, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Did you read the rules? Purplebackpack89 19:17, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I put and other information now in my subpage. Can you check them also? Nataly8 (talk) 18:32, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I wrote some articles of the list. I put them in my subpage. Can you check them please? I am looking your list now. Nataly8 (talk) 19:18, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

History of the United States

Good article, but it have some problems. We don't have template about cite article and it still have some red links. I think you have to fix those problems. After, it will became a VGA or GA. Good luck. Nataly8 (talk) 09:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't see those as problems. I see no rule against citing articles; feel free to point out such a rule. Also, for GA, the criteria says "not many". Two redlinks in an 80+KB article is clearly "not many" Purplebackpack89 15:15, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, glad to see the article in GA. I think to propose Aang but I have to do some simplification (again). I think that if the article became GA, you can propose it for VGA. Nataly8 (talk) 15:17, 31 August 2010 (UTC)