User talk:CJ/Archive 17

Add topic
Active discussions

redirect on South Australian food and drink

Hi CJ. You redirected the above, but another editor came back and carried on with the article. The content is poor, and very very POV. I have moved it back to a redirect and have it on watch. Just a heads up for you .....Pedro |  Chat  11:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

CJ and Pedro- kindly note for the record that I consider your actions in capriciously deleting the article are most disappointing. I would expect that before deleting an article regarding a serious subject, you would act more fairly and reasonably. On this occasion, neither of you did. Fitzpatrickjm 13:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh come off it Patrick. We have a little thing 'round these parts called assuming good faith — please do try it some time. As for the article, it's mix-mash of un-encyclopædic information. I'll be returning to it once I'm come back from my break.--cj | talk 04:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


Do you want to help me in order to better this article Wallabies (version française) ? It should be a very nice result... Ddfree 17:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Ddfree. I don't think I would be of much help; my French really isn't proficient enough to engage in article-writing, and I don't really have the time. Best of luck,--cj | talk 04:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Local government in Australia is new ACOTF

You voted for Local government in Australia for Australian collaboration of the fortnight. It has been selected, so please help to improve it in any way you can. Thanks. --Scott Davis Talk 13:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Anon harassment of newbie

Please have a look at User talk:Chopstick1066, not sure what action is appropriate. The article he created has just been prodded. Paul foord 10:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe a joke? Paul foord 10:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't think any action would be useful; both users are long gone, seemingly.--cj | talk 04:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Your comments on Royal Anthem...

I saw your comments on the Royal Anthem at Talk:Australia. It wasn't quite clear to me who's argument you were saying was flawed. Could you possibly just tweak it so that it is clear? thanks :) Merbabu 03:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I thought the indentation and content of them made it clear I was addressing Skyring. Nevertheless, I've clarified my comments.--cj | talk 03:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

My apologies for edit warring, this dispute is getting quite frustrating for me because it's been going so long and we don't seem to be any closer to a resolution. Since you obviously have the authority to edit protect articles I would like to request possible protection of the Kevin Rudd article to the same standard as the John Howard article is currently protected, it is getting vandalised quite regularly and this will only get worse as the election gets closer. Cheers, Alec -(answering machine) 04:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair point. I'm surprised it wasn't already protected.--cj | talk 05:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi CJ, could you please put an edit protect on Australian Liberal Students' Federation‎ until their edit war is resolved. Thanks, Alec -(answering machine) 04:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Done. --cj | talk 05:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


It looks like you are on - could you run past Alan bond article? I might be off-to the side on this one but I reckon MOS and a few other issues - your esteemed opinion would be appreciated - no need to answer if youre busy, but SatuSuro 04:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

well no answer from writer so reverted - but would still appreciate a comment if you are on - cheers SatuSuro 05:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
It's sort of a mix-mash, isn't it. There's some good in the edits, but otherwise the writing is stilted, unsourced, and possibly pasted from elsewhere. I think your revert is on-the-whole justified.--cj | talk 05:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
My problem is my talk page just got flooded and i was about to get off, sigh - I'll try to handle it - have hassled hesperian as well about this. I might cry for help again soon who knows SatuSuro 05:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

...self promoter

Hi CJ, there is a self-promoter putting in details of their new book into a few articles. They don't respond to talk page messages. hope you get a chance to go past. Merbabu 04:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

No edits in the past half-hour or so. If he persists, let me know.--cj | talk 05:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


Oh, CJ :). You are a good lad! For some reason, choosing Wikipedia to vent frustration, rather than one of the many orange MSN bars at the bottom of my screen. All okay. Michael talk 15:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I look up at the list of assignments and their due dates I've stuck to my wall. It's that time of year! Michael talk 15:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Mess cleaning

My pleasure. Doesn't that flashing thing at the top of your Talk: page say you are on a wikibreak? Jayjg (talk) 02:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

And how are "Navigation" sections contrary to the manual of style?

I didn't add this section to the Tony Blair article, yet it serves the exact same purpose as my Navigation and Succession sections. Plus, I didn't even come up with this idea in the first place; I viewed it in one article earlier today (placed by someone else), and I decided that it would be a good - no, a *great* idea - to place these in most of these articles. So I personally feel that removing the sections could reinstitute the deficit of space negotiation between external links, commoms links, and navigational templates, thereby doing a disservice to the articles. --Toussaint 03:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Template Moves

Wise CJ ... Do you know how a template move works. If i moved a template, this would then create a redirect at the original location correct? If the original template was called, would is transclude the template that it is redirected to onto that page?? :: maelgwn :: talk 08:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you've guessed rightly.--cj | talk 10:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Yipee :: maelgwn :: talk 10:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my talk page (I don't get it why did Verity2323 vandalize it, it's not like I reverted any of her vandalism) --•Lwarf• Talk! 09:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Dear CJ, thank you for you efforts to build consensus on my RfA. As you know, it was unsuccessful. I am not the type of editor to be disheartened by such a result, and have gained much experience.

I will run again, however I am concerned that I may see your name in the same place, for the same reasons. I would greatly appreciate knowing what I could do to earn your support next time.

If you have anything to contribute by way of improvements or comments, please don’t hesitate to tell me. Kind regards, Dfrg.msc 00:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

St Mark's College, The Buildings and Grounds

Hi CJ, just to let you know - Very impressed at the speed with which you tracked down the Walkley book and added its details (I in fact have it right next to me but am not as well versed in wiki-templates). Well done. Are you a Marksman by any chance?--Yeti Hunter 05:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

No, no, I just had the Flinders library catalogue at hand ;)--cj | talk 05:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

suspected troll

CJ, I'm not familiar with the process for dealing with trolls. This bloke, User:Username nought, has been going around to various pages (Adelaide University Boat Club, St. Mark's College (University of Adelaide) and others, tagging them with "unreferenced". Now that sources have been added, the new claim is "not notable enough"! Note also that this is all the user ever does, no actual constructive edits (hence suspicion of sock puppetry). It's trolling of the "Use wikipedia's rules against them" variety. Any thoughts as an admin?--Yeti Hunter 10:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, fair call, it was poor form. But seriously, isn't Nought pushing some boundaries? It seems clear to me he is a sock puppet with the sole purpose of bashing many legitimate pages - as a new user he has a remarkably good knowledge of wiki guidelines and templates.--Yeti Hunter 22:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
CJ, seriously, can this bloke be banned? And his sock puppet of User:Toadtoad? His trolling of the Mark's article is getting ridiculous. Also check out Toad's requesting help on how to cite a college roll-book, and Nought's subsequent edits.--Yeti Hunter 11:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually scrub that last remark. The more he trolls, the better the article gets, so bring it on.--Yeti Hunter 12:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


Hi CJ, nought seems to have taken your advice and gone to AfD. The page is here if you are interested in contributing to the pointless argument. No right-minded, impartial wikipedian would vote contribute anything less than a strong keep, but the process is now started. Cheers, ABVS1936 14:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Royal anthems again

Well, Skyring reinstated it, saying there was no consensus for removal. While it is true that it wasn't unanimous, it is clear the vast majority don't support the position he's reverted it too. I really wanted to reinstate it with the footnote version. I hate it when people game the system. Merbabu 04:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

cripes if he says that the issue is worthy of a 3 page wikipedia essay issue - of those we know who have got into that - past and current :( SatuSuro 04:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
It's actually very simple. Looking at the hstory of the edit, with several people reverting and restoring on both sides, it's clearly a matter of some contention, and we need consensus before making a contentious edit. It's now the way it was before edit-warring broke out, but I have no objection to added footnotes. --Pete 07:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Skyring is missing the point of the footnote (intentionally?) - they were not suggested to be an addition to the placement of the Royal Anthem, rather to replace the Royal Anthem (ie, put the Royal anthem in the footnotes). Talk about the worst of committee-style decision making. Like buying a new car, to replace the old one, but then people object to getting rid of the old one - so you have both. Ridiculous. Merbabu 07:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi CJ. Regarding your revert of today following your protection, you rolled back unrelated changes I made to image sizes and ref listing format. These were unopposed (so far - lol). OK, I know these are minor, but if it is not too hard.... Btw, i would agree with Skyring, that hesperian's table is a good idea and hope you can support its facilitation. Merbabu 04:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm aware I rollbacked all changes. I will restore them when I unprotect.--cj | talk 04:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
On a side issue, if I may butt in for a moment, leaving image sizes at "thumb" respects the "my preferences" settings of users. Conversely, specifying image sizes overrules user preferences. Personally, I would much prefer if image sizes were left unspecified in general, and only specified in the odd case where it is highly desirable to do so. Hesperian 04:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Hesperian, that is my new understanding too following the Indonesia FAC and it makes a lot of sense to me, and I've been changing a few articles of late. It's also 'recommended' in the MOS. (also, the new 'upright' parameter is a gem too). It's an issue relevant to almost every wikipedia page.
CJ, yeah i guess it's a minor one. Roll it back whenever. thanks. Merbabu 04:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
(sorry for crosstalk, CJ) Merbabu, can you direct me to info on "upright" - I've never heard of it. Hesperian 04:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Brand spanking new feature, I think. Mentioned in last week's Signpost.--cj | talk 05:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm in a state of absolute disbelief as to how big this thing has become! I now hugely regret my original edit! If I had any idea it would cause this much disruption I would have let the babies have their royal bottle :) Alec -(answering machine) 06:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


Thanks for closing some of the Portal candidates. Any chance of mine going through now? ;) Cheers, Spawn Man 05:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I've posted on the talk page. Later this week, if all is right.--cj | talk 05:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


Hi CJ, I have put a 'related to a current event' notice on the 2004 Palm Island death in custody, are there any notices which stated that it is related to a current court case? i think there is an important distinction, but maybe not... Alec -(answering machine) 04:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


I don't think 'Barbeque' is local spelling, just bad spelling. I did check before making the changes: see Talk:Barbecue#Spelling which cites Australian, British and American dictionaries as prefering 'Barbecue'. Ewen 09:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

It is an acceptable variant. You have no basis to change spelling forms unless they are incorrect, which is not the case here. Please spend your time on Wikipedia more constructively.--cj | talk 09:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
'Acceptable' isn't 'best' and in many versions of English (the OED and Webster's dictionaries for British and American spelling don't list it at all) it isn't even acceptable, just wrong. Why use an inferior spelling that may be acceptable in some countries when we could use the prefered spelling which is correct in all countries? Ewen 09:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Nonsense. Wikipedia respects all forms of English, not simply those which some users consider superior or best. You have absolutely no basis to be making these edits. Find something more useful to do.--cj | talk 12:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
It's hardly nonsense in the context of this policy: WP:ENGVAR#National_varieties_of_English see Opportunities for commonality. Ewen 13:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
The intent of that section is to encourage use of alternate terms for words with variable forms where possible – as in the example: aeroplane/airplane = aircraft. This situation is an entirely different kettle of fish.--cj | talk 13:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
It's very similar (a saucepan of amphibians maybe?) - 'Wikipedia tries to find words that are common to all varieties of English. In choosing words or expressions, especially for article titles, there may be value in making choices that avoid varying spellings, where possible.' 'Barbecue' is in every English dictionary wherever you are, 'barbeque' is not (and when it is included, it is only as an alternative not as the main spelling). My point is not to have everyone conform to British spelling (how many times have I gritted my teeth and saved an article with spellings like 'color') but to spell the word in the most helpful way possible for the reader. Ewen 14:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi CJ, I have checked the spelling in yet another dictionary and it is barbecue, and Ewen is correct about the "Q" spelling being wrong. You must be diestracted by the BBQ abbreviation. GB 21:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
The thing is, it's not wrong. It is a legitimate variant noted in several dictionaries; whether it is common or not is beside the point – so long as it is correct, Ewen and co. have no business causing disruption by changing it en masse.--cj | talk 02:43, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
The thing is, it is wrong in the UK where 'barbecue' is the only correct spelling. Seeing as 'barbecue' is correct globally then why insist on using 'barbeque' which is only correct in some countries (and it's not the usual spelling in any country)? Ewen 06:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
All variants are used in the UK & US, the History Channel actually has both variants at America Eats Barbecues and states the word probably derives from barbe a queue. I have always spelt it barbeque. Paul foord 11:01, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Ah well, that's where a bit of research comes in handy. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, 'barbeque' is not correct and the 'barbe a queue' derivation is wildly inaccurate. Ewen 17:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Fadden Barbeques/Barbecues

Nineteen edits have been made on the Fadden, Australian Capital Territory article since the start of this year; nine of these have occured in the last three days over the spelling of "barbeque/barbeque". Perhaps we should all find something more useful to contribute to the article?WA Burdett 12:12, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Citing Photos

Hi CJ, on the St Mark's page there is a statement at the start of the Accommodation section that says "All first year students ("freshers") are allocated single rooms, located on 7 halls or "floors"; 3 in Newland Building[7], 3 in Memorial[8] and one in Hawker Annexe." The cited sources do not mention how many floors each building has but regular editors have justified the citations because photos on the cited websites show photos of the buildings from which wiki readers can work out how many floors the buildings have. Is this kind of citation ok? Thanks. Username nought 08:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


Hi there. You said that if there were no opposes to the Portal:Dinosaurs Featured Portal nomination then you'd pass it through by the start of next week (I.E. Currently now). Will it be passed as it currently has no opposes at all, not even fufilled ones. Also, I've reviewed your comment on the nomination & have decided against the change. I have already tried your concept prior to your suggestion, but with the new To Do template, the collaborations simply do not fit. They sound to me as if they are related content,so leaving them in that section probably wouldn't detract from anything or violate anything too seriously. Other than that, you & others seem to have no quarrel with the portal, ?(unlike the Chinese portal), and therefore I was just wondering if you'd stick to your word & pass it through. Thanks a bunch!! :) Spawn Man 04:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Helloo? Spawn Man 04:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Ummm.... Just wondering if you were ever going to close the nomination? We're all really excited to see it get passed (since there's no opposes & there hasn't been for a while now......) Thank you. Spawn Man 03:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
I can see from your edit log that you've chosen to ignore (or forget at least) my messages here. I'll petition once more here, but if I still get no response I'll assume you're still on a wikibreak & ask another admin who participates in portal noms later. Cheers, Spawn Man 03:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Fine, if you're not going to even respond to my posts, then I'll ask someone else to close the nom. Thanks, Spawn Man 04:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry for my lack of reply thus far, but I have had more urgent considerations. I really don't understand your impatience. The portal has not yet exceeded the average listing length, and there really isn't any need to rush.--cj | talk 03:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm aware of that, but you did say that if no opposes were gained by the end of the week, you'd pass it. That week was two weeks ago, and still no opposes have been made. I'm not talking about cutting a discussion short, but when there's going to be a clear consensus.... Spawn Man 05:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Cheryl Kernot

Asking if she is of French decent is not a general discussion, it's about improving the article.--Steven X 09:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Your comment was hardly so innocently phrased.--cj | talk 13:28, 27 June 2007 (ACST)

Royal anthem...

CJ, you’ve rightly requested consensus – unfortunately I don't think that is going to happen. I believe the table, however, does show a clear majority position for having the Royal anthem as a footnote. It's been a week or more since the topic was discussed futher. What do you think? Merbabu 03:53, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I restored the article to the most preferred option as indicated by that table. It's a tentative status, I suppose, but better than the alternatives (ie, edit warring). --cj | talk 03:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Those pesky bots

Cheers. :-) Adam made just one Citizendium edit between 13 April and 2 June. I had assumed that Citizendium hadn't worked out for him, and wondered if we might find him back here eventually. But he's made 33 edits since then - not exactly prolific, but it shows he's hanging in there. Hope he's enjoying himself. Hesperian 04:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Outback is the new ACOTF

Hi. I was a bit late this week, but finally updated the Australian collaboration of the fortnight to Outback last night. As you voted for it, please help to improve it in any way you can. Thanks. --Scott Davis Talk 22:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

  Thank you for your support and comments at my RfA
Hi CJ, It still amazes me that otherwise "anonymous" editors take the time to place !votes and comments on RfAs. Whilst I would have normally thanked you at the time of you leaving your message, the importance of my not appearing to be canvassing prevented me from so doing. Now that everything has progressed successfully I can finally thank you. I intend to uphold a style of good adminship and will welcome your further comments at any time in the future, even if they are in the form of admonishment. I will be happy to help as an admin wherever and whenever I can --VS talk 23:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Merging WP:ADEL into a broader WP:SA

Are you still considering your idea of merging WikiProject Adelaide into a broader WikiProject South Australia, as Tasmania has done? I think the idea has some merit and won't meet with much opposition, if any. -- Longhair\talk 07:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I've had plans for awhile to pursue it, but I've had to draw back from Wikipedia lately. In any merger, I'd retain the Adelaide assessment infrastructure. I think WP:PERTH ought to do something similar, as it's been essentially dead since WP:WA.--cj | talk 08:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Sure has. I tried fiddling with WP:Perth some time back to allow their assessments to be included to the overall WA count. I think I left that project half-completed come to think of it. Might check back into it after dinner. -- Longhair\talk 08:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Social Networking Site: myGamma

Hi CJ. You had deleted the myGamma article on 31 Mar 07. The page was created so that it could be on the List_of_social_networking_websites. Since that page is about networking sites, then as a major networking site of over a million members, we believe we have a right to be listed. Just like all the other sites already listed on Wiki, our page is necessarily about the site or service. We have tried not to market or promote the service but just to state factual information about what the site is all about. In fact, it may be to Wiki's credit that a non-US networking site is listed here. The current Wiki list of networking sites is just too overwhelmingly dominated by US-based or US-centric sites. I hope you'll consider your decision or at least highlight how different I should write my page as compared to other articles presenting their services. Thanks. Concourse 02:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Please read over our conflict of interest and notability (particularly WP:WEB) guidelines. If you consider that you can honestly satisfy these guidelines and create an article which is both neutral and verifiable, then you are free to. I doubt that is possible, however.--cj | talk 07:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

The Thinker

Hello, CJ. I'd like to use your picture of "The Thinker" here ( as part of a picture I'm planning to put as my cover page for my self-published novel that will be for sale online. Under what license are you releasing the picture under exactly? Am I allowed to use your picture? --Ajani mgo 07:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Ajani. You are welcome use the image (you're not the first), which is freely licensed under CC-BY-2.5. The only requirement is that you attribute the image to me. Feel free to contact me via my email for further correspondence.--cj | talk 07:12, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

RfA#2 thanks

Thank you for your kind words on my talk page and I am really happy to have your support. I do appologize for my mistake in that RfA#2 post of my. (On the bright side, I didn't make the mistake as an admin.) Thanks again. : ) Jreferee (Talk) 06:57, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Deleted Reynella South School

Hi CJ, why did you delete this article? Other schools in SA have an article. List_of_schools_in_South_Australia Thks, —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Muzzamo (talkcontribs) 17:15, 30 June 2007 (ACST).

Hi Muzzamo. I speedily deleted it under criterion A1, as it did not provide any context and was generally useless. Moreover, primary schools are not typically considered notable, and we do not create articles for them as a rule.--cj | talk 07:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Just in case

you re-emerge for a minute or two - my usage of the project catholicism project template saturday was putting category in class - but it had another line below it I have asked you and or longhair whether it is possible to tweak the template to make category equivalent to NA - so as to not have the second line? if possible? I owe either of you geniuses if either of you can tweak that - if not no problems - it will be a cross to bear (and change heheh) SatuSuro 13:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Robert Menzies

Hi CJ, I don't know if the amount of vandalism qualifies or not but you might want to check out Robert Menzies as a potential to be semi-protected. Cheers, Alec -(answering machine) 06:22, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

It seems to be fine for the time being — not too heavy.--cj | talk 05:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Featured portal

While you're on featured portal stuff, can you take a look and vote at Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates#Portal:Environment? OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

To make peace....

All of the discussions we've had seem to have been negative ones... :(

I don't see it that way, but thanks for the gesture :)--cj | talk 16:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Hehe, I'm glad to here it :) Anyway, if you have the chance, could you please clear this up? I suppose I've given in to the inevitable, now we just need the template replaced. Giggy UCP 22:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


Hi CJ, Why do you keep deleting the changes I make to the "fiscal federalism" page? Do you not like the content? Do you believe it belongs on a separate page? NadiaLala 13:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Whitlam img

Hi CJ - would you mind taking a quick squiz at - I believed it would have no issue whatsoever as it was in 1942 and an official Australian government document, but as per the editor after me, because it's an official document it may have copyright issues. Your 2c? Cheers, Timeshift 17:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Links deletion

Hi CJ, I read the links policy and notice the mistake made on my last addition, but I'm not sure why you deleted some of the previous links I've added as the guideline page states that "reviews and interviews" should be linked, which is precisely what the previous links went to (interviews). Please advise.

Thanks. TheRaven00 8:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

James Squire page

Thanks CJ for the feedback. I will endeavour to improve on the points noted by you. You suggest that it's best to avoid external links in the prose. Can you suggest a way, that I could get around this? Macr237 04:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


I have come to the end of my tether. The campaign by User:Mallimak and his countless dynamic IP sockpuppets has now descended to pure stalking behaviour. The Wikipedia community cannot allow this behaviour to continue. I am asking you, and other Admins and Users who have had to deal with Mallimak in the past, to review the situation. Please see:

--Mais oui! 10:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)