User talk:Jim Douglas/Archive 3

I am not a vandal, part II?

I am a frequent reader of wikipedia, but i don't edit and i don't have an account. i was doing research on modernity and democracy and edited the "democracy" entry because someone had put vandalism on the intro. i deleted the fake intro, but it had some coding that must have made it look like i put the fake/vandalism intro there. very tricky. and annoying. maybe you can watch for the return of the vandalism on that page. i wish i had copied and saved the brief tag that the vandal used. next time.

EDIT SUMMARY AND REAGAN EDITS

I was wondering how to implement edit summary.

By the way, my edits to Reagan's foreign policy are much better and much more truthful than some of the dribble that was already there. I will be cementing edits on Reagan in a few months after doing some research, which means my editing will come to a pause soon. Thank you.

Thanks

I would welcome a compromise from the other writer; not a radical edit. By the way, I suppose I should become a registered user. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 162.96.105.78 (talk) 02:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

I am not a vandal

Check the history for Ronald Reagan. Someone before me radically changed it, so I changed it back (with concessions to the person who had changed it). I would be happy for that person to change the article, but not radically. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 162.96.105.78 (talk) 02:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

That's nice

But it was discussed on WP:AN and that seemed to be the prefered solution. I figured that's what would happen, which is why I started a seperate article and categories. I note, and this is a quote "cruft is not a valid reason for deletion". —Hanuman Das 05:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Calton afaik is not an admin. Scroll down to the secction titled "March 15 in film" —Hanuman Das 05:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re-revert

Yeah, I know. I accidentally reverted it instead of clicking "block" to see the user's block log. So I re-reverted it. And then I took a nap. :) -- Merope 12:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

May we declare a truce?

I am trying to be constructive here. 141.154.220.74 22:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Jim

I saw your message posted to my IP address on the "tests" to Nerf Gun artlice. You can be assured that I will be talking to my son when he gets out of school today! Sorry for your trobule and thank you for catching it.

Beyoncé

The title of the article Beyoncé should be Beyoncé instead of Beyoncé Knowles b/c she dropped Knowles when he went solo.

Ken Orabone

Thanks for the editorial (reversion) support on the Ken Orabone article. The creator discussed the bolded part of the "do not remove speedy deletion tags if you are the creator" with me on my talk page, after having been warned on her or his talk page twice, once by another editor and once by me, and warned on the article's talk page, and then went ahead and deleted it a second time. Hu 05:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even making every possible allowance for difficulties with English, the first version of that page was a {{db-attack}}. With the attack parts stripped out, it's clearly a {{db-bio}}. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 05:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The first incarnation of the article was not an attack, and saying it was so is unfair. I still believe I was treated unfairly by Hu, who went far beyond what the two previous editors had done on a mistake that I had already admitted. (It's amazing how much the last update to my talk page, is now formatted like the posts by other editors.) All I asked for is a little dialouge and respect, neither of which Hu afforded me through his attack and accusations. CSC-2020 13:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And saying that I took down the notice after having been told once, wasn't true. Had Hu read the page he so deliginelty attacked me on, he would have seen that I admitted to doing both pages at once. There was no malicious intent, it was error. The times since then have been solely to annoy Hu. CSC-2020 21:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What?

ROFL?

Edit the article on masturbation? I haven't even read the article on masturbation let alone even attempted to edit a fragment.

--70.52.160.252 03:47, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Westboro

Except for vandalism, it is inappropriate to wholesale revert all of another editor's changes to a page, without any explanation or comment (in edit summaries or on talk page), as you did on this page on November 16. As my earlier edit summaries indicated:

Wikilinks were removed in accordance with the guideline at WP:MOSDAB, which states that each bulleted entry should, in almost every case, have only navigable link. If you disagree with the policy, or believe that there are special circumstances in this instance, please raise the issue, but please do not revert without any explanation.
The wikilink to Westboro (Ottawa) was piped so as to avoid having the repetition of two references to Ottawa in the same sentence fragment. It's not clear why you disagree with this change, as you did not leave any comments explaining your revert.
Westboro Baptist Church is a notorious hate group, not simply a church congregation in Topeka. Although the description of any item on a disambiguation page should be kept to a minimum, it is appropriate to properly identify the subject of the article so as to assist the reader in navigating Wikipedia and to avoid any confusion. If you disagree, or disagree with the words used to describe the group, please explain.

Thank you. Skeezix1000 19:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Holidays!

Hi my friend! How are you... I am back to Wikipedia to have some fun! Feel free to be "Asher Watchdog". Happy Holidays!

Asher Heimermann 00:10, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IP Block

That's perfectly fine, but I did not block the user because there was only one warning given today (which is why I left the note saying that I gave a t4 to the user). Anyway, I think the person would probably come back to vandalize, so it's good we stopped him/her. Nishkid 64 22:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case, then what's the point of t1-t3? The IP might have been shared for all you know, so going from t1 would seem more appropriate to me. Even when I see a test4im warning, I don't take it too literally. If I see that warning, I would require also seeing another t3 or t4 before I take any action. Nishkid 64 22:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not nonsense

Walter Biggart was born May 25th 1976, and is currently a registered law student at UC Davis Law. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.180.148.145 (talk) 02:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Notable

What are the criteria for notable people. Also, why are you the one who gets to make that choice, certainly there are people who are notable, no matter what definition is used, that you're not going to be aware of. I can't thank you enough for the time and effort that you put into making this site such an amazing resource, but I think that you may be unfairly deleting my additions. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.180.148.145 (talk) 03:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Apologies

After leaving the last message I looked into the posting guidelines regarding the birth/death lists, and saw that there was the requirement that the name not be red-linked. I thought about generating a page for Walter Biggart, but saw that Wikipedia discourages the creation of pages about "you or your friends". Again, thanks for all your work in helping keep this site going strong. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.180.148.145 (talk) 03:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

vandal blanking talk page

I see you rv'd a vandals talk page. Is that ok to do. I was wanting to do this. I gave them warnings only to have them blank them. Sure seems like they can't, but I'd hate to revert it and be breaking some rule I haven't read myself. Thanks for doing so.--Xiahou 03:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

#vandalism-en-wp

Hey bud, basically throw your name here and then come into #vcn-request and I'll sort you out :) Glen 06:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've registered you for the channel - but as jimdouglas - so, when you're next on type /nickserv link jimdouglas <password> as Jim_Douglas and it will link the two. Then you're all set! ;) Glen 07:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Welcome-anon

RE: User_talk:Travb#Your_edits_to_Template:Welcome-anon

Agreed, thanks for catching this. Best wishes, Travb (talk) 11:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bashir blanking

Thanks for the revert - I had checked it was a longer time on editor so I put a welcome and a very mild warning SatuSuro 02:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saddam Hussein

You're sure we want to unprotect it 30 minutes before the expected execution, while the article is already a huge vandalism target? -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 02:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the fact that it is in the news is precisely why I unprotected it. There are probably a good number of anonymous users who suddenly want to add something to the article. High-traffic articles linked from the Main Page (not yet, but soon) tend to get lots of viewership and usually are not protected; that's a good time to show off the anyone-can-edit mantra of Wikipedia. However, if the article gets swamped with vandalism, semi-protection can always be re-applied. -- tariqabjotu 02:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JD, CNN NewsSource confirmed it, just has not been released through the transponder uplink. Give it twelve minutes. Rossinicholas 02:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing. It just sucks when you are an off-duty correspondent. Rossinicholas 02:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

George W. Bush

I don't see how writing his nickname "Dubya" is innapropriate because it doesn't say anything in his article about his name related as to Dubya and when I typed Dubya, it redirected to George W. Bush and also when I typed it on Dictionary.com, it said it is George W. Bush. Why is this innapropriate? User:Paul Ittoop 10:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. Sorry about the editing on George Bush by the way. Didn't know it was innapropriate. User:Paul Ittoop 10:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ok

Sorry 'bout that. Somemoron 17:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

6am

I presume you are administrator?

Your edits to Saddam Hussein

Hi, this statement is uncited personal opinion and/or analysis, and is not appropriate for the article:

6 Am is generally considered morning-in all parts of the world, no matter if it's light or dark. It's possible Iraqi government breached their own laws. Under Saddam, exucution during public holidays was forbidden.

-- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 21:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, it is a proven fact ,look around everywhere, google 6 am, morning, 6pm evening... 6pm December 24, Christmas eve.

I don't have time for this... http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/12/29/news/saddam.php if you can not differentiate between 6 am and 6pm, dont waste our time here for your and our good, reply only here, i will respond.

None of the statements changed were sources

Jim Douglas, unsourced statements are not POV. Articles must represent sides from all opposing viewpoints. Go find an admin that finds my work POV.

that vandal account

You're welcome! By the way, thanks for watching over the current events articles today (e.g. Saddam Hussein). Oh, and if you ever have more run-ins with the 64.107.0.195 chap and need to know more, e-mail me: it's kind of a big deal. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 05:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See your e-mail. Hopefully it won't be a problem again. God knows it was hundreds of hours of headaches for all of us the last time though. Antandrus (talk) 05:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks...

...for you anti-vandalism work on the recent edit to my user page! Happy new year! Grutness...wha? 04:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saddam

It looks like someone significantly vandalized the Saddam Hussein page (duplicate the content twice) right before your last revision and it appears my removal overwrote your change. Please take a look at it and make your corrections again - apologies for the conflicting edits. Kuru ^talk 17:41, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And you're all over it already - never mind... :) Kuru ^talk 17:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sorry dude.The vandal is me.Just wanna say sorry.I am pised off with the whole saddam incident,I loved him actually Love, Zachery

Saddam

And a number of editors have restored them. NPOV is what counts and you keep removing anything that is slightly pro Saddam, breaking WP:NPOV. Merely because a bunch of American patriots dominate the article for a few days does not lessen the responsibility of those of us trying to write an NPOV encycl;opedia, SqueakBox 17:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added Discussion on to your section title as it looked like everyone was reverting edits I had made to the talk page. There are those who argue on an article talk page other users should not be included in section titles as it looks like POV pushing or (in some cases, not this one) worse, SqueakBox 19:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

saddam

ah, sorry. It just sounded wrong to me, and since we were having vandalism by anon IP addresses, i thought... dposse 18:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for reverting the vandalism to my talk page. Wikieditor06 18:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

compromise?

Although i completely agree with your statements under the new talk page section "POV review", couldn't a compromise be to add Squeaks statements to Trial of Saddam Hussein#Criticism.? dposse 19:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lucille Ball

Hi, I apologize, I accidentally reverted the article to an incorrect version; I was actually trying to make a legitimate edit. Your response was a little nasty; a more friendly message pointing out my mistake would have been sufficient I think. Bennbread 20:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So much for the presumption of innocence.

First of all, I am new to Wikipedia and I accidentally reverted the article. I was not sure which version was the vandalized one and which one was correct. I already apologized for that. Secondly, the vandalism of taht page was happening long before I even registered for Wikipedia, so do not place the blame on me. If the page is being vandalized constantly, then why was it unprotected? Does it make sense to do this?

That does not really answer the question. If the page is being "vandalized", why was it unprotected?

Well, as I said before, the page was being vandalized by multiple IPs before I registered. I accidentally reverted the article to the incorrect version when I was trying to add information about her management of Desilu. I would have no reason to deliberately vandalize any page. Do you consider my edit to Flammability vandalism as well?

Do you consider my edit to Flammability vandalism as well?Bennbread 21:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, again

Happy New Year and thank you again for catching the vandalism. TonyCrew 20:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lucille Ball‎ vandal

It's a good question about him. I would say that, in general, if you have one that is vandalizing multiple times, has been given the full range of warnings (understanding that you cannot do much besides revert and warn), and no admin is blocking him, then go ahead and report it to WP:AIV. WP:SPP might work also, but IMHO that's not necessarily the right place. WP:AIV is, unfortuneately, something of a judgement call by the admin who responds, and different admins have different judgement.

Do be aware, this guy has several admins watching for him. As I said on one of his talk pages, I'm in full Whack-a-mole mode on him now. No more warnings from me. If it's his vandal sock-puppet, it gets blocked. Period. And I know other admins are watching as well. But I'm not watching 24/7, so assistance is definitely appreciated.

I've deliberately been avoiding protecting the Lucille Ball‎ page itself. I won't mention why for WP:BEANS reasons. In general, though, I'm hopeing that eventually he grows wired of this and moves on to somewhere else. He's been at this for approaching two months now. Eventually he'll grow bored with it. - TexasAndroid 22:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, there are several admins watching this guy. I blocked several of his sockpuppets yesterday and I'm watching for the next one to come out of the drawer. His attempts to "play dumb" (e.g. on this page) aren't working very well. Antandrus (talk) 22:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Falklands

I certainly agree I should have explained why I removed his comment from the talk page, though what I said on his talk page was clearly far less provocative than what he said at talk Falklands, and not making me deserving of this person's rascist abuse, SqueakBox 00:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I am aware of the templates and normally I do, SqueakBox 00:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Rumsfeld

Seems we reverted at the same time...I reverted a second time and hopefully fixed my revert of you as my edit reincluded some vandalism. Cheers, AuburnPilot^talk 05:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Hi. Thank you very much for informing me what I vandalized. I thought that all these things were free to edit, like the sandbox. Ok, thanks. --69.67.230.5 05:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, thank you! --69.67.230.5 05:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

For catching the vandalism to my user page! ^_^ ShakingSpirit ^talk 19:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

oi douglas

i fail to see why jesus was removed from the dates page o nthe 25th december. it at least taught the sequential differences between BC and AD, no?

Latest Vandalism

That was quite interesting . . . first he tries to mess up the html, but only succedes in lumping text after the userboxes. Then he tries to put an obscene pic up, but it fails so he reverts his edit. This place is so interesting. :) -WarthogDemon 06:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saddam Hussein

Hi Jim. I have also been scanning the Saddam Hussein talk page after noticing the edit war that is going back and forth about calling Saddam a dictator. Dictator can certainly be used as a epithet, but it doesnt have to be. It can be a fairly NPOV descriptor of a ruler's position. By all means it isnt generally viewed as complimentary, and is generally seen as something somewhat negative, but NPOV does not mean that descriptors used must carry no positive or negative connotations. Referring to someone, say John Wayne Gacy as a mass murderer isnt a violation of NPOV simply because it conveys a negative meaning, because part of who he was WAS negative. You are just being accurate, just as referring to someone else as a philanthropist isnt a violation of NPOV just because it carries a positive connotation (as long as it is accurate).

Using the dictionary definition of dictator, Saddam was almost undeniably one. I'd like to try to seek a common ground that would identify Saddam as President and Dictator of Iraq (or refer to his rule as a dictatorship) pretty high up in the article, even in the opening paragraph, and then make no further use of the term through the article. We acknowledge the fact that Saddam was a dictator up front, without calling him a bloody tyrant and then let the facts in the rest of the article speak for themselves. A dictator does not have to be specifically positive or negative. Some people around the world have been referred to as dictators, Castro, Chavez but also Lee Kwan Yew in Singapore who some described as a dictator, but most agreed he was fairly benevolent. Of course, I don't think that Saddam was benevolent, but I think we should allow the facts to speak for themselves in that sense, and I'd really like to end the stupid edit war that is going on, but I think that unless he is legitimately identified as a dictator at the outset, it will be a neverending thing of people inserting that into the article, and if its going to be there, I'd like to see it done in an NPOV way. Personally, I think we can use the term dictator just like we would use the word parliamentarian or monarch or President and this complies with NPOV as long as we don't use it as an epithet. What do you think? I am going to float this idea to a couple of other people and see what they say. I'd bring it up in the talk page, but that has gotten so convoluted I can't keep track of the discussions anymore. Appreciate your thoughts. Caper13 21:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No I agree. Most reliable sources have no problem with describing him as a dictator, but for some reason there are some within that article who feel it is unfair or POV to do so, and there is a rolling revert war going on where the item is added and then rolled back and readded, and so on. I'd like to try to establish a consensus that he can be described in the opening paragraph as a dictator, do so in a NPOV way to avoid complaints, and then end the edit war. Saddam was nothing better than a murderous thug, but we should allow his actions to more or less speak for themselves in the rest of the article, while clearly identifying his position of power in Iraq in the opening paragraph. Saddam was such a murderous thug that no one needs to go out of their way to make him appear to be so. Have any suggestions for how to phrase it in the first paragraph? Caper13 22:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for help in school

Hi Jim, I am back at Wikipedia! First, I would like to make a FOI (Freedom of Information) request:

How to start a committee on Wikipedia

Thanks, Asher Heimermann 05:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

naming discussion

Well I hear what you are saying. We are editors with a different approach but I have known this problem has been bubbling under for months and if I have helped resolve the issue then we are making real progress on this article. This discussion has been very good natured for its tenseness from a wikipedia viewpoint and this project needs good quality editors bringing their various life skills here, of which your contribution has been great, SqueakBox 20:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ok, i get the message, smart arse

whatever it was only there as a light joke, very sorry to offend you. besdies i'm an atheiost so who cares anyway. did u edit anything on the hillsborough page recently?

Sorry Jim

a group of us on the website were just trying to get the point across because the original link from deviant art was closed and people were looking at keyes wiki page, i don't know how to reference the theft, but if u look into both his book "Charlie" and the art work, it is theft.

Holy crap!

Sorry I didn't respond to you (though I did delete the offending page). I've been on a deletin' rampage today - 157 articles and it's just noon in my part of the world. Thanks for fixing my userpage, and keep up the good work. -- Merope 17:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This link is getting deleted from the page

Dear Sir, The link I am adding to the page adds value. Its one of the largest websites in the world on the topic. All 240,000 pages on the website have content exactly the same as the topic on wikipedia. Please allow the link to remain because this is a great source and greatly increases the value of the wiki page.

Hello Jim,

Thank you for the follow up. I am not spamming. I am only adding one link to the black people section of wiki page. The link I am adding contains the exact same content through out the entire site as the wiki page. Black People. If there some reason that you think that the outgoing link does not relate to wiki page topic? If so please help me to understand. Thank You

Thank You —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.81.145.219 (talk) 17:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Request for input

At Talk:Breast, there is a dispute about whether or not to include an image that I have added. I request your input at said page. Embryoglio 02:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the discussion currently is about several images that user:MotherAmy felt was removed without discussion. I re-added those images, and we are now discussing that state of all of the images in the article, and what should go where, etc. The discussion of the image that Embryoglio would like to add is part of that. Please see (Talk:Breast#Image_discussion). Thanks for your participation, whatever your opinion. Atom 02:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Website

Do you own any websites or domain names? I need a free domain name for a group that provides information and resources for teenagers. Any help that I can get, would be helpful. Asher Heimermann 03:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re : Your vandalism warning to User talk:210.188.146.58

I checked his/her previous edits and noticed another "plop" blanking and a couple of other blatant vandal edits. However I'll cede to your judgement. Also, thanks for the subst tip. Corpx 04:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: corpx

Well you're right he does barely meet the requirements. Have you ever seen the movie Office Space?

"I noticed you're only wearing the minimum pieces of flair."

"Yeah. The minimum, that's right." "Well... if you think the minimum is enough to express yourself.."

"If you want me to wear 37 pieces of flair like your pretty-boy Brian over there, just make the minimum 37 pieces of flair!"

The comments on his talk page refer to his learning how to fight vandalism, not him vandalising. If he's engaged in vandal fighting, he's far less likely to use VP for vandalizing, which is what we have to worry about with VP approval. I'm going to WP:AGF on this one --⁪froth^{T C} 05:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK I can see where you're coming from on this but now he knows, right? It doesn't take a whole lot of know-how to work VP and if he's not actually malicious then he can't do too much damage. Besides, what position does this put me in? Am I to delist the guy for only barely meeting the requirements? By the way, I didn't see you on the list so I approved you for vandalproof --⁪froth^{T C} 05:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well your name wasn't on the approved users list in the moderator tools menu. Weird o_O --⁪froth^{T C} 05:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Underage user pages

Okay, bad title header, but you know what I mean. As far as this user goes, I'm going to slap on a {{prod}} tag, like I've been doing with non-editor MySpace-like user pages. It's the ambiguous cases of what could be genuine user pages that worry me. --Calton | Talk 07:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See e-mail

Okay, but not for the several hours, as I can't access it here. --Calton | Talk 07:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AIV

You reported Enamul h khan to WP:AIV, and he was removed with no action. The user's last edit, and last warning, was more than two months ago, and the warning was only a {{test}}. The correct warning today would have been a {{test2}}. I'm asking you once more to please read and consider the advice that I've given you above. The priority, whenever possible, is to encourage users to become useful contributors -- not to shoot as many vandals as possible. Please slow down. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 20:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've reported similiar accounts where all the edits have been vandalism and the admin patrolling AIV permabanned the account. Example Corpx 20:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bosniakophobia is an English word

Hi Jim,

Bosniakophobia is also an English word, and your continuous deletion of this word is considered vandalism. Please stop.

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=bosniakophobia&meta=

Bosniak 08:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Archives
Sep 06 - Oct 15 2006	Oct 15 - Dec 08 2006	Dec 08 2006 - Jan 14 2007