User talk:Cyberia3

Welcome!

Hello, Cyberia3, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Braghis (talk) 08:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Re: Image tags

The tags look okay, but they do have a note on them that they cannot be the only justification for an image being in the public domain. Since Wikipedia is based in the United States, it doesn't really matter to us that they're in the public domain in the EU. You might check into templates such as {{PD-US-not renewed}}, {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}, or more simply {{PD-US}}. Additionally, make sure to provide the actual source of these images. Even if they are in the public domain, which I don't doubt, we need the source so that other editors may verify their status in the public domain. (ESkog)^(Talk) 16:17, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not sure why we have that tag, to be honest. However, I would note that in most countries, there are agreements such that if a work is copyrighted in one country, it is copyrighted in another. You might ask at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions to get a few more folks to look at this one, because I'm stumped about what tag to pair with that one. (ESkog)^(Talk) 11:28, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Re: TV copyright

The Copyright Office's website is http://copyright.gov/. From there, follow the "Search Copyright Records: Registrations and Documents" link to get to their database.

As for the iron strictness on copyright, that's simply the nature of modern copyright law. Screenshots and clips of old copyrighted shows are often posted on Youtube or forums without trouble usually because either the copyright holder doesn't care enough to go after violations, or the posting could be considered fair use. (This in turn can lead others to assume that things like the Riley shows are PD.) However, one of the core principles of the Wikimedia projects is free culture - the goal that material here should be free for anyone (not just Wikipedia itself) to use, for any purpose, without having to worry about sudden, unexpected copyright-infringement claims. Which means that the current rights-holder not bothering to sue anyone at the moment isn't sufficient grounds to include something.

That said, there's a fair amount of leeway for fair use, and using a screenshot in an article discussing the TV show certainly falls within that. I believe the main thing you need to do with the Riley image at this point is add an appropriate non-free "license" tag, and templatize the rationale. Check Wikipedia:Non-free content for guidance (I haven't uploaded non-free stuff in a few years, so I might be forgetting something). --dave pape (talk) 04:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Jean_Colin.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Jean_Colin.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. feydey (talk) 17:47, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Re: Duh!

Per {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}}: Furthermore, as Wikipedia is hosted in the USA, this tag alone is not sufficient copyright tagging. A second tag must be supplied to indicate why the image is in the public domain in the USA as well.

Unless another tag is supplied the image must be deleted. Thank You, feydey (talk) 18:01, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Show me one American court that thinks it can dictate European copyright policy. European copyright means European copyright. Not American copyright as in not American copyright as in nothing to do with America. (Cyberia3 (talk) 15:29, 7 July 2010 (UTC))

Wikipedia is hosted in the United States, and therefore has to comply with US copyright law as well. Just because it is out of copyright in the EU doesn't mean is public domain everywhere. — VikingViolinist | Talk 12:11, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

If any of the photos I use are American originals with named photographers, produce the evidence. You can't because you're just hand waving. Who's going to threaten to sue the wikipedia over a tiny B&W photo over 70 years old? The ghost of some long dead actor? Has it not occurred to you that much of the information in the wikipedia is copied from copyrighted material from elsewhere? Go bother them. (Cyberia3 (talk) 15:16, 11 May 2011 (UTC))

Okay now I'm confused. First of all, it doesn't matter whether the original is American, British or Thai, every country has its own standards for when something enters public domain, and since Wikipedia is hosted in America, the copyright law we have to comply with on Wikipedia is US copyright law. Secondly, the burden of proof on Wikipedia isn't to prove that something IS copyrighted but to prove that it IS NOT public domain. So in general, whenever a user uploads material, they have to indicate where the material came from, and why they know it is under public domain. — VikingViolinist | Talk 21:24, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

If a British copyright (as in British and not any other country in the world) is taken out and it has expired, why should I investigate further? If the photos had been under American copyright, then an official magazine as in a wide selling Who's Who would have pointed out their copyrights or risked being in breach of copyright themselves. This was not some fan magazine produced in someone's back room but an ongoing annual product. As to US copyright, they would have to show that this photo had at some time in the past (over 70 years ago) once been copyrighted in America. I can't quite see a copyright lawyer spending a few days of his/her time checking on images of Alexander Field (who?) to check this out. (Cyberia3 (talk) 11:33, 12 May 2011 (UTC))

International copyright law is complicated and confusing. I have yet to find a clear explanation of the U.S. copyright status of works such as the aforementioned photograph whose copyright has expired since 1996 in the country of (presumed) original publication. However, I think its use in a particular article could easily be justified as fair use. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 19:37, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I see this as a B cheek. WTH has America got to do with British copyright? Note the name BRITISH, and not British AND American copyright. If you want copyright in America, you must take out a copyright there. If you don't, tough luck because it is not copyrighted there. You and others like you are just making it hard for people to contribute here by throwing up unnecessary obstacles in their path. I know of several people who will no longer contribute to the wikipedia "because it is too much hassle". If the supplied tag is no good, then why is it not modified so it is of some use and does not require a second tag?(Cyberia3 (talk) 08:43, 20 May 2011 (UTC))

File:Men_Like_These.jpg

I have tagged File:Men_Like_These.jpg as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Some examples can be found at Wikipedia:Use rationale examples. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Non-free. Thank you. Closedmouth (talk) 08:56, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Michael_and_Mary.jpg

I have tagged File:Michael_and_Mary.jpg as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Some examples can be found at Wikipedia:Use rationale examples. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Non-free. Thank you. Closedmouth (talk) 09:14, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Operator_13.jpg

I have tagged File:Operator_13.jpg as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Some examples can be found at Wikipedia:Use rationale examples. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Non-free. Thank you. Closedmouth (talk) 09:55, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Springtime For Henry.jpg

File:Springtime For Henry.jpg A rationale is needed for this file. We hope (talk) 18:58, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Tom Dugan.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Tom Dugan.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 15:06, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Steffi Duna.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Steffi Duna.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 16:07, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Buddy Ebsen.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Buddy Ebsen.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 16:07, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

May 2011

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of previously published material to our articles as you apparently did to Creationism. Please cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. Dougweller (talk) 20:41, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I quoted from the bible and the original Hebrew text of Genesis 1. Are you saying that that is not a reliable source? (Cyberia3 (talk) 10:39, 25 May 2011 (UTC))

License tagging for File:Kathleen Gibson1.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Kathleen Gibson1.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 15:07, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:The Mark of Zorro.jpg

⚠

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

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:37, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:The Truth About Wilson.jpg

⚠

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

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:38, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

External link spam

Please stop linking to http://tbssforum.forumactif.com - it does not meet the requirements of WP:EL and plastering it across multiple articles gives the appearance of link spam. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:20, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

That is MY forum. As the wikipedia is so paranoid about copyright, so that most actors now living have no photos of them, while some have photos of themselves often very elderly, as no one remembers them, I am posting photos of them on MY forum so that people can use the links and see what they actually looked like in their prime, as they are remembered. (Example: Look at the colour photo of Roger Moore on his wiki page. Do you remember him like that, when he played The Saint and James Bond?)

As I managed 15 photos on the first page alone, many links will look exactly the same, but will only be noticed if someone like yourself is following all the posts I have made recently. To the average browser, they will maybe see one of my links if they want to see what an actor looks like. What good is an encyclopedia with actors in but no photos of them?

I just waded through the link you gave and I think this applies in my favour:

What can normally be linked

3. Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues,[2] amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons.

Do get back to me soon so I can know if I can continue.

(Cyberia3 (talk) 21:05, 12 July 2011 (UTC))

Adding links to your own website/forum across multiple articles gives the appearance of, and in many cases is, link spam. What makes this specific site over any other site on the entire internet worthy of being linked to to display an image of the article subject? Please seek input from the external links noticeboard prior to adding your forum link to any additional articles. I can do this for you if you prefer. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 13:02, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

It is always difficult to find any reference on the wikipedia that actually explains anything you want to know. The same with me here. I can't find anything against what I have done. Casual browsers to the wikipedia will not know about my site unless they actually open up the link since otherwise no information is given. Spam as I understand is repetition of a message rather than a site, or the IMDB and Find-A-Grave would be spam.

As most film star pages have a link to the Internet Movie Database (IMDB), and in fact has a lot of stuff notably "filmographies" are directly copied from the IMDB, so I am trying to put together some kind of Photo Database that can be used, and as IMDB links are always to the same site, so my photos are linked to the same site too. Would it have been easier if I had called it the Internet Photo Database (forum) so gave it some kind of air of respectability? (Cyberia3 (talk) 14:12, 13 July 2011 (UTC))

In addition to traditional prose advertising, spam within Wikipedia can be related to external links and citations. The IMDB link has, over time and after much discussion, been accepted through consensus as a useable external link. I understand that you have good intentions, but so do many blog, forum, and website owners. The external linking policy was developed not only to provide guidance to what should be linked, but also to make it a fair playing ground for all external sites that would like to be linked on Wikipedia. If everyone with good intentions was allowed to add their link to the EL sections of articles, every article would essentially be a web directory. For specific reasons why your link should not be added WP:ELNO no. 1 and 11 apply as does WP:ELBLP. If you disagree and still believe that your forum should be allowed as an external link, per WP:ELBURDEN, please request additional input at WP:ELN. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:10, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

(1) You don't consider photos of stars featured in articles from a time when they were recognisable unique? Look at any article of a film star now on the wikipedia. Few have photos on and the ones that do have unrecognisable old fogeys. How does that help the best standards of writing on the wikipedia when you have no photos of stars?

(11) This is meant to apply to WRITTEN work, so work of a high standard that the wikipedia finds trustworthy rather than that of an adoring young fan. (Cyberia3 (talk) 20:24, 13 July 2011 (UTC))

Cyberia3, I don't consider your link to be unique, it is one website amongst thousands that have pictures of film celebrities. You have the burden to prove how your forum meets WP:EL guidelines. The place to do this is WP:ELN. Regarding point #11, it applies to links to works in any format, Wikipedia articles rarely link to blogs and personal websites regardless of their content. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:39, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

This is too much trouble. Like so many other potential contributors to wikipedia, I can't be bothered any more with all the hassle. Let the wikipedia stay without photos of film stars apart from a few photos of doddery old wrecks. Who cares. (Cyberia3 (talk) 11:02, 14 July 2011 (UTC))

Nomination of Space kingley for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Space kingley is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Space kingley until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Pstanton (talk) 07:04, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

August 2011

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors. Thank you. Please, per WP:PERSONAL, calling me delusional and attacking the moderation base at large is not helpful, and is a violation of Wikipedia policy. Pstanton (talk) 05:33, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

You would do well to listen to what people say rather than attack what they say (because you have no answers) claiming it is a defense. Assume good faith? I can't remember having ever received that from a moderator here. They usually start with arrogant threats on what they are going to do to my work here. (Cyberia3 (talk) 20:49, 8 August 2011 (UTC))

Non-free rationale for File:Kazar 1.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Kazar 1.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:33, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Philip Latham.jpg

⚠

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

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:50, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:The Shadow.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:The Shadow.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:00, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:Operator 5.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Operator 5.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:49, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Doc West (film)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Doc West (film), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Oddbodz (talk) 21:50, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Cyberia3. You have new messages at Oddbodz's talk page.
Message added 20:47, 4 December 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Oddbodz (talk) 20:47, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

March 2012

Hi. I see that you added information to numerous articles today without citing your sources. One of these was Binnie Hale, but you did not cite a reliable source for the information. Therefore, I removed the information. If you can cite your source for the information, feel free to re-add it with the citation. Please see these guidelines for more information: WP:Cite and WP:Reliable source. Other editors may remove the other unreferenced information that you added, unless you add appropriate citations. This encyclopedia depends on citations to published sources. I strongly recommend that you review our main content policy about this: WP:V. Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:21, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Note that I have reverted the addition of the unsourced content to the all of the articles you edited today. Any of your edits can be restored with the inclusion of a reference that meets Wikipedia's reliable sourcing criteria (note that user generated websites such as IMDB, NNDB, and other online compendia-style sites do not meet this criteria). --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:45, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I can't be bothered any more. You craphead moderators on wikipedia are all vandals, wrecking the work of others. Did you think I'd made it all up for a laugh? As before I used a British 1932 Who's Who on the Screen and you only had to ask but instead you vandalise my work by removing it all, as always. I repeat, you're all crapheads. Close my account. I will never post anything on the wikipedia again. I can't stand your petty stupidness any more.(Cyberia3 (talk) 14:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC))