Help talk:Naming conventions - Revision history

imported>Radicell at 11:42, 7 March 2010

2010-03-07T11:42:05Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:42, 7 March 2010
(No difference)

imported>Radicell at 11:42, 7 March 2010

2010-03-07T11:42:05Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:42, 7 March 2010
Line 4:		Line 4:
	! Archived Topics		! Archived Topics
	\|-		\|-
	\| align=center \| [[Help talk:Naming conventions/Archive 1\|Sept 2007-Jul 2008]] \|\| <small>{{ArchiveLinks\|Help talk:Naming conventions/Archive 1		\| align=center \| [[Help talk:Naming conventions/Archive 1\|Sept 2007-Jul 2008]] \|\| <small>{{ArchiveLinks\|Help talk:Naming conventions/Archive 1}}
	\|-		\|-
	\| align=center \| [[Help talk:Naming conventions/Archive 2\|Oct 2008-Apr 2009]] \|\| <small>{{ArchiveLinks\|Help talk:Naming conventions/Archive 2}}</small>		\| align=center \| [[Help talk:Naming conventions/Archive 2\|Oct 2008-Apr 2009]] \|\| <small>{{ArchiveLinks\|Help talk:Naming conventions/Archive 2}}</small>

imported>Radicell: old archives need ta be displayed, yo

2010-03-07T11:41:30Z

old archives need ta be displayed, yo

Show changes

imported>Mc hammark: /* Suggestion to re-evaluate */ these have all been renamed

2010-03-06T22:37:06Z

Suggestion to re-evaluate: these have all been renamed

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:37, 6 March 2010
Line 125:		Line 125:
	*[[Mohinder's ability]] (named 9/24/2008)		*[[Mohinder's ability]] (named 9/24/2008)
	*[[Future terrorist's ability]] (named 10/8/2008)		*[[Future terrorist's ability]] (named 10/8/2008)
	*[[Edward's ability]] (named 11/10/2008)
	*[[David's ability]] (named 12/31/2008)		*[[David's ability]] (named 12/31/2008)
	*[[Matt's ability]] (named 3/24/2009)
	*[[Linda's ability]] (named 4/11/2009)
	*[[Crazy grin man's ability]] (named 4/12/2009)
	We should be able to arrive at a process for each of these, that is based on the attributes of the ability as we've been shown, that is not grossly speculative, and that would be much better than retaining no-name as the default, and keeping it for lengthy periods of time (ie: Alejandro's been dead for a year and a half. We have plenty of sound information on Alejandro's power to have named it by now.) Even if it came down to something like we start out with a noname ability as the default for an ability that is vague or unclear, and after a reasonable amount of time, (say a month), if a valid consensus name hasn't been determined, then the admin team makes an group executive decision to pick a name to replace the initial noname default. With the expansion of new people with abilities via iStory, GNs, and Evolutions...beyond the episodes themselves, we really need to establish a better default naming scheme than noname, when a clear consensus isn't arrivable. I personally, would be fine with the quality of Admin members we have hear making an executive decision upon a name when the membership as a whole cannot reach a clear and obvious consensus.<small>--[[User:HiroDynoSlayer\|HiroDynoSlayer]] ([[User talk:HiroDynoSlayer\|talk]]) 04/22/2009 15:17 (EST)</small>		We should be able to arrive at a process for each of these, that is based on the attributes of the ability as we've been shown, that is not grossly speculative, and that would be much better than retaining no-name as the default, and keeping it for lengthy periods of time (ie: Alejandro's been dead for a year and a half. We have plenty of sound information on Alejandro's power to have named it by now.) Even if it came down to something like we start out with a noname ability as the default for an ability that is vague or unclear, and after a reasonable amount of time, (say a month), if a valid consensus name hasn't been determined, then the admin team makes an group executive decision to pick a name to replace the initial noname default. With the expansion of new people with abilities via iStory, GNs, and Evolutions...beyond the episodes themselves, we really need to establish a better default naming scheme than noname, when a clear consensus isn't arrivable. I personally, would be fine with the quality of Admin members we have hear making an executive decision upon a name when the membership as a whole cannot reach a clear and obvious consensus.<small>--[[User:HiroDynoSlayer\|HiroDynoSlayer]] ([[User talk:HiroDynoSlayer\|talk]]) 04/22/2009 15:17 (EST)</small>
	* FYI: that had been the policy initially, and was used to decide the name for Guillame's ability, which is now "Bliss and Horror". Then, Admin decided that shouldn't be the way things are handled, because he could always decide there isn't a consensus and impose whatever name he wanted. That's how we got to the current situation where names default to the possessor's name if there is no general consensus.--[[User:MiamiVolts\|MiamiVolts]] ([[User_talk:MiamiVolts\|talk]]) 15:36, 22 April 2009 (EDT)		* FYI: that had been the policy initially, and was used to decide the name for Guillame's ability, which is now "Bliss and Horror". Then, Admin decided that shouldn't be the way things are handled, because he could always decide there isn't a consensus and impose whatever name he wanted. That's how we got to the current situation where names default to the possessor's name if there is no general consensus.--[[User:MiamiVolts\|MiamiVolts]] ([[User_talk:MiamiVolts\|talk]]) 15:36, 22 April 2009 (EDT)
Line 139:		Line 135:
	**** It's Admin's choice as to whether or not he reinstates administrator consensus checks as a possibility, because if the administrators don't agree that means it would fall to him to make a final decision.--[[User:MiamiVolts\|MiamiVolts]] ([[User_talk:MiamiVolts\|talk]]) 17:26, 22 April 2009 (EDT)		**** It's Admin's choice as to whether or not he reinstates administrator consensus checks as a possibility, because if the administrators don't agree that means it would fall to him to make a final decision.--[[User:MiamiVolts\|MiamiVolts]] ([[User_talk:MiamiVolts\|talk]]) 17:26, 22 April 2009 (EDT)
	***** Ah, the "nuclear bomb" route. :) As an administrator who was involved in the famous [[talk:bliss and horror\|bliss and horror debate]] of '07, I can say it really pained me to make an administrative decision which ultimately placed my opinion above the opinions of other community members. (I'm being dramatic, of course. There was no pain, just some minor injuries.) One can look at it in a few ways, so maybe I'm a bit biased about the situation. But we were a younger site back then, still finding our footing. We had also never really been presented with a situation like Guillame's, where we couldn't name his power, or where the name suggested by the graphic novel was just so weird. I mean, we even had a debate about the influence cultural should play in the naming process (hence the birth of "the drunken monkey's kiss" and "stench of a thousand corpses"). We're a little more established now, and our naming conventions really do guide our process for naming new abilities. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, the naming convention came as a result of the bliss and horror discussion. We really don't have to need for the admins, as smart--and handsome--as those guys are, to make executive decisions. In fact, I think the only other time the "nuclear bomb" route was used was in determining explicitness (read: [[Assignment Tracker 2.0]]) over canonicity. Consider those two examples to be our Hiroshima and Nagasaki. :) <p> Regarding the suggestion to revisit abilities named for their users, I think for the most part we don't need to. Once every so often, somebody suggest a new name for [[Alejandro's ability]]. I am not opposed to renaming the ability. But I also have never heard a name that covers all aspects of the ability...so I make no secret of the fact that I am often the one who opposes names for that ability. Show me a name that covers all aspects, and I'm on board. On the other hand, an ability like the [[Future terrorist's ability]] really can't be named since we know so little about it. Though there have been some good attempts over time, every name I have heard is based on some bit of speculation. Again, if I heard a name that didn't speculate, I'd be behind it. Until then, I'll oppose (much to the chagrin of some community members, I know...) I won't go into a discussion about each of those ability names here, but for the most part, pretty much all of those abilities listed above fall into one of those two categories: names either don't cover the ability's limits (either too broad or too narrow), or the names are too speculative. -- {{User:Ryangibsonstewart/sig}} 19:14, 22 April 2009 (EDT)		***** Ah, the "nuclear bomb" route. :) As an administrator who was involved in the famous [[talk:bliss and horror\|bliss and horror debate]] of '07, I can say it really pained me to make an administrative decision which ultimately placed my opinion above the opinions of other community members. (I'm being dramatic, of course. There was no pain, just some minor injuries.) One can look at it in a few ways, so maybe I'm a bit biased about the situation. But we were a younger site back then, still finding our footing. We had also never really been presented with a situation like Guillame's, where we couldn't name his power, or where the name suggested by the graphic novel was just so weird. I mean, we even had a debate about the influence cultural should play in the naming process (hence the birth of "the drunken monkey's kiss" and "stench of a thousand corpses"). We're a little more established now, and our naming conventions really do guide our process for naming new abilities. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, the naming convention came as a result of the bliss and horror discussion. We really don't have to need for the admins, as smart--and handsome--as those guys are, to make executive decisions. In fact, I think the only other time the "nuclear bomb" route was used was in determining explicitness (read: [[Assignment Tracker 2.0]]) over canonicity. Consider those two examples to be our Hiroshima and Nagasaki. :) <p> Regarding the suggestion to revisit abilities named for their users, I think for the most part we don't need to. Once every so often, somebody suggest a new name for [[Alejandro's ability]]. I am not opposed to renaming the ability. But I also have never heard a name that covers all aspects of the ability...so I make no secret of the fact that I am often the one who opposes names for that ability. Show me a name that covers all aspects, and I'm on board. On the other hand, an ability like the [[Future terrorist's ability]] really can't be named since we know so little about it. Though there have been some good attempts over time, every name I have heard is based on some bit of speculation. Again, if I heard a name that didn't speculate, I'd be behind it. Until then, I'll oppose (much to the chagrin of some community members, I know...) I won't go into a discussion about each of those ability names here, but for the most part, pretty much all of those abilities listed above fall into one of those two categories: names either don't cover the ability's limits (either too broad or too narrow), or the names are too speculative. -- {{User:Ryangibsonstewart/sig}} 19:14, 22 April 2009 (EDT)



	==Voting for ability names==		==Voting for ability names==

imported>Yoshi n1: Tom

2010-03-06T16:57:22Z

Tom

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:57, 6 March 2010
Line 130:		Line 130:
	*[[Linda's ability]] (named 4/11/2009)		*[[Linda's ability]] (named 4/11/2009)
	*[[Crazy grin man's ability]] (named 4/12/2009)		*[[Crazy grin man's ability]] (named 4/12/2009)
	*[[Tom's ability]] (named 4/21/2009)
	We should be able to arrive at a process for each of these, that is based on the attributes of the ability as we've been shown, that is not grossly speculative, and that would be much better than retaining no-name as the default, and keeping it for lengthy periods of time (ie: Alejandro's been dead for a year and a half. We have plenty of sound information on Alejandro's power to have named it by now.) Even if it came down to something like we start out with a noname ability as the default for an ability that is vague or unclear, and after a reasonable amount of time, (say a month), if a valid consensus name hasn't been determined, then the admin team makes an group executive decision to pick a name to replace the initial noname default. With the expansion of new people with abilities via iStory, GNs, and Evolutions...beyond the episodes themselves, we really need to establish a better default naming scheme than noname, when a clear consensus isn't arrivable. I personally, would be fine with the quality of Admin members we have hear making an executive decision upon a name when the membership as a whole cannot reach a clear and obvious consensus.<small>--[[User:HiroDynoSlayer\|HiroDynoSlayer]] ([[User talk:HiroDynoSlayer\|talk]]) 04/22/2009 15:17 (EST)</small>		We should be able to arrive at a process for each of these, that is based on the attributes of the ability as we've been shown, that is not grossly speculative, and that would be much better than retaining no-name as the default, and keeping it for lengthy periods of time (ie: Alejandro's been dead for a year and a half. We have plenty of sound information on Alejandro's power to have named it by now.) Even if it came down to something like we start out with a noname ability as the default for an ability that is vague or unclear, and after a reasonable amount of time, (say a month), if a valid consensus name hasn't been determined, then the admin team makes an group executive decision to pick a name to replace the initial noname default. With the expansion of new people with abilities via iStory, GNs, and Evolutions...beyond the episodes themselves, we really need to establish a better default naming scheme than noname, when a clear consensus isn't arrivable. I personally, would be fine with the quality of Admin members we have hear making an executive decision upon a name when the membership as a whole cannot reach a clear and obvious consensus.<small>--[[User:HiroDynoSlayer\|HiroDynoSlayer]] ([[User talk:HiroDynoSlayer\|talk]]) 04/22/2009 15:17 (EST)</small>
	* FYI: that had been the policy initially, and was used to decide the name for Guillame's ability, which is now "Bliss and Horror". Then, Admin decided that shouldn't be the way things are handled, because he could always decide there isn't a consensus and impose whatever name he wanted. That's how we got to the current situation where names default to the possessor's name if there is no general consensus.--[[User:MiamiVolts\|MiamiVolts]] ([[User_talk:MiamiVolts\|talk]]) 15:36, 22 April 2009 (EDT)		* FYI: that had been the policy initially, and was used to decide the name for Guillame's ability, which is now "Bliss and Horror". Then, Admin decided that shouldn't be the way things are handled, because he could always decide there isn't a consensus and impose whatever name he wanted. That's how we got to the current situation where names default to the possessor's name if there is no general consensus.--[[User:MiamiVolts\|MiamiVolts]] ([[User_talk:MiamiVolts\|talk]]) 15:36, 22 April 2009 (EDT)

imported>Yoshi n1: Trevor's ability

2010-03-05T23:23:35Z

Trevor's ability

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:23, 5 March 2010
Line 125:		Line 125:
	*[[Mohinder's ability]] (named 9/24/2008)		*[[Mohinder's ability]] (named 9/24/2008)
	*[[Future terrorist's ability]] (named 10/8/2008)		*[[Future terrorist's ability]] (named 10/8/2008)
	*[[Trevor's ability]] (named 11/11/2008)
	*[[Edward's ability]] (named 11/10/2008)		*[[Edward's ability]] (named 11/10/2008)
	*[[David's ability]] (named 12/31/2008)		*[[David's ability]] (named 12/31/2008)

imported>Radicell: standard archive-box style

2010-02-22T12:50:22Z

standard archive-box style

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 |}
-<br clear=all/>
+<br clear=all>
 ==Power Name Origination==
 {{:Heroes Wiki:Ability name origination}}

imported>Stevehim: /* Conflicting rules/guidelines */

2010-02-12T22:55:38Z

Conflicting rules/guidelines

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:55, 12 February 2010
Line 233:		Line 233:
	****** Here's an idea. Currently, there are six tiers, divided in two categories. There is a hierarchy between all six. Let there still be six tiers, but make canon, near canon and secondary have the same "strength" and put them as preferable over the other three. This way there is still a preference for canon and near canon names. GNs, webisodes and iStories are ways to expand the universe. Say that one these is used to retcon or better explain something that isn't clear or is confuse in the show. Saying "if episode, only episode" is denying that expansion, and making the writers waste time needed to develop plots to resolve minutia. [[User:Intuitive Empath\|Intuitive Empath]] - [[User talk:Intuitive Empath\|Talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Intuitive Empath\|Contributions]] 18:38, 11 February 2010 (EST)		****** Here's an idea. Currently, there are six tiers, divided in two categories. There is a hierarchy between all six. Let there still be six tiers, but make canon, near canon and secondary have the same "strength" and put them as preferable over the other three. This way there is still a preference for canon and near canon names. GNs, webisodes and iStories are ways to expand the universe. Say that one these is used to retcon or better explain something that isn't clear or is confuse in the show. Saying "if episode, only episode" is denying that expansion, and making the writers waste time needed to develop plots to resolve minutia. [[User:Intuitive Empath\|Intuitive Empath]] - [[User talk:Intuitive Empath\|Talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Intuitive Empath\|Contributions]] 18:38, 11 February 2010 (EST)
	******* Something else I've noticed. In cases where the ability isn't explicitly named, the first name used for it is generally the one kept if there is nothing controversial about the source of its name. In abilities that are hard to name due to lack of clarity on how it works and what it can do, or the source of the name, the first name lingers for quite a while until it is changed. To avoid naming disputes, I think that if an ability has the potential to have those naming disputes, it should have the default X's ability, so that it can be properly discussed before a "first namer" sets in. [[User:Intuitive Empath\|Intuitive Empath]] - [[User talk:Intuitive Empath\|Talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Intuitive Empath\|Contributions]] 16:54, 12 February 2010 (EST)		******* Something else I've noticed. In cases where the ability isn't explicitly named, the first name used for it is generally the one kept if there is nothing controversial about the source of its name. In abilities that are hard to name due to lack of clarity on how it works and what it can do, or the source of the name, the first name lingers for quite a while until it is changed. To avoid naming disputes, I think that if an ability has the potential to have those naming disputes, it should have the default X's ability, so that it can be properly discussed before a "first namer" sets in. [[User:Intuitive Empath\|Intuitive Empath]] - [[User talk:Intuitive Empath\|Talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Intuitive Empath\|Contributions]] 16:54, 12 February 2010 (EST)
			******** I agree. I'd almost say we extend that further and, unless we have an explicit name from somewhere, start '''all''' new abilities as X's ability until we can hash out what it should be. --[[User:Stevehim\|Stevehim]] 17:55, 12 February 2010 (EST)

	== Links to rules and discussions ==		== Links to rules and discussions ==

imported>Intuitive Empath: /* Conflicting rules/guidelines */

2010-02-12T21:54:33Z

Conflicting rules/guidelines

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:54, 12 February 2010
Line 232:		Line 232:
	***** Very much agreed. Here's an example, since Tracy is being discussed a lot. We were given freezing as her ability...then she manifested water manipulation. Some are claiming that we have no choice but to stick with freezing, despite it not being entirely accurate, because that's what we saw onscreen. Well, what if Tracy suddenly, on her own, stopped time and then teleported to Cairo? Are we still forced to stick with freezing and list STM as an aspect of Freezing in the limits section? It's the same thing as water manipulation....it's just that water manipulation ''seems'' closer to freezing than STM does, so people can accept that it's just part of her ability, whereas I imagine if she suddenly stopped time there would be a massive movement to change her ability name or give her a second one. But that is speculative, far moreso imo, than speculating that her power changed when she was shot through the head. --[[User:Stevehim\|Stevehim]] 20:49, 10 February 2010 (EST)		***** Very much agreed. Here's an example, since Tracy is being discussed a lot. We were given freezing as her ability...then she manifested water manipulation. Some are claiming that we have no choice but to stick with freezing, despite it not being entirely accurate, because that's what we saw onscreen. Well, what if Tracy suddenly, on her own, stopped time and then teleported to Cairo? Are we still forced to stick with freezing and list STM as an aspect of Freezing in the limits section? It's the same thing as water manipulation....it's just that water manipulation ''seems'' closer to freezing than STM does, so people can accept that it's just part of her ability, whereas I imagine if she suddenly stopped time there would be a massive movement to change her ability name or give her a second one. But that is speculative, far moreso imo, than speculating that her power changed when she was shot through the head. --[[User:Stevehim\|Stevehim]] 20:49, 10 February 2010 (EST)
	****** Here's an idea. Currently, there are six tiers, divided in two categories. There is a hierarchy between all six. Let there still be six tiers, but make canon, near canon and secondary have the same "strength" and put them as preferable over the other three. This way there is still a preference for canon and near canon names. GNs, webisodes and iStories are ways to expand the universe. Say that one these is used to retcon or better explain something that isn't clear or is confuse in the show. Saying "if episode, only episode" is denying that expansion, and making the writers waste time needed to develop plots to resolve minutia. [[User:Intuitive Empath\|Intuitive Empath]] - [[User talk:Intuitive Empath\|Talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Intuitive Empath\|Contributions]] 18:38, 11 February 2010 (EST)		****** Here's an idea. Currently, there are six tiers, divided in two categories. There is a hierarchy between all six. Let there still be six tiers, but make canon, near canon and secondary have the same "strength" and put them as preferable over the other three. This way there is still a preference for canon and near canon names. GNs, webisodes and iStories are ways to expand the universe. Say that one these is used to retcon or better explain something that isn't clear or is confuse in the show. Saying "if episode, only episode" is denying that expansion, and making the writers waste time needed to develop plots to resolve minutia. [[User:Intuitive Empath\|Intuitive Empath]] - [[User talk:Intuitive Empath\|Talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Intuitive Empath\|Contributions]] 18:38, 11 February 2010 (EST)
			******* Something else I've noticed. In cases where the ability isn't explicitly named, the first name used for it is generally the one kept if there is nothing controversial about the source of its name. In abilities that are hard to name due to lack of clarity on how it works and what it can do, or the source of the name, the first name lingers for quite a while until it is changed. To avoid naming disputes, I think that if an ability has the potential to have those naming disputes, it should have the default X's ability, so that it can be properly discussed before a "first namer" sets in. [[User:Intuitive Empath\|Intuitive Empath]] - [[User talk:Intuitive Empath\|Talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Intuitive Empath\|Contributions]] 16:54, 12 February 2010 (EST)

	== Links to rules and discussions ==		== Links to rules and discussions ==

imported>Stevehim: /* Links to rules and discussions */

2010-02-12T20:52:10Z

Links to rules and discussions

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:52, 12 February 2010
Line 240:		Line 240:

	''At the very least there certainly has to be a consensus among reasonable people that the name should be changed. By default (i.e. without full consensus) we keep the name we're given, but if there's full consensus then it could be renamed. Without getting into a matter of policy, full consensus can override policy since it reflects a unanimous view of the people here which is ultimately the most important thing. But without consensus (which I define as agreement among reasonable people to at least not disagree) we'd stick to the naming convention so we'd use the exact name we're given. (Admin 01:35, 22 November 2008 (EST))''' --[[User:Stevehim\|Stevehim]] 00:19, 12 February 2010 (EST)<br><br><br>		''At the very least there certainly has to be a consensus among reasonable people that the name should be changed. By default (i.e. without full consensus) we keep the name we're given, but if there's full consensus then it could be renamed. Without getting into a matter of policy, full consensus can override policy since it reflects a unanimous view of the people here which is ultimately the most important thing. But without consensus (which I define as agreement among reasonable people to at least not disagree) we'd stick to the naming convention so we'd use the exact name we're given. (Admin 01:35, 22 November 2008 (EST))''' --[[User:Stevehim\|Stevehim]] 00:19, 12 February 2010 (EST)<br><br><br>

			From [[Talk:Siren's_song#Myth_and_Commonality\|Siren song discussion]]:

			''Explicitly named abilities would include anything from the Assignment Tracker profiles. Nathan's files and Edgar's list also explicitly name abilities. So do the Genesis files. When Mohinder told Monica, "You're the first we've met with adoptive muscle memory," and Monica replied, "So that's what it's called," that was explicit. However, similes, metaphors, and comparisons are not explicit. They serve as excellent touchstones and have helped name abilities very often, but they would be overruled if we ever had a more explicit name for an ability—like, if the name of the ability was listed somewhere in a form, or as a title, or somebody used the ability's name. "Siren song" is a good example of a name used from Samuel's comparison, when he says that Emma's ability is "like a siren song." He never names her ability, but he gives us a comparison that we can turn into a name.''

			''To make the point a little differently, we could take Samuel's quote and make the ability name "song of the siren" if we wanted. However, the minute we are given something explicit (like an Assignment Tracker), we would use whatever is listed there. If Emma's AT listed her ability as "siren music" that's what we would use, regardless of what Samuel said. Hope that makes sense about the "wiggle room"... — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 12:26, 12 February 2010 (EST)''

			''"Siren song" (or "sirens' song" or any other way it can be spelled) is neither a description of the ability or an explicit naming of the ability. It's a metaphoric comparison of Emma's ability to an actual Greek myth. For our purposes, it describes the ability well...until we are given an explicit name for the ability. To answer your question, though, a description given in a canon source does not trump an explicit name given in a near-canon source. For instance, in chapter 2 of Operation Splinter, Tim Pope explicitly names Red Eye's ability as "primal rage". Now, if Red Eye were ever to appear on the show and somebody were to describe his ability (like "Did you see that guy? He was suppressing everybody's subconscious!" or "I was so scared when he cast feelings of anger upon me!"), we wouldn't use a descriptive term (like "subconscious suppression" or "anger casting") because we've already been given an explicit name for the ability, regardless of the in-world source from which it came. (GN intros aren't part of the GN, by the way—they're not considered a canon or near-canon source.) Hope that all makes sense...In short, explicitness trumps all. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 15:04, 12 February 2010 (EST)'' --[[User:Stevehim\|Stevehim]] 15:52, 12 February 2010 (EST)