This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

On December 31, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bruce High Quality Foundation, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Royal broil 03:42, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Jayen, thanks for removing my comment from that article. That's what I should have done. I wasn't being provocative, it was a genuine mistake. Happy season! Rumiton ( talk) 05:10, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I know, Rumiton. :) And the same to you. -- JN 466 05:17, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy New Year, J. Hope it's a good one for you and M. Esowteric+ Talk 21:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

how goes the fray? good holiday? I've been busily creating, but taking a break from Cologne War articles. Auntieruth55 ( talk) 19:50, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Ruth, thanks for asking, and Happy New Year. I've been enjoying my time off work, although my nose is about to hit the grindstone again. :( Done a couple of DYKs: Bruce High Quality Foundation and The Seduction of Ingmar Bergman; nothing too strenuous. -- JN 466 19:57, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Your suggestion to remove that paragraph seems to be the way to go, but the article is locked. Could you take the action, please? Thanks. 38.109.88.194 ( talk) 15:53, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, man!

Hi Jay, thanks for the Christmas greeting. Here's hoping 2010 will be good for you. SilkTork * ^YES! 09:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

How do you get that green welcome message onto your talkpage? SilkTork * ^YES! 09:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, and likewise! (The green message box is a WP:EDITNOTICE.) -- JN 466 12:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey Jay, thanks for helping out with some policy points at the BLP noticeboard. Off2riorob ( talk) 13:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure thing; I was just catching up on it. There is a related thread on TheSmokingGun.com at WP:RS/N as well: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#TheSmokingGun.com. Cheers, -- JN 466 13:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

On January 3, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article INFORM (Information Network Focus on Religious Movements), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 06:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your holiday wishes, and especially for thanking each of my mentors/advisers for their work with me. That was very kind of you as truly they have been stellar and deserve appreciation. I wish you a wonderful New Year and thank you also for all the good work you do here. You are, in my opinion, a very thoughtful Wikipedian. Warmest regards, — mattisse ( Talk) 16:14, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks and vice versa, Mattisse. -- JN 466 16:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

On January 4, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Seduction of Ingmar Bergman, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 06:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jayen, thanks for the tips. As you can tell I am a novice on Wikipedia and, admittedly, I don't exactly know what I'm doing! I'm not even sure how to reply to your message correctly, lol.

But, as you surmised, I do feel strongly about my edit. I think that given the context of contemporary discourse on issues relating to extremism, it is incredibly significant to distinguish between secular and non-secular terms. Also, I think that providing synonyms to clear any lingering ambiguity about such terms is necessary. As I'm sure you know, translating Arabic words to English is a tricky business. I think it's necessary to make that business as lucid as possible.

Here is a link that distinguishes between secular terms of "struggle" and other terms in Arabic that mean "struggle" but have a distinctly religious connotation.

The link: http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:4DIghhftvoYJ:www.wcas.northwestern.edu/jewish-studies/faculty/members/documents/articleonIran.pdf+nidal+kifah+secular+jihad&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

It's an html page. The relevant discussion is on the bottom of page 250:

"The very language used to speak of the war against the enemy, he went on to say, was secular. Instead of jihad, words like nidal (meaning "struggle") were being used. Instead of calling the enemy "infidels" they were spoken of as "imperialists" or "Zionists." Only when it was clear that the "parties of heresy"—the socialists and the secular nationalists—had failed to liberate the blessed land of Palestine, only then did Muslims sound the old traditional cry of jihad"

The piece is titled "The Iranian Impact on the Islamic Jihad Movement in the Gaza Strip." I don't necessarily agree with this author's views, but I do think he evinces the correct usage of the Arabic term "Nidal" as a secular term meaning "struggle." Not "THE" struggle; but simply "struggle." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Juanito12345 ( talk • contribs) 00:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I am glad you're not cheesed off about the revert. :) The best thing to do is to raise it on the article's talk page. I'll start a section there, and all of us can discuss it there. I think you may well have a point; so just bear with us. -- JN 466 00:54, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jayen, thanks for the tips. As you can tell I am a novice on Wikipedia and, admittedly, I don't exactly know what I'm doing! I'm not even sure how to reply to your message correctly, lol.

But, as you surmised, I do feel strongly about my edit. I think that given the context of contemporary discourse on issues relating to extremism, it is incredibly significant to distinguish between secular and non-secular terms. Also, I think that providing synonyms to clear any lingering ambiguity about such terms is necessary. As I'm sure you know, translating Arabic words to English is a tricky business. I think it's necessary to make that business as lucid as possible.

Here is a link that distinguishes between secular terms of "struggle" and other terms in Arabic that mean "struggle" but have a distinctly religious connotation.

The link: http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:4DIghhftvoYJ:www.wcas.northwestern.edu/jewish-studies/faculty/members/documents/articleonIran.pdf+nidal+kifah+secular+jihad&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

It's an html page. The relevant discussion is on the bottom of page 250:

"The very language used to speak of the war against the enemy, he went on to say, was secular. Instead of jihad, words like nidal (meaning "struggle") were being used. Instead of calling the enemy "infidels" they were spoken of as "imperialists" or "Zionists." Only when it was clear that the "parties of heresy"—the socialists and the secular nationalists—had failed to liberate the blessed land of Palestine, only then did Muslims sound the old traditional cry of jihad"

The piece is titled "The Iranian Impact on the Islamic Jihad Movement in the Gaza Strip." I don't necessarily agree with this author's views, but I do think he evinces the correct usage of the Arabic term "Nidal" as a secular term meaning "struggle." Not "THE" struggle; but simply "struggle." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Juanito12345 ( talk • contribs) 00:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I am glad you're not cheesed off about the revert. :) The best thing to do is to raise it on the article's talk page. I'll start a section there, and all of us can discuss it there. I think you may well have a point; so just bear with us. -- JN 466 00:54, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jayen,

When creating the initial citation or the first citation from Babb Lawrence for the following line I can give the page number for the line - "who was a eclectic blend of Hindu and Muslim faiths". (Page #: 164) from the online link. But the problem is further when referring Babb again we (all the editors) just mention <reference name="BabbLawrence"/>.

Babb has mentioned a few incidents from Sathya Sai Baba's life, Kent has mentioned a few important incidents which were left by Babb etc. Hence writing the biography has become a challenging task as we are trying to take bits and pieces of information from different secondary sources and putting it together to present correctly the biography as per the original. For instance this line is sourced to 3 sources - On 8 March 1940, while living with his brother in Uravakonda, Sathya was stung by a scorpion. These reference are repeatedly used again and again in the article with just the reference name as I mentioned above. Thanks. Radiantenergy ( talk) 03:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I added the page numbers where you will see the Biography section from the online book in the citation. Radiantenergy ( talk) 04:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

If we cite different pages from the same book, we should create several distinct named references, e.g. <ref name="BabbLawrence46"/>, <ref name="BabbLawrence49"/>, etc., and each one should name the book, author, publisher, ISBN number and cited page number, ideally using a citation template. If the same books are cited many times, another possibility is to use Harvard referencing. Have a look at this article: Millennium '73, or this one: Inner German border. These are very neat ways of organising references. As you'll see, the footnote only contains the author name, publication date and page number. If you click on the footnote, you jump down to the references section, where the full publication details of each source are given. In this way, the full publication details are not repeated over and over again. But at any rate, each time we cite a source, the reader should be able to find the correct page number in our citation.

The method of taking bits and pieces from various secondary sources is exactly how good articles are constructed. Babb in particular is a highly-regarded and informative source. -- JN 466 15:54, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi J, have added a mention of demographics in Indian society to the lede (as couldn't find a suitable section in the article body).

Have used cite web/book/news/journal from the lede down to and including biography and a couple in the next section, but as there's a lot of ongoing editing and the refs may be scrapped, have left it there. Also tagged the page top for citation style and linkrot.

Cheers, eric. Esowteric+ Talk 18:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, Eric. -- JN 466 18:15, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate the copyedit ... it's still a work in progress :-) Maybe I should have a redirect to it like WP:AI LOL ( talk→  BWilkins  ←track) 19:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem. :) People can become so at home in Wikipedia's maze of policies and guidelines that they forgot what it was like not to know any of them. -- JN 466 00:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello, would you mind checking over this German text (sorry, it's reasonably long) for errors for me? I need it to be very accurate, and I figured that you would be the best bet, but of course only if you get the chance and aren't too busy (I only need it before Monday):

"Weymouth and Portland sind ansässig in Südwest England. Mit atemberaubende Natur Sehenswürdigkeiten und viel Kunst und Kultur beitet Weymouth and Portland für jeden etwas. Die folgende verdichtet Orten das Sie nicht entkommen können.

Weymouth wurde im die Mitte des 12. Jahrhunderts wie eine Stadt angelegt. Heute ist die Stadt nicht nur schön, sondern auch einen gut gehend Fremdverkehrsort, der viele Naturschönheiten hat.

Besichtigen Sie die Jubilee Groβuhr oder sich entspannen auf der Strand. Die Bauen der Promenade sind einige der feinsten Beispiele von Georgianische Architektur in England.

Die Künstler werden das Kunstgewerbe genieβen. Jeder werden das Einkaufszentrum geniessen!

Jetzt ein Militärmuseum, die Festung hat früher eine wichtige Aufgabe ins Zwieter Weltkrieg gespielt.

Portland ist einen zentrales Element der „Jurassic Coast“, und folglich ist die Insel Teil des UNESCO-Welterbe. Die Segelnakademie wird das Segeln Ereignis der Olympische Sommerspiele 2012 ausrichten.

Der Ort hat eigentlich drei Leuchtturme, aber „Trinity Leuchttum“ (oft Portland Leuchtturm) ist die bekanntesten eins. Man kann eine Reise von die Leuchtturm machen.

Sehen Sie die divers Skulpture, während Sie das sagenhaftes Abbiden bewundern.

Dies Tudor Schloss liegt am Portland Hafen, gegenüber Sandsfoot Schloss. Ihn Geschichte ist mehr als 450 Jahre alt und es wies Artillerie und Armierung auf."

And 'Happy New Year' as well, I should have remembered to wish you (and others) it sooner… MasterOfHisOwnDomain ( talk) 22:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

It will need a little work. ;) Just to be sure I don't misunderstand the intended meaning, could you post me the English original? -- JN 466 00:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Revised version

"Weymouth und Portland liegen in Südwest-England. Mit atemberaubender Natur, Sehenswürdigkeiten und viel Kunst und Kultur bieten Weymouth und Portland für jeden etwas. Hier ein knapper Überblick:

Die Stadt Weymouth wurde um die Mitte des 12. Jahrhunderts gegründet. Heute ist die Stadt nicht nur schön, sondern auch ein beliebter Fremdenverkehrsort, der viele Naturschönheiten hat.

Besichtigen Sie die Jubilee Clock oder entspannen Sie sich am Strand. Die Bauten der Promenade sind einige der feinsten Beispiele Georgianischer Architektur in England.

Künstler werden das rege Kunstgewerbe genießen. Das Einkaufszentrum hat für jeden etwas!

Die Festung – heute ein Militärmuseum – spielte eine wichtige Rolle im Zweiten Weltkrieg.

Portland ist ein zentrales Element der „Jurassic Coast“, und folglich ist die Insel Teil des UNESCO-Welterbes. Die Segelakademie wird die Segelwettbewerbe der Olympischen Sommerspiele 2012 ausrichten.

Der Ort hat eigentlich drei Leuchttürme, aber das „Trinity Lighthouse“ (oft „Portland Lighthouse“) ist der bekannteste von ihnen. Im Sommer kann man den Leuchtturm auch besichtigen.

Betrachten Sie die verschiedenen Skulpturen, und genießen Sie die schöne Umgebung.

Dieses Tudor-Schloss liegt am Hafen von Portland, gegenüber dem Sandsfoot-Schloss. Seine Geschichte ist mehr als 450 Jahre alt und es wies einmal Artillerie und Befestigungswerke auf."

Thank you very much. Sorry for not including a translation, it occured to me today that I had forgotten. I'll include it now and address the points:

"Weymouth and Portland are located in South-west England. With breathtaking nature, sights and much art and culture, Weymouth and Portland offer something for everyone.

The following is a summary:

Weymouth was founded as a town in the mid-12th century. Today the town is not only beautiful, but also a thriving holiday resort, which has many scenic attractions.

Visit the Jubilee Clock or relax on the beach. The buildings of the promenade are some of the finest examples of Georgian Architecture in England.

Artists will enjoy the arts and crafts. Everyone will enjoy the shopping centre!

Portland is a central part of the "Jurassic Coast", and therefore a part of UNESCO-World heritage. The sailing academy will host the sailing events of the 2012 Summer Olympics.

The spot actually has three lighthouses, but "Trinity Lighthouse" (often "Portland Lighthouse") is the most famous. One can take a tour of the lighthouse (+ 'Im Sommer' now, so 'Im Sommer kann man...')

View the various sculptures, while you admire the setting (I misspelt 'Abbinden').

The word is 'Armour' apparently.

Thanks again, I'll check back to see if my input has made any difference. If you ever need a review or anything (I can't think of much I can help you with..) then just send me a message! MasterOfHisOwnDomain ( talk) 17:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I've made some changes above. Another thing I am not sure about: What or where are the "sculptures" that we mention? In the lighthouse, or somewhere different? (You're quite welcome.) -- JN 466 19:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

No they're in 'Tout Quarry', it's a large nature reserve/sculpture park. Does that effect the word or is it just interest? These are all things in my local area, for a brochure-style synopsis that I went incredibly over-the-top on! Again, I really appreciate you helping, and hope I can repay you, one day, somehow... MasterOfHisOwnDomain ( talk) 21:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay. I've changed the sentence describing the setting, above. I think the text is pretty okay now. Good luck with the project. -- JN 466 22:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

From what I have read, I would like to thank you for stepping back and looking at this situation surrounding John and the media with an unbiased opinion. Sadly, John is stereotyped because he is successful and Italian. This lead to one editor writing a couple of stories about mafia ties, knowing this would grab attention. The internet is not like a newspaper that can thrown away and forgotten, so the rumor continues to grow. Other editor’s search and the internet and stumble on this article and sensationalize it again. It is a vicious cycle that John and Staluppi family has had to endured for many years. Bad mafia articles get more readers than good news. Thank you for recognizing this. I do agree the article needs to be deleted and his name protected along with Staluppi’s. Otherwise, allot more false media will be written quoting Wikipedia as a source. I can assure you, John would thanks you for being bold and logical by protecting him. Crackofdawn ( talk) 01:49, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

For the sorts of reasons you are describing, tabloids are not usually the best sources for Wikipedia biographies. When editors then go beyond even the bad sources, the results are not pretty. I am sorry you saw the ugly side of Wikipedia, and that the matter was not handled with more sensitivity: I wish for example you had not been blocked, but someone had just explained to you about the "no legal threats" policy (which I am trying to get improved, so that cases like yours, where WP:BLP policy has been violated, will be dealt with more sympathetically).

The Internet and google have extended the lifespan of press articles practically forever; in some ways, this is great, in others, not!

As for the AfD, Melanie asked you there a day or two ago, towards the bottom, if you actually wanted the article deleted now. You didn't reply; perhaps because you missed the question. It might be worth going there ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Rosatti (2nd nomination)) and confirming that. The AfD will be closed soon; they usually stay open for 7 days. I hope the closing admin will delete; if not, I'll keep an eye on the article. Best wishes, -- JN 466 02:47, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Howdy, I'm a totally novice user who needs to have a serious conversation about your creation of the page for the BHQF. I'm am not familiar with the protocol, etiquette, and ethics of public vs. private discussion on Wikipedia so I'm not aware of how obligated I am to let you know who I am or who we are and what we want. There are some serious issues that a large number of people here in New York City have with the page you authored and we would like to discuss them with you. Please let us know if you are open to a private conversation about these matters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drankpee ( talk • contribs) 20:10, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

• If you have a concern about the article, the best place to raise it in the first instance is normally on the article talk page: Talk:Bruce_High_Quality_Foundation.
• As for etiquette, it is up to you whether you want to identify yourself; there is no requirement for you to do so. However, if you have a conflict of interest with regard to the article topic, I would recommend that you declare it, and familiarise yourself with our conflict-of-interest policy at WP:COI.
• To e-mail users privately, you need to register an e-mail address (in your Wikipedia preferences). Once you have done so, you should see an "E-mail this user" option to the left of this present page, using which you can and may indeed e-mail me. Cheers, -- JN 466 22:18, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing that photo on the Constant Rijkenberg article. What a relief!-- — Kbob • Talk • 03:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

No prob. :) -- JN 466 12:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/MZMcBride 2/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/MZMcBride 2/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:03, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Jayen for the Barnstar. I was hoping to get one for something to balance up the page formatting, your quality editing from a very balanced intellectual position is something that has inspired me and has a quality that I can only aspire to, your appreciation really means a lot to me.I know what you mean about the tumbleweed though, I went there myself with an issue and got no reply, at the moment there is good editor attention there. Off2riorob ( talk) 19:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Also you will be pleased to know that Semi has edited and accepted the flowers but prefers roses . Off2riorob ( talk) 23:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I just noticed it. Well done. JN 466 23:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi J, You might like to make a quick assessment of: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hazrat Syed Qalandar Ilm Ali Shah Jilani. Cheers, eric. Esowteric+ Talk 10:42, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, getting slightly better now. :) As for our sufi friend, I think it's a delete, unless someone comes up with a bunch of Urdu sources. As for Abdul-Qadir Gilani, shouldn't we also delete the "List of notable personalities" at the bottom? I could understand having that list if it said "notable descendants", but those would have to be sourced, and at present none of them are. As it is, I don't understand what the inclusion principle is. -- JN 466 13:57, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, go ahead. I waded through loads of Indian villages and towns once over and they seemed to love adding [un]notable local personalities and [minor] local amenities in bold block capitals ("JOE BLOGGS COME FROM VERY FINE FAMILY THESE PARTS. RUN LAUNDRY VERY REASONABLE"), and often added their telephone numbers or a section crediting the article to them. :) Esowteric+ Talk 14:02, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

:)) Quite touching in a way, though it's not very encyclopedic. -- JN 466 14:05, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, they were probably providing information that others actually wanted to know. Esowteric+ Talk 14:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi J, the above article is now even more a pile of you-know-what and is probably all over the mirror/clone sites by now. Couldn't Wikipedia add a noindex HTML tag until articles have been "cleared"? Mind you, wouldn't stop the page scraping, I guess. Just a thought. Esowteric+ Talk 15:42, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Flagged revisions might help. It is a system that is in place in the German Wikipedia and has long been promised for the English WP as well, in some shape or form, at least for BLPs. Here is an explanation how it works: User_talk:Proofreader77#Flagged_revisions_-_how_it_works_in_German_wikipedia. Basically, edits made by IPs remain invisible to the public until they have been "sighted" by an established WP user.

There was a petition a couple of weeks back to get on with implementing it. I don't know whether you've noticed, but there is a big hubbub about BLPs at the moment. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people, Wikipedia:Deletion_of_unreferenced_BLPs, Wikipedia:Unreferenced_biographies_of_living_people. -- JN 466 18:11, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Jayen: will follow the links and digest. Esowteric+ Talk 18:13, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi J, how is life treating you? Do you think Siege of Godesberg (1583) is ready for A-class review? Battle of Winterthur (1799) is there now, and Johann von Klenau is at FAC. Auntieruth55 ( talk) 01:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm too busy this week with RL, but hope to be able to look in next week. Thanks for the update. — JN 466 12:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with Johann von Klenau. It's at FAC. Will you be able to support (or not....)? Battle of Winterthur (1799) is at ACR in MH. Auntieruth55 ( talk) 21:25, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

.

thanks for your help with Johann von Klenau, which was promoted yesterday. Auntieruth55 ( talk) 19:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Pleasure! :) JN 466 19:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jayen, there is an ongoing edit war in the article Sufism in the Sufi Sheikhs -> Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi sub-section of the article. His followers believe he's the " Messiah, Imam Mehdi and Kalki Avatar". edit diff. Any thoughts on this contentious paragraph? One of the editors has been temp blocked for an edit war on a related article. Have left messages with involved editors pointing them to the talk page. I stopped one of them redirecting Imam Mehdi and variations to an article about Gohar Shahi. Cheers, eric. Esowteric+ Talk 10:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe the disputed paragraph (minus the spurious ref) could be reinstated and reworded to restore a neutral POV? Esowteric+ Talk 10:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks for your bold move. Agreed: the guy is not in the same ballpark as the other great historical Sufis listed. Esowteric+ Talk 15:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for helping us solve the issue on Sufism peacefully :). ( Omirocksthisworld ( talk) 22:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC))

Pleasure; glad it worked out. -- JN 466 23:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC)