User talk:Arthur Rubin

Write a new message. I will reply on this page, under your post. This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot III. Any sections older than 28 days are automatically archived to User talk:Arthur Rubin/Archive 2012 . Sections without timestamps are not archived.

I'm starting law school August 13, 2011, so I almost certainly won't have much time to spend here, except during breaks. However, this does not mean that the Global Warming anon is safe. In fact, I may reverted the edits which are not helpful, instead of just the ones which are harmful.

TUSC token 6e69fadcf6cc3d11b5bd5144165f2991

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to everyone who - whatever their opinion - contributed to the discussion about Wikipedia and SOPA. Thank you for being a part of the discussion. Presented by the Wikimedia Foundation.

Talkback

Hello, Arthur Rubin. You have new messages at Calabe1992's talk page.
Message added 17:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Calabe1992 17:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Kalamazoo Kid

Hi Arthur! How's law school treating you? FYI, I just asked for a soft block against one of the Kid's IPs for persistent external link spamming. Details are on my talk page. BTW, what are you doing on wiki? Don't you have an exam tomorrow? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:57, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

IP 99.181.133.202 is online now and is likely the 'Kid again, despite the 30 day block. Please add that one to your list. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 06:37, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I added a note saying editors are welcome to add to the list, including adding tags (specifically, the blocked tag). My desktop computer has died, which is the one I usually edit Wikipedia from, so I don't check as often. (All the law school stuff is on my laptop, but I may miss paying some bills, as the flashdrive backup also died.....) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:36, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ FYI, I have requested a 30-day clock reset and blocking of several IPs for block evasion. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 05:38, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Your opinion

I've done some rearranging of your article ("article about you"? I don't know what the preferred parlance is)... and I was hoping you'd take a look at it, and make sure there aren't any glaring inaccuracies. I know you can't edit it, but a brief skim couldn't hurt, I don't think. I modeled the format after sort of a blend of two other random mathematicians (haha), with the general format from the prior, and the formatting of the in-line "publications" section from the latter, which I think is something you'd mentioned earlier on. I considered adding a "See Also" for Putnam_Fellow#Putnam_Fellows but I don't know if it's standard to "see also" a sub-section... Anyway, thoughts appreciated... Fortheloveofbacon (talk) 13:45, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Mismarked vandalism

Hi Arthur, this should definitely have been reverted but it wasn't vandalism and shouldn't have been marked as such. I'm guessing it was just an oversight but wanted to put it out there just in case. N^oformation ^Talk 06:44, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I apologized to the editor, even though he/she will probably never edit under that name again; I didn't feel like making a null edit to correct my edit summary. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:26, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Let me apologies as well, I didn't realize you suspected the editor to be a sock. If that's the case and you had good reason to believe it then it probably is vandalism. N^oformation ^Talk 07:59, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Removal of link in Cardinality

Would you care to be more specific than "too many errors" regarding your removal of my link under Cardinality? The link is to a piece I wrote on precisely that topic. There is nothing untoward about an author adding such a link. I receive no benefit from the link or from offering the piece for free use by others. I would be grateful for any corrections you may offer, but am unaware of any errors in the piece at this time.

Khalpern (talk) 18:06, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

You should never ( (singing) hardly ever) link to your own work, even if it were published by a reliable source. See, for example, WP:SPS and WP:ELNO#11. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

user 99.90.197.87

Hi Arthur. An IP that you blocked back in November, and has been blocked a number of times since, has continued to edit. That I guess is not a problem, the problem is his or her grasp of English. I am sort of at my wits end here, and would appreciate some advice. Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:49, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I fear our next step might have to be ANI. I have never submitted to ANI, any guidance would be appreciated. Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:01, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I suppose there's no point to a user RfC? It's a stable IP....

I guess the best approach is to suggest a long-term block for WP:COMPETENCE, although WP:NPA may also be appropriate. You've probably gathered more evidence than I had. — Arthur Rubin (talk)

Well, the IP is blocked for a month for edit warring (as an aside, those edit warring templates are evil things to navigate.....) So perhaps after a month we shall see if he or she has learned anything, while I doubt it, one never knows... Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:19, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Follow-up to Cardinality Link Removal

Granted, I had not come across that (I read the pages for generic external links). This said, is there any reason that you object other than a general distaste for such links? If not, I believe you are ignoring the cardinal rule (no pun intended) that if a rule keeps one from improving wikipedia, one should ignore it. As it is, the piece I "self-published" (i.e. posted under a creative commons license on my website) is not original research, contains no controversial claims, involved a great deal of time, and underwent extensive revisions. No, I'm not an expert in the field -- but if we relied on "experts" in cardinality we would be restricted to a very small set of people. As it is, my piece is a very convenient summary of cardinality results -- created for my own use. I am sharing it with others in the hope that they may save time by consulting it. Pedagogical and reference pieces are not published in refereed journals, and I expect you will see far more of this sort of thing as academics move to an open-source model. If I were to link to lecture notes, would that be amiss?

Look, I'm not going to get into a revision war with you. I'm new to wikipedia and was just trying to do something helpful. If this isn't what wikipedia is about, or if it offends some ideology of yours, or if you assume I'm some spammer tooting his own horn, then feel free to dispose of the link. I benefit from your contributions, and would rather not argue over turf that another cultivates quite well. Incidentally, if you had actually read the piece I linked to you probably would have found it quite interesting.

One last thing I should clarify -- I didn't "appear" to link to my own work or try to sneak anything under the radar. I very clearly and explicitly stated that I was doing so in the revision comment, and I would thank you not to impugn my motives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khalpern (talk • contribs) 23:57, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the first time, you didn't say it was yours. At that time, I looked at the page and found it had a number of errors (fact) and that it didn't add much to the pages (opinion). The fact that it's your page means that you may not add it, even if it were accurate and helpful, unless it is published. I have declined to add my published papers or my (late) mother's books and papers as references to articles, even if relevant, although I've sometimes asked on talk pages for them to be added. I may be taking WP:COI too seriously, but that's my take on the issue. Certainly, one of my "papers" characterizing 3-dimensional algebras over the reals (publshed in the newsgroup sci.math only) could not be used as a reference, even though it is referenced by real, published, papers. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:36, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Not sure if this reply will show up as such, so apologies if it doesn't. On reflection I suspect that if our roles were reversed, I would take your position re the self-posting -- so I'm not going to argue it. And clearly you practice what you preach. As for not mentioning that it was mine, I beg to differ. Just look at the "view history" list for Cardinality. My original post's revision comments were "Added external reference to cardinality monograph I posted online." I thought the meaning was clear, but perhaps it came across ambiguously? Otherwise, I'm not sure what "first time" you refer to. As for the errors you speak of, it would be quite helpful to me if you could point some out. However given that I've conceded your point regarding the link, this has the nature of a personal request rather than one concerning wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khalpern (talk • contribs) 01:54, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

My mistake. You did say it was your paper. As for errors –

3. Notation (3): "Partitions"? I don't think that's standard notation in set theory, and I'm sure it's not standard in combinatorics.

3. Notation (5): Suggestion. If you use the convention that an ordinal is the set of previous ordinals, then:

$n = \{0, 1, \ldots, n-1\}$

5. (3) Transfinite = not finite? May have problems if you allow infinite Dedekind finite cardinals.

5. (5) ℵs can be defined even without choice; no assumptions necessary. For example (confusing sets, cardinals, and ordinals),

$\alef_{n+1} = H\left(\alef_n\right)$, where H represents Hartogs' function.

5. (6). See above 5. (3), if there infinite Dedekind finite cardinals, this is wrong. Better to define

$\beth_0 = \alef_0.$

5. Thm. (1). Requires a weak form of the axiom of choice; the axiom of countable choice is adequate.

5. Thm. (5): Requires a weak form of choice; CH can be defined as the statement that there are no cardinals between $\beth_0$ and $\beth_1$; it's difficult to show, but there is a model of set theory in which CH holds and the reals cannot be well-ordered. Definition 5 above can be used to show that there is no cardinal between $\alef_n$ and $\alef_{n+1}$...

5. Thm. (6): GCH implies both forms, but I'm not sure they are equivalent without choice. Together, they don't imply GCH.

5. Thm. (7): I'm not sure what you're saying; 5. Thm. (8) below is a conseqence of AC

5. Thm. (8): Consequence of AC.

6. Properties (16) (17) (19) do not require c > 0 except to avoid a=c=0 for (16) and (17).

11.1 (14): The Hamel basis of R^N over R is actually $\beth_1$ (assuming AC) At least, I think I can demonstrate that. If not, there would be a vector space isomorphism between R^N and R^<N. I can't prove there isn't one immediately, but it doesn't look correct.

11.2 (21): That one's probably OK....

11.3 (5): Probably correct, anyway.

12 Dimension = algebraic? You need to specify the base field, as well. In set theory, the Hamel basis is usually the Hamel basis of R over Q. (As an aside, all bases of a vector space V over a field K having the same cardinality requires a form of the axiom of choice. I don't recall if it's equivalent.)

Not all the statements where you attribute the proof to section 20.1 are actually even noted there....

Actually, that's about all. Fewer errors than I thought. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Wow - thanks, Arthur. I really appreciate the time you took to read the piece and comment on it. I guess I took too hand-wavy an approach in places (I admit to being an ex-physicist) and glossed over certain subtleties. Your list will be of great help in revising the document and improving my own understanding of the subject. This was very kind of you. Khalpern (talk) 04:59, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Talk page deletion

What was the BLP violation in the section titled "out of Italian Fascism"? [1]   Will Beback  talk  01:43, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

You can restore it if you wish, but it looks as if it was accusing Santorum of illegal campaigning based on an alleged (later) statement by Judge Frank Montemuro. I could be wrong, as I can make little sense out of the entire section. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:52, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

If we're not sure we should probably leave it there. BLP is a strict policy, but it shouldn't be used indiscriminately.   Will Beback  talk  03:11, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Clark County Nevada Caucus info deletion

Perhaps we are giving a good contributor a hard time. I agree with Drodbeck, that grammar and spelling are real issues for 99.90.197.87 I spent some time, today, trying to fix spelling and grammar excitement (I can't fix citation problems at this speed).

99... should have used this article in his references for the counting section (which probably should have been in the Clark County section): http://www.lvrj.com/news/clark-county-gop-continues-counting-verifying-caucus-votes-138746289.html He may have done so if you had placed some cn tags. Instead you deleted the whole section; which may not have been your most appropriate response.

I encourage you to recreate the counting section and reference the article which he was clearly reading. He kindly referenced the article, making it easy for me to find. I appreciate the edit help that you and Drodbeck have afforded this article. I'm hoping that we can all learn from this experience. I know very little about wiki editing, I would otherwise perform these citations and reversions myself. Should you lag in the effort, I'll be here to support you.

50.132.91.194 (talk) 05:21, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I just watched Amy Tarkanian retire here:

http://www.lasvegassun.com/videos/2012/feb/06/6296/ 99 may have deserved some cn tags; I doubt that he deserved the multiple reversion and deletion we brought him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.132.91.194 (talk) 06:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I saw nothing in the "Counting" section that should be there even if it were sourced. Too much detail, not relevant to the election. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

removal of editor opinion on PAC Page

Okay let me take another stab at making this paragraph...ramifications of the Jan 31st ruling I feel certainly can be justified..and I happen to have a many years of legal experience reading court rulings and have successfully won several circuit court, appeal court, and even a supreme court decision in my favor in Hawaii. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pbmaise (talk • contribs) 05:52, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

MSU Interview

Dear Arthur,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, were it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:

• Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
• Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
• All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
• All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
• The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 15:39, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

88 (number)#In sports

I reverted your reverting my edits at 88 (number)#In sports. Your edit summary stated there was no citation so I found one. It excessively removed other edits, all well researched. Use Template:Citation needed next time. Richardc020 (talk) 22:12, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. See WP:NUM#Numbers in sports for the reason I removed your sports figures. AGAIN — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:28, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

All of these are in the Major Leagues:

• Indianapolis Colts' wide receiver Marvin Harrison's jersey number.
• Baltimore Colts's John Mackey's former jersey number.
• Kansas City Chiefs' Jonathan Baldwin's jersey number.
• St. Louis Rams' wide receiver Isaac Bruce's former jersey number.
• Portland Trailblazers' Nicolas Batum's jersey number.

so you'll have to cite another rule or more detail why. Richardc020 (talk) 00:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The number has to be retired by a major league team. Not the number of a player at a major league team that was retired by his minor league team, and not the number of a retired player unless the number is specifically retired by the team. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:24, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Explain why you didn't delete all the rest in that article which I didn't write but which you kept despite its not meeting that criteria. Targeting me? Richardc020 (talk) 17:11, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I deleted all the sports entries, except NASCAR (which seems to have a specific entry in the guidelines) and the LPGA record, which probably isn't OK under the guidelines, but it is a current "league" (LPGA) record. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:59, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Baristha

Could you take a look at this blocked editor's recent posting to his talk page, with an eye to determining whether it's an appropriate use of the page while blocked? Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:25, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

FYI

It appears that you appended your "oppose" comment to the prior "poll" rather than to the current RfC. I thought you might want to reconsider your edit. Regards. JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:55, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Santorum

Hi, I'm not sure what you mean on your edit here. Are you saying that the spreadingsantorum site might be libel, and therefore we should not use the link? If so, we've gone over that a lot and the consensus of others is that it isn't libel. If you have reasons why it may be, could you come and give a more detailed rundown of why? B^e——C_ritical 19:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

It would be defamation but-for the questioned assertion of parody. Seems parallel. I'll provide more comments there when I have more time. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:55, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I did research on defamation, and it is very different from what you would think just looking at something: you can say just about anything, as long as you aren't making a claim which is both untrue, and meant to be taken literally. I doubt anything on the site meets both those criteria. B^e——C_ritical 01:15, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Proposed merge involving Republican Primary articles.

An article that you have been involved in editing, Republican Party presidential candidates, 2012, has been proposed for a merge with Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Jack Bornholm (talk) 16:49, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Fractal Fractions

Arthur: I got the positive response I was hoping for from a professor in the Mathematics Department at the University of Michigan. He computed the finite sum of that Fractal Fraction I posted and it is 1. I still do not know how to compute that type of fraction nor what they are called if anything.

Obviously the article adds nothing as it now stands.

Nick — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nwbeeson (talk • contribs) 16:26, February 13, 2012‎

I'm sorry; he's wrong. The value alternates between 1/2 and 2; getting 1 requires something like the product analog of the cumulative moving average. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:24, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Rename at Campaign for "santorum" neologism

Hello, since you recently participated in an RfC at Campaign for "santorum" neologism, I thought you might be interested in this proposal for renaming the article, or perhaps another of the rename proposals on the page. Best, B^e——C_ritical 22:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

* Issue versus Express Advocacy

rewrote whole page...don't know how to do ref/name function and few good sources the only 168 people downloaded the law journal article I was using. Bummer..these pages see thousands per day PhilPbmaise (talk) 09:35, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

removal of material from user talk page

Hi, Generally, I'd prefer that others not remove (non-abusive) material from my user talk page, but I trust you have your reasons. Though now I'm curious. What's the story with User: 99.119.131.159? Why were they blocked? The edits seem largely innocuous and minor, from the handful I've checked. Sindinero (talk) 08:39, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

It's a sock of the blocked IP 97.87.29.188 . It's rare than any of the 99.* stays around long enough to be blocked, but contributions of a block-evading IP can be removed wherever they may be found. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the speedy response. Sindinero (talk) 08:42, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, how do you know that those IPs were the same user? JRSpriggs (talk) 10:11, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

All from Kalamazoo, Michigan; all making the same edits (WP:TEA, linking/unlinking single articles with edit summary the article, adding (actually, restoring comments associated with yet another another incarnation, reverted as also being a sock) raw links to talk pages with the text "please consider adding ..."), adding probably inappropropriate Wikinews links, etc. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:20, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

FYI, some are from nearby communities. For example, it's a pretty easy hop from 'zoo to Grand Rapids or Portage, two other cities the editor apparently frequents. There's stuff about the recent blocking on my talk page too. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:19, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Material implication

I created this, as you suggested. Hope you like it.
Dooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooot (talk) 05:03, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

The Heartland Institute

Hi, your recent edits removed material currently under discussion after several reverts - can you please make your points there along with others so we can agree on this para. Babakathy (talk) 08:58, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks.Babakathy (talk) 09:58, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Unanswered Question

It has been a month and you still have not answered my question yet. Why did you link the word sex to the Gender article (instead of linking it to the Sex article) in the opening sentence of the Female article? 174.1.105.28 (talk) 02:43, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Because "gender" is more appropriate in that context than "sex"? Acroterion (talk) 02:52, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

In the opening sentence of the Female article, it states that "female is the sex of an organism, or a part of an organism, which produces non-mobile ova (egg cells)." Based on that sentence, I'm pretty sure that the word sex refers to biological sex (not gender). If you think the word sex refers to characteristics used to distinguish between males and females (i.e. gender), then what exactly makes you think that? 174.1.105.28 (talk) 05:48, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

at WT:V

• Hi there user:Arthur Rubin 71000 edits, sysop. Your actions at WT:V are disruptive. Please stop it. NewbyG ( talk) 04:08, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

• I don't think this was a proper revert of comments, myself. I seriously object to being lumped into a "little gang" (ABF stuff, really), and I do not like, for the most part, the way the "higher ups" are handling the nightmare at WP:V as of late. Why did you erase the comments of this editor? Do you know how long the page has been sullied by discussions of "truth"? I can show you if you want... Doc talk 06:23, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not saying that other users are not disruptive there, just that NewbyG is still being disruptive, although he's learned to produce almost understandable comments. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:44, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough - but if you objectively look at the edits to the policy page (esp. concerning the dreaded "tag"), you will see at least a "micro-consensus" to remove it. "Little gang" indeed. The silent masses may not choose to comment, but 8:2 is still 4:1, and it's a far better indication of consensus on that issue than the alleged support for removing VNT without any sort of compromise. So the policy will remain "under discussion" forever. Yippee. Doc talk 06:52, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

.. although he's learned to produce almost understandable comments. I am pleased to hear that. I do hope we will have no unpleasantness over this. I believe I have the right when it is claimed I am a member of a "little gang" to object to that, it is a personal attack ,and it is in-accurate, and such comments are being used as a smokescreen by user:S Marshall, who is the disruptive editor at WT:V. Why is that user being protected? And why am I still being persecuted and denied natural justice. The actions you have recently taken at WT:V fly in the face of any sensible and fair and productive efforts. Sorry, I used to admire you. Here, you are using bueracratic folderol to suppress my legitimate comments, which you must know. That is contrary to the spirit of this wiki, though obviously WP:AGF still applies and will always apply. Sorry. NewbyG ( talk) 08:57, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Proofs

Arthur, you're a [redacted]. I'm just trying to help the wiki, and here you are, canceling my work! I am a philosophy student, and I know for sure that material implication is a rule! So [redacted]! ~Doot~ (talk) 05:32, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't doubt that you're trying to help. Your "proofs" (especially when they duplicate an already-existing proof using yet another set of basic rules) belong at WikiBooks or WikiVersity, not here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:42, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I have removed the personal attacks on this page and left a reminder on Doot's talk page. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 21:01, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Sikorav

Hi Arthur, Could you please restore the page Jean-Claude Sikorav if you get a chance? Tkuvho (talk) 15:51, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Done by CBM, although I don't yet see enough there to save it from AfD. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:15, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Me neither, but the argument for a temporary undeletion seemed reasonable enough, in case there is more material to add. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:17, 27 February 2012 (UTC)