User talk:Jytdog

Welcome!

Hello, Jytdog, 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! --Edcolins (talk) 18:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Special:Notifications

Requesting Guidance

I am new to the Wikipedia community and would like to reach out to more experienced contributors to collaborate on multiple pages with the possibleneed to editing regarding the relevance of synthetic biology. Any feedback would be greatly appreciated.Lgkkitkat (talk) 16:10, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I am happy to help but your question is too vague. Would you please clarify what you are asking? thx Jytdog (talk) 16:36, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for you response! This was just a basic request - I'm still trying to figure out my way around the Wiki community. New genetic engineering methods, namely synthetic biology, aims to provide standardization of DNA nucleotide sequences to create or modify living cells existing in natural biological systems. Do you think you can tell me your thoughts on how to integrate this and other basic principles the genetic engineering page?Lgkkitkat (talk) 20:29, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

responded on your Talk page; sorry for the delay. Jytdog (talk) 12:09, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Nicotine

Hi Jytdog,

Would either of these sources be suitable as a secondary source?

• http://fds.duke.edu/db/Sanford/ccfp/kolli001
• http://ntr.oxfordjournals.org/content/13/9/784.abstract

If so, I will add the good-faith edit to the article. Robert4565 (talk) 16:43, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for asking! There are 2 main sources of reliable health information - one is a review article published in the biomedical literature; the other is a statement by a major medical or scientific body (in this case, somebody like the APA or the NIH/NHS or the like). To find reviews, go to pubmed, (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed), out in your search terms, (in this case something like "ADHD "nicotine withdrawal"), click search, and then select "review" from the filter at the left. here is the result. not much there. in cases like this, i do not think it is wise to add this content now - we need to wait and see if it holds up. the reason for this is explained in MEDRS but it boils down to biology - human biology in particular - being very tricky, and what one primary source says is true, another will say is not true... we need experts in the field to write reviews to sort this out for us. Jytdog (talk) 17:55, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

sorry i didn't directly respond to your question - no, neither of those are reliable secondary sources under MEDRS.... Jytdog (talk) 17:56, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For removing "hype". Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:47, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Excellent post on MEDRS board with the references to the coffee articles in the NYTimes! One of best comments I've seen in quite some time. Formerly 98 (talk) 23:09, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Stem cell research and human cloning

Thank you for your recent efforts in clarifying the human cloning-related news. These kinds of situations arise once in a while because, when fine scientific/legal/political details are involved, misunderstandings are almost a cetainty for the average reader. In this case the image was further obscured by PR language. As a result, human-cloning was implied in the news item even though no DNA copying happened. When I first read it, I vaguely suspected that there was some distortion involved, because I know that science can be really difficult to be "dumbed down". After I read the corrected version, I was really happy to see that someone took the extra mile and showed the editors how to be less vague. Then I read the discussion. No DNA copying? This is not a distortion, it's a corruption of the communication signal. Thanks again for you efforts! Nxavar (talk) 00:48, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

thanks for your kind note! science writing is hard and i do appreciate the efforts of the ITN team to make WP go... it takes everybody. Jytdog (talk) 00:50, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks.

Thank you for taking the time to reach out to me today. It is highly appreciated.Johnvr4 (talk) 17:19, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

you are welcome. i don't like to see everybody suffer so much. WP doesn't have to suck! Jytdog (talk) 17:39, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Question about Wiki

You're very knowledge about Wiki and I wanted to know if you could tell me what a notification saying someone reviewed your user means?Hardkhora (talk) 19:10, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

it means nothing - see User_talk:Tryptofish#hello. :) Jytdog (talk) 19:44, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you a lot, that cleared that up. "...there was a little blue link at the bottom right corner of the page saying, "Mark this page as patrolled". I clicked it, and that's what gave you the notification."Hardkhora (talk) 20:49, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

:) Jytdog (talk) 20:50, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents report on Jytdog

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Link to Incident Report LeoRomero (talk) 04:19, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

thanks! Jytdog (talk) 11:43, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely, We can agree on that.Johnvr4 (talk) 13:32, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

The distance from Harvard University to Boston

I noticed that you've reverted {{convert|3|mi|0}} to {{convert|3|mi|km}} on Harvard University. I'm not sure why since "approximately 3 miles (5 km)" seems better than "approximately 3 miles (4.8 km)" as we are talking about an approximate distance. Jimp 11:15, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

you are right, my bad. i thought (wrongly) that it was vandalism. thanks for reverting my reversion. Jytdog (talk) 11:44, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

No worries, I thought it must have been a mistake or something. Jimp 11:47, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Civility Barnstar
	For proving your ability to stay calm, respectful, and polite, even on drama boards; lack of a grudge against those who would file complaints against you; and, finally, having a near-spotless record that was put under the microscope in a frivolous complaint. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:55, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

that is very kind of you. thanks! Jytdog (talk) 02:29, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

No war

No war, I just followed your request and referred to secondary Source. Another claims? Dmitry Dzhagarov (talk) 19:37, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

thanks for your note! As per MEDRS, a press release (or a news story in the media) accompanying publication of a primary source are not secondary sources for this kind of information; a reliable secondary source, is a review published in the biomedical literature. Please see Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Respect_secondary_sources where it says: "Scientific findings are often touted in the popular press as soon as the original, primary research report is released, and before the scientific community has had an opportunity to analyze the new results. Such sources should generally be entirely omitted (in accordance with recentism), because determining the weight to give to such a study requires reliable secondary sources (not press releases or newspaper articles based on them)." Thanks for talking. Jytdog (talk) 19:48, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

you put the same note on the Talk page - let's keep this over there...Jytdog (talk) 20:06, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

What's wrong with this?

[1]? --Hans Haase (talk) 20:36, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Hans, thanks for your note, but this is better done at the Talk page of the article. May I move your question there, and respond there? thx Jytdog (talk) 20:43, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, pse. --Hans Haase (talk) 13:14, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

done Jytdog (talk) 13:16, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

What was your serach input [2] to get (Review[ptyp])? --Hans Haase (talk) 15:18, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

there are a couple of ways to do it. the best way is to use pubmed's filters. after you run a search (what I searched was "Crtc1 alzheimers"), the filters appear on the left side of the results. select 'review' under "article types". (i am guessing that "ptyp" stands for "publication type") It is by using the filters, that i got the search result that I got. the other way, is just include the word "review" as a search term. Jytdog (talk) 15:31, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Invitation join the new Physiology Wikiproject!

Physiology gives us an understanding of how and why things in the field of medicine happen. Together, let us jumpstart the project and get it going. Our energy is all it needs.

Based on the long felt gap for categorization and improvization of WP:MED articles relating to the field of physiology, the new WikiProject Physiology has been created. WikiProject Physiology is still in its infancy and needs your help. On behalf of a group of editors striving to improve the quality of physiology articles here on Wikipedia, I would like to invite you to come on board and participate in the betterment of physiology related articles. Help us to jumpstart this WikiProject.

• Feel free to leave us a message at any time on the WikiProkect Physiology talk page. If you are interested in joining the project yourself, there is a participant list where you can sign up. Please leave a message on the talk page if you have any problems, suggestions, would like review of an article, need suggestions for articles to edit, or would like some collaboration when editing!
• You can tag the talk pages of relevant articles with {{WikiProject Physiology|class=|importance=}} with your assessment of the article class and importance alongwith. Please note that WP:Physiology, WP:Physio, WP:Phy can be used interchangeably.
• You will make a big difference to the quality of information by adding reliable sources. Sourcing physiology articles is essential and makes a big difference to the quality of articles. And, while you're at it, why not use a book to source information, which can source multiple articles at once!
• We try and use a standard way of arranging the content in each article. That layout is here. These headings let us have a standard way of presenting the information in anatomical articles, indicate what information may have been forgotten, and save angst when trying to decide how to organise an article. That said, this might not suit every article. If in doubt, be bold!
• Why not try and strive to create a good article! Physiology related articles are often small in scope, have available sources, and only a limited amount of research available that is readily presentable!
• Your contributions to the WikiProject page, related categories and templates is also welcome.
• To invite other editors to this WikiProject, copy and past this template (with the signature):
  • {{subst:WP Physiology–invite}} ~~~~
• To welcome editors of physiology articles, copy and past this template (with the signature):
  • {{subst:WP Physiology–welcome}} ~~~~
• You can feel free to contact us on the WikiProkect Physiology talk page if you have any problems, or wish to join us. You can also put your suggestions there and discuss the scope of participation.

Hoping for your cooperation! Diptanshu^Talk 12:37, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Response to recent undoing

What do you mean not the owner in any reasonable sense? There's evidence that Capital Group Companies owns some percentage of it.Seqqis (talk) 18:30, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for talking. ah the misery of infoboxes. i don't know that it is reasonable to fill in the "owner" blank at all for publicly traded companies like Amgen; and if one does, I don't know that it is reasonable to list a mere 10% stakeholder. as per Template:Infobox_company it ~seems~ that the "owner" blank is mostly relevant for joint ventures or private companies where ownership is known... what is your rationale for listing a single ~10% stakeholder? thanks again for talking. Jytdog (talk) 18:52, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I think for company infoboxes, if there's evidence a company(ies) owns a percentage of another company(small or not) that it should be in the "owner(s)" section of the infobox. However recently some wikipedians disagrees with me, one user stated that if a company owns something like 5% doesn't make it good enough to be in the infobox. The user also stated what about individuals that owns a percentage of a company, and the user went on stating that I or some one else would had to list every individual that has some ownership in a company and that could go to adding like 10,000 owners in the infobox. Even though I've been adding companies that have a small percentage in another company for a while now, and many other wikipedians didn't have a problem with me doing that. A complaint I'm seeing is with the infoboxes on articles like Mazda, it shows companies that have small ownership in Mazda and no one is complaining about that.Seqqis (talk) 19:12, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

seems like we are in a "i think X, you think Y" position, and there is no clear guidance from the template. Since this is something that seems to interest you, may I suggest that you open a discussion on the Talk page of the company infbox template and get more clarity from the relevant community, on what content should go in the "owner" blank? Right now the template instructions say nothing about how this blank should be used for pubicly traded companies, which is an argument for leaving it blank on such companies. I could see arguments being made that it would make sense to name all "beneficial shareholders" (see definition in SEC regs) in the slot, as that is publicly available information and is a threshold that the SEC considers relevant. But it should be all of those with a benefical stake, or none, in my view. Btw, when you made your edit you didn't provide a source, which was a secondary reason that i reverted. everything should be sourced... Jytdog (talk) 19:24, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

we had a little edit conflict there. With respect to the other editor's suggestion that we had to list all owners of a publicly traded company, that is a) impossible, because the identity of all shareholders is not public, verifiable information; and b) not a good faith answer, in my view. please note "beneficial shareholders" are publicly available information, through the 13D filings, and are often included on the 10K or 20F. Jytdog (talk) 19:28, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

i went ahead and started the discussion on the Talk page, here: Template_talk:Infobox_company#Owner_field. Jytdog (talk) 21:28, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about not responding back earlier, for what you recently said about Amgen, not being sourced, I just forgot to put proof of ownership in the infobox. Seqqis (talk) 00:25, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Appreciation of your effort

I think you really deserve a medal for your patience, and the amount of work you are willing to put into helping Johnvr4. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:24, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

thanks. i have no dog in that hunt and i like working through complex issues with people. i am happy for john's openness to talk with me.Jytdog (talk) 16:35, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Seconded. As I noted on John's talkpage, it's hard for me to find the time, and given the really excellent and patient work you're doing, I don't want to distract or detract from that effort by engaging in parallel. You have my support, and I am broadly in agreement with your views. Acroterion (talk) 02:55, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

thanks, i am grateful to john for being willing to go through this process. Jytdog (talk) 03:09, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

See this [3] ] for a little more insight into his interactions: I've been trying to keep it in mind. Acroterion (talk) 03:12, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Question re revert

Hi Jytdog, I yield to your experience in the matter of the reference that you reverted in Dietary supplement but I want to check that you noticed the links the website provides to lead studies. I thought the reference was worthwhile because it provided a compact, comprehensive and comprehensible account of the wide range of studies that are being undertaken. It would help people to understand that studies are ongoing and also provide readers with easy access to a range of them. In this way, it would be a good starting point for someone interested in reading the evidence. You disagree? Whiteghost.ink (talk) 03:22, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for talking! It is a very cool website, and I think it would be a great external link. But we are really anal about sourcing health-related content. There is a LOT of flaky "information" about health on the web, and a lot of people who believe that flaky stuff, and as WP is an "encyclopedia that anyone can edit" you can imagine the kinds of things people want to introduce! That is how MEDRS evolved over the years.. the community needed a way to ensure that WP could meet its mission of providing reliable information to the public -- we needed a very clear guideline about the kinds of sources that are acceptable for health-related content. Short story - acceptable sources are reviews in the biomedical literature, and statements by major medical and scientific bodies. If you have not read WP:MEDRS please have a look. Thanks again for talking! Jytdog (talk) 04:05, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Response to revert

Sorry, you didn't have to be angry. I didn't know that users needed permission to change a editors comment, even if a commenter made a typo and another user spotted it and was just correcting it. Not saying your comment was a typo. Seqqis (talk) 17:10, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't angry. Just very clear that you did something very wrong. Now you know! Jytdog (talk) 18:04, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Pharmacogenomics wiki page

Hi Jytdog, I am, in fact, a student. Groups within the class were to find a 'incomplete' or nonexisting wiki page. I am (of course) very new to Wikipedia and I dont even know if this is the right way to converse with you. (not very convenient) I completely understand the points you made concerning prior authors etc. I just use that my groups contribution not be removed til next week. So that we can receive our grade for the assignment. Thank you, Dolleyj (talk) 13:57, 2 May 2014 (UTC)DolleyjDolleyj (talk) 13:57, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I responded on your Talk page. Jytdog (talk) 14:17, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Question

Thank you for your message. I recently posted a few edits to a couple Wiki pages, and noticed that they have since been deleted. I then noticed your message to me with helpful hints, and was wondering if it might have been you that deleted my edits? If so, I was wondering if you had any more detailed advice as to why my edits were out of place on their respective pages? Thank you! --Hooeychap — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hooeychap (talk • contribs) 03:04, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

i responded on your Talk page. Jytdog (talk) 12:07, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

mycelium

i asked a question in the talk page of mycelium, you reverted the change may i know why? having it clarified on the talk page seems to be a better solution to me than someone else adding it to the article if it doesn"t belong there, then reverted, then poibly reverted a few times, or added and reverted despite it belonging there and then regularly reverted. a clear answer in the talk page would stop that and give a standard for dealing with it if it happens — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheFIST (talk • contribs) 11:33, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

the question you asked in this dif, on the Talk page of Mycelium, (an article about fungus) was "is the android wallet popular enough for a mention at the top of the page to say that this page is not about it? " The Talk page guidelines are very clear, that article Talk pages, are for discussing the article content. The first pillar of Wikipedia, is WP:NOT, which says that what we are about here, is creating an encyclopedia, and it specifies that Wikipedia is WP:NOTPROMOTION not for promoting products or pet ideas. Editors who abuse their editing privileges by demonstrating that they are not here to build an encylopedia but instead are disruptive can get blocked or banned. I came about an inch from putting a vandalism notice on your Talk page in addition to deleting what you wrote. Would you please explain how your contribution was a good faith effort to improve the article? Jytdog (talk) 12:38, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!

please help translate this message into the local language

	The Cure Award
	In 2013 you were one of the top 300 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you so much for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date medical information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do!

We are wondering about the educational background of our top medical editors. Would you please complete a quick 5-question survey? (please only fill this out if you received the award)

Thanks again :) --Ocaasi, Doc James and the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation

WP:TENDENTIOUS

I make one edit asking for a ref and you accuse me of tendentious editing? One citation needed? Jeez.

"Tendentious editing is a manner of editing which is partisan, biased or skewed taken as a whole. It does not conform to the neutral point of view, and fails to do so at a level more general than an isolated comment that was badly thought out. On Wikipedia, the term also carries the connotation of repetitive attempts to insert or delete content or behavior that tends to frustrate proper editorial processes and discussions."

Do you really think my edit really falls into that description? I do agree that it was nitpicky, and for that I apologize. Ordinarily minor nitpicking is sort of the order of the day at Wikipedia but I acknowledge that it can be overdone. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:42, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

ummm this itself is kind of nitpicky. my point, was that the comment and questions were pretty POV-pushy. you are absolutely correct that for "tendentious" to stick there has to be a sustained pattern and one comment does not a pattern make. my apologies. Jytdog (talk) 20:46, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

No problems. I apologize for being nitpicky and will try to be less so. Thanks! Capitalismojo (talk) 16:47, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

FYI

I tripped up on this, I'd hate for you to do the same. The person talking about Serlini is not the same person you and I have had conflicts with in the past. Not sure if your eyes glazed over his name or not, but I just wanted to flag it for you before any assumptions inadvertently occurred. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:15, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

thanks, i knew the person was different. but thanks! Jytdog (talk) 16:35, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

You're smarter than I, but I already knew that. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:39, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

come onnn. but really that was thoughtful to reach out to me. thanks.Jytdog (talk) 16:40, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

NPOV issue

This may be of interest to you: Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Traditional_Chinese_medicine -- regards, Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI?) 07:07, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. bit canvass-y, though. I read the discussion and am torn. I don't think TCM is any kind of science and so part of me struggles with even labelling it as "pseudoscience." But as per Wikipedia's working definition of pseudoscience (not as defined in the Psuedoscience article, but rather in a guideline, [Wikipedia:Fringe_theories#Pseudoscience_and_other_fringe_theories|here]], I think the body of TCM is indeed pseudoscience... again as we use that term as defined in guidelines. Once one agrees with that, the sourcing issue becomes irrelevant to me. The Nature editorial is not the greatest but there are plenty of other sources that could be brought. And as per WP:FRINGE we do not shrink from naming a fringe theory for what it is.... Jytdog (talk) 19:29, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Jytdog -- Canvassing, seriously? I had no idea where you'd come down on this, only that your opinion would be reasoned and helpful. My own take on this DRN is to follow RS (as seen through lens of WP:FRINGE/PS), not try to demarcate topics ourselves (too SYN-ish and over our heads), and to follow WP:ASSERT and attribute statements wherever there's any doubt (some editors want to use the Nature editorial's wording without attribution). Hope to see you at acupuncture] again sometime! Your comments some weeks ago were a breath of fresh air. regards, Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI?) 05:58, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

just said "canvass-y" :) i have bailed on the acupuncture thing... I have come to agree with you that QG is too hard to work with. wikipedia is big and i would just as soon avoid working on articles with editors like that. i wish you good luck! Jytdog (talk) 09:03, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks man. If good editors are pushed away by difficult ones, then "the terrorists have already won". :-) But I completely get your decision. Happy editing! -Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI?) 19:56, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Synthetic Biology

Thanks again for getting back to me. I was off the grid fro a couple weeks. I'd like to reconnect with you when I have more research done that could be useful. Is that ok?Lgkkitkat (talk) 17:53, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

sure! :) Jytdog (talk) 17:56, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello. Just a note to let you know that I agree with you in that the new paper on the 2 artificial base pairs has to be given cautious due weight. It looks very promising though, because it was peer-reviewed and published in Nature. As you are aware in the merger discussion page (Talk:Synthetic DNA), we have been thinking of the appropriate nomenclature and also considering common names, the best "destination" page, the subtitle and finally, several possible redirect names. I know you stated to MelanieN that you are out, and you and she have not contributed any further in that discussion. I hope you don't mind if Dr. Bogdan and myself complete the merge process to our selected target. I look forward to working with you in the near future on molecular bio topics. I have not been active in those subjects because that's what I do all day (nephrology research), and I relax writing on topics related mostly to astrobiology and abiogenesis. CHeers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:08, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Do whatever you like! Please keep WP:MEDRS in mind as you go - the importance of secondary sources (reviews in the literature) is emphasized in WP articles with biological or medical topics. As you know the basic literature in the biomedical sciences is not reliable; even Nature has had plenty of retractions. Thanks for reaching out! Jytdog (talk) 14:59, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Editor of the Week

		Editor of the Week
		Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week, for excellent work in a contentious subject area. Thank you for the great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

User:Epipelagic submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

I nominate Jytdog as Editor of the Week for untiring work bringing balance and sound sourcing to controversial and difficult articles related to food production and genetic modification. When necessary in order to achieve these goals, Jytdog negotiates his way around conflicts on these pages in exemplary and down to earth ways.

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

{{subst:Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Recipient user box}}

Thanks again for your efforts! Go Phightins! 10:31, 11 May 2014 (UTC)