User talk:Ginkgo100/Archive05

Asian Arowana

I took a look at the Asian Arowana article, and am really impressed with the improvements that you & co. have made. I've made an inquiry into whether I can just pass it as GA article now, but I may have to have you re-nominate it first. We'll know soon. --NoahElhardt 05:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I would be happy to re-nominate it -- just let me know if this will be necessary. --Ginkgo100 ^talk 19:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ginkgo. Your Arowana article really is impressive. I didn't know it before reading the article that they are breaking the fish into four separate species. That's quite surprising in my opinion. I wish I could help you improve it more but you already did an excellent job and Arowana isn't exactly the fish that I know most about. But I'm from Thailand and Arowana is a big thing there. So if I run across some Thai sources about it, I will let you know. I promise will keep my eyes open. Keep up the good work !! --Melanochromis 17:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Arowana Thai stamp

Nice find!!! I haven't seen that stamp for so long. I think I had one when I was little. Anyway, the lower left corner of the stamp says "Pla Tapad" which is the Thai name for Asian Arowana (particularly the native green variety). The top left corner says "60 years, Department of Fisheries, 2529 Buddhist Era." That's 1986 AD. I'm not sure if the Thai stamp is copyrighted or not. But even if it is, the Thai government never seem to care whatsoever. The ThaiWikipedia claims that this picture is from "stamp which is copyrighted by Thai Postal Service Company. Presentation of any stamp in Wikipedia articles is considered a Fair Use according to the U.S. copyright laws."

Police Brutality,

Having read your message on the projects talk page, I could suggest that you might possibly want to put the article up for a peer review by the Law Enforcement Project? You can do it from the project page. Regards, SGGH 18:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. That is a good idea. --Ginkgo100 ^talk 19:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I have reviewed it for you as best I can, you can get to the review from the talk page of your article of through our project.SGGH 22:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I replied on my page in regards to the article you deleted, are you in charge of those pages, what is the deal? Boxing wear

Ok, so can you post some talk there about angilo freedman, man, he was shot 110 times...

Keltik31's connection to Germany?

Hello! Please see my comments here re: your edit here. Thanks! -- weirdoactor ^t|c -- 20:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Walter_Humala (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

... has requested to be unblocked, and you may want to comment on his request. Personally, I'm not inclined to grant it. Best, Sandstein 06:18, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I changed to block to a 24-hour block. I hope he has learned that disruption is a problem for Wikipedia and that editors don't have a sense of humor when it comes to threats. --Ginkgo100 ^talk 15:02, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Removing vandalism warnings

Should I take your comment at User talk:65.32.231.204 to mean that since the Template:WR templates were deleted that removing vandalism warnings from one's own talk page is not vandalism? Is the argument at page deemed to be invalid? Obviously I don't want to be wasting my time reverting these pages if there is no consensus on the activity. Thanks. Mufka 20:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

The centralized discussion (including the section you cited) has not reached consensus yet. There are still fresh arguments from just yesterday. In the meantime, I am treading lightly and not blocking people just for removing warnings. In this case in particular, most of the edits were good ones, and I think few admins would block in that particular situation. Continued personal attacks would be grounds for a block, but in the absence of that, just blanking a talk page is insufficient. --Ginkgo100 ^talk 20:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Help

I think I'm being Wiki-stalked by User Hkelkar. He is repeatedly posting on [Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias in religion‎], a board he's never been to before, in direct response to a post I made there. Can you please help? Thank you. NinaEliza 07:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Harassment#Wikistalking:

The term "wiki-stalking" has been coined to describe following a contributor around the wiki, editing the same articles as the target, with the intent of causing annoyance or distress to another contributor. This is distinct from following a contributor in order to clear repeated errors.

Now:

1. I haven't edited any of the articles this user has (Talk pages are not articles)
2. I do not have the intent to annoy or distress this user, merely to point out her erroneous and misleading perorations[1] (which I have done, successfully [2][3] )
3. I have every right to post wherever I want on wikipedia, provided no disruption is caused, of course :-).
4. Therefore, per the last sentence of the policy, I am clearing her repeated errors. So not stalking. Hkelkar 07:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

If you disagree with my analysis then please let me know in my talk page. Thanks. Hkelkar 07:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

---

Response to both of you: It's probably best to take this dispute to follow the process at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. I am only one person. --Ginkgo100 ^talk 21:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I usually read the top of a person's talk page before I post. I'm sorry I didn't last night.

In an event, the situation is over, and I apologise to Hkelkar for my over-reaction. Thanks again, NinaEliza 21:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, you didn't misread it, because I just added it! ^^ No worries. Glad it has been resolved. --Ginkgo100 ^talk 21:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

You're Welcome!

Thank you for your message regarding the creation of the page Co-official_language. Somnambulists sometimes slide sexily southwards.

Anyways, you are quite welcome. Since you seem so pleased, I may do it again and again and again and again. I am quite happy to make other people happy by obliging to do what makes them happy.

Salutations! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pro Grape (talk • contribs) 23:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC).

I am also quite happy to stop disruption using the block button. Cheers! --Ginkgo100 ^talk 23:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you again! I think it would be impolite of me not to reciprocate in some way! Would you care to go for a coffee sometime?

--Pro Grape 18:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Speedy Delete

I added a speedy delete to a User page - My bad you beat me to fixing my mistake - Sorry and Thank you. Markco1 04:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry about that -- it's always a judgment call whether to userfy or just delete. Either is appropriate, and I don't think you made a mistake. --Ginkgo100 ^talk 04:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Listal deletion

Why the speedy deletion on this page?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Listal Dehlz 04:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Please see our notability guideline. --Ginkgo100 ^talk 04:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Is the website (http://www.listal.com) not enough to deem itself "notable"?

or

http://www.centernetworks.com/listal-review

http://www.listal.com/members/view/1/?interest=&actor=&artist=&author=&gender=&age1=&age2=&status=&country=&picture=&sortby=joindate-desc

Dehlz 15:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

If you can show the article meets the notability criteria for websites, then by all means re-create the article. It's important to cite the sources, though. --Ginkgo100 ^talk 21:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Men of Modern Mathematics (resubmitted, with signature)

Two questions:

(a) why does the only widely distributed and fairly comprehensive (1000AD - 1950AD) chart of mathematical history fail to meet the criteria for notability? surely every North American mathematician educated in the 1960s and 1970s will have known of, if not owned, this chart -- at least 5 professors at a local university have a copy. No one else besides IBM has attempted such an ambitious project. You can see (a sequence of) rather amateurish photographs of it at the University of Vienna [[4]], evidently taken by someone with his handheld camera under not so good lighting conditions.

(b) Which information needs to be verifiable? The existence of the chart? The content of the chart? The size of the Chart? Is it not enough to reference the Archives Dept of IBM since they have the only two copies that were not distributed by IBM? Einsicht 00:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Responded on talk page. (Summary: The article was dramatically improved and I removed my own {{prod}}.) --Ginkgo100 ^talk 23:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

SoLongBaby Again

He's back.[5] Advise? He seems to think "stub" has some special meaning that I don't understand. I don't think he understands English well enough to understand what's going on. --Ronz 02:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

JD Researching

You marked JD Researching for rapid deletion. How can you say this is blatent advertisement? JD Researching dosn't even except anymore clients nor has it ever needed to advertise to the public. There is also no links in the wikipedia JD Researching page that directs it to any place where JD Researching solicits its service. In fact, no where on their website is there any solicitation for their service or even an email/phone number to contact the company. Having a Wikipedia page in no way "enhances" their business or image. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Austin2040 (talk • contribs) 03:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

I am not the one who said it was advertising; in fact, I didn't think it read like an ad at all. I deleted it under speedy deletion criterion A7, which refers to articles that do not mention the subject's importance, significance, or notability. In none of its many incarnations has JD Researching mentioned why this company is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia. Please do not re-create this article unless and until this problem has been addressed, as it will only be deleted again. --Ginkgo100 ^talk 03:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? JD Researching is notable to the Video Game Industry. I am actually a member of the group and I can ensure you that it is. I can even have the CEO contact you if you feel that is needed? JD Researching has worked with every major publishing company in America. Unfortunately due to the nature of their work they are not credited anywhere except on their main website. Please do not mark this for deletion. Thank you

Well, the article did not mention anything about the video game industry (unless I missed it), and clearly they're not so notable that non-gamers like myself are aware of them. However, I'll take your word for it. That still leaves the article with problems, particularly concerning verifiability, one of Wikipedia's core content policies. I will nominate it for a deletion discussion; that way, you can make a case for it to be kept. --Ginkgo100 ^talk 04:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ginkgo100, help requested

Hi Ginkgo100,

Apologies for the hassle - just requesting a little asssistance.

The situation is that I am trying to create an encyclepedia page on wikipedia about the slightest touch. The slightest touch is a device that is made in the US and has recieved heaps of press online and in newspapers etc.

This is the first time I have posted a page on Wikipedia so apologies for making the mistakes.

Could you tell me what exactly was wrong about what I posted?

I placed the information that is currently in the media on the page, including a comment regarding how one news source was skeptical about the page.

I would greatly appreciate any information regarding what I need to do to put up an appropriate page for the slightest touch.

thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MookSpook (talk • contribs) 05:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

The article was deleted because it read like an advertisement. Please see our spam policy. --Ginkgo100 ^talk 21:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ginkgo100, help requested with copyrighted image you removed

Not sure how to post a message... hope this works.

It seems you have a question about the copyright ownership of the image I posted for the Denver Zoo page. I took the photo and own the copyright to it. Again, not sure how messaging works here, but if you could contact me directly through the website I specified as the origination of the image (my website), I'd be happy to respond via email to prove that the image (and the work itself) is in fact mine.

Thanks,

MarkToyo 08:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

(MarkToyo is not my real name, just an online nickname)

Responded at user's talk page. --Ginkgo100 ^talk 22:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hey there, thanks for signing up at WikiProject Zoo! We are just getting started, and we're glad to have you on board. What kinds of things are you interested in working on? There is an "open tasks" box on the main project page, but it's not too busy yet. Right now we are going through articles in Category:Zoos and its subcategories, making sure the articles are in the right categories, placing {{Zoos}} on the article page where needed, and placing the {{WPZOO}} template on the article talk page. You can also give the article an assessment; see the assessment page for info. Again, welcome! --Ars Scriptor 13:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I will have to take a look at it later ... I had so many loose ends to tie up today, I never got a chance to do anything "fun", and now I have real-world things to do. Cheers --Ginkgo100 ^talk 23:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

JD Researching

An IP has just removed all deletion comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JD Researching, blanked the talk page, and removed the AFD tag. -WarthogDemon 19:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for reverting it. --Ginkgo100 ^talk 21:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I might just be being paranoid but I think IP abuse is going on with voting now. Or at least starting. -WarthogDemon 04:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello

Hello -

I would like to know why the pictures with scientific name/common name and the link I added got removed.

The pictures I added were matching the description of article body and it lets people know exactly what each species will look like. I think having pictures matching with common/scientific name is very educational. I was planning to add more species pictures in the future.

I know you might think the they are spam because I added the links, but the link I provide links to a page that allows people to see more variety pictures of arowanas so people can learn how to recognize them.

I have to admit the links I placed are my website and they do have a few ads in there to cover my basic hosting fee. I love fish and that's why I host such a site for free. If ads are the reason why you remove the links, I'll be glad to remove any ads on the page to make it wiki friendly.

Let me know. Thanks.

Tony

I have found that fish articles tend to become "link farms", so I revert almost all external links immediately. However, per our [[WP:EL|external links guideline], your link would be appropriate. If you add it again, I won't revert it. --Ginkgo100 ^talk 21:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello again

I just logged in and saw your message. Looks like my images were removed due to copyright.

I am the owner of the website and the image I got are from a Taiwanese magazine company which I signed paper with them and have the rights to use it.

What exactly do I have to write in the content box to prove that I have the right post those images so it won't get deleted? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by FishResources (talk • contribs) 01:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

The question in this case is whether you have permission from the copyright owner to use the images on your website, or whether you yourself are now the copyright owner. If you only have permission, you don't have the authority to put a free license on the images. If you are the copyright owner, then you can release the images under the GFDL, under Creative Commons, or to the public domain. In this case, however, you would have to show you are the copyright owner. You can get more information at the copyright policy page. If you have questions, ask on that page's talk page, or at the help desk, as I am no expert. --Ginkgo100 ^talk 21:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Probable sockpuppet; but I've never made an SSP report. Help!

Note: I also posted this request here.

Take a look here. See all the IPs beginning with 58.106?

• 58.106.129.25
• 58.106.131.93
• 58.106.128.233 <- has actually been warned
• 58.106.131.219

All four keep re-adding the same manifesto/speech. I've never made an SSP report before, and I need to go to bed. Can you help? I'll look at your contribs tomorrow and see how you handled it, so I'll know what to do in the future. Thanks! -- weirdoactor ^t|c -- 06:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

58.106.220.142 <- new one this morning -- weirdoactor ^t|c -- 13:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in response. I semi-protected Hip hop music and its talk page, so anonymous editors (no matter how many IPs they use) can't disrupt it. --Ginkgo100 ^talk 22:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

No worries, thanks for the assist! -- weirdoactor ^t|c -- 18:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Men of Modern Mathematics

Hi,

It seemed like a good idea to split the Men of Modern Mathematics into two topics: 1) Men of Modern Mathematics, referring to the printed timeline chart put out by IBM in 1966 2) Mathematica: a world of numbers...and beyond

Item 2) is the only exhibition of Charles Eames that is still extant, and encompasses far more than just the Historical Wall from which the timeline chart was derived. It is famous for being not only a great exhibition, but also the first interactive math exhibition.

Item 1), the timeline chart, was derived from a portion of the exhibition. Item 1) is widely known in the mathematical community but poorly documented on the web. The many mathematicians who are familiar with the timeline chart are, for the most part, ignorant of the fact that it was connected to a famous exhibition.

So, from the point of view of searching for a Wikipedia topic, in general people do not know that the two are related. That is why I thought it was a good idea to make two separate topics, and fill out each one over the coming days.

Perhaps you can persuade me that they would be just as "findable" if merged.

These items would be well served if I can get some photos. The exhibition has lots of interactive exhibits that make great pictures, and they are not a part of the Men of Modern Mathematics Poster. A picture of the History Wall at the Exhibit however would give an excellent idea of the layout of the timeline chart. I contacted both the Eames foundation and the LA Science Center to ask about photos.

Paula Wagner, Associate Director, Communications, of the California Science Center said they did not have any digitized pictures of the Mathematica exhibit, but gave me a link to a fan of the exhibition who had scanned and put the 40 page 1961 brochure on his website. I looked at it and found some great pictures -- I uploaded one to Wikipedia as "Pages 34 and 35.jpg" (which I had merged in Photoshop). Perhaps you can take a look at it, and my comments about it, to see if it qualifies as "acceptable" for Wikipedia.

Thanks, Einsicht 07:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

ADDENDUM: I have just sent a note to the Archives Department of IBM to see if they can clear this up. Einsicht 19:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

It sounds like the articles would work well together if merged. You can use redirects to make sure they are easy to find not only under the original titles, but also under plausible misspellings, different punctuations, etc. --Ginkgo100 ^talk 21:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

More on: Men of Modern Mathematics and Mathematica

In my previous note to you I was concerned that both the topics

1) Mathematica: a world of numbers...and beyond

2) Men of Modern Mathematics

get due treatment as separate topics. It the two were to be merged then the lead topic should be "Mathematica:..." as this was surely the greatest mathematics exhibit ever, and the first interactive one. (Given the time of its appearance (1961) it seems likely that it was inspired by the appearance of Sputnik.) The "Men of Modern Mathematics" poster was a spin off of the exhibit.

My concern about using "Mathematica:..." as the headline topic is that everyone thinks that Mathematica means the software package for symbolic mathematics developed by Wolfram. Now if we can arrange it so that when people "Go" to "Mathematica" they are given a choice between the articles on the software package and the exhibition then that would be a great bonus for awareness of the article on the exhibition and the poster. In that case I would be very happy to merge the two articles above, giving "Men of Modern Mathematics" a subheadline status in the article. Einsicht 17:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

It sounds like disambiguation would be appropriate in this case. How well known is the exhibit compared to the software? I would guess the software is much more well-known, considering that I (not a mathematician or engineer) have heard of it, but I have never heard of the exhibit. I think a disambiguation page called Mathematica (disambiguation) should be created and linked from Mathematica, the software article. --Ginkgo100 ^talk 22:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

---

Great suggestion, the disambiguation should work perfectly. I have moved the content of Men of Modern Mathematics to the topic Mathematica: A World of Numbers...and More. By the way, asking a young (or computer literate) mathematician if they know the software package Mathematica is like asking a college student if they have heard of Madonna. On the other hand asking them if they have heard of the Mathematica Exhibition is more like asking them if they have heard of John D. Loudermilk whose songs were such regular features in the days of Rock and Roll. --Einsicht 23:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Request for help

Hi there, I was hoping you could give me an opinion. I am a recent contributer to Wikipedia. Within one week an administrator, user:jayjg blocked me for 3RR. Being new to wikipedia, and obviously having made an innocent mistake, I erased his "notice of blocking" from my talkpage. I quoted wikipedia policy that says "Deleting the comments of other users from Talk pages other than your own.. is considered vandalism." He continues to revert my erasure, citing a rule from wikipedia policy that was erased six months ago. More problematic is that this user also erases my own comments from my talkpage without any explanation which is definitely vandalism. Please see my talkpage here User talk:68.198.236.57 and the history there. I do not want to contribute to any escalation myself, I was hoping you could give me an opinion about the situation. Please also see User talk:jayjg and the history there where I attempt to discuss it with jayjg. Thank you for your advice (I also asked some other users to watch the situation, it seems that numbers carry weight on wikipedia) 68.198.236.57 18:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Please note the message at the top of the page about use of the dispute resolution process. --Ginkgo100 ^talk 22:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

New image of Giraffe Sculptures

Ginkgo100, thanks for straightening out the issue of copyrights. Instead of using an image from my own website, I've directly uploaded an image nowhere on my site, so I can release the rights for just this image. Hope that works ok? Check the Denver Zoo page to see the new image. Thanks! :) MarkToyo 21:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Responded on user's talk page. --Ginkgo100 ^talk 22:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Wondering About Votes

JD Researching has apparently gotten several votes from very very new contributors. Is there a way to point it out on the AfD page? (A template or something?) -WarthogDemon 05:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

SoLongBaby

Hi Ginkgo100; I wonder if SoLongBaby (talk · contribs) should be blocked for disruption? The account has been used for 21 edits, all to Dental floss or its talk page since November 8 2006. None of the edits have been constructive, in my opinion. This user could arguably be blocked for an Wikipedia:Username#Inappropriate_usernames or using sockpuppets in a deceptive manner, but those really aren't the core problems. The essence is that I see no evidence that the account holder is willing and able to make constructive edits to Wikipedia. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 06:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Aquarium Fishes

Hi Ginkgo100. I know you have been doing WikiProject Zoo lately. But just wonder if you'd be interested to join the WikiProject Aquarium Fishes. And even if you wouldn't, maybe you can still give some suggestions on the project. Take care !! --Melanochromis 03:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... I'm already in so many Wikiprojects, and am fairly busy in real life. On the other hand, I have ADD and like to do lots of different things, so perhaps I'll take a look. Thanks for the invitation! --Ginkgo100 ^talk 16:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Haha. Whatever you dicide is cool with me. Cheers --Melanochromis 04:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

SoLongBaby again

I just noticed it's been awhile User_talk:Ginkgo100/Archive04#SoLongBaby. He's still at it. I will just remove his edits from this point out since he's no longer commenting. --Ronz 02:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

What about a short-term block? It's pretty obvious s/he is either not acting in good faith (not replying to anyone) or doesn't understand English well enough to do so. This is what I see as one of Wikipedia's biggest faults: not being more prone to telling people nicely to go home and come back when you feel you can be more respectful of others.

I'm fine with whatever happens at this point, but just wanted to get another's perspective in case I'm overlooking something. --Ronz 16:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Normally I would try a short-term block to stop disruption, but in this case the disruption happens every few days or even once a week. Blocking for 24 hours seems pointless in this case. --Ginkgo100 ^talk 18:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

No problem. --Ronz 16:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

The fish portal January 2007

Hello Ginkgo. It's almost the end of December now, and the fish portal needs new contents for the January update. Would you like to help selecting the articles and the picture? Here're the links:

• "Selected article of the month" voting
• "Selected fish of the month" voting
• "Selected picture of the month" voting
• "Selected quote" voting

Thanks, --Melanochromis 18:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the votes and happy holidays !! --Melanochromis 19:47, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I found some quotes on Wikiquote since there were no nominations, too. :) --Ginkgo100 ^talk 20:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Police brutality

I replied on my page in regards to the article you deleted, are you in charge of those pages, what is the deal? Boxing wear

No, I'm not "in charge" of police brutality. Actually, nobody is. I think you are referring to this edit. I removed it because editors including myself have reached the conclusion that there are problems with the list, so any new additions should first be discussed on the talk page. In fact, currently I have a proposal there to remove all but a very few cases. You are welcome and invited to add your comments there, and the goal is to reach a consensus (agreement), not to have one person including myself dictate to others. Cheers! --Ginkgo100 ^talk 19:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Farewell

Hi, Ginkgo100, just wanted to tell you how much I appreciate your efforts for WikiProject Colorado. I hope you know that you can still be in the project even though you're moving out of the state! Have a good time wherever you're going, but make sure you keep editing some Colorado articles so that I know you're still around! ;) — † Webdinger ^{BLAH | SZ}

Thanks for the kind words! I certainly will continue to edit Colorado-related articles, but I don't think I will have a "WikiProject" level of time to devote to them. Cheers! --Ginkgo100 ^talk 19:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)