User talk:RHaworth/Archive to 2007 April

wikify!
I am sick and fed up with people who leave a message here about an article and fail to provide a wikilink to the article. How do you expect me to read the article if you don't link to it?
I reserve the right to ignore any message which does not provide links where appropriate or has not been signed with ~~~~. Even if the article has been deleted, you should still link to it.
And if that sounds like a grumpy old man, it's because I am ...

Archives

Up to:
2005 March 2005 June 2005 August 2005 October 2005 November		2006 January 2006 March 2006 May 2006 July 2006 September		2006 November 2007 January 2007 February

Beer golf

After posting an article on Beer golf, that is actually a game i am questioning as to why you deleted it, there was no need to, thankfully i copied the whole text just in case some one decided my contribution was not appropriate. It would be nice to actually know what the reason was for deleting it, since it did not have any inappropriate content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zach Leffel (talk • contribs)

• I had completely forgotten that I deleted it in 2005 September as well! I gave the deletion reason as WP:NFT - that was a link - did you follow it? Deleted because there was absolutely no attempt to establish notability. For all we could tell it is a game that you and your friends have made up. The previous version had the claim [it] became very popular especially in the regions of New York state and Northern Pennsylvania. You could not even manage that. -- RHaworth 19:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

About automatical links

Dear Roger:

The Polish version of our Wikipedia:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology/PolishCoA is quite simple, as you can see in Szablon:HerbSzlachecki. Nevertheless, it has an advantage. When you edit a Coat of arms, the simple link ((Herb szlachecki (lista herbów)|lista herbów)) does that the new Coat of arms automatically appears in the List of Coats of arms.

We have the List of Polish nobility coats of arms, but we must add it manually. Is there a chance to do the same thing as in the pl:wiki they do?

Unfortunately I am a real ass in software. Best regards, my friend. --Gustavo Szwedowski de Korwin 00:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• Are you claiming that pl:Herb szlachecki (lista herbów) is edited automatically? I can see no evidence of it. -- RHaworth 01:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I will try editing a Polish coat of arms in pl:wiki. Then I will write you again.

By the way, my father died at age 92 also, a year ago. -- Gustavo Szwedowski de Korwin 01:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• Are you confusing with categories? Both the en: and pl: templates place an article in a category. I am always fascinated by this wall of the Gables Balmoral Hotel in Blackpool. -- RHaworth 16:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• • Dear Roger:

You are right. It is not the link I thought. It seems to be the Category Kategoria:Herby szlacheckie itself.

I edited Mądrostki (herb szlachecki) in order to find the system.

• Really, the wall is astonishing to be in England.

--Gustavo Szwedowski de Korwin 02:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Regards

Long Island Exchange

I respectfully request the article for Long Island Exchange be re-written or reverted back to it's original state. The article survived here without incident until someone used it as a comparison for why their article was deleted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Island_Exchange Please revert this page, unprotext it, and allow us to return to wikipedia.

Please see [Ticket#2007021810002395] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Island_Exchange info-en@wikimedia.org

Please consider this with an open mind. It is important to us. We deserve a description of what we are in wiki and are noteable to the residents and people of Long Island. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clasione (talk • contribs)

• Why are you asking me? I sent the article to AfD in the first place. Try one of the thousand other admins. You may take the article to deletion review but I doubt whether you will persuade anyone that things have changed in the fortnight since the AfD discussion was closed. -- RHaworth 15:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Please take another look at Long Island Exchange

Deletion_review February 22

Clasione

Thanks!

Thanks for fixing up the Wernabot problem with my archive. Much appreciated.Maustrauser 09:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks likewise on this... I just saw the same bug over at meta, and you beat me too it! Nice to see you again... Happy new year, however belatedly! Cheers! // FrankB 22:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning up Fire_Emblem:_Akatsuki_no_megami, I really was trying to clean it up, but I guess I should have known better. Antsam 12:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip on getting rid of my own mistakes.Mr0ow3n 13:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Review of Ormus matter

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Ormus matter. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. OlavN 09:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Burt Colt

Hi, I noticed you marked Burt Colt for deletion. Although the content of the article might be a hoax, if you know something about the real person, maybe the article can be corrected, and if not maybe redirect to Voyager Comics - unless that article is hoaxy too. Potatoswatter 16:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• I know absolutely nothing about him. That is why it got a prod tag, which can be taken as invitation for others to confirm or deny that it is an hoax. -- RHaworth 19:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Why do you suspect it's a hoax? Looks like any bio to me. Potatoswatter 19:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• Nonsense tone of the article: Considered a fictional character by most and The lack of physical evidence is apparently due to experimental paper process used by Voyagers printer, which caused the books to rapidly deteriorate. No any external links. Need I say more? -- RHaworth 19:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

That's hardly evidence - could be vandalism. Did you check the history? The other article clearly said who he was supposed to be, which would imply evidence of his existence. And linked to backup evidence for the deteriorated books. At the least Burt Colt is the moniker given to the uncredited comic artist. The article did have a history, which is now gone, which would've been saved if you'd just redirected. Which would've been easier. Wish I'd done so... Potatoswatter 20:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Anyway I didn't understand the prod process before so it's basically my mistake. Whatever. Potatoswatter 20:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

MMIA Terminal Deletion

You marked a couple of pictures for deletion on Murtala Mohammed International Airport. The copyright owner only stipulated credit be given him if I use the image, however I've requested he give permission under the GFDL. Other than selecting the appropriate license when permission is received and I re-upload the file would I be right to assume the deletion mark will be removed? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ssublyme (talk • contribs) 22:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC).

• If you obtained Image:LOSDOMTerminal1.jpg by email, then just stick a GFDL tag on it. If someone is liable to find it somewhere else on the web, then you need to establish permission properly - see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission (and numerous other pages!). If you have any connection with Aadebayo, you could also get the source and licence for Image:LagosAirport.jpg fixed. -- RHaworth 19:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

ROFL

Thanks I just created its other page that points to it. Could you move WP:ROTFL as well? I am new at this. Ronbo76 04:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I was going to do that with some other editors. Could you guide me on my talkpage (?) and I will follow the conversation there. Part of the discussion comes from links on my essay and also here Wikipedia talk:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle#An example of WT:BOLD.2C revert.2C discuss cycle - did I get it right.3F Ronbo76 04:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Archiving

Hello. I guess I didn't archive the page Comparison of Windows and Linux correctly, it shows that you removed it. I couldn't make heads or tails of the Wikipedia page about archiving, I was hoping you could help me out? Thanks Hendrixski 14:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• We simply do not create archive pages for articles. The state you "archived" is permanently available here. You can do a diff display to see what has changed since - something you cannot do with a separate archive article. The help file about archiving is for talk: pages. (Also note that we specify italics with two single string quotes.) -- RHaworth 15:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, that makes sense I guess. I'll update the "archive" page to make that point more clear. Thanks Hendrixski 20:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• What "archive" page? There is no such thing so how can you update it? I see what you meant. -- RHaworth 20:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Awards

Augh! Thanks so much! I can't believe I did that! I've created user subpages before, and told others how to do it - then I totally blow it!! I can only plead temporary insanity!! Thanks for fixing it! Dreadlocke ☥ 16:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Wiki Battle

Hi there. On the AfD discussion for Wiki Battle, you suggested speedy delete for it. (Wiki Battle is a WP:NFT#That infamous game clone). I was the nominator, and I would have speedied it, but I don't see a rationale allowing it at WP:SPEEDY under G1-12 or A1-7. To be honest, I'd prefer speedy for it because there's not a chance of it (or any such page) surviving AfD. What are your thoughts? Regards, Flyguy649 03:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• Let this AfD go through. Find all the AfD debates for similar in the past and list them in Wikipedia talk:Six degrees of Wikipedia. Any future article, I would happily delete speedily with "repost - see <link to list of AfDs>" even if the title did not exactly match. -- RHaworth 07:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• No - sod it - I have found two precedents that is enough - speedy this one. I would like to block the author but each sweet thing thinks that they are the first to invent the game. -- RHaworth 07:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Why would you want to block me? All I did was create an article. I searched for similar things and couldn't find it. I am so sorry for being such a naive person! For gods' sakes, all I did was try to contribute to this free encyclopedia. I have contributed to other articles too, to better wikipedia: manga cafes, the French article on your mom jokes, my high school's page. I think that it is entirely pompous and ridiculous that you suggest or even fathom a block. I have done nothing. I created a page on an idea that I couldn't find, and then try to defend it. I wrote two good defenses for the article, whether or not you took the time out of your busy schedule squandering the youth's creativity to read it. People online think that seniority gives them the right to be as vile as they wish. If anyone should be blocked, it should be you! I'm not upset about getting a speedy deletion. It's not a huge deal to me. I just think that maybe you should be a little more open rather than trying to verbally kill anyone who hasn't been on the site for years. Misterramune 20:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:BITE

Your comment here wasn't very nice. Plenty of people outside of Wikipedia think that it is a venue for free advertising. He hasn't reposted the article since I made him aware of our policies. --BigDT 15:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• Yes. Perhaps it could have been said more gently. -- RHaworth 19:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Chris Beasley

Thread moved to Talk:Google Watch Watch

Jack M Oliphant

Do you have any information about Jack M Oliphant. The feds have been reluctant to release FOI requisted on him. It has been a lot of years and the man is dead. Almost all the operatives he handeled are dead. I think they are concearned about his followers.

Emerging church sandbox

Thanks for the move, I was trying to figure out how to handle it. Is that a pretty standard procedure to create a ...article/sandbox page to mess with content changes? I couldn't find anything out about that. I liked your "How can a tram route cross a trolley bus route without short circuits" by the way. Seems you were at the same stage of messing around as I was just now on the article you moved. Jwiley80 22:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

hello

Hiya are you Rodger Haworth from Croydon replay to me from Lil Chris User:lilchrishardman

Mars_climate_change

I deleted this - it was an old copy of Martian global warming. Hope thats OK. There has been a lot of argument and confusion over this William M. Connolley 22:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

AfD / Akiva Israel

Hi RHaworth : You nominated Akiva Israel for deletion (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Akiva Israel.) However, it would have been nice if you would have informed the original creator of this article that you were doing so (I have just done so [1]). Kindly note that on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to list pages for deletion it advises that: "...'It is generally considered civil to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the articles that you are nominating for deletion. Do not notify bot accounts or people who have made only insignificant 'minor' edits. To find the main contributors, look in the page history or talk page of the article and/or use TDS' Article Contribution Counter. For your convenience, you may use {{subst:AFDWarningNew|Article title}} (for creators who are totally new users), {{subst:AFDWarning|Article title}} (for creators), or {{subst:Adw|Article title}} (for contributors or established users)." Thank you for noting this for future purposes. IZAK 13:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• Noted. -- RHaworth 21:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

John David Wright

The names of personal working pages must always begin with (in your case) "user:John David Wright/". Preferably not too many. Start with: user:John David Wright/sandbox. -- RHaworth 07:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. I propose to move the working pages jdw wavenumber and jdw wave vector to user:John David Wright/wavenumber and user:John David Wright/wave vector respectively. The only trouble is I cannot find the originals. --John David Wright 06:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• They were copies of wavenumber and wave vector respectively. So they got deleted. -- RHaworth 06:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

They were not copies of wavenumber and wave vector. I had added information to both pages. I noticed that other users edit copies of pages under their user page. Of course the best way is to set up my own local wikisite so that I can edit, periodically save the working article, and not worry about losing work. Periodically saving the original article while editing just clutters the history. In the absence of my own local wikisite I borrowed the working page technique of other users. --John David Wright 11:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• I thoroughly agree that using a temporary version is a good idea. Unfortunately, you did not borrow the working page technique of other users closely enough. I have dumped the live and your versions of both all into User:John David Wright/sandbox. Pick what you want from the edit history. There is no need to create your own wikisite - working pages with the correct names are very unlikely to get touched. -- RHaworth 17:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

My faith in the process is restored. Cheers --John David Wright 04:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Sproughton Tennis Club

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sproughton Tennis Club

I see that the article has been deleted. Although I know you did not do the physical deed, you did instigate the process and I do feel very aggrieved. I accept the reason that it could be said to be non-notable ( despite a former Wimbledon champion) playing there for many years as a junior, however what really bugs me is the fact that there are scores of other tennis clubs listed within Wikipedia that are at best equally obscure and at worst not even a basic article, YET they do not seem to be under the threat of deletion.

It would seem that the guidelines for what is worthy (and what is not) are not followed equally by all editors, even the same editor.

I note in particular Cleckheaton Lawn Tennis Club which had it's article visited and updated by your good-self in October 2006. Can you explain why this article was not flagged for deletion and yet Sproughton Tennis was?

I would be interested in your views. -- Sproughtontennis 14:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• Beautifully touché. You have discovered that I am inconsistent. I will AfD it for you. But for others: create a new Id for yourself so it don't seem like sour grapes and send them to AfD. -- RHaworth 17:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Graham Mitchell

Hi, I noticed you deleted this page (and I believe this happened several times). I'm just wondering why the spam was reposted and now protected. Seems a bit odd to me. Someguy1221 19:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for the heads-up. I am using the WP:PT mechanism to protect it and there is a delay of a few minutes betwen editing the protection list and it coming into effect. The spammer got in during this gap. -- RHaworth 19:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Move to userspace

Thanks for noticing my mistake and fixing it for me, appreciated! Whew!  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  03:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Me too. Thanks. Dekimasuよ! 09:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

RHaworth

Any chance you could speedy RHaworth for me?! Cheers RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for telling me and thanks for the reverts. -- RHaworth 02:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Ouzelum Bird

Why did you remove my addendum to the Oozlum bird article? 'Ouzelum' is a recognized variation of the Oozlum in many places, and even here on Wiki the phrase 'ouzelum bird' redirects to the Oozlum page as well. I see nothing wrong with noting the alternate version, especially considering some of the random information that makes up a chunk of the entry to begin with.

Teamdudette 03:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Staircase jig

The article is clearly not about how to build a Staircase jig. The article is not about how to build stairs. It is not a textbook. This seems to meet the criteria for an article in Wikipedia. My intent is to descripe a jig and some history on jigs. "The purpose of Wikipedia is to present facts, not to teach a subject matter. It is not appropriate to create or edit articles which read as textbooks, with leading questions and step-by-step problem solutions as examples. These belong on our sister project, Wikibooks."

"Wikipedia is not a moot court, and although rules can make things easier, they are not the purpose of the community. Instruction creep should be avoided. A perceived procedural error made in posting anything, such as an idea or nomination, is not grounds for invalidating that post. Follow the spirit, not the letter, of any rules, policies and guidelines if you feel they conflict. Disagreements should be resolved through consensual discussion, rather than through tightly sticking to rules and procedures."

This part interests me the most. "Follow the spirit, not the letter of the law...." Where exactly is the article teaching a subject? Where is the how to do tone in the article? Leading questions? So, I respectfully disagee with the tag that was placed on the article. If you can enlighten me as to where this is not so then maybe the article can be rewritten or sent to Wikibooks. I prefer consensual discussion. --Johnalden^talk 22:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Jeremy Hooker

I've removed the speedy deletion tag from the above article. While the subject might not be notable, the article does assert notability in a reasonable way. You may wish to list it at WP:AFD instead, to get a broader consensus on the article. Thanks for your time and your hard work reporting these articles - even though I'm not deleting this particular one, your efforts are very much appreciated. Kafziel ^Talk 13:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Too much Edit Energy ?

Previously, you seemed to have lot of Energy to revert me within 5 minutes.

So, I notice you that the Wikipedia:Graphic Lab is now started, and that it look for "people with lot of Energy" to improve it.

If you have abilities to improves things or create solutions, then you are welcome to use your edit ability there. --Yug (talk) 12:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Context division 1 (football)

I perfectly understand what you mean.At that time it was the name of French top football division like Ligue 1 now.And articles about ligue 1 were named, for instance, Ligue 1 season 200X/200X.So, I found logical to name articles about Division 1 Division 1 season 199X/199X.Yes, It's a bit late and I have the project to create all season of French football top division.What do you suggegt to improve it?How could I named future articles?Personnally, I prefer something like "French football Division 1 season 199X/199X" Here is the article you have marked User talk:Latouffedisco

• I have just found France football championship D1 season 1998/1999 (please note that you have duplicated the content of this) but I think that is an ugly title. "French football Division 1 season 199X/199X" would be an improvement and probably acceptable. I would prefer "French soccer Division 1 199X/199X" - we can drop the word season but rugby is a form of football and is played in France. -- RHaworth 16:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• I have made contextualization for all articles about French top division and added a wikilink to French league which is Ligue de Football Professionnel and already existed.I have also merged Division 1 season 1998/1999 to France football championship D1 season 1998/1999.Now we can delete Division 1 season 1998/1999.Yes, I have duplicated this article but it was surprisingly not in the template about French top division!OK, to avoid ambiguity and semantic discusses I will name next articles in that way :"French soccer Division 1 199X/199X" or "French soccer Division 1 season 199X/199X".I don't know about the word season but it's surely expendable.Thanks for your advices. User talk:Latouffedisco

{{PotentialVanity}} template

Please consider using {{COI}} instead of this template, as it has been nominated and passed for deletion. Many thanks. – Tivedshambo (talk) 20:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Glen Scrimshaw

[[2]] What do you mean reposted spam? This was a very uncontroversial information on Canadian Artist Glen Scrimshaw it was linked to List of Canadian artists.

I ran out of time before going to work to establish all of the links to verify everything mentioned, and it was not a lot, would be attributable to a reliable source. By the time I had arrived at work to finish the article it had been deleted. The reason given was reposted Spam?? Please explain yourself.

Uvak38 02:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• I mean "reposted" because, as you very well know, you had already created Glen Scrimshaw Artist and had it deleted by this AfD. I call it "spam" (ie. advertising) because of the tone, your lack of contribution history and because of the views expressed in the AfD debate. The link from List of Canadian artists signifies nothing since you created the link. Given the AfD decision, if you want the article back, you will need to go to deletion review. -- RHaworth 02:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, I recommend you to leave Veronica Yurach in your user space until she can muster more Google hits than this. -- RHaworth 02:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The Link from Canadian Artists was not meant to signify anything. I thought I was taking the advice of other much more experienced wiki contributors and starting smaller. Glen Scrimshaw is a Canadian Artist and a notable one at that. I took the advice of others and only mentioned information on Glen that could be attributable to a reliable source. I agree the tone of my first article Glen Scrimshaw Artist was very commercial and I used several terms that I now understand would be impossible to attribute to a reliable source. That was my first ever article and I honestly did not understand how Wikipedia worked. It was because of my lack of understanding that I expressed the views that I did. I suppose I took it a little personally like I was being called a lier. I now have a much better understanding of how this works and understand completely why my first few articles have been deleted. I do object to the removal of my last article on Glen Scrimshaw, if I can provide links to back up every notable achievement by Glen. Will you take the time to do some research on Glen Scrimshaw. One point alone which I believe has earned Glen a spot in the pages of Wikipedia is this. Glen Scrimshaw was awarded with the ABEX Award (Achievements in Business Excellence) for his community involvement. The reason Glen was awarded this prestigious award, was because for the past ten years of Glen's 20 yr. career, Glen through donations of his artwork has helped raise over 1.5 million dollars annually for the charities he supports. Before Glen was honored with this award these figures were verified by an extensive audit. The audit verified his philanthropy and Glen was awarded the honor. Other Companies that have received this award are, Weyerhauser, Cameco Corp. & PCS all major corporations. Glen Scrimshaw deserves to be on the Canadian artist page with a link to an article on him, highlighting his accomplishments, of course in a non commercial way.

In response to your comment on Veronica Yurach, her article will remain where it is, until such time that I can have the minutes of band council meetings made accessible over the internet. I would assume minutes taken at legally convened band council meetings would be considered a reliable source. I realize in our technically advanced age how someone might assume if you do not receive the required amount of google hits you are not notable or worthy of having your achievements recorded in history. Have you ever been to the vast Canadian north. Canada is a wonderful country. Part of what makes it so wonderful is, there are still spots where humans have not yet left their mark. I am sure you already know this, but I have to ask, you do realize that even though it seems like it, the whole world does not have high speed internet.

By the age of 12 Veronica Yurach had saved her fathers life by hiking across country, for over 30 miles, in minus 40 below weather, to get help when her father faced certain death from complications resulting from undiagnosed sugar diabetes, that same winter she single handedly delivered her youngest sibling into the world 250 miles from the nearest nurses station. I have no doubt that had Veronica lived further south in a more populated area than 1 person for every 500 miles you would be reading all about her in results from your google search.

Uvak38 04:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Atheistic Evangelism

Roger,

Thank you for taking the time to look at the Atheangelism and Atheistic Evangelism articles.

Thank you for your comments on the article "atheistic evangelism".

You raise 2 reasons for suggesting its deletion:

1. Neutral Point of View 2. Neoligism

1. Neutral point of view is not violated with this article. The terms "atheangelism", "atheistic evangelism", and "evangelical atheism" are interchangeble, in use by Christian apologists and atheists alike.

Please look at the references at the bottom of the page.

Generally speaking, "atheangelism" and "atheistic evangelism" are terms used by Christian apologists to describe the phenomenon described in the article.

"Evangelical atheism" has been used in the same way "atheangelism" and "atheistic evangelism" have been used by Christian apologists, but has also been used by atheists as well. If you look at the article, I now describe the different ways atheists and Christian apologists use this last term.

The point is, describing a term as used by Christian apologists is not a violation of NPV. Although, I think NPV does require the inclusion of atheist definitions of the term, or atheist responses to those elements of the term which they do not agree with.

2. With regards to the neoligism, you would be correct to point out that "atheangelism" per se is a relatively new term. However, "atheistic evangelism" is definitely not a neoligism. It is a widely used term that has been around for well over a decade and a half. Similarly, "Evangelical atheism" has been used for a decade and a half.

Please let me know if the changes that have been made in the article address your concerns satisfactorily, and if you would consider removing your request for deletion.

mpleahy 17:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)