Talk:Human
From RationalWikiWiki
Hans Johnson, this is pathetic. Your dislike for him personally is too clear here. Cop on. Let someone uninvolved write about him and keep your pathetic little squabble away from what could be good fun.— Unsigned, by: 86.45.213.105 / talk / contribs - MarcusCicero
Contents |
[edit] Age
Where did he actually say he is 49? Phantom Hoover 22:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
- You can find his DOB on his website. You can find a link to it on his WP userpage, which you can easily find if you know his real name. -- Nx talk 22:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Disputes
Gooniepunk? Really? We "worked together" on his rewrite of the Gaia thing, but there were never any hard feelings. In fact, we're like totally gay buds now. Please remove that silly claim. Thanks. humanbe in 05:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] If he's a guy, why does Human say that Human is "one of the Ladies"?
Check the userbox:"This user is one of the Ladies"205.189.194.208 23:42, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
- If you don't know, you missed what was going on at RW, I guess. There was this delightful Friday evening a couple years ago... if you check the edit history for when I added it, you might be able to pinpoint the date to research... humanbe in 00:54, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
- "The Gentlemen Club" Liveware Problem 01:19, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
- The article that was so helpfully deleted a few days ago. Rrose Selavy 17:01, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
- Meh. I'm going to put that article's former contents here. Liveware Problem 20:00, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
- Ladies, why don't one of you give me the frickin' link to the relevant edit instead of this insider chatter. Huh?205.189.194.208 22:49, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- The lack of links was a main reason why the article was deleted. Liveware Problem 22:55, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- Very well. I thought that they had deletion logs that you could access relevant links.205.189.194.208 23:19, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- Oh, you can access the diffs, but you'll have to go through a lot of digging. Liveware Problem 00:26, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- Very well. I thought that they had deletion logs that you could access relevant links.205.189.194.208 23:19, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- The lack of links was a main reason why the article was deleted. Liveware Problem 22:55, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- Ladies, why don't one of you give me the frickin' link to the relevant edit instead of this insider chatter. Huh?205.189.194.208 22:49, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- Meh. I'm going to put that article's former contents here. Liveware Problem 20:00, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
- The article that was so helpfully deleted a few days ago. Rrose Selavy 17:01, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
- "The Gentlemen Club" Liveware Problem 01:19, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
[edit] Recent stuff
No mention of the chicken coop trials, his LANCB as Asterisk, etc? I don't want to edit it myself since I was involved. -- Nx / talk 10:57, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
- Who is "Asterisk"? humanbe in 06:17, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
- I think she's one of the ladies. Er, Ladies. Liveware Problem 07:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
- Who is "Asterisk"? humanbe in 06:17, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
- Neither was I. Was anyone here? Tyrannis 13:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
- I said I was involved. -- Nx / talk 19:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
- We already has an article on the chicken coop trials. And so far as LANCB is concerned, it happens so often on RW that to update an article every time it happens (especially when the person never really goes away) would be tedious. However, if someone disagrees, they may go ahead and add it all to the article. I wasn't around for the LANCB, so I won't add it. Punky McPunkersen 20:41, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
- Ah. The more recent stuff and the LANCB should be added to that article then. I agree that it's not really notable here, since Human does this all the time. -- Nx / talk 20:44, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
- Does what "all the time"? humanbe in 06:17, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
- Leave and
nevercome back as a transparent sock. 89.132.239.149 09:53, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
- I meant other than you, Nx. Well, seems to have resolved itself. Tyrannis 21:53, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, what the fuck is up with that as I'm totally out of the loop here. Armondikov 01:15, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
- Ah. The more recent stuff and the LANCB should be added to that article then. I agree that it's not really notable here, since Human does this all the time. -- Nx / talk 20:44, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
- We already has an article on the chicken coop trials. And so far as LANCB is concerned, it happens so often on RW that to update an article every time it happens (especially when the person never really goes away) would be tedious. However, if someone disagrees, they may go ahead and add it all to the article. I wasn't around for the LANCB, so I won't add it. Punky McPunkersen 20:41, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
- I said I was involved. -- Nx / talk 19:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
[edit] Sockpuppets
Should we add a list of all Human's sockpuppets, or would that fill up the server's disk space? SuspectedReplicant 21:44, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- I tried, but the task was too daunting. Liveware Problem 21:52, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- Ah yes. Don't forget For Becathly, but I fear this task may be beyond the wit of mortal man. SuspectedReplicant 22:09, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- How about yours? Nutty Roux 13:40, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- Ah yes. Don't forget For Becathly, but I fear this task may be beyond the wit of mortal man. SuspectedReplicant 22:09, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Please explain
how in terms of what Goonie deems an "attack article", this article doesn't fall foul of the same provisions? --Psygremlin 13:12, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- You do know that about 99% of this article was written back when RA owned this Wiki, right? I thought so. After all, you should know how to use the "history" button by now. Punky McPunkersen 13:57, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- You saw what happened when I edited 2 WIGOs to remove a reference inserted by SuspectedReplicant to Human being a "drunken troll" and misrepresenting the status of the decratting vote SR himself slapped up in the coop, as well as a reference calling me a "dick" and some other bullshit. A few of your admin here edit warred me until they got tired of that and then started IP blocking me and removing my rights. This happened 3 or 4 times. Some of the people you have running this shit heap shouldn't be in charge of gatekeeping truth and safeguarding against personal attacks against regular editors and you haven't done a goddam thing to fix it. Try editing an article to remove attacks and it sticks because you own the site. Anyone else. Not so much. Nutty Roux 14:13, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- No, I know. There are many things wrong with this Wiki. Which is why i am reconsidering letting it exist. Especially with some of the crybaby fuckwits who've shown up as of late. Punky McPunkersen 14:19, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- So? Regardless of who wrote it - it's here. But you claim this is not an attack site. That's like saying, 'Oh, Conservapedia's actually ok. Just ignore the fact that Ken writes the articles there." --Psygremlin 14:01, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- The fact that you are using this article to make a point is hilarious since, at the same time you were complaining to the RW Board, you were going around bashing both Eira and Huw. Which is why I invoked "Clean Hands Doctrine" in that matter. If you hadn't acted like such a hypocrite from the get go, maybe I'd care. I used to respect you, but then you had to go and betray that by acting like both a coward by retreating to non-RationalWiki places to bitch, and an asshole for (essentially) libeling both Eira and Huw. Punky McPunkersen 14:06, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- Regardless of my actions, the fact remains you declared RWW to "not be an attack site" and yet you host artciles that attack RW editors. I also took my comments off RW to prevent prolonging the HCM there. If that's being a coward, so be it. Come and tell me that on the comments section. I'm sad you've decided to make this personal, whilst defending the double-standard that exists on this wiki. --Psygremlin 14:11, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- The only double standard here is the one you hold for others by pretending to have some sort of moral authority even though a legal concern was filed over a facebook post that was libelous against Huw aand Eira at the same time you were whining about Eira acting in bad faith. Insofar as you stupid claims about this article, it existed before this Wiki was owned by Trent and the RWF and before "this is not an attack site" was laid down. Thus, it's ex post facto. Punky McPunkersen 14:15, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- Still immaterial. You made a specific claim. I never did. Just because I bad mouth people for a valid reason, doesn't mean that your wiki can say one thing, whilst displaying another. I also dispute that anything I said about those two was libelous. If it was, let them take action against me. Once again. This isn't about me. This is pointing out a clear double-standard on your wiki.
- If you want to show good faith, delete every article on RW editors, or the ones that RA wrote, and start afresh. otherwise, your claim to not be an attack site is a lie. Regardless of when you took over the site. Is that so hard to understand? --Psygremlin 14:30, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- How about this: since you, not Huw, are the one sooo goddamn concerned with the content of this article, why don't you de-RAify it? That way, it is no longer an attack piece? You are allowed, after all, to edit it. SO go ahead and give ti the old college try. You do have an account here, do you not? So since it concerns you sooooo damn much, go ahead and fix it yourself, dear Henry dear Henry. Punky McPunkersen 14:36, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- The only double standard here is the one you hold for others by pretending to have some sort of moral authority even though a legal concern was filed over a facebook post that was libelous against Huw aand Eira at the same time you were whining about Eira acting in bad faith. Insofar as you stupid claims about this article, it existed before this Wiki was owned by Trent and the RWF and before "this is not an attack site" was laid down. Thus, it's ex post facto. Punky McPunkersen 14:15, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- Regardless of my actions, the fact remains you declared RWW to "not be an attack site" and yet you host artciles that attack RW editors. I also took my comments off RW to prevent prolonging the HCM there. If that's being a coward, so be it. Come and tell me that on the comments section. I'm sad you've decided to make this personal, whilst defending the double-standard that exists on this wiki. --Psygremlin 14:11, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- The fact that you are using this article to make a point is hilarious since, at the same time you were complaining to the RW Board, you were going around bashing both Eira and Huw. Which is why I invoked "Clean Hands Doctrine" in that matter. If you hadn't acted like such a hypocrite from the get go, maybe I'd care. I used to respect you, but then you had to go and betray that by acting like both a coward by retreating to non-RationalWiki places to bitch, and an asshole for (essentially) libeling both Eira and Huw. Punky McPunkersen 14:06, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- You saw what happened when I edited 2 WIGOs to remove a reference inserted by SuspectedReplicant to Human being a "drunken troll" and misrepresenting the status of the decratting vote SR himself slapped up in the coop, as well as a reference calling me a "dick" and some other bullshit. A few of your admin here edit warred me until they got tired of that and then started IP blocking me and removing my rights. This happened 3 or 4 times. Some of the people you have running this shit heap shouldn't be in charge of gatekeeping truth and safeguarding against personal attacks against regular editors and you haven't done a goddam thing to fix it. Try editing an article to remove attacks and it sticks because you own the site. Anyone else. Not so much. Nutty Roux 14:13, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- Given how your counter-arguments have been 1. We're not an attack site, because RA wrote the articles, to 2. We're not an attack site because they were here before we said we're not an attack site, to 3. Wa! I don't like you anymore, so your opinion about us being an attack site doesn't count, to 4. We're not an attack site because I say so; and given how you summarily demoted me for following what appeared to be reasonable articles on RWW, no - I will not fix your double-standard. Especialy, when as Nutty mentioned, there are senior editors here who edit war to keep attacks in. Now that you admit there is a double-standard, maybe use that article history you reminded me about and demote everybody who worked on these attack articles. All in the name of fairness. --Psygremlin 14:52, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- Oh, and I've been de-friended on FB. My heart is broken. --Psygremlin 14:59, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- Pardon? It was you who defriended me. Not that I give a shit. But whatever. I really trully don't give a flying a fuck about you and your drama whoring nonsense. Punky McPunkersen 15:08, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- I can assure you I did not. Still, that's fine. My point about the double-standard stands. If that makes you all cross, so be it. --Psygremlin 15:17, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- And, there again. You know something, at least I can admit when my shit smells. But you, from what I've seen, cannot accept the fact that you are acting in just as bad faith as the people whom you accuse. So perhaps I was wrong in eliminating your user rights here when you and Eira were fighting and I was hearing many many complaints about it. And for that, I do apologize. But you were also wrong (and I don't even care if you admit it) in going all over the internet in attacking Eira and Huw. ANd you are also wrong in charging after everything your mad about right now. This is not and attack site. We welcome criticism of RW and its editors. But before this whole shitstorm with Nutty and you and Eira and whoeverthefuckelse started, there was actually a serious exploration into what that actually meant. But we were never allowed to come up with anything concrete before this shitstorm on RationalWiki (which I assure you I was dragged into kicking and screaming because it is my friends fighting my friends and fighting me) started. But, back on topic, if I pissed you off so much, then I truly am sorry and am willing to admit that, yes, you were wronged. Punky McPunkersen 15:30, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- One more thing. When I say, "You are all my friends," don't think I don't mean it. Even you, Psy, are still a friend of mine. And friends fight sometimes. Punky McPunkersen 16:19, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- Pardon? It was you who defriended me. Not that I give a shit. But whatever. I really trully don't give a flying a fuck about you and your drama whoring nonsense. Punky McPunkersen 15:08, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- You do know that about 99% of this article was written back when RA owned this Wiki, right? I thought so. After all, you should know how to use the "history" button by now. Punky McPunkersen 13:57, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- Your vendetta is getting kinda boring now. Either keep it in just the one place and stop spamming it everywhere you can find to insert it from Facebook to blogs to user articles to talk pages... or just stop and take a break, get out of the little RW bubble and realise there is a real world out there. With real people. Real interactions. Real problems. Realise that there isn't going to be a nuclear war over what RW does or doesn't do. People aren't going to die or be sexually molested by it. Just for your own sanity's sake, please take a breather of a few days to a week. You will feel clearer-headed and better for it, trust me. Armondikov 13:18, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- No. I was accused of writing attack pieces and fired by Goonie for doing so. What is said in this article is far worse than the true events I listed about Eira. I want to know why this isn't an attack piece? If there is a double standard, that's fine - just be man enough to admit it. --Psygremlin 13:22, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- I really couldn't give a crap about the contents of an RWW article. What I'm saying is that you need to calm down and get over it. Armondikov 13:23, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- Easy for you to say. It's not your name being dragged through the mud. I love it - I hang around quietly at RW for 3 years, then when I raise one serious issue, suddenly I'm an attention whore who needs to be ignored. Wow. Just fucking wow. And MC is a crat. Good to see where the priorities lie. --Psygremlin 13:27, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- @Armondikov: For someone who doesn't give a crap about pretty much every situation you create or interject yourself into it's amazing you can muster the energy to be such a troublemaker. Nutty Roux 13:42, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- Whatever. You're an asshat and always will be. Armondikov 15:37, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- What did I do to you? What's wrong with you? Nutty Roux 16:24, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- Whatever. You're an asshat and always will be. Armondikov 15:37, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- @Armondikov: For someone who doesn't give a crap about pretty much every situation you create or interject yourself into it's amazing you can muster the energy to be such a troublemaker. Nutty Roux 13:42, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- Easy for you to say. It's not your name being dragged through the mud. I love it - I hang around quietly at RW for 3 years, then when I raise one serious issue, suddenly I'm an attention whore who needs to be ignored. Wow. Just fucking wow. And MC is a crat. Good to see where the priorities lie. --Psygremlin 13:27, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- I really couldn't give a crap about the contents of an RWW article. What I'm saying is that you need to calm down and get over it. Armondikov 13:23, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- No. I was accused of writing attack pieces and fired by Goonie for doing so. What is said in this article is far worse than the true events I listed about Eira. I want to know why this isn't an attack piece? If there is a double standard, that's fine - just be man enough to admit it. --Psygremlin 13:22, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
[edit] True Events?
There is one obscenity in the edit. Wandalism has always been tolerated on RW. this comment by the BoN on my talk page is devoid of constructive criticism, and consists solely of name calling. But then, this isn't the place to argue this shit... but that doesn't stop you from dragging it out everywhere you can get your hands on. --Eira 13:48, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- This place is a cesspit. I hope Gooniepunk can get rid of the noobs and douchidents (douche bag dissidents - get it?) who run over here to either pretend they're part of a larger community than they are because they obsessively sort and resort other people's personal details, or WIGO themselves and their sock puppets attacking other editors on RW and then call them names when they defend themselves. This site is a microcosm of the problems RW will never recover from. Nutty Roux 13:54, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- All I'm doing is making sure there isn't a double-standard on RWW. It's not an attack site, remember? --Psygremlin 13:55, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- And again, the vast majority of this was written back when RA owned this site. I also find it hypocritical that you, of all people Psy, should use this article as an example to defend yourself after you went about the internet bashing my friend Huw all over the fucking place. Punky McPunkersen 14:02, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- 1. My bashing Huw involved mentioning his very valid role in the HCM. If you want to call it bashing so be it. 2. I haven't censured anybody for bashing people. 3. I don't claim my blog is not a site for bashing people. 4. Saying RA wrote it is not relevant. 5. I'm trying to keep this impersonal. Please try the same and argue the facts. --Psygremlin 14:07, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- "Please try the same and argue the facts" ... kind of funny coming from you, when you keep hyperbolizing everything I did. If you want to argue from the facts, I'm more than happy to, because I do that all the god damn time, that's why I'm so god damn pedantic. But you won't have any of that... you'll blow off the three points that I made above, that point out errors in fact with your original edit to my page, and just totally ignore that they are not supported by the actual evidence. --Eira 14:45, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- Eira, sweetheart, last time I checked, this wasn't about you. It was about RWW hosting attack articles. Run along now, there's a good girlie. --Psygremlin 14:56, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- You made claims that you were claiming True Events... the logs deny this. --Eira 15:25, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- Eira, sweetheart, last time I checked, this wasn't about you. It was about RWW hosting attack articles. Run along now, there's a good girlie. --Psygremlin 14:56, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- "Please try the same and argue the facts" ... kind of funny coming from you, when you keep hyperbolizing everything I did. If you want to argue from the facts, I'm more than happy to, because I do that all the god damn time, that's why I'm so god damn pedantic. But you won't have any of that... you'll blow off the three points that I made above, that point out errors in fact with your original edit to my page, and just totally ignore that they are not supported by the actual evidence. --Eira 14:45, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- 1. My bashing Huw involved mentioning his very valid role in the HCM. If you want to call it bashing so be it. 2. I haven't censured anybody for bashing people. 3. I don't claim my blog is not a site for bashing people. 4. Saying RA wrote it is not relevant. 5. I'm trying to keep this impersonal. Please try the same and argue the facts. --Psygremlin 14:07, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- And again, the vast majority of this was written back when RA owned this site. I also find it hypocritical that you, of all people Psy, should use this article as an example to defend yourself after you went about the internet bashing my friend Huw all over the fucking place. Punky McPunkersen 14:02, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- All I'm doing is making sure there isn't a double-standard on RWW. It's not an attack site, remember? --Psygremlin 13:55, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Since this entire mess was caused by Human acting like a cock (as usual), it's quite fair to attack him. Nutty by name, nutty by nature has decided to ignore the facts and base all his arguments on Human being a friend, and now Goonie is doing exactly the same.
For FUCK'S SAKE, people! Human has always acted like a dick on RationalWiki and it finally reached the point where everybody had enough. When people tried to put some mechanisms in place that would prevent him acting like a dick in that one particular way, a number of "old guard" (read, people who let each other act like dicks no matter what the consequences will be) started shouting to make sure nothing would happen. That's why half the active editors have left and you're left with a mixture of self-satisfied old-timers and clueless noobs.
Well done to the whole fucking lot of you. A decent site totally destroyed. 212.139.227.149 15:34, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
[edit] If you ask me
None of you who are bitching about this site ever lifted a damn finger to help when Goonie and I were busy reviving from this dump from RA's bitching corner into (what we'd mutually hoped) to be a historical society of sorts. And when others showed up, they naturally got demoted (in the classical RW sense) because they were acting useful and working hard at reviving this place. And then things changed when people who otherwise called this place variations of "a dead Wiki" or "a place for stalkers" showed up and (for whatever reason) started complaining about Tyrannis and Suspectedreplicant being 'crats here. Well folks, you can't have it both ways. You can either make useful contributions here and help mold this site into whatever you think it should be (in Goonie's and my vision, a place to chart the history of RationalWiki) and get demoted based on having earned it, or you can shut the fuck up. Conficker 23:02, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- Good post! Ty 23:04, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- Jesus. Even when I was power-tripping all over RWW I didn't go around whitewashing articles. Hans Johnson I'll get my hans on it 00:17, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- The vast majority of the problem started when people decided they couldn't tolerate a little dissent and criticism. Rather than put up and deal, edit wars ensued. It happens on Wikis. But then edit wars spun into people getting blocked and losing their rights. That then escalated even more vicious criticism which then turned into attacks. This lead to people taking it to the e-mail level and flooding my e-mail box with complaints and threats to have this place shut down. Since I do have some money invested in this place, I didn't wait for a response from Trent about any complaints and, like a fool, decided to handle these complaints myself in an arbitrary, nobody-wins fashion. Unfortunately, as I was warned, this set a bad precedent as I suddenly was looked to as the sole arbitrator of any conflicts here with any and all sides going right to the "or else I'll have Trent shut RWW down." You guys wanna know something? From here on out, anybody flooding me e-mail with "or else I'll get RWW taken down" will be challenged to back it up. For fucksake, I can't believe that none of you have grown out of this world-class bitchfest yet. And I'm sick of the fact that I cannot offer my opinions here anymore without people going "it is your Wiki." That may be so, but look at the disclaimer on my userpage. A Wiki is owned by the people on it, and in that regard I'm just an editor like anybody else. And if the people of this place can't figure things out without people blocking each other or eliminating each others' userrights or complaining to me or Trent, then, mayhaps, you get whatever you deserve. You wanna know what justice is? In my mind, it's for all involved in the conflicts who can't figure out how to deal with each other here to be given 'crat rights so that both sides can fight each other to the Wiki death. Punky McPunkersen 01:04, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- Jesus. Even when I was power-tripping all over RWW I didn't go around whitewashing articles. Hans Johnson I'll get my hans on it 00:17, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Burn in hell?
Shouldn't that award be for those who are particularly outspoken, not for those who are just generally godless?--False Flag 19:06, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- Ok, I've zapped it. If anyone can show a constant pattern of outspoken anti-theist stuff no doubt it will be put back.--False Flag 21:41, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- I've known him pretty well for years. He's definitely not a believer but I haven't known him to be much more than responsive to religious claims rather than dogged in the sense I imagine is usual when referring to someone as an antitheist. Nutty Roux 22:27, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- Meh, you guys are right. I've known Human for years as well, and while he is certainly an atheist, he is also not a hardcore antitheist. 'Twas my mistake, but, in a way, a tribute to Human, as I did that while drinking some delicious scotch. Punky McPunkersen 01:44, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
- I've known him pretty well for years. He's definitely not a believer but I haven't known him to be much more than responsive to religious claims rather than dogged in the sense I imagine is usual when referring to someone as an antitheist. Nutty Roux 22:27, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
