Talk:Wikipedia

Other notices

States

Moved to Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#States

Wikipedia:Formal organization

Currently there's a hat note "For Wikipedia's formal organizational structure, see Wikipedia:Formal organization." ..Why? It's an essay (and should be tagged as such). It's already linked through Wikipedia:About which should be sufficient. Why is an essay being given such prominence in the encyclopaedia article, without consensus? Яehevkor ✉ 19:04, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikiblackout

Hi, I think this article should include the prospective blackout of the english version occurring this wednesday (19-Jan-2012). As far as I can remember, this would be the first time the english page is going down, regardless of the reason. I think its pretty important for the wikipedia with the most articles out there. Cheers. Danielfc.mx (talk) 07:48, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Also worth noting that they are going against their longstanding point of view of neutrality — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.26.141.133 (talk) 01:46, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree - this blackout should be mentioned in the article. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 22:18, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Although that might be better mentioned in the article History of Wikipedia. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 22:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Where the blackout is already mentioned! ACEOREVIVED (talk) 11:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, I have now made a brief reference to this in the article (under the sub-heading "History of Wikipedia") but I did not wish to type too much on this as it is already covered in History of Wikipedia. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 19:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:NPOV only applies to articles, so the SOPA blackouts didn't actually violate it. Just clearing that up. 143.92.1.33 (talk) 03:16, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Talking to yourself on Wikipedia... Tut tut tut. 203.11.71.124 (talk) 08:05, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Formal organization ( revised and updated)

The presentation Wikipedia:Formal organization has undergone extensive review and editing. It appears to contain useful information for readers and contributors that would be more likely to be found if placed in Wikipedia than in its present form as a project page.

Please evaluate whether it is now suitable for inclusion in the article Wikipedia as a subsection, or what changes might bring it into that form. Brews ohare (talk) 18:56, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• Comment:
• Oppose. Oppose due to lack of secondary sources as I have mentioned in the past. If these sources do no exist, it simply should not be placed into the main name space and should remain as an essay in the Wikipedia space. Яehevkor ✉ 19:19, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Per my comments on its talk page it's fine where it is as an essay. It's not reliably sourced, instead is sourced almost entirely from Wikipedia itself, which is among the sources that are usually not reliable. Apart from that it has style issues, (many inline external links), is unencyclopaedically written, has a number of POV issues and would be imbalanced if added here. A lot of that stems though from the lack of proper sourcing: if it only included what reliable sources write about Wikipedia it would be much more suitable for inclusion in an article.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 19:28, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Rehevkor & Blackburne: Your opposition is based upon next to no use of secondary sources. That position seems not to pay any attention to the article preamble that points out that what is reported is what WP says about itself, and also the limitation of this material to reporting only the formal administrative structure without commentary upon its efficacy or suitability for its purpose. In other words, there is no "point of view" or commentary or evaluation presented that might require a secondary source to achieve objectivity. As noted in the introduction, WP allows itself to be used as a source under these circumstances.

Can you address these points that do not support your stance? Brews ohare (talk) 19:35, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

No, WP:V does not say that Wikipedia is a reliable source. It only says it can be used as a primary source. Reliable sources are still needed for an article. As for POV that arises when an editor does not use secondary sources but instead assembles an article from primary sources or other non-reliable sources.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 19:45, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

The policy you link, WP:V, lists five circumstances to be satisfied in order that a "questionable source" be used as a source of information about itself. Every one of these five conditions is satisfied by Wikipedia:Formal organization. Brews ohare (talk) 16:55, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

You also can refer to this policy statement: Wikipedia may be cited with caution as a primary source of information on itself, such as in articles about itself. If attention is paid to WP policy on primary sources in this regard, it says very sensibly that "All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to the original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." and that "Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources, though primary sources are permitted if used carefully. "

Can you point out anything in Wikipedia:Formal organization that constitutes a misuse to advance "interpretive claims" or "novel interpretations"? Frankly, I find your use of the primary source limitations to be a superficial invocation of a policy in a manner contravening its stated purpose, and without any actual instance where the policy has been violated in the sense the policy itself describes as a violation.

If you can identify any specific objectionable statements in Wikipedia:Formal organization, they will be removed or rephrased. Brews ohare (talk) 19:57, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Failing the presentation of any specific instance of a statement violating the conditions put forth in WP policies, I'd say the objections of both of you, Rehevkor & Blackburne, have no basis. Brews ohare (talk) 17:11, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

You have my reply above. It needs sourcing in reliable sources. Please identify the reliable sources it is based on. See e.g. WP:OR: "all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source."--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 17:32, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Blackburne: It doesn't constitute a "reply" to reiterate claims with no attempt to meet objections. In particular, there is no example statement provided that violates any of the policies you incorrectly claim to limit movement of Wikipedia:Formal organization to become part of the article Wikipedia. Brews ohare (talk) 17:44, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll provide an example of correct application of policy. The leading sentence following the Introduction in Wikipedia:Formal organization says

The contributors or editors of Wikipedia participate subject to a number of policies and guidelines governing behavior and content.

Now, as you quote WP:OR "all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source." Obviously the link provided in Wikipedia:Formal organization is to WP, not a "reliable" source. So this statement, according to you, is in violation of the policy WP:OR.

To counter this view, WP:OR#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources says

"Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources, though primary sources are permitted if used carefully. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source..."

Clearly the provided sentence from Wikipedia:Formal organization does not attempt any "novel interpretation", "interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims". Consequently, there is no violation of WP:OR. Likewise, you have claimed earlier a violation of WP:V. Here again, this policy states:

"Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the requirement in the case of self-published sources that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

1. the material is not unduly self-serving;
2. it does not involve claims about third parties;
3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;
4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
5. the article is not based primarily on such sources."

Evidently the provided sentence from Wikipedia:Formal organization satisfies all these conditions that permit the use of WP as a source of information, with the exception of the last one. Its applicability could be discussed further by looking into this policy in more detail.

Your reduction of very extensive policies, like WP:OR and WP:V that occupy pages on WP, to sound bites that ignore all nuance about their application, is not proper use.

If you have identified some statements in Wikipedia:Formal organization that are objectionable when the entire policy description is entertained, please present them here for correction. And please avoid the sound-bite approach to policy application. Brews ohare (talk) 18:32, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support. High quality and relevant information, adequately and abundantly sourced with reliable primary sources where no secondary sources are available, in full compliance with wp:CIRCULAR: "Wikipedia may be cited with caution as a primary source of information on itself, such as in articles about itself."

  Note. If the quoted policy statement is not applicable, then it should be unambiguously rephrased or even removed from the wp:V policy. - DVdm (talk) 18:58, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: I'm not bothered by citing Wikipedia itself that much, but it bothers me that it's rather long. It only covers the EN Wikipedia, while this is supposed to be the article about the whole project. The English Wikipedia subsection is already unique - this would make it even longer. It's fine as a standalone, but I think unless radically shortened it would be undue weight in this article. --GRuban (talk) 21:57, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

GRuban: The question of how much space should be devoted to any chosen topic in the article Wikipedia is worthy of discussion. It could be argued that the material in Wikipedia:Formal organization is of greater importance to the article Wikipedia than, for instance, the extensive section Rules and laws, which also is devoted mainly to the English WP, and which could easily be split off as a separate project page. As a general observation, the content of Wikipedia appears to be a result of accretion and not of editorial planning. Do you agree? Brews ohare (talk) 18:17, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. (1) I agree with GRuban that adding the section to this article would create undue weight problems. (2) The article is already very long. It has a readable prose size of 56K, while WP:Article Size says that articles above 50K may need to be split. (3) The section is based on primary sources, while WP:PRIMARY says, "Do not base ... material entirely on primary sources" -- JTSchreiber (talk) 06:25, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

JTSchreiber: GRuban has brought up the length issue, which has nothing to do with the policy undue weight, which discusses whether one side of a subject has been overemphasized compared to alternative views, a topic hardly relevant here. The length question has merit, though it could be argued that there are many other topics in the article Wikipedia that are better candidates go elsewhere or be summarized to shorten the article.

The WP:PRIMARY argument does not have merit. It has been thoroughly disposed of above in the reply to Blackburne. To summarize, WP:PRIMARY is a very extensive policy, and contains exceptions that apply here, and that are not addressed by a sound-bite summary of this policy. Brews ohare (talk) 18:26, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

No, the WP:PRIMARY argument has not been 'disposed' of. It is part of WP:NOR, one of Wikipedia's core content policies, and cannot simply be ignored when inconvenient. There is no exception for Wikipedia; it is a primary source which cannot be used as the main source for material.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 18:47, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

John Blackburne: Once again, you have refused to reply to the obvious points raised above in response to your earlier identical unsupported assertion that WP:Primary rejects the proposed transfer of WP:Formal organization to the article Wikipedia. Your assertion is based upon summarizing WP:Primary in a sound bite, and failing to address the detailed exceptions that apply to this case. Although iteration of fallacies can sell toothpaste, it shouldn't work here. Brews ohare (talk) 01:12, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Brews ohare, you made two incorrect statements in your discussion of undue weight. First you wrote that "GRuban has brought up the length issue, which has nothing to do with the policy undue weight". No, GRuban brought up undue weight. Look at the last sentence of GRuban's posting: "I think unless radically shortened it would be undue weight in this article." Second, you wrote that undue weight "discusses whether one side of a subject has been overemphasized compared to alternative views". You implied that this is all that undue weight includes, but actually it is broader than that. Here is what the policy states:

An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic.

This is the type of undue weight which GRuban refered to. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 05:23, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I have agreed that the length issue is worthy of discussion from the viewpoint of the overall length of the article. However, an overall analysis of all the topics in the article, and how much weight should be given to the organization of WP compared to these, has not been attempted so far. Brews ohare (talk) 20:18, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

On the subject of WP:PRIMARY, my response was not a sound bite argument. I pointed out a sentence in WP:PRIMARY which was was missing from your somewhat thorough response to Blackburne above. The sentence I quoted is a key principle for this debate and must not be ignored. It is not overridden by the sentence about avoiding interpretation of primary sources. To comply with the policy, material must not interpret primary sources and material must not be based entirely on primary sources. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 05:23, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

The point in WP:Verifiablity suggesting acceptability requires that "the article is not based primarily on such [primary] sources" was mentioned in the response to Blackburne. Although more could be said about this, the basic point to consider here is the following: Wikipedia:Formal organization has as its stated purpose to describe what WP says about its own organization. Further, any discussion of this organization in secondary sources is entirely of the nature of quotations from the very self-same WP articles used for the same purpose in Wikipedia:Formal organization.

It all seems a bit ridiculous to suggest that a secondary source is needed, for example, in order to say "Jimmy Wales sits on the board of Wikimedia Foundation". Finding a "secondary source" that says this means only finding a source that cites exactly the same WP article as its own source that is used directly in Wikipedia:Formal organization.

This example is completely typical of all the information in Wikipedia:Formal organization, which is restricted in its entirety to simple matters of fact, and involves no assessment or evaluation of this organization, its strengths or its wisdom. The espoused purpose of WP:Primary in insisting upon secondary sources is "to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources, though primary sources are permitted if used carefully." In other words, to insure balance in opinion on debatable subjects, of which there are none here. Brews ohare (talk) 20:18, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, in your response to Blockburne, you did mention this WP:V statement: "the article is not based primarily on such [primary] sources" Here's all that you wrote about that statement: "Its applicability could be discussed further by looking into this policy in more detail." That's so vague that it's practically a non-statement. And yet, that vague statement is all you have to justify your later claim that "The WP:PRIMARY argument does not have merit. It has been thoroughly disposed of above in the reply to Blackburne." Thoroughly disposed of? Really? It was barely even touched on.

As far the "espoused purpose" of WP:PRIMARY, your statement is incorrect. The next sentence in WP:OR after the one you quoted is "Material based purely on primary sources should be avoided." The policy does not say that this second sentence is derived from the sentence you quoted. The two sentences are stated independently with neither taking priority over the other. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 06:31, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

• Suggestion — Let's have a look again at the wp:V-policy, in casu wp:CIRCULAR. It seems somewhat ambiguously worded now as:

  Wikipedia may be cited with caution as a primary source of information on itself, such as in articles about itself.

  I think that it either should be reworded to:

  Lacking secondary sources, Wikipedia may be cited with caution as a primary source of information on itself, such as in articles about itself,

  or it should be reworded to:

  Lacking secondary sources, Wikipedia may not be cited as a primary source of information on itself, such as in articles about itself.

  (Emphasis for clarity — not to be included).

  So, in order to avoid this discussion and future similar discussions, the policy statement would just need either 3 extra, or "4 extra and 2 less" words to become undisputably unambiguous.

  Would anyone mind if the policy would be reworded to one of these alternatives? - DVdm (talk) 21:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

It seems clear to me without the extra wording that the second is what's intended. It states WP can be used as a primary source where appropriate, and the policies on primary sources are clear. The 'with caution' does not modify this, it only suggests editors are careful about using such sources, so they don't rely solely or mostly on them. It is perhaps redundant as the same policy applies to all primary sources, and it doesn't say anything different about WP than is said elsewhere about primary sources.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 21:27, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

To me it seems absolutely clear that the first wording is what's intended. So, it would be a good thing to have it iron-casted, so to speak, don't you think? - DVdm (talk) 21:50, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

The first interpretation though doesn't match the policies on primary vs. secondary sources, OR, verifiability etc. In particular it goes against the core policies that secondary sources are required for notability and verifiability. But if you think it needs clarifying it should be raised at that page, not here, as any such changes to policy should be discussed centrally.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 22:23, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree about your latter point. I have added an RFC at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#RfC: Ambiguity about the circularity wording. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 23:16, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Update — The RFC resulted in a change of the above statement at wp:CIRCULAR to:

Citing Wikipedia to support a descriptive statement about Wikipedia itself, is not a form of circular referencing. Instead it is the use of Wikipedia as a primary source and should follow the relevant policy for the use of primary sources.

- DVdm (talk) 20:11, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Legal Use?

I develop applications for the BlackBerry PlayBook. And I noticed that someone released a 1.99 application that is really just wikipedia:

http://appworld.blackberry.com/webstore/content/76936/?lang=en

This raises a good question to me, is it legal for someone to sell access to Wikipedia? Just curious. I'm certain this guy did this for a free PlayBook.

70.72.48.24 (talk) 02:18, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Unfortunately yes. In fact, to access Wikipedia you're paying your ISP right now.Jasper Deng (talk) 02:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

sexual content

I've noticed that the part on sexual content has links to explicit content now I know that wikipedia isn't concurred but shouldn't the links to these articles not be linked please reply --Jeffrd10 (talk) 14:24, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean "censored"? I don't see any reason not to link to those articles. garik (talk) 16:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

A book from the Middle Ages that had many illuminations and was used to teach

A book from the Middle Ages that had many illuminations and was used to teach

• illustration
• missal
• script
• mastery

On sexual content

The article currently makes the unsourced claim (bolding mine):

It also contains materials that some people may find objectionable, offensive, or pornographic.[114] It was made clear that this policy is not up for debate, and the policy has sometimes proved controversial.

But it is _clearly_ stated in the lead of a professional news article that "massive sitewide pornography purges and pledges to “do better.”"[2] which directly contradicts this unsourced claim. This page is protected so I am unable to change it. Can someone please correct the article to reflect that according to reliable sources that Wikipedia distributes explicit pornography, including child pornography, and has pledged to "do better" but has, according to the sources, failed to live up to those promises?

Anything less would be editorial bias— the same kind of claims are often taken without question on other articles so long as they are verifiable

Cheers. --71.191.197.79 (talk) 05:36, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Creation of page

Dear sir/madam,

I want to create a descriptive page about the tourist area of our region. How can I do that task ?

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meroramu (talk • contribs) 14:42, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

[WP:YFA] might be a good starting point. Please check that your subject is notable as per WP:N and WP:GNG and that your wording is as neutral and possible in tone. Cheers. 217.251.164.48 (talk) 11:10, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Poor quality pronunciation audio file

The article head includes links to two pronunciations of "Wikipedia". The first one, commons:File:En-uk-Wikipedia.ogg, is very poor quality and should be replaced. In my opinion, the audio is too quiet and it noticeably peaks on the plosive 'PEE' syllable. I'm not in a position to rerecord it, so I'm bringing it to the attention of any editors watching this page. I'll look to see if there's any maintenance tag I can add to the Commons page to alert this to the attention of other interested editors. Matt (talk) 21:42, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

What is lying? why people tell lie? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.99.30.44 (talk) 09:57, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Low quality and out of date

This article needs work. I'm surprised to find that it's not a shining example. It would be quick-failed at FAC. It would help if the Foundation could get the stats "dump" happening again. A lot of stats haven't appeared since the start of 2010. There was talk that this would be corrected January 2012, but nothing thus far. With updated stats, at least we could get a move on freshening up the underlying stats for this article. Tony (talk) 12:55, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

A question on how Wikipedia can really have an article on itself without bias.

Is it honestly possible for this article to be without bias. Many editors love Wikipedia and wouldn't that make any user who edits this page someone who has a conflict of interest? Just throwing it out there. Hghyux (talk) 00:10, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Everyone has interests. But it's only when the aims of the editors and the aims of Wikipedia aren't aligned that conflicts of interest are created. Wikipedia aims to be an unbiased encyclopedia. So it depends what you think the aims of the majority of contributors are. If the aims of the majority are to create an accurate, unbiased encyclopedia, then the article will be unbiased as well.Planetscared (talk) 15:41, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

In the case of simply reporting facts about WP such as its organization, or simply stating what WP claims to be its dispute resolution procedures, or statistics about its operation such as how many articles it contains, WP may be the best source available for information about itself, and bias is unlikely, other than sins of omission. However, where assessment or judgment is involved, such as comments on ArbCom activity, there is the possibility of bias. So, in this case, the statement that Arbcom functions "not so much to resolve disputes and make peace between conflicting editors, but to weed out problematic editors", some may disagree that this is espoused policy. (Personally, I'd call this remark accurate as to how things work in practice, whether or not WP claims explicitly that this is the function of ArbCom. Of course, the objective identification of "problematic editors" is another matter.) Brews ohare (talk) 16:50, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

See...Also links

This edit removing links to WP:Formal organization and WP:Editing environment is based upon the in-line comment "per WP:SEEALSO the see also section is for links to related articles", which seems to me inapplicable, inasmuch as the WP hierarchical structure and editing environment appear to me to be very much pertinent to the topic Wikipeida. The See also link in this comment suggests that "common sense" be applied to this section and that "The links in the "See also" section should be relevant, should reflect the links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic", which clearly is the case here. Brews ohare (talk) 15:42, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

As the guideline says that section is for

A bulleted list, preferably alphabetized, of internal links to related Wikipedia articles. (emphasis added)

And neither of those links are to articles but to two essays. The common sense mentioned is that used to decide which articles to include. It does not mean the guideline should be ignored.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 17:12, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

So, John, what is your take on the For...see link to WP:About at the top of the page? If I understand your interpretation, no Main page article can link to a Project page through See also. Is that your view? So perhaps a For...see link is preferable? Brews ohare (talk) 17:22, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

No, please stop trying to promote your essays.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 17:41, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

John, I find your comment unresponsive to the questions asked: (i) What is your take on the For...see link to WP:About at the top of the page? (ii) Is it your view that no Main space article can link to a Project page through See also links?

The guidance essay WP:Formal organization is not "my" essay. As you will find at the top of its Talk page, this article has gone through extensive assessment by many editors and modified accordingly. It is not "my" essay, but the result of collaboration and review. Brews ohare (talk) 17:50, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I am not here to answer questions or explain policy to you. As for WP:Formal organization and WP:Editing environment they are almost all your work: no other editor has made a substantial contribution to either. That is not a criticism of it: many if not most essays are largely the work of one editor. But they are still essays, and so should not be added.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 18:11, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

John, although it's not your function to explain policy, it could be helpful. In particular, you pointed out:

A bulleted list, preferably alphabetized, of internal links to related Wikipedia articles. (emphasis added)

I took this to mean your interpretation was that "articles" (main space) as opposed to "project pages" were referred to. Perhaps I have misunderstood you? That is my question. It is about your interpretation of this policy. Brews ohare (talk) 18:33, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:What is an article?--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 19:02, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

RfC: For...see link to WP:Formal organization

It seems to me that a For...see link to WP:Formal organization analogous to the present WP:About link is appropriate and would be a service to readers interested in the organizational structure of WP, a topic quite pertinent to the subject of the article Wikipedia.

What is the general view of this matter? Please comment here. Brews ohare (talk) 20:13, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• Comment: Editor Blackburne has removed a For...see link to WP:Formal organization on the basis that this link was to a "personal" essay. According to WP:ESSAY there is no such essay category. The article is presently identified with a banner that makes clear it is not a policy or a guideline.

The implication of the wording "personal" essay, of course, is that WP:Formal organization somehow involves my own opinions, not necessarily widely shared. What WP:Formal organization is in fact, is an outline of WP documentation regarding the hierarchical structure of WP (its officers and their duties, terms of service, etc.). It contains no assessment, analysis or viewpoint upon these matters, but simply lays out the facts according to WP documentation.

It seems that a For...see link to WP:Formal organization is appropriate and helpful. Brews ohare (talk) 20:13, 5 March 2012 (UTC)