User talk:BD2412/Archive 7

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search

Status: Active. (e) Archives: 1 (10/05 - 06/06); 2 (07/06 - 9/15/06); 3 (9/15/06 - 3/12/07); 4 (3/12/07 - 6/28/07); 5 (6/29/07 - 12/31/07); 6 (1/08 - 8/08); 7 (9/08 - 12/09); 8 (12/09-12/11)

mobilia sequuntur personam[edit]

Seeing as you’re probably our resident legal dude, you’d be the one best placed to create the entry for a legal term I came across whilst verifying sequuntur. I’ve collected three citations for mobilia sequuntur personam at Citations:mobilia sequuntur personam. Perhaps you are familiar with the term; if not, you may still be the one who can best interpret what usage the citations imply.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 22:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Cheers! bd2412 T 02:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks; good job. BTW, note how to fuse two or more context tags into one.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 00:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the note. Cheers! bd2412 T 04:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Also note that "law" is deprecated in favor of {{legal}}, since 3-letter codes are reserved for ISO. (It still displays as "law", just the template is to be changed.) --EncycloPetey 04:30, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I’ll make sure I remember that too.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 12:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

aggravated assault[edit]

I asked at Wiktionary:Tea room#aggravated_assault whether we oughta have separate senses for each jurisdiction's definition. Any thoughts on the matter? (If so, there would be a better place than here.) Your input would be appreciated (by me).—msh210 22:37, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Another legalistic Latin phrase I found[edit]

This time, it was as I was verifying ænigma. The phrase is ænigmata juris and it allegedly means “obscure laws”, according to the single citation I copied to Citations:ænigmata juris; it’s from 1831, so I don’t know whether it has much currency any more, or if it ever did. Anyway, have a good break and let me know how you get on after you get back.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 18:38, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

not guilty[edit]

Welcome back. Please take a look at this and the RfD and history when you have the chance. DCDuring TALK 00:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


I believe User:AutoFormat is also tackling these, so don't feel too obliged. It would also be under the remit of User:Conrad.Bot if people are desperate to get it done. Conrad.Irwin 00:48, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

There are an awful lot left, and quite frankly I'm responsible for too many of them (I used "see" with all of my Appendix templates). bd2412 T 00:50, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Nothing wrong with that, although AF will eventually hunt them all down. (;-) Whatever you like. Robert Ullmann 00:51, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Mind you, I wouldn't go off fixing them at random w/o a bot flag; there are >30K out there ... are you doing a specific set? Else it will just flood out RC (;-). Robert Ullmann 01:44, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Doing a few specific sets. On the one hand, I'm trying to hit up all the foreign words/characters. On the other, those containing punctuation. I'm done with periods and commas, and am into hyphens (fewer than a hundred of those left). bd2412 T 01:46, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
I've set User:Conrad.Bot up to do the rest, that way Special:RecentChanges will be a bit more usable again. Conrad.Irwin 02:12, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Very well then - I'll take a break (once I finish the appendix links!) and see how it progresses. This is getting to be quite tiring! bd2412 T 02:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
BD2412: please go read WT:GP, and just effing STOP trying to convert see->also. Conrad has cost me something like an effing full working day. Just leave it the EFF ALONE. Please! Robert Ullmann 01:47, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Fine, but I think you're over-reacting a bit. My understanding was that we are changing {see} to {also} because {see} is going to be used for something else. bd2412 T 01:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes, and I set up a careful process, which Conrad smashed this morning. It is 5AM, I need to work today, I have just spent 5 hours I didn't have cleaning up the resulting mess; please I just don't need anything else "helpful" being done. Okay? (;-) Robert Ullmann 02:04, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Your frustration is totally understandable, but in your comments a few paragraphs up (↑) I think it was implied to Conrad.Irwin and BD2412 that it was fine (if unnecessary) for them to attack these as well. (Obviously you weren't expecting what came next …) —RuakhTALK 02:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Accelerated form-of creation[edit]

I notice you are creating plural forms on English nouns - you may find it is less tedious with this script that does 90% of the work for you. Conrad.Irwin 02:56, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Thanks, I will need to educate myself on using scripts. All I need to do is put that content at User:BD2412/creation.js? bd2412 T 02:58, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I meant to link to User_talk:Conrad.Irwin/creation.js which gives instructions. Conrad.Irwin 02:59, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Dúlamán na binne buí, dúlamán Gaelach...[edit]

Thanks! It's not the generic word for "seaweed", though (which is feamainn), but specifically channelled wrack (Pelvetia canaliculata). Angr 14:36, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


Is this truly English, or is it Translingual? --EncycloPetey 21:29, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

  • I am really not sure - I was wavering on it myself, but I believe some languages use different notations. bd2412 T 21:29, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

quick question[edit]

Just curious, but why did you vote to support my adminship today when I already am an admin? (the vote ended some time last month) 50 Xylophone Players talk 21:10, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Heh, didn't see that. I've been out of the voting loop for too long. bd2412 T 22:23, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


This term is on the list for requested Latin entries. I am not finding it in any printed Latin dictionaries, but on-line sources say (with alarming uniformity) that it is Latin for a child's godfather. It occurs to me that this might be legal "Latin", so I'm asking whether you might be able to help find a reliable source. --EncycloPetey 20:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Never mind. Wouldn't you know that I'd be agonizing over this for weeks without a lead, but the moment I requested assistance, I stumble across a Medieval Latin reference for the word. --EncycloPetey 21:03, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Huh? What? bd2412 T 04:01, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
It was requested as a Latin entry, and for a long time I couldn't find any evidence in Latin references. But, as soon as I posted my question to you, a soure turned up and so I was able to create the entry as requested. --EncycloPetey 04:52, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Home question for Concordance:Fragments of Heraclitus[edit]

I raised the question in IRC regarding the proper home wiktionary for the concordance you initiated. It seems to me such a concordance might be recreated on every wiktionary, but it most properly would belong on the Greek wiktionary (or ancient Greek, if one existed) in order to avoid its accidental replication. - Amgine/talk 03:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

That's reasonable, but I put it here because we ought to have definitions for all of those words. Ideally, every useful concordance should be on every Wiktionary (or perhaps in some meta-format) for this purpose. bd2412 T 05:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
My response at User talk:Proteins#Concordance reflects a similar view. These are useful both as local tools and work-lists. Also, may I ask, bd2412, did you write a script to compile this, or did you find it prewritten? -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 06:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Neither. I did it manually. bd2412 T 14:46, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
As I disputed at the other thread, is there any value to en.wikt after each list item has an entry? I ask this because there are extensive requested entries lists maintained by users who have a specific interest, but they are kept in user spaces and, often, regularly purged as wiktionary expands. (by the way, I spent a couple hours reading about Greek philosophy chasing a stream of thought yesterday, so thanks for such a great digression!) - Amgine/talk 16:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Once all the entries are done, no value, really. bd2412 T 22:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair use and Hebrew news articles.[edit]

Hi BD2412,

Our coverage of Hebrew is still fairly low, so one thing I'd like to do is take an entire news article, assemble its metadata into Wiktionary:Quotations form, translate and romanize the whole thing, and fairly quickly generate entries for a large number of the words in it. (In the past I've tried to do something similar with e-mail forwards, but the problem is that there's no way to tag a quotation as "L-rd only knows where this comes from", and it seems like theft if I take an exact quotation but present it as just an example sentence.)

If I did this, it would mean that a large portion of the news article would end up on Wiktionary, but no more than a sentence or two in any given entry. From a legal (etc.) standpoint, is that an O.K. thing to do?

Thanks in advance,
RuakhTALK 21:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

  • I would think that there is actually plenty of coverage in Google Books, and that you would be able to find public domain books written in Hebrew (e.g. books published in the U.S. before 1923. For example, I went to Google Books and searched for books containing the common word ארוחה (meal), published between 1850 and 1923, for which the full text is available. I came up with these eight results, which should yield thousands of words and corresponding example sentences, unless the language has changed substantially in that time. With respect to news articles, if they are divided into individual relatively short sentences and scattered about the dictionary with no quick and easy way to connect them, this would be a very clear fair use. After all, disjointed sentences reproduced individually can not harm the value of the work or substitute for it, and of course they use is for a non-commercial and educational purpose. Cheers! bd2412 T 03:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks!

    The Google Books idea is a good one. The problem is that I don't generally go around reading century-old books written in Hebrew. I don't really want to make a whole project out of this; I'm hoping (maybe optimistically) that Wiktionarizing a news article will take only four or five times as long as just reading the article anyway. (Also, as it happens, almost all of those search results are problematic for one reason or another. For example, more than half are reprints of books from the High Middle Ages, and while I can understand a fair bit — Hebrew didn't change all that much in its millennia without native speakers — I still don't feel very qualified to translate and transliterate it. Granted, if I actually read ibn Ezra's commentaries on Isaiah, for example, maybe I'd come out of it a better Jew, but meh, self-improvement is overrated.)

    I notice that you say "individual relatively short sentences". Can you quantify this? Like, broadly speaking, what's the maximum I could quote in any given entry and still be in the "very clear fair use" zone? (I ask because real-life quotes are usually messier than example sentences, and it's usually helpful to give a fair bit of context if possible.)

    Thanks again!

    RuakhTALK 04:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

FYI, I believe that the complete Hebrew Bible is available on the Hebrew Wikisource. For example s:he:חבקוק_ניקוד. It would be possible to take quotes and vocabulary from that. I don't know what else the Hebrew Wikisource has, since I can't read Hebrew, but it might be worth investigating. --EncycloPetey 04:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. :-)   I do often take stuff from (the Westminster Leningrad Codex with vowels), which is convenient because it requires no effort (it identifies each verse by number, and has loads of link to pages at But I don't do all that much Bible reading online; I'm more of a hard-copy kind of Bible-thumper. :-P   I've never really looked at s:he:עמוד ראשי, I should do so. Thanks again. :-)   —RuakhTALK 12:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


So I was wondering how do I request to be allowed use this on Wiktionary? 50 Xylophone Players talk 23:07, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. Cheers! bd2412 T 23:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Btw, where do I get it from again? 50 Xylophone Players talk 20:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Where do you get the program? Instructions are at w:Wikipedia:AWB. bd2412 T 13:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)



In fable?diff=5986536, you removed the attributions on the first two cites, while keeping the cites themselves. Is that what you meant to do?

RuakhTALK 13:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I meant to do that. Those are leftovers from copying those definitions from an old dictionary, one that is out of copyright. We do not offer attributions for definitions of specific senses, and so far as I know the cited authors did not establish those meanings (and if they did that information would belong in an etymology section). The definitions of the words are in the public domain, so there is no need for dropping a name, without context, next to the definition. bd2412 T 21:14, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
But the attributions belonged to the quotes, not to the definitions. (Webster's 1913 does often attach attributions to definitions — I don't know what the story is with that — but that wasn't the case here. See —RuakhTALK 00:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
But that's not how we cite quotes. In any event, the terms created redlinks to proper names, which we will never have articles on anyway. bd2412 T 18:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
*shrug* I don't get it. But, it's moot now: I've removed the cites. —RuakhTALK 01:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

American Illustrated Medical Dictionary[edit]

Do you have any use for, or can it be deleted?—msh210 02:33, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Is that the same document as appears on Google Books? I can find it/download it there, if needed. No need to keep a copy until we figure out how to get the info! bd2412 T 02:55, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
All right: gone: thanks.—msh210 15:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

In re Template:R:Fowler's 1926[edit]

Am I right to assume, given that it is about 83 years old, that Fowler’s A Dictionary of Modern English Usage (1926) is in the public domain?  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 17:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Nope. Works published after January 1, 1923 received a 28 year copyright, followed by a 28 year renewal term (in this case renewal would have had to occur in 1954), which would take the copyright to 1982 - but in 1978, all subsisting copyrights got a 20 year extension, and in 1998 they got another 19 years, meaning that if the original copyright in this work was renewed in 1954, then the copyright will run to 2021, a total of 95 years from publication. So the question is, was the copyright renewed? Might be able to find out on the Internet, but if you can't let me know and I'll swing by the Copyright Office. Cheers! bd2412 T 18:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
God, how complex! Well, w:A Dictionary of Modern English Usage#Editions begins: “The first edition went through several reprints. A reprint whose copyright page mentions ‘1954’ as the most recent reprint notes that reprints in 1930 and 1937 were ‘with corrections…’ The second edition, published in 1965, involved a light revision by Sir Ernest Gowers.” –This seems to imply that the copyright was renewed in 1954; what do you conclude from it?  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 10:33, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Probably renewed if reprinted, but not necessarily - sometimes publishers copyright the second edition and forget to renew the copyright as to the first. bd2412 T 19:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
OK, thanks; do you mind finding out for certain? BTW, does my inclusion of the quotation under début#References (“début, débutant(e).Début can only be pronounced as French, & should not be used by any one who shirks from the necessary effort.”) infringe copyright, if it still exists?  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 20:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
No infringement there, the portion quoted is far too small a proportion of the whole to raise a complaint. bd2412 T 22:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Aah, that’s good. So how big would the amount quoted need to be before infringing copyright? And would a lot of little quotes in various entries cumulatively constitute copyright infringement?  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 10:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
There are actually two threshhold considerations here, one being de minimis use (that is, too small an amount to raise copyright concerns) and fair use. The threshold for de minimis use is much lower, and the current use is de minimis. A lot of little quotes in various entries would rise to the level of needing to make a fair use argument, and one that I'm not sure would prevail. We would have to show, for example, that there isn't some free source from which we could have gotten equivalent material. bd2412 T 00:22, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, in the case of the portion quoted in the entry for début, yes, I’m pretty sure we could find someone else, somewhere else, who also asserts that “Début can only be pronounced as French…”, but that wouldn’t really be equivalent, since I’m quoting Fowler because he’s Fowler — he is an authority, so quoting someone else would not be an invocation of that authority. Am I making sense? Is this a valid argument legally for fair use?  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 17:08, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
What you can do is reduce the quote to a few words, paraphrase the rest, and characterize it as a citation. bd2412 T 22:24, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Reduced; how’s that?  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 13:37, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that is perfect. The rest of the comment is sort of a tongue-in-cheek expression of opinion, but the part you've kept is an assertion of fact - and facts are not copyrightable. bd2412 T 17:34, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Great. Well, thanks for all that. I’ll now copy this discussion to the reference template’s talk page.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 16:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

notitia criminis[edit]

Semper requested this entry at Wiktionary:Requested entries:Latin. However, it's an English legal term, so I'm hoping you could write the entry. --EncycloPetey 17:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

A notitia criminis is simply a notice conveyed to a prosecutor that a crime is alleged to have occurred. However, the term is not actively used in the U.S., or in any English-speaking country so far as I know. So this may well be an example of "law Latin" as used predominately in mainland Europe. bd2412 T 17:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
A b.g.c search does turn up a rather high proportion of Italian, Spanish, and Portuguese sources, but also quite a few English ones. Although the conceot may not be an integral part of US law, it does seem to appear in the English-language legal literature. --EncycloPetey 18:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
I suppose it would be correct to say that this is the phrase used when English speakers discuss this aspect of European law. I guess that's all it takes to have an "English" definition of the term - but isn't it really more or less translingual, then? bd2412 T 19:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't label something as "Translingual" based on use in four languages. That would make much of the Spanish/Italian/Portuguese language "Translingual". I'd want to see it used more broadly than that. At the very least, I suspect the grammar of this phrase differs between Spanish and English, since it probably has an assigned gender in Spanish. That isn't true of its use in English. --EncycloPetey 20:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

warp and woof[edit]

Warp and woof? I've always seen this as "warp and weft". --EncycloPetey 22:56, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. Warp and woof gets about 2,500 google books hits, warp and weft gets 1,670 - but I'd only ever heard the former, never the latter. Regionalisms, perhaps? bd2412 T 23:01, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps. Certainly the entries ought to be linked to each other somehow. --EncycloPetey 23:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
I will try to look into it - later, though. bd2412 T 00:23, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

pro hac vice[edit]

If and when you have a chance, do you think you could review [[pro hac vice]] and [[pro hoc vice]], which I've just added, for accuracy and completeness? Thanks much.​—msh210 18:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks.​—msh210 19:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Looks fine to me - perhaps a usage note to indicate that this is almost always used with respect to attorneys being admitted to try or defend a case. bd2412 T 19:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


Thanks. Anything you could do to put this in its proper (but simplified!) semantic relations to some of the other civil and criminal wrongs involving property would be great. I hope that can be done in a way that covers, at least, all of the US (except Louisiana, I assume). Good look on your Bar Review. DCDuring TALK 20:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Variations 2.0[edit]

I've created a modified version and run it, result is User:Robert Ullmann/Variations. I think it is just about what you want. Cheers, Robert Ullmann 13:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

perfect an appeal[edit]

I've added an {{rfdef}} line to perfect#Verb, as I have no idea what it means. If you do know, would you mind adding the sense? Thanks.​—msh210 19:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks.​—msh210 19:07, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Hey, it's what I'm here for. bd2412 T 03:57, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Is enPR plagiarising the AHD?[edit]

Kwami has repeatedly claimed (or at least expressed his suspicion) that we’re plagiarising the AHD by calling our system of pronunciatory respelling “enPR” instead of AHD, since our system is so similar to and is based upon theirs. Could you please pass comment at WT:BP#Supplements to enPR regarding whether enPR:

  1. in its present form plagiarises the AHD without attribution, and if so, whether it
  2. would still be plagiarising the AHD with the changes I propose in that discussion having been made?

Thanks.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 21:47, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Commented under the "Plagiarism" section. bd2412 T 23:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Noted. Thanks.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 00:18, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 :-) bd2412 T 01:25, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


Hi there. Can you please inform me as to what is uncopyrightable? Are dictionaries that translate one language into another uncopyrightable? Thanks, Razorflame 19:28, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

You should assume that any copying from another dictionary into Wiktionary is forbidden, not only is it potentially copyright, it does not provide any proof of correctness, nor even that the words meet our WT:CFI. One of the reasons we encourage people to stick to languages that they are proficient in is so that we don't copy mistakes out of other dictionaries (and they do exist, even in supposedly very reliable sources, see dord), particularly online translation dictionaries, which have a reputation for being compiled in a little too much haste. It is interesting to note that people have been sued because they copied map data that had subtle modifications inserted into it deliberately to catch copyright-infringers (so, even though having a map of the same area could not be copyright, it's simply fact, copying the way someone else drew the map of the area was). I would imagine that similar problems exist with dictionaries. —This unsigned comment was added by Conrad.Irwin (talkcontribs).
Generally speaking, dictionaries (including translation dictionaries) are covered by copyright. Individual translated words are not, but the final product, reflecting the collective decision of what entries to include and how to present them, is protected. bd2412 T 20:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
What about a list of individual translated words? Razorflame 20:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
If you have a list of translations, and a reviewer could not determine from merely reading the list which dictionary it had come from, you'd be pretty safe. bd2412 T 01:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

it takes one to know one[edit]

As this is a complete sentence, I think I might call this a proverb rather than a phrase. --EncycloPetey 00:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Doesn't strike me as particularly proverbial - it is typically a playground taunt. bd2412 T 01:00, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
    But it shows up frequently in published literature as well: vide 842 b.g.c. hits [1]. --EncycloPetey 01:02, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Ah, so it seems. Earlier uses are indeed proverbial. bd2412 T 01:11, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Does per se mean "as a matter of law"?[edit]

Your insight would be most helpful at WT:TR#per_se. Thanks.​—msh210 19:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks.​—msh210 19:44, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

toneless pinyin[edit]

Hey, I was thinking that maybe the vote should also cover entries that aren't just syllables; we have a certain contributor entering things like ai jiangjiu which I don't like at all. 50 Xylophone Players talk 13:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the issues are very different. Pin yin syllables are the basic unit of language in China, like the letters of the alphabet, and letters should be treated differently than words. bd2412 T 16:07, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, yes. I haven't looked through all the options thoroughly yet but I think i like those entries the way they are right now. OTOH, even if it's not in this vote, I think we should address the problem of entries like the one I mentioned. Personally, I'd just prefer if they were all "nuked" and put into Hanzi and proper Pinyin entries... 50 Xylophone Players talk 21:59, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Outside of the syllables, I think terms should be included to the extent that they are actually used. If a toneless phrase can be shown to have been used in multiple print citations, we ought to include it; if not, we ought to exclude it. bd2412 T 22:44, 25 December 2009 (UTC)


Shouldn't you be linking to bachelor (English) rather than Bachelor (German)? SemperBlotto 14:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

  • Indeed I should! bd2412 T 14:02, 30 December 2009 (UTC)