User talk:Olahus

Archives: 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009

What are exactly the sources for the numbers of Roma in Romania throughout time? Kenshin (talk) 10:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 10, which includes these articles:

• News and notes: Commons, conferences, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Politics, more politics, and more
• Dispatches: 100 Featured sounds milestone
• Wikiproject report: WikiProject Christianity
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 00:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Signpost — 16 March 2009

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 23:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 04:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Olahus, wondered if you could source the book in question to get some background on the person portrayed. It would be a pity for the image to be deleted if avoidable. Kindest Regards. RashersTierney (talk) 12:37, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First of all you are right, I should have left a message on your talk page. I was a little busy yesterday, and I hope you understand the delay.

The map lumps together areas with different geographical meaning:

1. Northern Moldavian Hills, Dniester Ridge (Dniester-Rāut Ridge), Bălţi Steppe, and Middle Prut Valley are gathered together into Bălţi-steppe, which is not correct, because lowland and easy hills on one side and step hills on the other, should not be.

2. Ciuluc-Soloneţ Hills, Corneşti Hills, western part of Lower Dniester Hills, and northern part of Tigheci Hills are lumped together into Codrii, which again is not correct first because it splits Lower Dniester Hills and Tigheci Hills, second because Codri (one i) is the Romanian name for forests, not for hills. Kodry was a Russian name given by the Soviets to the area. They have no such hills in Russia, and the Soviet tourists did not know that codru=forest, so for the consumer Soviet tourist unknowledgeable of the geography of the country it might have seemed as if it was meant the hills, when in fact it was only meant the forests. Cordi, i.e. the forests nowadays only cover 20-25% of the area. If one says I want to see the Codri, a local, regardless of the native language, would understand the tourist wants to see the forests, not the hills. Therefore, one should not designate the whole area as Codri, but rather as its 4 geographic components.

3. Lower Prut Valley, Bugeac Plain, eastern part of Lower Dniester Hills, and central and southern part of Tigheci Hills are lumped together as Bugeac-steppe. Again, hills and plains should not be lumped together.

4. part of Podolian Plateau and part of Eurasian Steppe are lumped together as Transnistrian plateau, a name that never appeared before. Also the plateau (in the north), even easy one as this, is quite different from the very flat steppe (in the south).

I would suggest to create a new map, using google maps, NASA freely-available maps, or smth like that. Here you can find a table with these areas and the surface area, in km^2, they occupy. Unfortunately, I do not have software capable of making maps, but I would be very glad to help with anything. Dc76\^talk 10:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your answer. As I said, the biggest problem I have is I cannot create maps. So if you can, please do. I will point out if some details are incorrect. Dc76\^talk 14:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 20:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Olahus, it seems we both had the same idea and worked on improved versions for this map. I had just uploaded my new version when you uploaded yours. Would you mind if we leave mine as the new version? It is more detailed in some aspects. Thanks, Capmo (talk) 15:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 19:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 16:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - requests for page protection changes should be made at WP:RFPP, not the edit-warring notaceboard. Thanks, Black Kite 22:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delivered by SoxBot II (talk) at 19:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't send me false warnings, there was a concensus for the definition, there was never concensus for the strange looking map. (I see people rather opposing it on the talk page.) Please continue the discussion on the relevant talk page, not on mine. Thank you. Squash Racket (talk) 18:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I answered in your talk page. --Olahus (talk) 16:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delivered by SoxBot II (talk) at 04:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The entire article needs rewriting, not as much because it fails to present "negative" aspects in Romani life (though admittedly it does), but mainly because it fails to mention important phenomenons, and, while parts of it tend to veer away from neutrality the Romani advocacy way, the text is actually in part polluted by antiziganist claims. A middle ground is needed, and that middle ground is determined not by adding up positive and negative facts we interpret, but by citing the conclusions of reliable sources. That said, your additions cited two newspaper articles, both of them taken out of context and used for sourcing things they do not actually say. Now, if the Cotidianul article is pure trivia taken out of context to source a generic conclusion, the EVZ one could still be cited, but not for what you used it - while it says something about a Romani initiative to offer more kindergarten access, and explains why some Romani families don't want to have their children educated at that level (which is equally true for thousands of Romanian families, and therefore irrelevant), the entire argument about "positive discrimination" etc. is not in any way reflected in the source.

And, btw: you do realize embedded links have to be copyedited, because wikipedia articles are not posts on a forum. You would really be helping everybody by formatting the embedded links with something descriptive and in accordance to standards (author, title, publication, publication date....). Dahn (talk) 18:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A paragraph on Romani education was something that I indented to add (but I've abandoned the idea like so many others because of lack of time), because, despite the apparences, the situation has improved quite a lot in this area. Kenshin (talk) 08:35, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See this, please (both): Roma_minority_in_Romania#How_can_we_improve_this_article.3F Kenshin (talk) 10:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 22:10, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 13:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Hungarian-Romanian War of 1919 and Hungarian Soviet Republic.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 22:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because Russian authorities have been claiming "discrimination" ever since the Soviet Union fell. It started during the Intermovement era as concern trolling, and over a few years grew into full-scale accusations.

Ethnic discrimination never was a significant problem in Republic of Estonia. Partially because it wasn't a problem in the first era of independence. As you may or may not know, Estonia has been welcoming for ethnic and cultural minorities since very beginning, to the point that the Declaration of Independence is titled Manifest to all peoples of Estonia, and on its very first page -- item number 2, even before general human rights, in fact --, it promised ethnic and cultural authorities to minorities, particularly mentioning Russians, Germans, Swedes and Jews. The only item higher than this was the promise of equal protection under law, "faith, ethnicity and political outlook notwithstanding". And it might be that in some small part, officials have been slightly more aware about the potential for discrimination because of the accusations, and have thus been more careful when dealing with subjects where there's even a risk of such discrimination.

Unfortunately, Russian authorities have been "encouraging" Russian people in Estonia to find things that they could interpret as discrimination. Naturally, most Russian people are decent, reasonable folks and don't think that when, say, a car mechanic doesn't speak Russian very well, it must demonstrate anti-Russian discrimination, or that when one can't pay a bar tab in Russian roubles, it must be anti-Russian discrimination, or that when a person who speaks Russian but neither Estonian, Finnish or English is not hired to tender a bar in the tourist area of Tallinn, it must be anti-Russian discrimination. But the small minority who *do* think such things can occassionally be loud, and when it's politically convenient, Russian media will be sure to lend it a megaphone to boot.

As for Russians outside Estonia -- again, most of them are decent, reasonable folks --, some, very unfortunately, tend to accept the megaphoned accusations by Russia's state-controlled media. When the incidents have been mangled in this way, you wouldn't know that it was about a car mechanic not speaking Russian; you might instead think that the car mechanic beat up a customer for speaking Russian, or that there's an unspoken policy of not hiring Russophone people as bartenders in Tallinn. It's nonsense, but it keeps up the hopes and dreams of people who like to imagine that they're being discriminated against, and it maintains a dog-whistle politics meaning of the word "discrimination", as it is used in this context. This is why there are no "Discrimination of ..." articles for any other regions: it doesn't have the dog-whistle quality, so elsewhere, everybody concerned is quite content to discuss ethnic, religious or political discrimination under "Human rights ..." titles.

Naturally, all this can be backed by reliable sources, so an encyclopædic article *could* be written about it. But as you can see, I have enough on my wikiplate already, and I'm not particularly keen to open a new can of wikiworms. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 07:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A common trick is to sow confusion between the concepts of person who can speak Russian and person who can only speak Russian. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 08:12, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know the problem. In the past, I had similar disputes with Russian users concerning Bessarabia, Transnistria, Moldova, the Moldovan "identity" (it's nothing but Stalinism), the "Eastern Slavic majority in Transnistria" (as if the Eastern Slavs were an ethnic group) etc. --Olahus (talk) 16:11, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Salut Olahus,

I prefer the Hungarian names rather than their official names because i am Hungarian. Are you astonished now? --Nmate (talk) 14:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 11:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. We have a request filed at the Romanian Wikipedia from a user named Olahus2, who wants to usurp your username (I'm supposing you are the same person who opened the account Olahus on ro.wp). I noticed that you still haven't unified your account. My question is whether you intend to have a unified login and whether you would accept this other person to use your name on ro.wp.

From a copyright viewpoint, the usurpation seems acceptable (if you agree with it, or if you don't say anything for 7 days), because you only have a minor edit in the ro.wp article namespace (and a comment in a talk page). However, I think it's preferable for users to have the same name on all projects, and since Olahus2 cannot usurp your name on en.wp, it follows that he cannot have the name Olahus on all Wikimedia project, and as such he should think of a name that hasn't been taken yet.

Here is the request: ro:Wikipedia:Schimbarea numelui de utilizator. Please let me know how you want this to be done. Thanks. — AdiJapan 16:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please disregard the message above. I thought there were two different active users with the same name on ro.wp and en.wp. — AdiJapan 13:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:14, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Please don't just blindly change Moldavian to Romanian. There's at least three editors (myself included) who think that it should read Moldavian. We've got a thread open on Talk:Sofia Rotaru#Romanian vs Moldavian if you want to discuss potentially changing that. Thanks. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 17:27, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain your edits on the talk page? All you said was "this issue is closed now." But it isn't - you're the only one pushing for that change. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:08, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain why it should be readed "Moldavian" instead of "Romanian". Which point of view it actually? Sofia Rotaru's ? I doubt it. There is also no consensus to use the designation "Moldavian". --Olahus (talk) 14:16, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delivered by -- Tinu Cherian BOT - 12:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC) [reply]

I have reported the ongoing issues with User:Erikupoeg - [here]. Thank you for your participation.--Rubikonchik (talk) --Rubikonchik (talk) 22:11, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 05:29, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 04:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:25, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Olahus. Could you provide an alternative image, preferably where the Romani people concerned have publicly self-identified as being of this ethnicity/background? Otherwise what we have is liable to removal per WP:BLP policy. If you wouldn't mind, perhaps you could reply at Talk:Romani people. Thanks. RashersTierney (talk) 10:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Why not. --Olahus (talk) 14:43, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:33, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen you removed the Stanford's 1878 Ethnic composition map of the Balkans from the Balkan's article. This map is of historical significance since upon that map the Congress of Berlin created Bulgaria as a state in 1878 and shaped her borders. I also noticed that you also removed it from any other article of wikipedia including the very article of the Berlin's Congress by saying that it is wrong. Wikipedia is not judging an historical document as it is a 1878 map as right or wrong, especially a map upon a treaty was determined. WP works with references, documents and facts, leaving the reader to judge for himself what is right and what is wrong. So if you have censuses that denying what the map is picturing, you have to put them into the articles, with the necessary references. My opinion is that in the Balkan's article is better to avoid such maps because I believe that a day will come when the article will have 20 or 30 of them. But since for the time being had only one, of somewhat pro-Bulgarian view showing even eastern Thrace having a Bulgarian majority, it is good to give also a second opinion about, from a very well known cartographer of the era, enough serious as to influence a major treaty. Regards, --Factuarius (talk) 02:19, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have answered your post in my talk page, there. --Factuarius (talk) 10:48, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cannot understand your msg, plz restate it in more understandable form. --Factuarius (talk) 14:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My answer and any other future answer is (and will be) in my talk page. --Factuarius (talk) 17:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found this map which is surprisely yours and as for the Serbia is almost identical with Stanford's map. There are some traces of Germans almost negligible (unlike your bold circles) and shows both Bosnia and Croatia being populated by Serbs as Stanford's. Also shows no traces of Hungarians and Germans in the part of Romania that the Stanford's map covers. Surprisely the common areas of the two maps are more or less identical, which is a rather rare phenomenon for Balkan ethnological maps, so I would like to ask you if this map is also wrong. And if so, why you bothered to download it? --Factuarius (talk) 00:14, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The maps are by far not identical. I cropped the two maps, so that you can easily compare them:

• 
  Kiepert
• 
  Stanford
• 
  Kiepert
• 
  Stanford

As you can see, they are major differences. The legend for Kiepert's map can be seen here: green for Croato-Serbians, blue for Romanians, red for Germans, white for Hungarians.--Olahus (talk) 19:35, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trebuie vorbit cu cine se pricepe la asa ceva sa se creeze odata articolul despre Banatul de Severin. Am vazut destui tampiti care iau de buna faza cu Oltenia = Banatul de Severin, probabil dupa harti vechi si proaste, si nu vor sa recunoasca faptele si adevarul. Chiar acum pe commons sunt niste harti cu Bulgaria in a doua jumatate a secolului al 13lea in care Oltenia apare ca fiind dominata de bulgari, si alta in care scrie ca Tara Romaneasca a fost sub dominatie bulgara pana 1322 (le-o fi ciuda bulgarilor pe maghiari?). Partea proasta e ca prostiile astea apar aici prin articole si lumea le ia de bune. Cei care le fac sunt incapatanati ca niste catari si nu vor sa recunoasca dominatia maghiara din 1241 cel putin. Nu ai gasit nicio harta mai detaliata a Banatului de Severin? --Alex:D (talk) 19:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Le-am trecut in mesajul de mai sus, dar uite-le din nou:

• File:BG1257-77.jpg
• File:Bulgaria-Theodore_Svetoslav.png
• File:Bulgaria-second half of the 13th century.png --Alex:D (talk) 21:14, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nu sunt prostii deloc. Bulgarii au fost candva vecin cu ungurii, ungurii au luptat mai mult cu bulgarii decat cu turcii. Nandorfehervar, numele vechi al Belgradului provine dela bulgarii(nandorok in ungureste). Oltenia a fost banat unguresc, sub numele de banatul severinului, intr-adevar dupa Mohacs a o parte a fost atasata judetului Krasso(Caras), exact cum s-a intamplat in cazul judetului Bihar dupa 1920 ... partea ramasa Ungariei a fost lipit cu judetul Hajdu ... + Bulgarii nu au fost vecini cu sarbii, proto-romanii le desparteau ... --fz22 (talk) 22:03, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vezi de treabă. În primul rând că Banatul de Severin se oprea în vestul Olteniei. La 1247 pe lângă acest teritoriu, în Oltenia mai erau Litovoi, Farkas şi Ioan, care - ce să vezi - plăteau tribut regelui maghiar. În 1277 sau când a vrut Litovoi să ocupe Haţegul, tot regelui maghiar îi plătea tribut, iar Bărbat l-a plătit şi el la rândul lui, după 1279. Nici picior de stăpânire bulgară acolo. În 1317 Basarab I are ceva treabă prin Mehadia, unde intervine într-un conflict între mai mulţi nobili unguri, iar până în 1324 a plătit tribut către regele maghiar. Treaba cu suzeranitatea bulgară în Oltenia şi apoi în toată Ţara Românească după marea invazie din 1241 cel puţin şi până în 1322 este o falsificare grosolană a faptelor istorice. Ce-ar fi să mă apuc să fac şi eu hărţi de genul ăsta şi să spun că prin Vidin, Craina şi pe unde mai erau grupuri de români la sudul Dunării exista o suzeranitate a voievozilor din viitoarea Ţară Românească? --Alex:D (talk) 21:06, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ai dreptate, eu ma refeream la banatul severinului = Oltenia ... --fz22 (talk) 09:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nu stiu daca exista niste studii pe tema granitei dinspre Oltenia a Banatului de Severin. Stiu ca citind lucrari mai ample despre Mircea cel Batran am gasit niste danii de pe urma carora se deducea ca anumite sate apartinand de manastiri au fost in Banatul de Severin, deoarece cand Radu I a pierdut Banatul a trebuit sa schimbe satele sau nu le-a mai pomenit pe cele vechi. Oricum, ceva trebuie sa existe. As sugera sa existe pe harta o zona cu nuanta din ce in ce mai slaba, nu o granita stricta. --Alex:D (talk) 10:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC)--Alex:D (talk) 10:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Avand in vedere ca granitele nu sunt nicaieri clar definite, cred ca e singura optiune acceptabila. --Olahus (talk) 13:35, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Au astia ce au cu Oltenia. --Alex:D (talk) 13:34, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@fzz: Vad ca ai incarcat aceasta si aceasta harta. Surse independente vorbesc insa de alte frontiere (vezi aici). Iar in ceea ce priveste a doua harta, zona hasurata prezinat o oarecare favorizare nejustificata a habsburgilor si o defavorizare a otomanilor (dungi maro groase, dungi gri subtiri). --Olahus (talk) 13:44, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apropo de hărţile privind bulgarii, o referire la ceea ce vorbiţi voi aici, găsiţi în vol. III al cărţii "Viata Sfântului Nicodim de la Tismana" de la Editura online Semănătorul. La paginile 21-22 (fişier)/96-97 carte, se gasesc detalii despre istoricul bulgar şi o trimitere la o hartă a lui. In paginile următoare referiri la Banatul Severinului iar la sfârşit o hartă cu banatele cnezatele si voievodatele din sec. XIII-XIV. Scrieţi autorului pentru un format mai mare a harţii la wiki română user tomoniu. Trebuie citite întâi ultimele capitole din carte iată link-ul aici Alegeti vol III Nu am cont aici ca sa ma identific89.37.62.33 (talk) 07:39, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

check this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Terratransalpina.png --fz22 (talk) 21:52, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

check this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Terratransalpina.png --fz22 (talk) 21:52, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I suggest adding Juscelino Kubitschek to your picture of famous Roma, since he's the only person of that ethnicity to have become a head of state, as far as I know. Plus, it has the benefit of illustrating the important Romani community in Brazil, which is little known. For more details, check this page in Portuguese (cigano is the translation for Romani). Missionary (talk) 00:07, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lumifram (talk) 20:16, 9 September 2009 (UTC) Roma correction I noticed that there is a "typo" issue here: Instead of "Romanian" it should show "Roma". The typo creates a lot of confusion.[reply]

The wp article about him says that he is of czech descent. --Olahus (talk) 14:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Olahus,

I'm sorry you didn't like the map I made about the Treaty of Trianon. I have seen you deleted it. I imagine that it may hurt your feelings as we are all sensitive about our history especially if it concerns such heated topic as nationalities. Anyways, I'm not here to argue with you. Have a good day. --Bizso (talk) 00:47, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is a mistake. I answered in your talk page, Bizso. --Olahus (talk) 07:38, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Buna ziua, ma numesc Mihai si sunt pasionat de istoria Romaniei. As vrea sa va intreb daca ma puteti lamuri si pe mine cum pot face harti? In cazul in care doriti sa imi dati o mana de ajutor adresa mea de messenger este tyras1980@yahoo.com Va multumesc! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyras1980 (talk • contribs) 18:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should brake your proposal into three parts. I believe they oppose only one of the three. Anyway, the 3 deal with 3 different details. Related, but different. Propose in the talk page, and allow a few days for discussions, comments. Be ready to make counterproposals, small amendments, etc. Dc76\^talk 15:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know for sure that the Harghita Mountains' name was given before the county? Do you have a reference? Nergaal (talk) 19:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I will answer in your talk page. --Olahus (talk) 19:49, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I will submit the page soon to wp:FL and I wanted to make sure the information is correct. Nergaal (talk) 20:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've never asked you this (as far as I can remember), but are you all right with me reestablishing the original colors (whitening) of old yellow-turned maps? You've never said anything to me against it but I just wanted to make shure. --Alex:D (talk) 21:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So?[1] --Factuarius (talk) 21:27, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I answered in your talk page. Best regards! --Olahus (talk) 13:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]