User talk:EEMIV/Archive7

This is a talk page archive. Please do not edit its contents.
If you'd like to get in touch with me, please leave a new message on my current talk page --EEMIV

Cardassia Prime

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Cardassia Prime, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 23:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've merged this to Cardassian. - Fayenatic (talk) 16:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of TCS Confederation

An article that you have been involved in editing, TCS Confederation, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TCS Confederation (2nd nomination). Thank you. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of TCS Concordia

An article that you have been involved in editing, TCS Concordia, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TCS Concordia (2nd nomination). Thank you. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Star Wars: Battlefront series

An article that you have been involved in editing, Star Wars: Battlefront series, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star Wars: Battlefront series. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 14:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P'Jem

What about P'Jem is "non-notable". Seriously, it should not just redirect to Shadows of P'Jem. Now this whole thing was tagged, but I don't see any records or logs of what was voted on.

Basically, I need to see the discussion that took place so I can know what to do here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sweetfreek (talk • contribs) 21:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The proper question is, what makes P'Jem notable -- the burden of proof for sourcing and notability is on editors looking to add material, not remove it. --EEMIV (talk) 22:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You'll have to pardon me if I'm a little edgy about this, but I have in the past encountered a few lone wolves who went on "delete the Star Trek pages" crusades--I'm used to that sort of treatment (most of us are), but due to the prejudices that are often involved, I believe a certain degree of forethought is required before any move is made in one way or the other. As far as citation, the sources are well described throughout the article--albeit in a non-standard style (which can be correctly easily)--however, the notability aspect of this issue might be just as easily applied to about 3/4 of wikipedia. I have been informed that there are some guidelines on this topic posted somewhere, and it would be greatly appreciated if I had a link to those guidelines so I could make the necessary corrections. Thank you. Sweetfreek (talk) 06:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:FICT, WP:WAF. --EEMIV (talk) 06:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is understandable. I will merge the information into the relevant episode article as a small section near its bottom. However, I should point out that the correct episode is actually The Andorian Incident... I will correct this too. Sweetfreek (talk) 08:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of List of lost ships of Starfleet

An editor has nominated List of lost ships of Starfleet, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of lost ships of Starfleet and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 23:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editor assistance

Any update? Benjiboi 21:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello? Benjiboi 17:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Approximately"

Your observations about the height of an AT-AT -- scale of Luke, and so on -- is original research. If you can cite a reliable source that offers ambiguity about the height or even a different figure, then cite it. Regardless, please stop inserting your personal interpretation. --EEMIV (talk) 18:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a personal interpretation; the numbers do not lie. (West End Games, however, either does or just doesn't care if they're right.) Regardless, I can cite numerous sources, starting with the Star Wars Technical Commentaries by Dr. Curtis Saxton. Rogue 9 (talk) 18:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Responded to here and here

Archive and Deletion

Hey EEMIV, I was wondering how you ended up making the archive work. Also the pages set up for deletion above, where can I talk about this? --Stealth500! (talk) 21:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Kreia

An editor has nominated Kreia, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kreia and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 03:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Reviews

Happy New Year, EEMIV! I thought I could solicit your assistance. I've submitted two articles for peer review, and thought that you might be of some help in critiquing them:

Duck Soup. I've listed this article for peer review because, even though I and other editors have contributed much information and references, I'm certain that there are other aspects of this classic film that have yet to be covered. I'd like to hear feedback from you, so that I can get help in improving this (and other Marx Brothers films) quality.
Princess Leia Organa. I've listed this article for peer review because it right now seems oddly cluttered and, despite a lot of references as of now, lacks reliable source citations. Although I've already requested another peer review, as long as it helps the articles get better, I've got the time. Any helpful comments will certainly be appreciated, as this should help me in expanding other Star Wars-centric articles.

I value your input. Thanks, and a Happy New Year to you! — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 20:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving

Hey EEMIV, I still can't figure out how to archive even after finding the wikihelp page. Could you explain? thanks! --Talk to Stealth500 (talk) 22:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are some bots that automatically archive messages X days old -- I don't know about them. I just move my current talk page to a new destination when it hits 35 comments, and then just have a blank talk page that I let fill up again. --EEMIV (talk) 23:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How do I make the new place and how do I make that list of archives you see on some Talk pages? --Talk to Stealth500 (talk) 00:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "new place" is made automatically when you enter the moved page's destination -- e.g., if you tell Wikipedia to move "User talk:Stealth500" to "User talk:Stealth500archiveX", the latter will be made made. Then go back to the User talk:Stealth500 and erase the redirect that the move created. Sorry, I don't know how else to more simply explain it. --EEMIV (talk) 02:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine User Talk:ADK explained it to me.

thanks again! --Talk to Stealth500 (talk) 02:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gray Jedi

I fully agree that the article is beyond hope. However, there is nothing requiring deletion of the page, which would have to be recreated anyway to host a redirect to Jedi. I boldly went ahead and simply redirected it here. If you agree with that move, just withdraw the deletion nomination. Why the fuzz for such an "article", I say. Dorfklatsch 15:26, January 11, 2008

Works for me :-) --EEMIV (talk) 15:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Btw: I know the problem with fan editors, or diehard fans, as you put it. We'll see how it goes. The main issue imo is that such fans sometimes have difficulties curbing their fan enthusiasm for the sake of more professional encyclopedic enthusiasm and at times they don't understand that they simply can't have it both ways: Either the article has to be properly written and sourced, or it shouldn't be there. As you probably also know, the majority of e.g. SW character articles is one big ugly mess: mostly unreferenced and not notable enough by any stretch of imagination to merit a seperate article. There's also the option of transwiki-ing such articles to Wookiepedia, but some are fighting to keep this stuff on Wikipedia. You're welcome to notify me if you encounter any such situations. Reasonable arguments presented by more than just one concerned editor can sometimes help reduce senseless resistance to sensible editorial actions. Dorfklatsch 16:03, January 11, 2008

AfD question: Recombinant text

I have very little experience in AfD matters, and am asking for your input before nominating an article for deletion, because, quite frankly, I do not want to be seen as someone who capriciously nominates articles which do not meet AfD standards.

If you have time, please take a look at this article. It was created by the person who—as the intro asserts—is the very person who coined the term. Most of the edits are by that person. Most, if not all, of the sources link back to this person. I mean, at best it appears to me to constitute OR, at worst, self-promotion. But maybe I'm seeing it wrong. What do you think?

I selected you and many other editors pretty much completely at random; I picked one day's AfD archives, and clicked on the talk pages of the first two or three dozen editors' talk pages I came across. I hope that in using this selection method, I will get editors who are well-versed in AfD policies, yet who also represent a good cross-section of AfD philosophies. I will monitor your talk page for your response. Thanks. Unschool (talk) 07:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bengal-class strike carrier

		The Editor's Barnstar
		Commendation for bold initiative and hard work which you put into Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bengal-class strike carrier Gavin Collins (talk) 13:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks -- although nominating them was more tedium than boldness ;-). --EEMIV (talk) 13:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecting

I've undone[1] your redirect on Dark Woman. For the most part, I agree with your concern about the article. However, arbitrarily redirecting the article is a bad thing, especially just pointing it to the article in which the character appears, as it tells the end user exactly nothing about the character. If there were a push to consolidate such articles into a single "list of" article (or if she were added to such a page), that'd be totally different, but just sliding an article under the rug like this is detrimental to the project, well-meaning it may be. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Force Unleashed

Why did you remove the {{|fact}} tag that I added to the article? This entire paragraph looks extremely suspicous to me, and it is unsourced:

It is now confirmed that the game will not have a character customization, which many veteran Star Wars fans dislike, as the main character is Darth Vader's Secret Apprentice. The production and development teams got direct confirmation from George Lucas that they could make a game based on this idea. Early stages of the Force Unleashed included a game where the main character is a Wookie

That paragraph is unsourced, and suspicious (I doubt the game was originally going to star a wookiee). So I added the {{|fact}} tag, then you went and removed it while leaving the suspicious paragraph intact. Unless you know a source for the information in that paragraph, I'm adding back the {{|fact}} tag.70.17.129.157 (talk) 05:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Entirely my screwup -- I meant to delete the whole paragraph, as suggested by my "Rm uncited or, non-npov" edit summary. Just had the wrong diff up. --EEMIV (talk) 10:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback

Hello EEMIV, I have granted rollback rights to your account; the reason for this is that after a review of some of your contributions, I believe I can trust you to use rollback correctly by using it for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck. Acalamari 22:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Swell -- thanks for the tool and the trust; will try to put both to good use. --EEMIV (talk) 04:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! Acalamari 16:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Starship Enterprise

The reason the Declaration class was listed as apocryphal is that it comes from the old Star Trek Spaceflight Chronology. This book is licensed, and was considered cannon when published at the time of TMP. But much of the book is now contradicted by later material (Most of TNG, etc.) So it is notable by Wikipedia standards and at the same time it's doubtful since no later source has listed a class. I tried to explain that on the detail page for the XCV-330 and thought the term was appropriate in this case on the overview page. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 14:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

User_talk:XLinkBot/RevertList#cardassiaprimera.com.ar. Regards TINY MARK 03:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<mrburns>Excellent</mrburns> --EEMIV (talk) 05:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jacen Solo

Excuse me but I am not vandalizing the article. Please stop your threats. Vandalizing is doing a prank, making meaningless or absurd changes, etc. I am making what I feel is a valid change to the article. People come to Wikipedia to read information like that, as it is currently presented. There is no need to follow the unnecessarily rigid "maintenance" suggests on those ridiculous tags. You are free to disagree with me and take everything absurdly seriously if you must, but please cease with your threats to ban me over what is a simple disagreement and stop accusing me, falsely, of vandalism. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.224.119.125 (talk) 17:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are removing those tags without addressing any of the underlying content concerns that warrant their presence at the top of the page, as brought up in the article's AFD. This failure to abide by consensus is disruptive, i.e. vandalism. Your general notion that "people come to Wikipedia to read information like that" is baseless, whereas identification of problems with the article are rooted in this project's policies and guidelines. If you take exception to the tags, either fix the article or try to change the policies/guidelines. --EEMIV (talk) 17:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not baseless, it's common sense. You seem completely unaware of what most people use this website for. Stop taking Wikipedia so seriously buddy. It's just the internet. Calm yourself. There is no consensus that the article needs those tags by the way...only you and some other "mod" who continually replace them think they are needed. I'm tired of your outlandish threats so I'll stop removing them for now though, alright? :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.224.119.125 (talk • contribs)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Roslin.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Roslin.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 19:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DC Meetup on May 17th

Your help is needed in planning Wikipedia:Meetup/DC 4! Any comments or suggestions you have are greatly appreciated. The Placebo Effect (talk) 18:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HK-47

Do you think it should be merged with the list of characters? — Texcarson 21:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. --EEMIV (talk) 01:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added character images to wiki page

I hope this is the right place to ask this if not please delete this and accept my apology. I am new to editing Wiki pages. I added some character images to this page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Star_Wars:_Knights_of_the_Old_Republic_characters). I was told they may be deleted soon due to copyright issues and what not. I would post the exact message but I find the whole thing greek. I have read the copyright FAQ and several other pages pertaining to the posting of images and like I said it is all greek to me. I took the images down as soon as they were in question. But I just need an example, info or I don't know what, that sheds some light on why I can't post screenshots of characters that are described in a page devoted to those characters. Sorry to be a noob but I am completely lost. I made some small text changes and documented them but the image thing has me completely baffled. There is an inset image of Kreia under her section. I don't see how that is different from the close-up character shots I posted. Thanks much. -- FomarsWiki (talk) 21:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there!

There's no plot in the content I merged from Moties, I cuted it off entirely... --Miotroyo (talk) 13:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I mean: I could cut out two or three more lines, I know the article is too long for not-S-F-entusiasts... What would you suggest?

--Miotroyo (talk) 16:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jacen Solo

Another editor has added the {{prod}} template to the article Jacen Solo, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 19:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Improving Star Wars to Featured Article status

I am currently working on improving Star Wars to Featured Article status, and I noticed that you have made a substantial amount of contributions recently. If you have time, I would appreciate it if you could help out and improve the article. Right now, the primary thing that needs to be done is the addition of more references - the article simply is not referenced enough. I have added {{fact}} tags on the page, which shows up as [citation needed] to make it easier to find what information needs references. Thanks for your time! Gary King (talk) 04:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Garrett

Thanks for the correction, can't believe I forgot those. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 23:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the template assist

I didn't know what I was doing, and I am glad I asked for some help. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. You just missed the two closing }} at the end of the code. Easy thing to overlook. --EEMIV (talk) 18:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars: TFU

I apologize for not being clearer with my edit summary, but I removed the merchandise section for the same reason I did it a few months ago: the merchandise has nothing to do with the actual game. Since The Force Unleashed appears to be a multimedia project with various parts, perhaps we could begin work on a separate article such as Star Wars: The Force Unleashed (multimedia project), or just to Star Wars: The Force Unleashed (we would then have to be move the vg article to Star Wars: The Force Unleashed (video game)). This new article would encompass the whole of TFU, merchandise, comics, novel, and everything else. The video game itself will occupy a whole page (being a video game and a glutton for space), so there's no use cramming the whole project into the same article as an afterthought, if indeed it is a significant affair (and while I've got my mind on it, the image on the VG article would have to be updated with the box art here, and the current image moved to the multimedia article). I'm tempted to get started now, but I would rather wait for your response to ensure we don't have a problem. Your thoughts? -- Comandante {Talk} 01:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking through other articles, I found I am supported by the multimedia project Clone Wars (Star Wars) having a general article concerning the story, and separate articles (such as Star Wars: The Clone Wars (video game)) detailing the various branches of the multimedia project itself. I'm going to go ahead and go forward with the changes I've explained above; if you have an issue with this, then feel free to revert me and we can discuss this in greater detail to reach a compromise. -- Comandante {Talk} 19:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've taken care of the majority of it, I've done as much as I can for now. If you have anything to say regarding the rearrangement, please respond on my talk page. -- Comandante {Talk} 20:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Senate Guards

Senate Guards

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Senate Guards, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Senate Guards. Terraxos (talk) 23:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your constant edits of the Dr. Chase Meridian (Nicole Kidman's character in Batman Forever) page

I made a conscientious (at least I thought) decision to try to prevent you from meddling with the page any further (i.e. redirecting it to the Batman Forever page) by digging up photos of Nicole Kidman in the movie as well as some info behind the production. What in the hell makes you automatically assume that the article that I provided (about Kidman being made to look like Veronica Lake) is "unreliable"? It wasn't like it was from a message board, it was a fully detailed page about the production stages of the Batman films. What point would there to have a category called "Comic book characters created in other media", if you're just going to redirect them to the film or TV series for which they first appeared? And another thing, the IMDb.com link that I provided was centered on notable quotes/lines that Nicole Kidman had in Batman Forever (it wasn't a causal "trivia" section like you originally wrote it off to be about). And if you continue to absent-mindedly redirect it, and all that I'm going to do is redirect it back and add more references that I can scrap out. TMC1982 (talk) 12:40 a.m., 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, now you've actually found what look like some real sources. IMDb quotes are trivia, and what was it, some fan angelfire site for your other citation before I last redirected it? Regardless, the article still does not establish any real-world notability, but since you continue to improve it I'll let you continue to find some substantiating material for a while. See WP:WAF and WP:RS for the kind of info. and substantiation a good article has. --EEMIV (talk) 09:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The quotes are from the actual movie/screenplay, they aren't the same as production notes (which is closer to the subject of trivia). You should look at the actually link before making statements like that! And I don't understand what you exactly mean by saying "real-world notability" when Nicole Kidman was playing a character and not a fact-based person. Like I said, if you're going to redirect this particular article, then you might as well do the same for ever film/TV character that falls under the category of "Comic book characters created in other media". TMC1982 (talk) 8:05 p.m., 9 April 2008 (UTC)

If you don't understand what I mean by "real-world notability," then you need to read the guidelines for writing about fiction. Yes, I know she's fictional -- but elements of fiction need to be written about in a way that emphasizes development, critical reaction, etc. Right now, while better, the article still is mostly a regurgitation of plot summary. If there is significant reliable, third-party coverage -- i.e. not IMDb, not Angelfire, etc. -- then it might be worth an article. Perhaps once you read the WAF guidelines, you'll then understand why the stub's previous form warrant redirection -- and while the current version, while an improvement, still needs substantial work if it won't again be redirected or simply nominated for deletion. --EEMIV (talk) 03:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted article to user space

User:EEMIV/Senate Guards --Wikiacc (¶) 23:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fiction & Notability

Please have a look at Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction)/RFC1 as your input would be most welcome and would encourage other editors to contribute to the debate, which will remain open until the end of the month.--Gavin Collins (talk) 19:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Please do not act like a vandal by removing sources from articles. Catchpole (talk) 14:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:RS. --EEMIV (talk) 15:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps if you read this thread at AN/I you may start to understand where I'm coming from. Catchpole (talk) 17:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]