User talk:Dancter/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Princess Daisy

Do tell me if you see that Michelle vandal about, I tend to block her on sight these days. -- Steel 20:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

No Steel359 is not blocking anymore for Michelle vandalism and I am getting better at it now and Dancter is getting better too and so on likely Daisy's Gamer. And I am going on a different wiki for games and others stuff and I wish Dancter was a admis. 70.16.146.78 02:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

This is about Princess Daisy for Brawl she is confirmed or not confirmed choose your answer. 70.16.146.78 23:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I can find no evidence that she was confirmed, and you have yet to provide any, so I would have to say that as far as Wikipedia is concerned, she is not confirmed. Dancter 01:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Deletion tags

Please do not remove my speedy delete tags. Let an admin pass judgement. -- Scorpion 03:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I was not in the wrong for removing the tags. I explained it in my edit summary; the very guideline you pointed out states that it is not a criteria for speedy deletion. The template you used states to remove it if the page does not meet the criteria. That sort of thing is what WP:PROD is for. Dancter 03:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Tags have been added back by Scorpion, see Afd page for Chad VanGaalen : Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Chad_VanGaalen - Ozzykhan 17:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

About unverified statements and original research

It was correct because that person is doing the right thing on Princess Daisy. 70.16.155.18 01:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

While that editor did remove a somewhat POV phrasing, the expansions they made were generally trivia, which shouldn't be encouraged in encyclopedic articles. No reliable sources were provided for verification or attribution of any of the added statements, making them unverified and possible original research. Except my unintentional readdition of "rumpy doppelganger", I stand by my reversion. Dancter 01:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok it is now unverified now for the trivia for Princess Daisy. 70.16.146.78 02:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The new ip address is 7.214.148.18

This is the new ip address on Wikipedia that reveals information about Nintendo characters and it going to be a bot of the user name. And it will be adding information of 7.214.148.18 . 70.16.155.18 18:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Given your history of misrepresenting the facts, I'll believe it when I see it. Right now it just looks like you're causing a disruption, trying to get me to move for a block of that IP. Dancter 20:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you like Princess Daisy? 70.16.155.18 19:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Tiny (Kong)

Please change this article back to Tiny Kong. --PJ Pete 05:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Swiss Cheese

I implemented what I think is a quicker and better solution to the issues with The Principle of Swiss Cheese Management than your prod - see what you think. Feel free to revert if you disagree of course. CiaranG 19:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

That's fine. Thank you. I don't know why I didn't think of that myself. I definitely haven't been thinking as clearly lately. I've been finding myself on the wrong side of quite a few issues, missing things that I normally wouldn't, such as in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Principle of Swiss Cheese Management discussion. I should probably take a Wikibreak soon. Dancter 20:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Super Smash Bros Series

Please add Princess Daisy she is confirmed for Brawl for the IGN website Thank you. 70.16.155.18 23:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC) She is not confirmed yet 70.16.146.78 02:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I have my proof now on Princess Daisy she is confirmed on January 29 2007 and she is going to be on Super Smash Bros Brawl and she will be on the site of IGN and Gamespot and Nintendo Website. 70.16.155.18 23:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC) Making a apearance in Brawl was Princess Daisy who is going to be a percented with is likely is 70%. 70.16.146.78 02:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

On Princess Daisy page please put Super Smash Bros Brawl on playable appearances please. 70.16.155.18 23:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC) 70.16.146.78 02:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the revert on my user page! MetsFan76 01:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:HouseCallsLogo.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:HouseCallsLogo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 07:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Template:Metal Gear series

Why is Metal Gear Solid 4 wasn't on the Template? 70.110.185.71 17:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know; I don't watch that page. You'll have to ask someone else. Dancter 18:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Please don't put personal view they don't help

Cut out the games views, whats wrong with the wii anyway??Kuf360 18:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand at all what you are talking about. This was the edit of mine, which you reverted. Are you mistaking me for the editor before me? I was trying to undo some vandalism by them, but didn't go back far enough to undo their other edit. Dancter 19:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Friend

I know I just reverted the revert don't mind. Sorry again!!Kuf360 19:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the Michelle3801 edits of August 30 to November 21 2006

I so sorry about you but I put Daisy on different games by accident like Mario Golf 64 Mario Party 2 and Mario Party with is not playable and others games like Sim City 2000 that's my mistake. And just a remind that you are the best one on Wikipedia that means Dancter. 70.16.146.78 02:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

David Allen Hulse

Thanx for help w/above article. Thats to you/allelse that helped. See my userpage. Don't think I'll go to every user talk page and say the same to all who contributed, but it's on my userpage @ the very top. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thaddeus Slamp (talk • contribs) 19:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC).Thaddeus Slamp 19:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

architects, engineers, and other professionals whose work is widely recognized (for better or worse) and who are likely to become a part of the enduring historical record of that field. Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work.

I still don't know whether this article is now considered good enough to pass muster, but hopefully it does and also meets the above guidelines. Retrieved from Talk:David Allen Hulse Thaddeus Slamp 23:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Wii Health Pack

There is no proof the game is real. The source says Nintendo announced it, but doesn't provide a source for that. TJ Spyke 04:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Did you follow the later discussions in the recent AfD? Read the footnote at the bottom of the second reference in the current version of the article. I would consider Nintendo to be a reliable enough source to verify an announcement. If you still wish to proceed with a deletion, you'll need a valid rationale, which wasn't the case with your prod. Dancter 05:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I meant the supposed announcement made today (about Nintendo revising their 2007 offerings). I have seen two sites say Nintendo made this announcement, but neither offer any actual proof. TJ Spyke 05:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, there is "proof" the game is real, by my evaluation. Whether or not the time frame for a release is correct is a different issue, and not one that should involve deletion of the entire article. As far as that other announcement goes, I have no reason to doubt it. N-Sider is generally considered pretty reliable, and Dengeki is a respected publication in Japan. Dancter 05:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say the sources aren't reliable, i'm just saying they aren't offering any actual proof or evidence (like a link to Nintendo's site where they supposedly made this update). TJ Spyke 05:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm still confused. It seems you are taking particular issue with the Dengeki report of a 2007 release announcement, yet are stating that there is no evidence that the game exists at all, even though there are official statements in the other references. Dancter 05:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Same stuff again

Princess Daisy has likely removed and puting the Super Smash Bros Brawl again if you remove it just contact me. 70.16.146.78 01:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Verifiability why it or why not verifiability? 70.16.146.78 01:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Same Stuff again, 2

Wikipedia:Verifiability why it or why not verifiability? Please tell me 70.16.158.30 00:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I was planning to answer before, but then I realized that I honestly have no idea what you're asking. Is English your primary language? Perhaps you can get some help understanding the policies from someone in a language you're more fluent in. Dancter 01:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I reverted vandalism on your user page.

User:69.207.182.73 replaced your page with "Thanks for the warning." Will (Talk - contribs) 05:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Based on the contributor's other edits, I would've assumed good faith that they merely meant to comment on my talk page, as they don't seem very experienced with how Wikipedia works. But I can see how it could be looked at otherwise. Regardless, as I said before, I am concerned that you're acting a bit too hasty and severe when dealing with other editors. Dancter 22:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Your edit to my external link

Yeh that edit was needed, I didn't realise the title was bias. However, "A Article on Helium" is incorrect English it should be "An Article" So I will change it. Thanks, Sam —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mrmoocole (talk • contribs) 22:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the grammar correction. I hope I wasn't being too harsh before. Anyway, happy editing! Dancter 22:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Grease you're The One That I Want

Sandy First is Ashley A. is out of the grease show and First Danny is out is Matt is out of the grease show. Sandy Second is Juliana is out of the grease show on 2/18/07 and Second Danny is out is Jason is out of the grease show on 2/18/07. Sandy Third is Kate is out of the grease show on 2/25/07 and Third Danny is Kevin is out of the grease show on 2/25/07. Please Tell Me 70.16.158.30 00:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Who is going to be out of the grease show next

• Sandy's
• 1.Allie
• 2.Ashley S.
• 3.Kathleen
• 4.Laura

• Danny's
• 1.Austin
• 2.Chad
• 3.Derek
• 4.Max 70.16.158.30 00:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

If this is a legitimate issue related to the editing of a Wikipedia article, take this up at Talk:Grease: You're The One That I Want. But to be honest, it seems as if you are just harrassing me, in which case I must ask you to please stop. Dancter 01:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dancter

Dancter is going to be a admin maybe I don't know. 70.16.158.30 00:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

User talk semi-protection

Do you want this page semi-protected? It's fine if you don't, but it might cut down on the shit that gets posted here. – Steel 00:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Only one person really posts on my user talk page from IPs, and I tend to watchlist IPs that I find to have made problematic edits anyway, as well as the articles they've touched, so I think it would be okay. I can take it or leave it, though. If you do semi-protect my user talk page, could you also semi-protect my user page? Dancter 01:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Where Dancter lives at

What country did you live at? 70.110.182.100 23:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I am competent enough at writing in English to be qualified to revert your erroneous language changes. I don't see why you would need to know more than that. Dancter 05:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Dancter sex

Are you a boy or a girl? 70.110.182.100 23:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Again, I don't see how that is relevant. Dancter 05:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

trust me. it's totally relevant :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Elliottsaray (talk • contribs) 18:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

If this is about my reversion of your edit to Doonan, Queensland,[1] you need to establish a context. "Trust me" is simply not an adequate rationale. Simply adding unverifiable factoids randomly in articles (which seem to be unverifiable vanity edits, rather than contributing important, notable content) is not appropriate for encyclopedia articles, and your edit to Nintendo 64[2] is outright vandalism. If you want your edits to be taken seriously, then you should demonstrate your seriousness in your contributions. Discuss your prospective additions on the article talk pages. Check out some of the pages linked to in my welcome message for more information. Dancter 18:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

***VANDALISM*** —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Elliottsaray (talk • contribs) 14:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I think I've done my part in assuming good faith. Vandalism it is, then. Dancter 16:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

This is irrelevant. erroneous factoid rationale. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Elliottsaray (talk • contribs) 17:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Link Requirements?

Hello, you removed a link of mine on the Jessica Biel page to picture galleries. What are the requirements to get this link listed? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Darwinstudios (talk • contribs) 19:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

The guidelines can be found at Wikipedia:External links. Dancter 19:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Game 3.0

Thanks you for your help with the Game 3.0 article. There is an existing effort to improve the article and I expect it will be updated to meet the acceptance guidelines soon. Jmcdaniel3 02:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Reverting my edit to Playstation 3

How was my edit to the above article not NPOV? And if it isn't, can you please tell me how to make it NPOV. Henchman 2000 09:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

It was just worded strangely, such that it was difficult to distinguish what is attributed to the publication and what may have been a personal assertion. I would've tried to fix it myself rather than removing it, but I don't have access to the source text, so I was concerned about altering the meaning from what was expressed in the original piece. If I had tried to fix it, it would probably look something like this:

In a review of the console by Nintendo-affiliated publication Pokemon World, it was stated that for every PlayStation 3 sold in Japan, Nintendo had sold 4 Wiis, and that the PlayStation 3 was being outsold by [its predecessor, the PlayStation 2]. Nintendo attributed the poor sales of the PlayStation 3 to a "silly" price of £425, and being more about looking cool than having fun. Another reason Pokemon World claims why the Wii outselling the PS3 so badly is that the Wii offers fun for all the family, unlike the PS3.<ref>Pokemon World, issue 65</ref>

Anyway, that was my reasoning. Dancter 06:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I thing your fix is pretty good, should I put it on the article? Although, you haven't mentioned that the PS2 is outselling it though. Henchman 2000 11:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

My mistake. That text must've gotten lost when I was typing. I added the missing text in square brackets. Anyway, you can try and add it to the article; I won't revert it. Though I imagine some others may be concerned about undue weight. It's a perspective that comes from an uncommon conflict-of-interest position. Dancter 16:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Template:Unsigned2

Oh, bums, my bad. Fixed now - thanks for letting me know! Neil (not Proto ►) 22:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for being so prompt. It's probably one of my most frequently-used templates. Dancter 22:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

rvv

Thanks for the revert to my userpage, I didn't even notice it was blanked ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 06:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not vandalizing the xbox 360 page.

it's not a "rare" occasion, go on the message boards and you will find out this happens all the time, now i'm removing it again and don't you dare put it back in, is that understood? 71.117.224.10 22:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

It's also not a constant "when X, then Y" occurrence, in which it always occurs, as you edited it to be.[3] That is not the case at all. Dancter 02:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks yet again

I'm kicking myself over that one. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 07:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

greetings

hey fuck you man King food 19:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

lol tell it like it is man —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.47.118.65 (talk • contribs) 20:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

you're really really really annoying

you're really really really annoying you big weiner, erroneous factoid. i really hate the way you talk down to people on this website, if the encyclopedia is made so people can add their own information, don't hover over their shoulders and revert everything they edit. have a nice day, Dancter :). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Elliottsaray (talk • contribs) 17:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

While I try not to tip into harassment, I do tend to follow users who make a string of disagreeable edits. Especially on less frequently-edited articles, it's too easy for misinformation and bias to be disseminated if I didn't. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is not simply made "so people can add their own information"; there are standards which apply. If you want to contest any of my reverts to your edits, I'll certainly be willing to explain and defend them. Dancter 17:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Princess Daisy Funny Article

Please see [4] 68.162.122.89 21:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry

Hey man sorry for the Sony thing. It won't happen again. And to the "youre annoying" guy, FUCK YOU! Dont insult this guy, he can ban us.. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Battered and so misled (talk • contribs) 03:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Sony 20GB PS3

Hey, the front page lists the current prices, the launch prices are listed on the launch page. -- User:cncxbox 17:23 (UTC)

Fable 2 Edits

Hey, regarding your edits; I reinstated the quote from Peter Molyneux as it's not copyrighted and thus fair use (unless a speech given to the public media can be copyrighted? The transcription certainly isn't!). If you want to condense it appropriately, feel free. I also removed the original research tag, as everything in the paragraph is based upon quotes by developers of Fable 2. Apologies if I've made a mistake somewhere. :) fel64 22:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I haven't reviewed the actual speech, so I have no sense whether the speech was written beforehand, in which case the text is copyrighted. Regardless, over-dependence on quotation discourages the establishing of an encyclopedic context for information. Insofar as the meaning can be preserved, it is preferable to paraphrase. Also, the information in the teaser section is poorly attributed, such that it sure looks like original research. I will try tagging the section more descriptively to indicate what I mean. Dancter 22:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I doubt it is. Molyneux's talking style isn't polished, and at best it was outlined beforehand in my opinion; no copyright notice was made and until informed of copyright I think you're not liable. Regarding the over-dependence, when a quote can say something equally well I would prefer the quote rather than a re-hashing which is likelier to contain errors. In any case, that isn't a reason you gave earlier.

I also feel it would have been more helpful if you'd actually rewritten the weaselly parts than just tagged them as such, but I suppose it's not required. fel64 23:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't give that reason earlier because there is only limited space in edit summaries. While I don't shy away from brief quotations where interpretation issues make clear and accurate paraphrasing awkward and difficult (I take accuracy very seriously), I usually disagree with the use of large block quotations. Their use often introduces tone and POV issues, among other things. Quotations are pretty much always "better" as far as accuracy is concerned, but if that were reason enough, Wikipedia might as well be a quotefarm, and Super Mario 128 would have been an article exemplar par excellence. If we're not doing anything to summarize, condense, or contextualize information; I feel it's no better than just simply citing the source. In my edit, I made sure the reference was left in when I removed the blockquote.

As for how copyright works, how you described it is not quite accurate, and even if it were, that's no excuse not to exercise discretion concerning potential infringement. I finally read the transcription, and I think it can be reasonably assumed that the text isn't copyrighted.

Lastly, concerning the weasel-tagging: personally, I'm inclined to remove those statements entirely (negative assertions are usually much more difficult to attribute and verify), but I know how sensitive editors can be about those sort of things, so I'm allowing a little time for the issues to be addressed. Dancter 01:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough; I see what you mean with the weasel words. As far as it concerns me you can remove 'em. Why did you give Fragland as a source for the 10 hints being in the trailer? This is your edit. fel64 12:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

That was a typo. It should work this time. Dancter 14:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Super Smash Bros. Brawl/FAQ Princess Daisy

Please See Talk:Super Smash Bros. Brawl/FAQ and I put Daisy's attacks in and it is the most character wanted in Brawl and she is going to get a stage from Sarasaland and also her own game too. 68.162.122.89 22:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I left a mention of Princess Daisy in the example list, but everything else was completely unsubstantiated. I'm working on the assumption that English is not your primary language, and that you for the most part don't understand what I'm saying when I try to explain why your edits are inappropriate, putting aside your more blatant disruptive contributions. Let me know what language you are most fluent in and I will point you to where you can learn about Wikipedia policies. As long as you continue to edit in the manner you have, I will revert any inappropriate edits by you on sight. If you want to publish your unsupported claims about Princess Daisy, make that DaisyDenfender wiki you were talking about before, or start a page on gaming.wikia. Just don't do it on Wikipedia. Dancter 23:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Mmontala

Manolito Montala is the "entrepreneur" involved with Filipino Friendster World, an unrelated (to the official Friendster) organisation, as shown here. I have warned the user about his edit here, and would like to give you this heads-up, as you have been involved also. Thanks. Refsworldlee^(chew-fat)(eds) 11:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Salamat. I hadn't examined the user's actual connection to the sites they were linking to. I'll try to check for Filipino Vegetarian Recipe, Filipino Friendster World, and even The Filipino Entrepreneur every so often. Dancter 16:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem. As long as we keep on top of them, is what matters. Best wishes. Refsworldlee^(chew-fat)(eds) 17:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks very much Dancter! I'm doing my best!--ZipZapZopZoup 18:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Wii Technical Problems

You have added a Neutrality / POV disclaimer on the Wii Technical Problems article. Can you offer suggestions how I may improve this to avoid this criticism? user_Talk:wageslave —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wageslave (talk • contribs) 20:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

This can be discussed in the Wii talk page. Dancter 20:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Attack pages

Hello.
I'm glad that you've redirected Wii Technical Problems back to the Wii page (I have no problem facing actual legitimate criticisms, but that one simply crossed the line). However, the Playstation 3 technical problems article also really needs to be killed as well. (Admitting bias here: I'm the first person to laugh at the PS3's failure. But I still believe in neutral articles.)
A section on "Operating Environment Failures"(emphasis mine) that deals solely with general complaints about online functionality screams POV-pushing. Linking to youtube videos as cited evidence not only lacks verifiability and reliability, but also confirms that the treatment of the problem as being notable is solely based on the editor's personal opinions. Listing a problem, but including "it is too early to tell if this is a widespread issue" seems to be an admission that its notability hasn't been established yet. And some of these sources in general don't seem to be what I'd call reliable or verifiable.
In short, the entire article is just an attack page, and I don't know what can be done about it. I don't even know how to nominate it for deletion without including phrases like, "horribly written", "POV-pushing nonsense", etc. etc. I don't suppose you feel like being "bold" and annihilating it outright until someone comes up with a valid version of it, eh? Bladestorm 22:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't as feeling as bold about handling that article, in part because other editors had already started to participate in the PS3 one, and the Wii version was much worse (making it an easier decision). I do agree that the PS3 one is pretty bad, though. I'll post a comment in that talk page, and unless I find any convincing arguments otherwise, will probably redirect to PlayStation 3#Publicity and reception soon after. Dancter 05:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Advertising

Hey, sorry for the impression I may have given. I assure you that the external links lead to exactly what is described. Invisiblecow 08:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't dispute that; I checked the links myself. They still seem inappropriate, as the content linked to seems to infringe on original copyrights. Please review the pages linked to in my original message to you. If you still believe your links should be included, you can discuss them in the articles' respective talk pages. Dancter 08:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)