The list was not promoted by The Rambling Man 16:29, 23 November 2009 [1].
I am nominating this for featured list because it is similar to the
List of Wimbledon Gentlemen's Singles champions and
List of US Open Men's Singles champions, and I feel it is worthy of this honor and distinction.
BLUE
DOG
TN
20:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
reply
Resolved comments from Giants2008 ( 17–14) 21:03, 31 October 2009 (UTC) reply |
---|
Comments –
Still want to check the images, but I'll have to do that another time. Giants2008 ( 17–14) 21:53, 15 October 2009 (UTC) reply
|
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man ( talk) 17:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC) reply |
---|
Comments
|
Resolved comments from Good raise 02:26, 15 November 2009 (UTC) reply |
---|
Comments from
Goodraise (
talk ·
contribs)
I have to weakly oppose this nomination, mainly because I see room for improvement in the prose. Good raise 18:38, 25 October 2009 (UTC) reply
|
I'm giving this nomination my weak support on the condition that WFCforLife's concern about the scores is addressed. Good raise 02:26, 15 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Comments from WFCforLife ( talk) 23:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC) Feel free to answer after each bullet point or at the end, whichever you find easier. reply
At a glance I have some grammatical concerns, but some of these are being covered by other reviewers so I'll concentrate on these areas for the time being. WFCforLife ( talk) 23:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 ( talk) |
---|
Comments from
Dabomb87 (
talk ·
contribs)
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 ( talk) 01:31, 31 October 2009 (UTC) reply
The grammar seems to have been dealt with by Dabomb and Bluedog, but I'm afraid I can't support yet.
Sorry for dragging this on, but if this results in more scores being obtained, and/or a source explaning the gaps being uncovered, then it will have been worth the effort. WFCforLife ( talk) 16:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC) reply
I have asked The Rambling Man to close this, and per his decision it will be promoted or declined. Thanks for commenting on this right now! I have done this the best I could have right now with the information on the scores and the grammer is the best that I can do this for the English language. I will be moving onto the Australian Open one to get it up to par. Thanks... BLUE DOG TN 04:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC) reply
The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 22:30, 17 November 2009 [2].
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the FL criteria. As a part of a project to improve Family Guy articles related to each season, I am nominating the season five list. I will try my best to make any improvements as they are brought up.
Gage (
talk)
05:30, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
reply
Resolved comments from NMajdan |
---|
|
Resolved comments from Good raise 00:11, 4 November 2009 (UTC) reply |
---|
Comments from
Goodraise (
talk ·
contribs)
Good raise 16:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC) reply
|
Regretfully, I've not found the time to do a complete review of this list. The concerns I've found during my first review pass have all been addressed to my satisfaction. Image usage and alt text is within guidelines. The sources are mostly fine. (Didn't look too deep into them and there also have been several changes since I first reviewed, so I can't really say that they're OK. The general ref needs to be formated like a reference by the way.) My apologies, I've simply been too busy these past weeks. I'll have to remain neutral. Good raise 02:43, 15 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man ( talk) 22:22, 31 October 2009 (UTC) reply |
---|
Comments
|
Comments from Ophois ( talk · contribs)
Theres more than 3 reviews like about.com, IGN, PTC, Smart house but i do not haave DVDs but i do not think there is more.-- Pedro J. the rookie 15:57, 21 November 2009 (UTC) reply
The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 22:30, 17 November 2009 [3].
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe that it meets the criteria.
Good
raise
12:34, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
reply
|
|
Other than that, all looks good I think. -- Lightlowemon ( talk) 09:45, 31 October 2009 (UTC) reply
The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 00:53, 11 November 2009 [6].
I am nominating this for featured list because... I feel this article has met the criteria for featured list.
Extremepro (
talk)
05:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
reply
Comment According to the link checker, there is one dead link. Dabomb87 ( talk) 03:35, 12 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Comments I will copyedit the summaries shortly. In the meantime, there are some immediate issues. Arsonal ( talk) 04:23, 21 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man ( talk) 17:19, 31 October 2009 (UTC) reply |
---|
;Comments from
The Rambling Man (sorry for tardiness)
|
The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 15:32, 7 November 2009 [8].
I am nominating this for featured list because there was still a few improvements to be made and they have now been done.
Mister sparky (
talk)
13:23, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
reply
Not a reviewer, but a couple of things I noticed: In the "featured artist" section, the song "baby by me" is listed as peaking at 122. this is not sourced. also the next song, "good night good morning" needs a reference to confirm its existence as no wiki article or charting information is presently known. Also, link checker shows a couple of dead billboard links. Suede67 ( talk) 19:46, 17 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Oppose Dt128 ( talk · contribs)
Resolved comments from Dt128
|
---|
|
-- Truco 503 17:44, 24 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Comments from Goodraise ( talk · contribs)
At present, I have to oppose this nomination.
Good
raise
00:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
reply
At present, I have to weakly oppose this nomination.
Good
raise
18:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
reply
At present, I have to oppose this nomination, mainly because of sourcing issues. Good raise 02:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Comments
The Rambling Man ( talk) 17:37, 31 October 2009 (UTC) reply
The list was not promoted by Chrishomingtang 20:17, 6 November 2009 [9].
I feel that this list meets all of the
featured list criteria. It has substantial and quality lead (#1) and prose (#2). It is comprehensive, covering all of the individuals, as well as further methods of categorizing them (#3). The table is usable and sortable (#4). It is consistent with the Manual of Style and uses color (#5). It is and will remain stable, with the list only needing updating once a year (#6).
Grsz
11
03:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
reply
- "...of the 38 players drafted in the first round by the Penguins, there are 13 centres, 12 wingers (7 right and 5 left), 8 defenders, and 5 goaltenders. The majority of the players come from Canada, 27 in the number. Czechoslovakia, Russia, Sweden and the United States all have two drafted players, while Belarus and the two now constituent states of Czechoslovakia, the Czech Republic and Slovakia, each have a single player drafted."
The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 01:17, 4 November 2009 [10].
I am nominating this for featured list because i think it meets all the requirements needed for FL status.
Mario
1987
18:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
reply
Comment
— Chris! c/ t 18:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC) reply
This list isn't ready for promotion yet, but with some work, it could get there. KV5 ( Talk • Phils) 20:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Comment while really neat, the "Important companies" requires a citation or otherwise it will look like original research. Nergaal ( talk) 17:20, 28 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Comment The list looks okay as far as the references used go, but there are a couple of more or less subtle issues that shine through the cracks. Let me list them one by one:
Comment I believe the idea pf having this list is a very good one. But there are a number of small problems with the list as of now, which underline the complexity of the issue, and why there are entire bodies doing statistics:
(unindent) I have read it, and I did note that it is based on the INSS info - my only comment on that issue is that the way in which you had chosen to organize the references gives no real clue as to the source and nature of the sources, not meaning to say that the sources are unreliable. Now, the rest of your reply addresses nothing in the point I made: regardless of the supposed likelihood and your "promise" that things won't change (magically or not), they are subject to change. The INSS will likely present new regular reports, which may indeed change the entire hierarchy, over and over again - the problem I see in that is the entire list is ephemeral (as opposed to it having some ephemeral info); you dig?
As for the company column, it has two, distinct but not unrelated, glaring problems. One (which you persistently ignore in your replies) is the
WP:SYNTH issue - an editorial judgment which has it that "revenues are due to x and y company", when the sources don't say that. The sources used are mere disparate news items which state that the companies exist in x county, and maybe that they have a major contribution to some area or another, but don't necessarily back any of the claims you make about their relative importance, which you correlated with the bare INSS facts (which, incidentally, makes it not just original research, but also superfluous). Is this clear? The other problem is that it, in addition to the likely changes for the INSS data, is another variable likely to rot, and neither I or this project you contribute to can reasonably be placated by your assurance that this won't happen. And it doesn't even matter if that info changes "over night" or not; what matters is that they will likely change throughout. Now, I'm hoping other reviewers will understand the points I'm making, as you manifestly won't.
Dahn (
talk)
19:45, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
reply
Note you shouldn't have deleted the "Important companies column. I would suggest to put it back with the names that are featured here. It should work as a good enough reference for important companies (if they are rated in the top 500 in Eastern Europe). Nergaal ( talk) 19:02, 31 October 2009 (UTC) reply
The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 01:17, 4 November 2009 [11].
I am nominating this for featured list because this article has gone through an extraordinary transformation over the years to reach the criteria required for such an article. Advice has been taken from three peer reviews and contributors have made efforts to look at existing featured episode list articles, and follow those formats to make this article look like a featured list article. It is time for this article to be a featured list.
AMK152(
Talk •
Contributions •
Send message)
16:44, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
reply
Co-Nominator:Will help with what i can to please your wishes.-- Pedro J. the rookie 01:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Comments I'm finding myself getting more and more confused with each reading of this page.
At the moment I oppose. I think a lot more work and thought should be put into it. Matthewedwards : Chat 22:17, 10 October 2009 (UTC) reply
- AMK152( Talk • Contributions • Send message) 03:07, 11 October 2009 (UTC) reply
will you be satisfied if i find at least 75 to 80 % of the dates dout i can find them all.-- Pedro J. the rookie 02:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC) reply
dout we will be able to agree so lets leave it like that i will try to improve and you can give your opinion.-- Pedro J. the rookie 03:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Further comments I still do not understand how a season of Spongebob works: The second season of SpongeBob SquarePants premiered on October 26, 2000, with the episodes "Something Smells" and "Bossy Boots". The season ended on July 26, 2003 with "Gary Takes a Bath", yet The third season of SpongeBob SquarePants premiered on October 5, 2001, with the episodes "Just One Bite" and "The Bully". The season ended on October 11, 2004.
How does one season of television episodes span three years and overlap with another season? Has the list been created from the episode names and production numbers given to the US Copyright Office? Has it been created from how the DVDs have been compiled? Episodes get produced for one season but get aired by networks in a different season quite a lot (cf. Star Trek: Voyager and The Simpsons) Episodes get boxed differently from the order of production and broadcast (cf. The Family Guy)
Also, I still don't get what makes two shorts form an episode when they aired at completely different times. So what that they were packaged on a DVD in a certain way? You say that Nick don't broadcast episodes in order, and that they air some shorts packaged with others before airing them a second time with a different short. Where are you getting the official order from? I need to see information other than those two sources that prove what the article says is a season, is actually a season, before I believe this list to be correct
I still have major issues with the prose. Some sentences are written terribly, there are four parastubs, and one huge paragraph that looks out of place, and much of it is unsourced.
Still oppose Matthewedwards : Chat 01:40, 28 October 2009 (UTC) reply
The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 01:17, 4 November 2009 [14].
I feel this article meets criteria, following the format of
List of Kansas City Royals managers, a FL. Thanks for comments in advance.
LAA
Fan
01:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
reply
Comments
The Rambling Man ( talk) 11:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Comments - 2 quick ones, I may have more later:
I went through the pre-1900 list and had a few more comments:
Comments – These are on top of the many issues raised above, some of which are still unresolved. For example, the Ted Sullivan link is still not piped.
Comments – I will most likely add more later: -- Torsodog Talk 17:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC) reply
The list was not promoted by The Rambling Man 16:29, 23 November 2009 [1].
I am nominating this for featured list because it is similar to the
List of Wimbledon Gentlemen's Singles champions and
List of US Open Men's Singles champions, and I feel it is worthy of this honor and distinction.
BLUE
DOG
TN
20:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
reply
Resolved comments from Giants2008 ( 17–14) 21:03, 31 October 2009 (UTC) reply |
---|
Comments –
Still want to check the images, but I'll have to do that another time. Giants2008 ( 17–14) 21:53, 15 October 2009 (UTC) reply
|
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man ( talk) 17:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC) reply |
---|
Comments
|
Resolved comments from Good raise 02:26, 15 November 2009 (UTC) reply |
---|
Comments from
Goodraise (
talk ·
contribs)
I have to weakly oppose this nomination, mainly because I see room for improvement in the prose. Good raise 18:38, 25 October 2009 (UTC) reply
|
I'm giving this nomination my weak support on the condition that WFCforLife's concern about the scores is addressed. Good raise 02:26, 15 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Comments from WFCforLife ( talk) 23:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC) Feel free to answer after each bullet point or at the end, whichever you find easier. reply
At a glance I have some grammatical concerns, but some of these are being covered by other reviewers so I'll concentrate on these areas for the time being. WFCforLife ( talk) 23:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 ( talk) |
---|
Comments from
Dabomb87 (
talk ·
contribs)
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 ( talk) 01:31, 31 October 2009 (UTC) reply
The grammar seems to have been dealt with by Dabomb and Bluedog, but I'm afraid I can't support yet.
Sorry for dragging this on, but if this results in more scores being obtained, and/or a source explaning the gaps being uncovered, then it will have been worth the effort. WFCforLife ( talk) 16:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC) reply
I have asked The Rambling Man to close this, and per his decision it will be promoted or declined. Thanks for commenting on this right now! I have done this the best I could have right now with the information on the scores and the grammer is the best that I can do this for the English language. I will be moving onto the Australian Open one to get it up to par. Thanks... BLUE DOG TN 04:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC) reply
The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 22:30, 17 November 2009 [2].
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the FL criteria. As a part of a project to improve Family Guy articles related to each season, I am nominating the season five list. I will try my best to make any improvements as they are brought up.
Gage (
talk)
05:30, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
reply
Resolved comments from NMajdan |
---|
|
Resolved comments from Good raise 00:11, 4 November 2009 (UTC) reply |
---|
Comments from
Goodraise (
talk ·
contribs)
Good raise 16:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC) reply
|
Regretfully, I've not found the time to do a complete review of this list. The concerns I've found during my first review pass have all been addressed to my satisfaction. Image usage and alt text is within guidelines. The sources are mostly fine. (Didn't look too deep into them and there also have been several changes since I first reviewed, so I can't really say that they're OK. The general ref needs to be formated like a reference by the way.) My apologies, I've simply been too busy these past weeks. I'll have to remain neutral. Good raise 02:43, 15 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man ( talk) 22:22, 31 October 2009 (UTC) reply |
---|
Comments
|
Comments from Ophois ( talk · contribs)
Theres more than 3 reviews like about.com, IGN, PTC, Smart house but i do not haave DVDs but i do not think there is more.-- Pedro J. the rookie 15:57, 21 November 2009 (UTC) reply
The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 22:30, 17 November 2009 [3].
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe that it meets the criteria.
Good
raise
12:34, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
reply
|
|
Other than that, all looks good I think. -- Lightlowemon ( talk) 09:45, 31 October 2009 (UTC) reply
The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 00:53, 11 November 2009 [6].
I am nominating this for featured list because... I feel this article has met the criteria for featured list.
Extremepro (
talk)
05:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
reply
Comment According to the link checker, there is one dead link. Dabomb87 ( talk) 03:35, 12 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Comments I will copyedit the summaries shortly. In the meantime, there are some immediate issues. Arsonal ( talk) 04:23, 21 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man ( talk) 17:19, 31 October 2009 (UTC) reply |
---|
;Comments from
The Rambling Man (sorry for tardiness)
|
The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 15:32, 7 November 2009 [8].
I am nominating this for featured list because there was still a few improvements to be made and they have now been done.
Mister sparky (
talk)
13:23, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
reply
Not a reviewer, but a couple of things I noticed: In the "featured artist" section, the song "baby by me" is listed as peaking at 122. this is not sourced. also the next song, "good night good morning" needs a reference to confirm its existence as no wiki article or charting information is presently known. Also, link checker shows a couple of dead billboard links. Suede67 ( talk) 19:46, 17 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Oppose Dt128 ( talk · contribs)
Resolved comments from Dt128
|
---|
|
-- Truco 503 17:44, 24 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Comments from Goodraise ( talk · contribs)
At present, I have to oppose this nomination.
Good
raise
00:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
reply
At present, I have to weakly oppose this nomination.
Good
raise
18:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
reply
At present, I have to oppose this nomination, mainly because of sourcing issues. Good raise 02:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Comments
The Rambling Man ( talk) 17:37, 31 October 2009 (UTC) reply
The list was not promoted by Chrishomingtang 20:17, 6 November 2009 [9].
I feel that this list meets all of the
featured list criteria. It has substantial and quality lead (#1) and prose (#2). It is comprehensive, covering all of the individuals, as well as further methods of categorizing them (#3). The table is usable and sortable (#4). It is consistent with the Manual of Style and uses color (#5). It is and will remain stable, with the list only needing updating once a year (#6).
Grsz
11
03:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
reply
- "...of the 38 players drafted in the first round by the Penguins, there are 13 centres, 12 wingers (7 right and 5 left), 8 defenders, and 5 goaltenders. The majority of the players come from Canada, 27 in the number. Czechoslovakia, Russia, Sweden and the United States all have two drafted players, while Belarus and the two now constituent states of Czechoslovakia, the Czech Republic and Slovakia, each have a single player drafted."
The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 01:17, 4 November 2009 [10].
I am nominating this for featured list because i think it meets all the requirements needed for FL status.
Mario
1987
18:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
reply
Comment
— Chris! c/ t 18:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC) reply
This list isn't ready for promotion yet, but with some work, it could get there. KV5 ( Talk • Phils) 20:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Comment while really neat, the "Important companies" requires a citation or otherwise it will look like original research. Nergaal ( talk) 17:20, 28 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Comment The list looks okay as far as the references used go, but there are a couple of more or less subtle issues that shine through the cracks. Let me list them one by one:
Comment I believe the idea pf having this list is a very good one. But there are a number of small problems with the list as of now, which underline the complexity of the issue, and why there are entire bodies doing statistics:
(unindent) I have read it, and I did note that it is based on the INSS info - my only comment on that issue is that the way in which you had chosen to organize the references gives no real clue as to the source and nature of the sources, not meaning to say that the sources are unreliable. Now, the rest of your reply addresses nothing in the point I made: regardless of the supposed likelihood and your "promise" that things won't change (magically or not), they are subject to change. The INSS will likely present new regular reports, which may indeed change the entire hierarchy, over and over again - the problem I see in that is the entire list is ephemeral (as opposed to it having some ephemeral info); you dig?
As for the company column, it has two, distinct but not unrelated, glaring problems. One (which you persistently ignore in your replies) is the
WP:SYNTH issue - an editorial judgment which has it that "revenues are due to x and y company", when the sources don't say that. The sources used are mere disparate news items which state that the companies exist in x county, and maybe that they have a major contribution to some area or another, but don't necessarily back any of the claims you make about their relative importance, which you correlated with the bare INSS facts (which, incidentally, makes it not just original research, but also superfluous). Is this clear? The other problem is that it, in addition to the likely changes for the INSS data, is another variable likely to rot, and neither I or this project you contribute to can reasonably be placated by your assurance that this won't happen. And it doesn't even matter if that info changes "over night" or not; what matters is that they will likely change throughout. Now, I'm hoping other reviewers will understand the points I'm making, as you manifestly won't.
Dahn (
talk)
19:45, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
reply
Note you shouldn't have deleted the "Important companies column. I would suggest to put it back with the names that are featured here. It should work as a good enough reference for important companies (if they are rated in the top 500 in Eastern Europe). Nergaal ( talk) 19:02, 31 October 2009 (UTC) reply
The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 01:17, 4 November 2009 [11].
I am nominating this for featured list because this article has gone through an extraordinary transformation over the years to reach the criteria required for such an article. Advice has been taken from three peer reviews and contributors have made efforts to look at existing featured episode list articles, and follow those formats to make this article look like a featured list article. It is time for this article to be a featured list.
AMK152(
Talk •
Contributions •
Send message)
16:44, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
reply
Co-Nominator:Will help with what i can to please your wishes.-- Pedro J. the rookie 01:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Comments I'm finding myself getting more and more confused with each reading of this page.
At the moment I oppose. I think a lot more work and thought should be put into it. Matthewedwards : Chat 22:17, 10 October 2009 (UTC) reply
- AMK152( Talk • Contributions • Send message) 03:07, 11 October 2009 (UTC) reply
will you be satisfied if i find at least 75 to 80 % of the dates dout i can find them all.-- Pedro J. the rookie 02:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC) reply
dout we will be able to agree so lets leave it like that i will try to improve and you can give your opinion.-- Pedro J. the rookie 03:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Further comments I still do not understand how a season of Spongebob works: The second season of SpongeBob SquarePants premiered on October 26, 2000, with the episodes "Something Smells" and "Bossy Boots". The season ended on July 26, 2003 with "Gary Takes a Bath", yet The third season of SpongeBob SquarePants premiered on October 5, 2001, with the episodes "Just One Bite" and "The Bully". The season ended on October 11, 2004.
How does one season of television episodes span three years and overlap with another season? Has the list been created from the episode names and production numbers given to the US Copyright Office? Has it been created from how the DVDs have been compiled? Episodes get produced for one season but get aired by networks in a different season quite a lot (cf. Star Trek: Voyager and The Simpsons) Episodes get boxed differently from the order of production and broadcast (cf. The Family Guy)
Also, I still don't get what makes two shorts form an episode when they aired at completely different times. So what that they were packaged on a DVD in a certain way? You say that Nick don't broadcast episodes in order, and that they air some shorts packaged with others before airing them a second time with a different short. Where are you getting the official order from? I need to see information other than those two sources that prove what the article says is a season, is actually a season, before I believe this list to be correct
I still have major issues with the prose. Some sentences are written terribly, there are four parastubs, and one huge paragraph that looks out of place, and much of it is unsourced.
Still oppose Matthewedwards : Chat 01:40, 28 October 2009 (UTC) reply
The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 01:17, 4 November 2009 [14].
I feel this article meets criteria, following the format of
List of Kansas City Royals managers, a FL. Thanks for comments in advance.
LAA
Fan
01:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
reply
Comments
The Rambling Man ( talk) 11:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Comments - 2 quick ones, I may have more later:
I went through the pre-1900 list and had a few more comments:
Comments – These are on top of the many issues raised above, some of which are still unresolved. For example, the Ted Sullivan link is still not piped.
Comments – I will most likely add more later: -- Torsodog Talk 17:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC) reply