Please don't be mean to me, I'm the new guy! I'll try to be good, but if I haven't been, please leave me a note. Curious bystander ( talk) 17:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
I see you attached a toolong tag, and someone reverted. If you expand the FAQ at the top of the talk page Talk:Barack Obama, question #3 regards article size. It points out that the 60K limit is for main body content, and we're well within that limit. What makes the markup version so long with so many bytes is all the references. That's considered okay. Our mission is to make it a good article for the reader, not the editor. We editors just have to suffer with all those citations. (note - I revised the answer slightly before pointing it out to you). It probably could be trimmed here and there, but the editor who reverted you probably agrees with the FAQ that the problem isn't so bad that it needs the tag and the more urgent action that implies. Hope that helps. Wikidemo ( talk) 00:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
That has to be one of the most impressive pictures I have ever seen. Thank you for sharing it with us. Die4Dixie ( talk) 00:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters, please stop edit-warring on the Barack Obama article. Take it to the Talk page and reach consensus before making these edits. I have been watching this page for weeks and WB74, while troublesome, is not entirely to blame for the acrimony there. You haven't been entirely civil yourself. Curious bystander ( talk) 23:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
My edits have "largely consisted" of articles about homosexuality and the history of GLBT rights (and the oppression of sexually unorthodox people) in America. A review of his history shows that LotLE has been blocked several times, and warned numerous times, for his failure to adhere to WP:CIV. I'm not a sockpuppet, and I resent the accusation. If you feel strongly about it, and that you have sufficient evidence to support it, there's a way to resolve it. But Floridianed is right; I've only restored material added by WB74 once, and it was because LotLE was edit-warring — in violation of another policy. Curious bystander ( talk) 15:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Please self-revert your last edit immediately. You have replaced comments that have previously been removed at the request of an administrator. MY response was placed in the correct section ("involved editors") and I do not appreciate you singling it out in an edit summary. -- Scjessey ( talk) 15:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
(ec) Please consider self-reverting this edit, [2] which reverts material removed by a couple editors as being out-of-process in the RfC. WorkerBee74, after stating his case, asked that further RfC discussion be limited to people who had not previously edited the article. Although dubious, that request was initially honored by all but WorkerBee, who responded a couple times. Three editors removed his subsequent comments, and asked if he objected - he has not (see User talk:WorkerBee74). Subsequently, some editors began commenting in a separate section created for involved users. If WorkerBee74 wishes to complain he can; and if he wants to comment in the "involved" user area he can too. Your reinserting his comments in the "uninvolved" section and adding yours there will likely cause the process to break down. Therefore, please remove his comments again, and if you wish to comment add your own in the "uninvolved" section. Thanks, Wikidemo ( talk) 15:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Nobody "participated anyway" except WorkerBee74 himself, [3] whose edits were removed, then Looneymonkey, whose comments were quickly put into a new section for "previously involved editors", [4] and now you. By restoring WorkerBee's comments against the wishes of at least three other editors (without, I note, restoring a complaint about them [5]) you're gaming the system and breaking down whatever process there had been. You triggered a revert war on the RfC talk page in the process. Your edits and WorkerBee's stand as the only two substantive breaches of the request - and now mine in response to the obvious breakdown in process. Further, in the middle of the RfC you're now accusing two editors of "bullying" over this matter [6] - please refactor that comment at once. If you're going to participate on such an important page, please be more more careful to avoid clashing with other editors. If you want to be argumentative about process, this is not a good page to do that. Thanks, Wikidemo ( talk) 16:48, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
I wanted to ask you what you mean by this comment in one of your last posts [7]:
...adding some real criticism.
Please do not take this an attack or anything, but I would like to know what you mean by adding some "real" criticism? Brothejr ( talk) 17:47, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi Curious bystander,
Thanks for the compliment. I think I'll just keep my background info where it is though, partly because I'm on one side of this. I'm concerned about a comment you put on the page that I think is turning up the heat too much: Since the consensus vote seemed carefully timed to occur during WB74's block, it's obvious (at least to me) that he was deliberately excluded. We've had a lot of problems keeping cool on that page, and it would really help if we try to stay away from comments that don't focus on the proposed inclusion and are directed at editors' past conduct. That comment won't help us get to any consensus and it will just make editors less likely to be flexible about their own opinions. Would you please redact it? I think it would help a lot. Noroton ( talk) 19:54, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Please note that I have added this account as a party to the ArbCom report filed by 74.94.99.17. You may find the discussion here: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Barack Obama. Additionally, I really would appreciate it if you could remove your accusatory comments from the Barack Obama talk page, and desist from unarchiving the WP:RfC on that page. RfC is a preliminary dispute resolution step, with WP:RFAR being the final step. Now that there is an arbitration request, there is nothing to be gained by further discussing the same issue on the article talk page. Wikidemo ( talk) 19:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi - It seems from this thread above that you're a little confused about the role of admins here. In content disputes, admins have no more authority than any other editor. In particular, my participation at the talk:Barack Obama page is as an editor - with no more (but no less) authority than any other editor (admins generally have a lot of experience editing here, so tend to know the ropes). I'm certainly willing to give advice if asked, but admins have no authority to resolve disputes. The mechanisms for resolving content disputes are discussed at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. -- Rick Block ( talk) 01:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
1. [8]
2. [9]
3. [10]
4. [11]
I'll ask MastCell to put a similar note here. Noroton ( talk) 00:24, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Added 3 & 4. Cheers, Noroton ( talk) 03:54, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Regarding your invitation here, Kossack4Truth is topic banned from Barack Obama, including ANI. I suggest just self-reverting the invitation, although you don't have to. Regarding the ANI thread itself, many people won't read it because it's just too long.-- chaser - t 17:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
They closed that thread within something like 24 hours after it opened, so didn't really have a chance to comment. I did add one comment anyway since I didn't realize it was closed at the time. Anyway, I'll just say that admin action is highly unlikely to help here because to fully appreciate the problem would mean fully appreciating the content disputes as well and admins just don't have the time and interest for that. This Abd user sounds extremely reasonable and you're fortunate to have gotten as much attention as he's given to you, in fact, given how summarily most admins operate, and it's likely out of respect for the number of hours you spent putting together your AN/I report (note that one person didn't read any of what you compiled, and instead just looked at your edit count, as if that's all they needed to know about the merits of your complaint). Your best bet is to try to argue on the Talk pages and just go ahead and edit, consistent with Wikipedia policies. Make sure you are familiar with WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and WP:NOTABLE. If you happen to agree with the soundness of my edits, for example, you'd better serve me, and more importantly them (the edits), by speaking up for them on the Talk page or supporting them by editing actions than by trying to get an admin to help. If an admin just looks at something superficial (e.g. that user that just counted your career edit count) God only knows what that admin might conclude such that the admin might actually take the other side which would, of course, just make matters worse. This isn't to suggest that you were incorrect to suspect that nothing short of an admin action will ultimately overcome the obstacles created by LotE (and Scjessey). Bdell555 ( talk) 22:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps you fail to understand: I mad e the revert initially after WorkerBee made an edit BEFORE consensus was reached. I was reverting UNTIL we had consensus on HIS edit, not mine. The version I keep reverting to is the original. I won't make any more reverts, but if you're gonna template me, template WorkerBee too. He started it. Wikilost ( talk) 20:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
(this one is, or should be exempt from WP:DTTR) -
Also, since you felt compelled to leave a warning for Wikilost about the 1RR rule, I might point out that this is a case of "physician heal thyself." He made exactly as many reverts as you did (which is two). -- Loonymonkey ( talk) 21:22, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
This edit [12] is edit warring - your fourth revert in just over a day, three times over the same material. [13] [14] [15] In addition, the edit summary (in part, "why does this garbage keep getting shoveled back into the article?") is unduly confrontational. You are aware of the article probation and the need to avoid edit warring. Please stop. Thanks, Wikidemo ( talk) 23:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Here (and also, if possible, here?) Justmeherenow ( ) 05:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Because my participation as a Wikipedia editor has been questioned, and if I continue as I have in the past, I can expect future challenges as well, I have begun a standing RfC in my user space, at User:Abd/RfC. There is also a specific incident RfC at User:Abd/RfC/8.11.08 block. I understand that you may not have time to participate directly; however, if you wish to be notified of any outcome from the general or specific RfC, or if you wish to identify a participant or potential participant as one generally trusted by you, or otherwise to indicate interest in the topic(s), please consider listing yourself at User:Abd/RfC/Proxy Table, and, should you so decide, naming a proxy as indicated there. Your designation of a proxy will not bind you, and your proxy will not comment or vote for you, but only for himself or herself; however, I may consider proxy designations in weighing comment in this RfC, as to how they might represent the general community. You may revoke this designation at any time. This RfC is for my own guidance as to future behavior and actions, it is advisory only, upon me and on participants. This notice is going to all those who commented on my Talk page in the period between my warning for personal attack, assumptions of bad faith, and general disruption, on August 11, 2008, until August 20, 2008. This is not a standard RfC; because it is for my advice, I assert authority over the process. However, initially, all editors are welcome, even if otherwise banned from my Talk space or from the project. Canvassing is permitted, as far as I'm concerned; I will regulate participation if needed, but do not spam. Notice of this RfC may be placed on noticeboards or wikiprojects, should any of you think this appropriate; however, the reason for doing this in my user space is to minimize disruption, and I am not responsible for any disruption arising from discussion of this outside my user space. Thanks for considering this. -- Abd ( talk) 02:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I have blocked you for 24 hours for edit warring on Barak Obama. Repeatedly re-inserting the same contentious paragraph, against consensus on the talk page, and in spite of the fact that the article is under article probabtion. When the block expires, please review, again, our policies on WP:Edit warring, WP:Consensus, and the provisions of Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation. -- barneca ( talk) 21:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
These kinds of provocations violate article Obama article probation. [16] [17] [18] You have just come off a block for your behavior there. The featured article review you filed in response to not getting your way in the edit war were of quesitonable good faith. Please desist. Wikidemon ( talk) 19:21, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
I have carefully reviewed your contributions, and believe the best course is to topic ban you from Barack Obama, Talk:Barack Obama, and related articles (broadly construed) until November 5, 2008. You are not to edit those articles, or participate on their talk pages. I believe I have the authority to do this based on Talk:Barack Obama/article probation.
I have taken this action for the following reasons:
If only one or two of these things were true, I would not be implementing this topic ban; it is the combination of all of them together that makes your behavior cross the line to disruptive.
If, when the topic ban expires, you wish to re-engage productively, you will be welcome to do so. If you resume being disruptive, the topic ban will be extended indefinitely. Violation of the topic ban will lead to your account being blocked.
Because this is the first time I have topic banned anyone under article probation, I will be opening a thread at WP:ANI for a review of my actions. You may, of course, participate in that thread. -- barneca ( talk) 01:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
(copied from my talk page; I'm going to archive soon, and not sure if you saw the response or not)
Unlike many other Wikipedians, I do not have the time to homestead here, so I missed your notice. I also notice that several of the editors who have been pushing like bulldozers to eliminate criticism from Barack Obama instantly supported your topic ban. MastCell said it was a borderline case. You have yourself admitted that the alleged personal attacks were borderline cases. (If I'm getting a topic ban for saying "misrepresentation," why isn't Scjessey also getting a topic ban for using that word first?) In general, despite my unswerving support for Obama I find that many others here (unlike myself) have miserably failed to check their biases at the door, and they WP:OWN the article. Curious bystander ( talk) 23:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
From a certain forum (Captiol Grilling) off-wiki. JustGettingItRight ( talk) 23:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Please don't be mean to me, I'm the new guy! I'll try to be good, but if I haven't been, please leave me a note. Curious bystander ( talk) 17:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
I see you attached a toolong tag, and someone reverted. If you expand the FAQ at the top of the talk page Talk:Barack Obama, question #3 regards article size. It points out that the 60K limit is for main body content, and we're well within that limit. What makes the markup version so long with so many bytes is all the references. That's considered okay. Our mission is to make it a good article for the reader, not the editor. We editors just have to suffer with all those citations. (note - I revised the answer slightly before pointing it out to you). It probably could be trimmed here and there, but the editor who reverted you probably agrees with the FAQ that the problem isn't so bad that it needs the tag and the more urgent action that implies. Hope that helps. Wikidemo ( talk) 00:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
That has to be one of the most impressive pictures I have ever seen. Thank you for sharing it with us. Die4Dixie ( talk) 00:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters, please stop edit-warring on the Barack Obama article. Take it to the Talk page and reach consensus before making these edits. I have been watching this page for weeks and WB74, while troublesome, is not entirely to blame for the acrimony there. You haven't been entirely civil yourself. Curious bystander ( talk) 23:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
My edits have "largely consisted" of articles about homosexuality and the history of GLBT rights (and the oppression of sexually unorthodox people) in America. A review of his history shows that LotLE has been blocked several times, and warned numerous times, for his failure to adhere to WP:CIV. I'm not a sockpuppet, and I resent the accusation. If you feel strongly about it, and that you have sufficient evidence to support it, there's a way to resolve it. But Floridianed is right; I've only restored material added by WB74 once, and it was because LotLE was edit-warring — in violation of another policy. Curious bystander ( talk) 15:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Please self-revert your last edit immediately. You have replaced comments that have previously been removed at the request of an administrator. MY response was placed in the correct section ("involved editors") and I do not appreciate you singling it out in an edit summary. -- Scjessey ( talk) 15:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
(ec) Please consider self-reverting this edit, [2] which reverts material removed by a couple editors as being out-of-process in the RfC. WorkerBee74, after stating his case, asked that further RfC discussion be limited to people who had not previously edited the article. Although dubious, that request was initially honored by all but WorkerBee, who responded a couple times. Three editors removed his subsequent comments, and asked if he objected - he has not (see User talk:WorkerBee74). Subsequently, some editors began commenting in a separate section created for involved users. If WorkerBee74 wishes to complain he can; and if he wants to comment in the "involved" user area he can too. Your reinserting his comments in the "uninvolved" section and adding yours there will likely cause the process to break down. Therefore, please remove his comments again, and if you wish to comment add your own in the "uninvolved" section. Thanks, Wikidemo ( talk) 15:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Nobody "participated anyway" except WorkerBee74 himself, [3] whose edits were removed, then Looneymonkey, whose comments were quickly put into a new section for "previously involved editors", [4] and now you. By restoring WorkerBee's comments against the wishes of at least three other editors (without, I note, restoring a complaint about them [5]) you're gaming the system and breaking down whatever process there had been. You triggered a revert war on the RfC talk page in the process. Your edits and WorkerBee's stand as the only two substantive breaches of the request - and now mine in response to the obvious breakdown in process. Further, in the middle of the RfC you're now accusing two editors of "bullying" over this matter [6] - please refactor that comment at once. If you're going to participate on such an important page, please be more more careful to avoid clashing with other editors. If you want to be argumentative about process, this is not a good page to do that. Thanks, Wikidemo ( talk) 16:48, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
I wanted to ask you what you mean by this comment in one of your last posts [7]:
...adding some real criticism.
Please do not take this an attack or anything, but I would like to know what you mean by adding some "real" criticism? Brothejr ( talk) 17:47, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi Curious bystander,
Thanks for the compliment. I think I'll just keep my background info where it is though, partly because I'm on one side of this. I'm concerned about a comment you put on the page that I think is turning up the heat too much: Since the consensus vote seemed carefully timed to occur during WB74's block, it's obvious (at least to me) that he was deliberately excluded. We've had a lot of problems keeping cool on that page, and it would really help if we try to stay away from comments that don't focus on the proposed inclusion and are directed at editors' past conduct. That comment won't help us get to any consensus and it will just make editors less likely to be flexible about their own opinions. Would you please redact it? I think it would help a lot. Noroton ( talk) 19:54, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Please note that I have added this account as a party to the ArbCom report filed by 74.94.99.17. You may find the discussion here: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Barack Obama. Additionally, I really would appreciate it if you could remove your accusatory comments from the Barack Obama talk page, and desist from unarchiving the WP:RfC on that page. RfC is a preliminary dispute resolution step, with WP:RFAR being the final step. Now that there is an arbitration request, there is nothing to be gained by further discussing the same issue on the article talk page. Wikidemo ( talk) 19:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi - It seems from this thread above that you're a little confused about the role of admins here. In content disputes, admins have no more authority than any other editor. In particular, my participation at the talk:Barack Obama page is as an editor - with no more (but no less) authority than any other editor (admins generally have a lot of experience editing here, so tend to know the ropes). I'm certainly willing to give advice if asked, but admins have no authority to resolve disputes. The mechanisms for resolving content disputes are discussed at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. -- Rick Block ( talk) 01:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
1. [8]
2. [9]
3. [10]
4. [11]
I'll ask MastCell to put a similar note here. Noroton ( talk) 00:24, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Added 3 & 4. Cheers, Noroton ( talk) 03:54, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Regarding your invitation here, Kossack4Truth is topic banned from Barack Obama, including ANI. I suggest just self-reverting the invitation, although you don't have to. Regarding the ANI thread itself, many people won't read it because it's just too long.-- chaser - t 17:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
They closed that thread within something like 24 hours after it opened, so didn't really have a chance to comment. I did add one comment anyway since I didn't realize it was closed at the time. Anyway, I'll just say that admin action is highly unlikely to help here because to fully appreciate the problem would mean fully appreciating the content disputes as well and admins just don't have the time and interest for that. This Abd user sounds extremely reasonable and you're fortunate to have gotten as much attention as he's given to you, in fact, given how summarily most admins operate, and it's likely out of respect for the number of hours you spent putting together your AN/I report (note that one person didn't read any of what you compiled, and instead just looked at your edit count, as if that's all they needed to know about the merits of your complaint). Your best bet is to try to argue on the Talk pages and just go ahead and edit, consistent with Wikipedia policies. Make sure you are familiar with WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and WP:NOTABLE. If you happen to agree with the soundness of my edits, for example, you'd better serve me, and more importantly them (the edits), by speaking up for them on the Talk page or supporting them by editing actions than by trying to get an admin to help. If an admin just looks at something superficial (e.g. that user that just counted your career edit count) God only knows what that admin might conclude such that the admin might actually take the other side which would, of course, just make matters worse. This isn't to suggest that you were incorrect to suspect that nothing short of an admin action will ultimately overcome the obstacles created by LotE (and Scjessey). Bdell555 ( talk) 22:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps you fail to understand: I mad e the revert initially after WorkerBee made an edit BEFORE consensus was reached. I was reverting UNTIL we had consensus on HIS edit, not mine. The version I keep reverting to is the original. I won't make any more reverts, but if you're gonna template me, template WorkerBee too. He started it. Wikilost ( talk) 20:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
(this one is, or should be exempt from WP:DTTR) -
Also, since you felt compelled to leave a warning for Wikilost about the 1RR rule, I might point out that this is a case of "physician heal thyself." He made exactly as many reverts as you did (which is two). -- Loonymonkey ( talk) 21:22, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
This edit [12] is edit warring - your fourth revert in just over a day, three times over the same material. [13] [14] [15] In addition, the edit summary (in part, "why does this garbage keep getting shoveled back into the article?") is unduly confrontational. You are aware of the article probation and the need to avoid edit warring. Please stop. Thanks, Wikidemo ( talk) 23:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Here (and also, if possible, here?) Justmeherenow ( ) 05:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Because my participation as a Wikipedia editor has been questioned, and if I continue as I have in the past, I can expect future challenges as well, I have begun a standing RfC in my user space, at User:Abd/RfC. There is also a specific incident RfC at User:Abd/RfC/8.11.08 block. I understand that you may not have time to participate directly; however, if you wish to be notified of any outcome from the general or specific RfC, or if you wish to identify a participant or potential participant as one generally trusted by you, or otherwise to indicate interest in the topic(s), please consider listing yourself at User:Abd/RfC/Proxy Table, and, should you so decide, naming a proxy as indicated there. Your designation of a proxy will not bind you, and your proxy will not comment or vote for you, but only for himself or herself; however, I may consider proxy designations in weighing comment in this RfC, as to how they might represent the general community. You may revoke this designation at any time. This RfC is for my own guidance as to future behavior and actions, it is advisory only, upon me and on participants. This notice is going to all those who commented on my Talk page in the period between my warning for personal attack, assumptions of bad faith, and general disruption, on August 11, 2008, until August 20, 2008. This is not a standard RfC; because it is for my advice, I assert authority over the process. However, initially, all editors are welcome, even if otherwise banned from my Talk space or from the project. Canvassing is permitted, as far as I'm concerned; I will regulate participation if needed, but do not spam. Notice of this RfC may be placed on noticeboards or wikiprojects, should any of you think this appropriate; however, the reason for doing this in my user space is to minimize disruption, and I am not responsible for any disruption arising from discussion of this outside my user space. Thanks for considering this. -- Abd ( talk) 02:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I have blocked you for 24 hours for edit warring on Barak Obama. Repeatedly re-inserting the same contentious paragraph, against consensus on the talk page, and in spite of the fact that the article is under article probabtion. When the block expires, please review, again, our policies on WP:Edit warring, WP:Consensus, and the provisions of Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation. -- barneca ( talk) 21:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
These kinds of provocations violate article Obama article probation. [16] [17] [18] You have just come off a block for your behavior there. The featured article review you filed in response to not getting your way in the edit war were of quesitonable good faith. Please desist. Wikidemon ( talk) 19:21, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
I have carefully reviewed your contributions, and believe the best course is to topic ban you from Barack Obama, Talk:Barack Obama, and related articles (broadly construed) until November 5, 2008. You are not to edit those articles, or participate on their talk pages. I believe I have the authority to do this based on Talk:Barack Obama/article probation.
I have taken this action for the following reasons:
If only one or two of these things were true, I would not be implementing this topic ban; it is the combination of all of them together that makes your behavior cross the line to disruptive.
If, when the topic ban expires, you wish to re-engage productively, you will be welcome to do so. If you resume being disruptive, the topic ban will be extended indefinitely. Violation of the topic ban will lead to your account being blocked.
Because this is the first time I have topic banned anyone under article probation, I will be opening a thread at WP:ANI for a review of my actions. You may, of course, participate in that thread. -- barneca ( talk) 01:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
(copied from my talk page; I'm going to archive soon, and not sure if you saw the response or not)
Unlike many other Wikipedians, I do not have the time to homestead here, so I missed your notice. I also notice that several of the editors who have been pushing like bulldozers to eliminate criticism from Barack Obama instantly supported your topic ban. MastCell said it was a borderline case. You have yourself admitted that the alleged personal attacks were borderline cases. (If I'm getting a topic ban for saying "misrepresentation," why isn't Scjessey also getting a topic ban for using that word first?) In general, despite my unswerving support for Obama I find that many others here (unlike myself) have miserably failed to check their biases at the door, and they WP:OWN the article. Curious bystander ( talk) 23:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
From a certain forum (Captiol Grilling) off-wiki. JustGettingItRight ( talk) 23:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)