User talk:RelHistBuff/Archive2006

HWA

My apologies for trip over your edits, not my intention. Must admit if I am doing a large set of edits I either copy them to my clipboard or save a few times through the edits. Sorry I'll take a look at what you have done. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 09:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

better, the long section about his "misconduct" is not suitable, and highly contentious with little supporting evidence. About the "other doctrines", it could stay but would need a lot more citations. In fact the whole article is badly in need of more references and independant citational work. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 09:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Mormonism and Christianity edits

Okay I think we've got something we can both be happy with now ("Traditional LDS attitudes toward those of other faiths"). I think it's fairly even handed, but again, let me know if it's out of line. Thanks for working with me there... Mark (mpschmitt1)

I will respond on the talk page. It's probably better to get everyone involved. RelHistBuff 14:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I'm semi-retired from editing Wikipedia, and did not notice the edits that you worked so hard on. The article reads rather smoothly, now. There are still, and probably always will be, annoying half-truths and misconceptions here and there; but it still shows that it was an effort to work together from very different perspectives. I have not looked at your edits in particular. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

DWmFrancis (talk) 14:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)Greetings - We seem to be working on the BoA article at the same time and I noted that you changed some of the things I added, but I'm not sure I understand your comments. It may be that I'm still a bit unclear on how to do references and attributions - If I left out a date or other material needed to qualify a source, I'd be glad to add it. Just drop me a note here or on my talk page and I'll be glad to change any of my contributions so that they meet Wiki standards.

Revert query

Hi, why did you drop the explanatory final clause in:

Joseph Smith kept in his personal diary an “Egyptian alphabet” which demonstrates his inability to translate Egyptian hieroglyphs, since Egyptian hieroglypths are non-alphabetic

--Michael C. Price ^talk 13:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

If you look at his "Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar", it is clear that Smith could not translate Egyptian. He had it completely wrong. I just took out the clause "since Egyptian hieroglypths are non-alphabetic", and left the rest because the glyphs being "non-alphabetic" is only a minor reason that demonstrates his inability and only weakly supports the argument that Smith was completely off. I have a paper copy somewhere of his "Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar". Perhaps there is a stronger way to say it. Maybe "since he made bizarre complete paragraph translations out of one glyph."

RelHistBuff 13:48, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, but there needs to be some explanation of this, otherwise the casual or LDS reader, being ignorant of hieroglyphs, will not see the relevance. What you seem to be saying is that the diary entry is not as relevant as the actual falacious translations that emerged -- but the latter are addressed elsewhere in the article. Sadly I would say that we have to lose either the whole sentence or expand it considerably. Didn't JS claim to receive the translation straight from god whilst ruminating over the papyri? In which case why did he need a dictionary? --Michael C. Price ^talk 14:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Just read your link on the diary: Howabout just quoting their own warning:

NOTE: THIS IS NOT AN AUTHENTIC GRAMMAR AND ALPHABET OF THE EGYPTIAN LANGUAGE. IT DOES NOT CONTAIN ANY GRAMMAR OR ANY GENUINE OR RELIABLE ANALYSIS OF THE EGYPTIAN LANGUAGE.

Sourced and clear? --Michael C. Price ^talk 14:15, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that quote is made by a well-known excommunicated Mormon and does not carry much weight at least in being NPOV. However, the document itself (the alphabet and grammar) is NPOV. So my suggestion is to add a citation with the URL and let the reader read the document and form an opinion himself. At least that's a start. If we could add an additional clause later, all the better. I will go ahead and add the citation now. RelHistBuff 14:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The low key approach. I like it  :-) --Michael C. Price ^talk 14:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Book of Abraham

Very nicely done, with excellent added material. Frankly, I don't know how you have the patience to deal with articles that are so contentious, and deal with all the nonsensical argumentation that adding actual facts entails. (P.S. someone's spelled "idolatry" as "idolotry" there, but I've left it alone as it has a {{fact}} notation by it. - Nunh-huh 14:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

GA, delisting

I love what you are doing with the GA process and removing the articles and all but we have been discussing a really important thing lately (I don't know if you missed it) and it is that we want to have EDIT SUMMARIES to help keep track of what happens in the GA process. Lincher 12:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks for the note. --RelHistBuff 12:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Your GA nomination

Please make sure to provide a helpful edit summary (per the instructions and big red box) when editing the nominations list in future. This will help us keep the Good Articles wikiproject running more efficiently. Thanks.  -- Run!  12:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, too quick in clicking "save page". I have been trying to put in proper edit summaries (such as when I delist GAs). RelHistBuff 13:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Jake Gyllenhaal

Jake's undergone a bit of work since you last checked it out. As no-one seems to be responding to the Peer Review, do you mind going through it again? Dev920 00:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Khudai Khidmatgar

Thanks for the feedback on the article I am working on your criticisms as i write this..I am not sure how to solve the pathan/pashtun/pakhtun/afghan problem though as some of the words have been interchangeable historically?

--Zak 17:32, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Got some time?

Rel, can you review the recent edits on the Mormonism and Christianity page? Although I do think some of it is just semantics, the new edits are unnecessarily more divisive. Any assistance would be appreciated. Thanks. Storm Rider ^(talk) 20:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Finnish Civil War

I comment the opinion you wrote on the disc. page of FCW dealing with the "official level" of the article. I wrote part of it using this "ilummeen" or several direct IP-addresses. To me it's not so important whether its of GA or FA or whatever level, the main thing is that we finally can present a more historical than a political article of the very difficult subject (and still there may be subjective lines in the text). I'm a very unexperienced Wikiuser, so if there is a good reason to alter the nomination, I do hope that user --Pudeo could help us with the "byrocracy" and carry out the nomination process :). But still, the main thing here is that as there is a need for a thorough copyedit you (RelHistBuff) should do it anyway in order to get a generally acceptable article :). --Ilummeen 05:44, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Are you back RelHistBuff? It's quiet in the edit history, and it may need again some copy editing because somewhat major changes were made. If you're still interested and not busy you should check it out again. I think after some fixes I should file FAC for it. What do you think? And the page numbers, do you think they're necessary? A lot articles have them, but in WP:REF it says "Page numbers must be included in a citation that accompanies a specific quotation from, or a paraphrase or reference to, a specific passage of a book or article" --Pudeo (Talk) 13:29, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I will try to get back to it (I've been on business travel a lot lately). Yes, after the fixes, it should definitely go for FA. It would be better to include the page numbers as it would help in credibility of the quality. The FA reviewers may not mention the need of the numbers, but if some do, then be prepared to implement them. RelHistBuff 10:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. By the way, I today made Aimo Lahti article, and submitted it to "Did you know" part. I think it may pass, except if it has too many spelling errors which it seems to have. I don't know who to ask but if you could check it also? It isn't long, so probably 5-10 sentences are faulty. --Pudeo (Talk) 20:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, I think. For other things - I submitted Finnish Civil War to FAC. You may want to voice your honest opinion there also. It's time for last fixes. :) --Pudeo (Talk) 15:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I am multitasking for the moment, but I will vote on the FAC and I will take a look at your article. I don't foresee any problems about getting FA. --RelHistBuff 15:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Well yeah otherwise, but as it seems it probably won't pass after the page numbers are added. I am not really able to do that, however maybe Illumeen can start it. He said he's quite busy also though. --Pudeo (Talk) 10:40, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I did think that a FA reviewer might mention the page numbers issue, but I didn't think the subject would come up so early! I put in my vote and tried to make a strong case despite the lack of page numbers. I do feel that there are a lot of mediocre articles out there that are getting rewarded because they are easy to write (modern topics on issues with lots of sources). It would be too bad that this one failed, but that's wiki! --RelHistBuff 17:38, 18 November 2006

(UTC)

The lead was shortened, and Illumeen is adding the page numbers now (as much as he can). It's still a bit messy but hopefully it will get better soon. When it's finished FA is more probable. Your arguments were great btw. --Pudeo (Talk) 21:12, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

anti americanism

why did u revert GA?? and then accuse me of being a vandal!!! --The duck 19:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

• I looked over the article. It is, in fact, very good. While it didn't go through the usual process, to call The duck a vandal seems like a case of reflexive newbie biting... – ClockworkSoul 20:03, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

exactly. grow up RelHistBuff --Frogsprog 16:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

William Edington

Thanks for your comments on the GA nom. Could you have another look please? Eixo 15:38, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Good article review: Volkstaat

Thank you for the review of this article, I will try to address your concerns in order for the article to be improved. --Gemsbok1 13:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Only Fools and Horses

Thanks for your comments on the talk page. The image you mentioned now has a fair use rationale and I've carried out the other minor adjustments you recommended. Regards. SteveO 20:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

My RFA!

RelHistBuff, thank you so much for your support for my RfA. I passed with a vote tally of 61/0/1. I am honored that the consensus was to allow me the added privilege of the admin mop. I appreciate your support and kind words on my RFA! --plange 23:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

GAR

I know you didn't file the GAR, but perhaps you have some insight...Pls respond at Wikipedia:Good_articles/Review#Robert_Baden-Powell.2C_1st_Baron_Baden-Powell Rlevse 03:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Tkachcolor.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Tkachcolor.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia 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. Chowbok ☠ 20:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

FAR - Yikes

Yikes - you've nom'd quite a few articles at once. There's nothing to stop an editor from nomming a lot of FAs at once, but at WP:FAR, we do work to improve the articles that are under review, and overloading the nominations makes it hard for us to work on each article that needs review. I hope you're able to pitch in on the review work as well, although you're not required to do so. You might want to include Tony's urgent FAR template on your worklist, and help us review those, if you're interested (you can find it on the FAR talk page). Thanks, Sandy (Talk) 15:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I would urge you to remove the nominations for now and nominate articles one per week so that we have time to (or at least try) improve the articles. Joelito (talk) 15:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I didn't intend to completely overload the system and I will help out in whatever way I can on the FARside (no pun intended). But I was rather shocked to find so many articles that have FA status that are nowhere near current standards. It is sad really. I helped out on Finnish Civil War which cites excellent print sources and yet it will fail because of the high standards. In order to be fair, I thought there should be an equal amount of work on improving the old FAs as well. --RelHistBuff 15:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is very sad, and disturbing, too. But the other factor that we deal with is that if we move too fast on addressing those articles, some editors (who feel they should be exempt from current citation requirements for various reasons) start to scream at us and object to the process, so we have to keep a balance between reviewing the articles that don't comply, and working the best we can to improve them while they're under review. Thanks for understanding, and I hope you can help out. Sandy (Talk) 15:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I removed Helen Gandy, Carl G. Fisher, Athanasius Kircher, Armand Jean du Plessis, Cardinal Richelieu, and Treaty of Devol off the main list. They still have their FAR tags and comment pages. I assume I can leave them as they are and bring them in one at a time? --RelHistBuff 15:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I removed them from the talk pages, because some of those Projects have been known to go ballistic at FAR noms (so when you do nom them, you only need to readd the FAR tag, and relist them at FAR, and update the date). An idea that you might consider on those articles is to post a talk page message saying that you plan to nominate the article for FAR soon, and you'd like to see the citations addressed. That gives them some advance notice to begin work, but the downside is that it could make you a target of the anti-citation group :-) Sandy (Talk) 15:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

We deal with the same problem with GA, but I never thought that citations would be a controversial issue for FA! --RelHistBuff 15:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The problem is one and the same :-) (Have you weighed in here?) We could better process through the FAR noms, and handle more at once, if we had more reviewers, so I hope you'll be able to help out :-) Sandy (Talk) 16:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I will lend a hand on the reviews. I was doing the same on GAR anyway. --RelHistBuff 16:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks ! Sandy (Talk) 19:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

What's rough? Sandy (Talk) 13:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

ah, OK, I just checked your contribs, and saw you got hammered at James Joyce. There is a group of editors that doesn't accept the WP:WIAFA criteria, in spite of it being long-standing policy for FAs. I should have warned you not to tangle with that one :-) Don't worry about it - the criteria is what it is, and it's not worth worrying over one article and one group who are defending an absent friend (the bigger problem, which they don't seem to acknowledge, is the number of older FAs that aren't being watched over by anyone - they tend to deteriorate because the authors have left Wikipedia - that one is an absent author, being defended by the author's friends, with criteria that are against the relevant policy, which is WP:V). James Joyce is not a typical FAR. Sorry you got into a tangle. Sandy (Talk) 13:55, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

(After edit conflict) I guess I am not as battle-hardened as you ;) Firstly, I just wanted to mention that I have a lot respect for you all on FAR. On GA most authors are beginners so reviewing, commenting, and improving are relatively easy tasks. With FAR, even dealing with a basic issue of inline citations seems to bring on a battle for every article. You all deserve congratulations for this underappreciated work on improving articles. Secondly, has there been any thought of clarifying the "where appropriate" clause in WP:WIAFA? Editors seem to interpret that to mean that it is optional. --RelHistBuff 14:10, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Nah, don't draw the wrong impression from one article, and one group of editors - FAC is actually a more rewarding place to work than GAC, and far less conflict-ridden than GAC, because of all the problems inherent in the (faulty and ill-defined) GA process. At FAC, articles are improved by the process, and 1/3 of them retain status - Joyce isn't typical. The citation issue is well understood, and has stood for a long time: the appropriate policy is WP:V - if someone requests a cite, it should be provided. Most FAC reviewers are reluctant to litter well written articles with fact tags, but if the article isn't eventually cited and editors resist inlines, it sometimes happens. Note that the tag that you included ended up in a wording change, casting doubt on the veracity of the original statement. Best, Sandy (Talk) 14:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Things have slowed down and cleared up a bit on FAR, with several article reviews finishing up in the last few days. If you want to nom another, the timing would be right now. Just keep in mind that some of the editors whose articles are coming up for review have multiple articles on the list, so it's considerate to try to nom articles in such a way that no one WikiProject is overwhelmed, and no individual editor has multiple noms up at the same time, as that makes it hard for editors to focus on improving the articles. We also seem to be able to better work on articles when the total number of nominations remains at about the 3 dozen mark. Regards, Sandy (Talk) 15:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I will bring up another one from another Wikiproject rather than the biographical titles I brought up previously. Also perhaps this one would perhaps be more interesting to work on as it has prose problems in addition to the usual problem of inline citations. --RelHistBuff 16:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

oh my, you certainly dig right in, don't you? That one should generate quite some controversy :-) Fasten your seat belt. Sandy (Talk) 16:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Gotta learn how all this FAR stuff works and it's best to get your hands dirty... ;-) --RelHistBuff 16:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Agrippina (opera)

Hi Relhistbuff,

Please forgive the intrusion. May I ask you to explicitly vote on the GA of Agrippina (opera), or explicitly repeat your vote if you already voted in that long discussion? It has already been the subject of prolonged debate, and I believe it deserves some closure.

Thanks --Ling.Nut 15:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Tkach article

Good work on the article. It comes across as NPOV. It is improved a lot; I think it is ready. I added a few categories take a look and if you agree keep them otherwise take them out, or even add more. Mfields1 00:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Two minor problem children

RelHistBuff,

Please forgive the intrusion. I wonder if I could prevail upon you to do me a small favor. I have two minor problem children on HOLD at present: Gold Coast, Queensland and Commission to Assess the Ballistic Missile Threat to the United States‎. Both are pretty short. For the first one, I'm afraid I'm gonna hafta pass it even tho I'm not sure if it deserves a pass. For the second, I'm afraid my feedback sucked.

I value your insight. If you eval those pages, I'll look & learn! However, be careful about putting {{fact}} tags on Gold Coast. Check the hist. I put some on previously, and a contributor took them off (legitimately, I think, or at least he/she provided some justification).

I sincerely appreciate your help! --Ling.Nut 00:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I tried to reinforce your points on Gold Coast, Queensland using our guidelines and policies as support. That article definitely needs to be improved in terms of referencing. As for the other article, I think it is worthy of GA and I think it is good to point out NPOV concerns. Usually authors take comments and criticisms positively and try to address them rather than raising a fuss on several talk pages like what happened recently. You may want to add a couple of other points: 1) What is a NIE and what does "compartmentalization of intelligence" mean? 2) The phrase "may have contributed to the coining of the phrase axis of evil" needs to have a cite. It is cited below in the article, but the statement in the lead section should also have it as the lead section should more-or-less stand alone.

Thanks a billion for your help! I have a very strong desire to leave Wikipedia (in some small way) better each time I log off than it was when I log on. I'm feeling my way through a learning process with respect to how precisely that is done, but I think/hope that on balance I do more good than harm. :-)

I've been taking strong positions on GA about GA being a steppingstone to FA that not only draw no support, but instead draw active criticism. I think there are two motivations for the criticism (tho it's usually a dreadfully slippery slope to be talking about motivations):

1. reasonable concern that GA is simply does not have enough formalized checks and balances to warrant such talk
2. unreasonable and frankly deplorable yammering from people whose feelings are hurt when their article, which they feel should be hailed as a masterpiece, receives even minor criticism.

unfortunately, I fear that it may be the latter group who are inclined to be more vocal about their position, and more proactive about enforcing their views.

But forgive the min-rant! I came here to thank you!!!!!

Later --Ling.Nut 03:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

GA Stats

Hi RelHistBuff

The figures for the total number of articles are on the main page in the top left hand corner. They are also automatically updated on the GA page itself, I think. I couldn't find historical values for previous months because the scripts which control the live updates of number of articles seem to continue to work even in previous versions of pages, i.e. go to a history of the main page from three months ago and it will still tell you the number of articles there are today, not that figure three months ago. That's what it seems to me anyway, I may be wrong! Chrisfow 12:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Here's the script: Current number of articles on the English Wikipedia: 6,909,707

Hope it helps! Chrisfow 12:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! --RelHistBuff 12:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

archive New Coke?

Hi RelHistBuff,

I was gonna archive this discussion about New Coke, but I'm not sure what the result was... OK to archive? --Ling.Nut 15:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

RE: Thank you for your support

No problem! And congrats! I look forward to seeing more of your articles on FAC. Regards, Gzkn 11:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Operation Downfall

See Marskell's note on the FAR: I just wanted to let you know he's been away on personal business for almost a month, so a quick summary will help him (he may not have time to read through the entire FAR). Sandy (Talk) 22:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I moved Wikipedia:Featured article review/Operation Downfall to the FARC period bc nothing was happening but it wasn't unanimous on the keep. If you can list, very specifically, the POV concerns and maybe contact wwoods, perhaps we can close it soon. Marskell 02:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, I will try to be as specific as possible. --RelHistBuff 11:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Rel, you'll notice I closed this as keep. One of the two issues seems fairly resolved with your last edit and the other was stalemated—I don't think we need another two weeks to come to "agree to disagree" on the anecdote. The review was given a fair shake and I think it's a fine article even with the issue outstanding. Marskell 05:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

It is your decision. However, it is still my opinion that it is not at featured article quality due to POV and criteria 1d violation. --RelHistBuff 07:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

However, with Sandy's comment, one phrase got changed and wwoods did add the militia description. Too bad no one other Sandy said anything about the anecdote. --RelHistBuff 08:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

sources on Chembai

Hi RelHistBuff,

I've been taking flak (tho not as badly as Lucifer has) for "pretending to be FA" and having too high standards etc. So I'm looking for second opinions. I'd like your opinion on the sources of Chembai. Many of them are from websites, some of which are clearly demurred (Geocities), and some of which I am not sure about (see #16).

How hard should I flag this problem? Is this fatal to the GA, in your opinion?

Many thanks for your time and trouble, --Ling.Nut 17:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

As you probably know, the guideline to follow is WP:RS. The first geocities web site cite seems to be an online copy from a journal. A journal is probably peer-reviewed so this would be ok, but they should reference the journal and then provide a link to that website (more as a courtesy rather than a cite). The second geocities is more problematic as it looks like a fan article, hence it is not reliable. Number 16 is a self published web site and this certainly should not be used for any claims. I find the use of websites for references to be a real problem on Wikipedia, but because it is such a widespread practise (especially in music/film articles), I tend to water down my own idea of our standards. I try to follow the following from WP:RS,

• In general, a topic should use the most reliable sources that are available to its editors. Common sense is required to determine what sources to use; this guideline cannot be applied robotically...
• Exceptional claims require exceptional sources

By the way, the article has a major problem in that it is basically a hagiography, almost hero worship. The style is not encyclopaedic. --RelHistBuff 09:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

You're right about the hero worship. As soon as you said that, a light came on in my mind. Without realizing it, I mentally cut far more slack in that respect to topics/articles from some other cultures, feeling that:

1. Wikipedia might be the only place a midwesterner in the USA might be exposed to such topics, and
2. the second reason is a vague cloud of feelings of sympathy for.. difficult to describe.

Now that I've realized this, I'll have to ponder it and see where I come out after deliberation.

Thanks!

--Ling.Nut 16:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

BTW, I made a list of the articles Agne warned. If you look at any of the articles, be sure to double-check that Agne warned them, and that hey are still GAs. I think I got it all right, but always double check anyhow:

User:Ling.Nut/rere

--Ling.Nut 22:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Falsehood

This edit summary: "although not mandatory" was never in criterion 2b, is a falsehood, as the last stable version will show; there are only tweaks between then and 14 September, and that text of 2b is much older. I trust your good faith will lead to an immediate retraction. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)