User talk:Clayoquot/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Clayoquot, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Tewfik^Talk 19:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Clayoquot 06:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 template 2 Mediatorship 3 Renaming 4 Pleaseead this 5 Israeli apartheid 6 Please read this 7 Apartheid 8 RfM apartheid 9 Your suggestion at Central_discussions/Apartheid 10 Vancouver Wikipedians Meetup 11 Re:Kim is a guy 12 Zeq's ban 13 Matress 14 WP:MILHIST naming conventions 15 Gabriola island 16 not that bad 17 Homey 18 Clayoquot Sound 19 Homey 20 Your report 21 Sandbox 22 misleading sections 23 Welcome to WikiProject Cetaceans! 24 Israeli Apartheid 25 Radiance 26 Right to Vanish 27 Re: Spam 28 Deletion of user & talk pages 29 Your input is requested 30 A friendly suggestion 31 Oh, and btw... 32 Section Deleted!!?? 33 Your deletion of a list of reliable sources 34 Deletion review 35 Marsden 36 Thnx 37 Request for clarification of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rachel Marsden

[edit] template

I've done so. Thanks for the reminder.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 05:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediatorship

Are you willing to take over the mediatorship? -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 14:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not stressed at all. To the contrary, I am very relaxed, and I have a thick skin which you need to have if you are an admin as you can get compared with quite some heavy things, like being a communist and neo-nazi at the same day... :-). I am not rushing to conclusions, or get stressed from others who send me e-mails with their demands of things they want me to do, etc. If you decide that you would be interested, we have to find consensus for that first at the page.... -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 16:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

O, and one tip to start with, try not to take to strong position about the term, or anything because that appears biased and makes you unacceptable to others who think that position is wrong. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 16:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Clayoquot is not an appropriate mediator. For example, in regards to articles Homey created, Clayoquot voted delete on Apartheid (disambiguation) [1], delete on Gender apartheid [2], delete on Sexual apartheid [3], delete on Global apartheid [4], and stated that the Israeli apartheid article "should not exist at all" [5]. On the other hand, she voted keep on Homey's AfD of Apartheid outside of South Africa [6]. Clayoquot also got involved on the Admin noticeboard on Zeq side (who is in opposition to Homey) with regards to his ArbCom related article bans [7]. If nothing else, Clayoquot does indicate in her actions that she doesn't have much respect for Homey. --Ben Houston 01:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Looks like I'm off the hook for mediatorship ;) Thanks Kim for asking. I hope you remain safe through the storm. I've thought about this and I am, as Ben and Homey both pointed out, already involved in the dispute. I would like to contribute to consensus-building as a participant. Ben, if by "not having much respect for Homey" means frequently disagreeing with him, that's certainly the case. If you mean to imply that I have not followed Wikipedia:Civility then I would welcome specific examples. Sincerely, Clayoquot 05:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

By the way, my "keep" vote on Apartheid outside South Africa was a "keep until." Clayoquot 06:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I came in from the side, as the admin protecting the page. I never have dome substantial editing at any of the political pages (except for obvious gramaer and spelling), and I have no interest in it either. So, I am rather clean in that context. The storm is a wuzie, just a lot of rain. I am still curious at your answers on the questions I posted at the WP:AN/I incident report.-- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 16:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Kim, I've replied on your Talk page and AN/I. Glad to hear you're OK. Clayoquot 06:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Renaming

"Government discrmination" is a nelogoism. Homey 15:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pleaseead this

it is a representation of an important POV: User:Zeq/apartheid_propeganda

tnx, Zeq 15:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

you have a good point. this was to extrme and I need to change it.

The chrstian aid is covered here (search for the word apartheid): http://www.ngo-monitor.org/editions/v4n04/ChristianAidSummary05.pdf . Thanks for reading and for your comment. Zeq 08:36, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

maybe this is a much better way to say what i tried to say: http://www.mideastweb.org/israel_apartheid.htm

Zeq 08:41, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes I think the Pogrund article is the best on the subject. Zeq 15:19, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Israeli apartheid

Hi Kim,

I don't understand these sentences from User talk:KimvdLinde/Apartheid: "First, renaming it to that name would free the way of a second article that deals with for example the scholary opinion about this topic, which is not an allegation or accusation but an analysis. And I think that is not warranted." Could you please clarify what you mean by "free the way of"? Also, what is not warranted? Thanks, Clayoquot 04:06, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

The newly proposed article name is a very specific title, and limits all discussion at the page to the allegations. Therefore, it effectively excludes anything beyond that. So, an article dealing with an analysis of the situation based on for example scholary articles which examines whether the term apartheid is relevant for the Israeli situation would require a seperate article as that is not an accusation/allegation, but a valid scholary analysis. I think that one article is already enough, and I do not see the need for several articles dealing with this term, so I think is not warranted to have multiple articles. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 05:09, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Clayoquot. Could you please take a look at my fresh proposal at Wikipedia:Central discussions/Apartheid#Proposal by User:Humus sapiens. I respect your opinion and would appreciate your advice how to improve the proposal. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please read this

For added perspective: "Falafel in Nablus" dialogue (from Ramallite's archives)/"Falafel in Nablus" dialogue (from Guy Montag's archives). Cheers. Article20 00:40, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Apartheid

What happened was I changed my comment because I realised that if the article title was Apartheid (political epithet) it was disambiguating from Apartheid. However, I then noticed that you had responded to my old comment so I restored it and moved my new comment below yours. Probably should have stricken out the old comment instead.Homey 00:58, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfM apartheid

Clayoquot, would you like to be added as a party to the mediation? I'm not entirely familiar with everyone who was involved, and so I may have left some names out. By all means, add yourself if you like, and then sign at the bottom that you agree. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your suggestion at Central_discussions/Apartheid

SlimVirgin suggested a modification/shortening of your proposal to "Allegation of apartheid". The proposal has gained significant support, maybe you have some comments about it? Do you endorse or oppose it? [8] -- Heptor _talk 17:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vancouver Wikipedians Meetup

Greetings, you're getting this spam (courtesy of Tawkerbot) because you were listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Vancouver. In short, we're trying to have a meetup and we'd appreciate it if you'd join our Yahoo Group setup to figure out a time/place that would work. You can find the group at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vancouver_wikipedians/. If you have any questions feel free to make a post there or on the WikiProject page.

Happy Editing!

[edit] Re:Kim is a guy

Damnit, I wasn't sure since it is kinda an androngynous name, that probably lessens the impact of what I wrote.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 03:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zeq's ban

FYI I believe that bans are automatically lifted after their term expires, so it would not appear in the block history.--Mantanmoreland 13:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Matress

Just some friendly advice. You might want to find the correct link in Wikipedia when deleting a broken one. Restore foam may have been deleted, but Memory foam has an article. Mapetite526 16:31, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me. I was being single-minded in hunting out spam there :) Kla'quot 07:20, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:MILHIST naming conventions

I've fiddled around with the wording of your changes a bit, since all the examples that were there were actually common names; I'd appreciate if you could take a look at the new version to make sure it makes sense to somebody other than myself. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 11:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gabriola island

Visited your userpage and noticed Gabriola island (as well as the username change.) My family owns land on that island! I've always enjoyed visiting that place. What is your connection to the island? --Ben 18:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Vancouver is cool. Was actually born in Burnaby and spent the first half of my life in North Delta. The activity at the AoIA article is fine from my perspective. The article is getting overly long thus some consolidation/summarization will be in order, but much of the information added is of high quality and the end result, after consolidation, will probably be an overall improvement. --Ben 02:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

With the forthcoming release of Carter's book, it may become a media topic -- as these things usually do -- and thus also a huge storm of activity adding various people's positions to the article. --Ben 02:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] not that bad

It's just that long quote I banged out on the talk. I'll recover by tommorow. And there's still the incompitent right hand which seems to know at least where p,o,l,i,k, and m are.... do appreciate the concern. -- Kendrick7 06:53, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Still sore, but typing again with both barrels. -- Kendrick7 16:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Homey

Talk to User:Fred Bauder. Homey is not a banned or "sort of banned" user. The community ban was overturned. 74.98.247.123 15:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

He has emailed me. But it is so long ago I don't remember. I would assume he is not banned unless you can find some proof. Fred Bauder 17:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clayoquot Sound

Hi there - I just wanted to mention that every time I see your user name on Recent Changes or whatever, it makes me smile. I live on the other side of the continent, but I've had a couple of wonderful vacations kayaking on Clayoquot Sound. So beautiful! Best, FreplySpang 15:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Homey

F is for "evasion of community ban or block" as there is no such community ban or block there is no violation. Please do not revert without cause. 74.98.247.123 15:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Please see the conclusion at the bottom of Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive129#Ex-Homey. And look at Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Homey. Fred Bauder 17:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your report

Hi Clay, just a point about your report on Homey. You mentioned in your report one of the distinctive things that Homey does that allow him to be recognized. There are a number of idiosyncracies that mean he can be fairly easily spotted, but it's best not to post them publicly because then he'll know to avoid them in future. Of course, I realize it makes reporting these things harder that we can't say how we know it's him. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sandbox

I've been happily tooling around in a sandox for allegation of Israeli apartheid. Any thoughts? -- Kendrick7 06:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] misleading sections

Those titles are really misleading, if you think about it. What are we supposed to do with arguments from sources that express no opinion one way or another? -- Kendrick7^talk 09:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Seeking Mandela and the Le Monde article present arguments on both sides, for example. I'm not sure if either one makes clear that they advocate for the term one way or another. -- Kendrick7^talk 09:32, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Well your latest edit is just confusing -- outcome of what? Everything in this section, except the Powell quote, is saying a two-state solution is or will lead to apartheid, and a bi-national solution therefore would not. -- Kendrick7^talk 09:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

maybe "two state solution as implemented" would be better, though that's long... hmmm... Have to think about this -- Kendrick7^talk 09:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome to WikiProject Cetaceans!

--Gray Porpoise^{What have I done‽} 18:08, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Israeli Apartheid

Why did you remove dup descritions? Do we need to say the "Jewish" Irgun? I think it's duplicate in the same way. Do you disagree? Thanks.Kiyosaki 07:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Radiance

That's very pretty. Can we upload it and stick it in the quilt, or is there a copyrighty reason not to? (Radiant) 12:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Right to Vanish

People have the right to vanish. So, if you had checked the deletion log, you would have seen that the page was deleted according to the meta page related to right to vanish. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 14:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I checked the deletion log alright, but of course while it said that the page was deleted, it did not explain why a new version of the page existed with only your edits in it. I figured out eventually that after deleting it you must have created a new version of the page. And instead of leaving it blank, which would have been the standard thing to do, you added your own comments to it to complain about what (you think) a third editor has done. I doubt I'm the only one who considers it inappropriate for the talk page history of a good user to consist entirely of bitter comments that have nothing to do with him, made after he left and asked to be indef blocked. I see that Khoikoi has restored the full history of the page and it's now blank as it should be, so I consider the problem resolved. Kla'quot 20:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Spam

Hi Clayoquot, thanks for contacting me about Oxygen XML Editor. I don't use it, but I have heard of it, and quite a few of my colleagues use it. While that doesn't necessarily mean that it's notable enough, I certainly think this particular piece of software is. The article does read like an ad, so having {{advertisement}} is a Good Thing, and the main contributor, with a name like Syncrosoft, likely has a conflict of interest with writing this article. That being said, I think the subject is notable enough, so rewriting it would be a better solution than deleting it. Cheers, Deathphoenix ʕ 16:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I know db-spam is speedyable, but I don't see it as blatant advertising... speedies are supposed to be obvious and unambiguous, and I don't think this article qualifies. As someone who thinks the subject is notable enough, I think this article would benefit more from a rewrite: someone who's used it before could come and write about what's not good about it, for example. Since I've never used it before, I'm obviously not the person to do it. --Deathphoenix ʕ 13:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah... I think with the tag, Oxygen won't get too much of a benefit because we've marked it as an ad. I'd like there to be a criticism section, maybe reduce all the stuff about downloading the trial. Hmmm... I could probably do that. :-) --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of user & talk pages

Hi Stifle, regarding [9] and [10]. Would you mind restoring the pages? Bhouston signed comments all over the place, linking to these pages. They should redirect to the pages for his most recent username. The absence of these pages is causing confusion here. Thanks, Kla'quot 06:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

As the user involved has left Wikipedia I am not sure that restoring these would have any effect. Can you explain more what is going on? Stifle (talk) 15:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Sure. For example, there are pages like this: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Israeli_apartheid#Statement_by_Bhouston with statements by Ben. If you click his name, you should get to a page from which you can access a "User contributions" link. Right now if you click his name, you get to nothing. Kla'quot 17:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've restored the page. Stifle (talk) 19:19, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your input is requested

Your input would be appreciated at this Request for Comments. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A friendly suggestion

Xiner 18:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oh, and btw...

Thanks for your work maintaing Baiji! Xiner 18:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Section Deleted!!??

Upon returning to an article this morning that I occasionally check back on to update, I noticed that you deleted an entire section on the page "Christmas music". I thought this was a bit far fetched, considering HUNDREDS of people have obviously worked hard to contribute to it and you've just deleted a list of useful information and a great reference in general. Maybe you should have used the discussion page first, before making such a large decision. I will re-add the section at the moment, perhaps it should be moved to a separate page in future, but deleting it is simply not a solution. You are destroying many people's hard work, including myself, I put a lot of effort into that.

[edit] Your deletion of a list of reliable sources

Fred, could you please explain why you have deleted Talk:Rachel Marsden/Reliable Sources and protected against its recreation? I know you think it violated WP:BLP; I would like to hear how it did, considering that it consisted entirely of references to reliable sources? You deleted this in the midst of the Deletion Review of Marsden-Donnelly harassment case, for which we need a list of reliable sources. Kla'quot 17:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Material which violates Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons may be deleted by any user without limit. Fred Bauder 19:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Most of the sources consist only of allegations of the parties, nothing peer reviewed about that. Fred Bauder 19:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Then click the Edit tab, select the text, and press the Backspace key; there was no need to use your Admin tools. Uncle G asked weeks ago for contributors to collect a lot of good sources and cite them; if this was a bad idea you should have said so earlier before I did the work. And you protected a page called Talk:xxx/Reliable Sources from being recreated; I'll let that fact speak for itself. Kla'quot 20:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

If anyone's wondering what horrible thing I did, the deleted page consisted a list of all search results generated by searching for "Rachel Marsden" in the following databases: Canadian Newsstand Complete, Canadian Research Index, CBCA Business, CBCA Current Events, CBCA Reference, and the New York Times. It also included one search result from Google Schoolar and two links to postings from Antonia Zerbisias in her blog published by the Toronto Star. Titles and sourcing information, but not abstracts or article text, was shown. Kla'quot 21:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion review

You wrote: "FYI: Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_January_27#Marsden-Donnelly_harassment_case Kla'quot 23:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)"

• Thanks, but I've washed my hands of all that and don't want to get re-involved. Bucketsofg 23:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Marsden

Clayoquot, please don't post any more links to the Rachel Marsden talk page. I see you recently created a page containing nothing but a list of headlines, which I believe Fred deleted, and you've repeatedly tried to add links to the talk page, whether they're used in the article or not. It's starting to look as though you're trying to denigrate the subject. Even if you're not (and I'm not suggesting that you really are), we have to be careful that it doesn't look that way, as Sam Blanning also pointed out to you on the deletion review. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

For the record: The page I created was not "nothing but a list of headlines": It was a list of headlines, author names, publication names, page numbers, and dates: in other words, a list of sources. Kla'quot 08:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The reference used in the article makes Marsden look really bad. I added my recent comment to suggest how to make her look better. Knowing that whatever I do that has anything to do with Marsden will be interpreted in the worst possible way, I chose to suggest alternatives on the Talk page instead of just doing it. You deleted my comment with the edit summary, "(please decide for yourself which link to replace it with, and then just do it, rather than posting multiple links to talk)". I'm not going to just do it, for the same reason I didn't do it in the first place: it will be interpreted in the worst possible way. And I strongly object to you blanking my comment [11] from Talk:Rachel Marsden. You had no basis in policy to do that. Kla'quot 05:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

You could change the link yourself if you think it makes her look bad; I don't see how it could be misinterpreted if you replace it with one that doesn't. I just can't see the need to keep posting lists of articles about Marsden to various pages on Wikipedia. I've been editing for over two years, and I don't recall another talk page that keeps having links posted to it, supposedly for the use of other editors, that make the subject of the article look bad. The policy basis for my deletion is BLP. Please take seriously that you look as though you're out to get Rachel Marsden, and appearances matter in this situation as much as reality. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I have not been posting lists of articles about Marsden to various pages on Wikipedia, and BLP does not support what you did. You say that I look as though I'm out to get Rachel Marsden, and I said that everything I do in relation to her is interpreted in the worst possible way: we're saying pretty much the same thing. I'm doing what any normal person would do under these circumstances and not touching the page. The fact that you delete my comment and tell me what to do at the same time doesn't motivate me either. Kla'quot 06:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I mentioned something to Fred that I'll say to you as well: Uncle G asked weeks ago for contributors to collect a lot of good sources and cite them. If this was a bad idea you should have said so before I did the work. We get a) flack from Uncle G if we don't provide sources, b) flack from people who say that only a small group of obsessed young men are interested in the subject, and c) flack when we try to refute (a) and (b) by providing a list of newspaper headlines produced by a robot that demonstrates extensive and nationwide coverage of the subject. I can't win this game and I'm not going to play any longer. Kla'quot 07:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

You say you're "doing what any normal person would do under these circumstances and not touching the page." Fair enough. But you're continuing to post negative material about her on this website. Whether you post it to an article or to a talk page, or to a page you've created specially, it might still get picked up by Google, and could be considered harmful to her and even malicious. Bear in mind that you're the one who is legally responsible for anything you post to Wikipedia, so I'm saying this for your own sake as well as for the sake of Marsden and Wikipedia. My advice to you is that you consider taking a break from this topic, and leave the editing to people who care less about it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The thing about the list on your special page is that there were no links anyway, so the list was useless to editors who couldn't see what the articles said. But regardless, with or without links, please don't post anything else to a talk page that makes Marsden look bad. If Uncle G asks for information, you can always e-mail it to him. It's standard to use e-mail for anything you're unsure of regarding a BLP. The key is: don't post anything negative about a living person to the website that isn't completely and obviously justified. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I just got your latest comment. And I am not "continuing" to post negative information about Marsden; I haven't posted anything about Marsden since the posting that you deleted. Your suggestion about emailing Uncle G is a reasonable one, but if it's so obvious that that's how to handle things then you should have said so on the Talk page long ago. I stand behind my other contributions which include removing the {{stub}} tag from the article so it wouldn't be expanded, and asking an Arbcom clerk to courtesy-blank the Arbcom pages so Google wouldn't pick up all the garbage that was on them. No, I'm not going to take a break. The subject was never as important to me as you think it is and I'm finished with it altogether. Kla'quot 07:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thnx

Thank you for welcoming me, Kla'quot. Btw, nice pictures those on your user page; they make me feel like moving to Canada! Giuliopp 01:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for clarification of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rachel Marsden

As I've noted at the deletion review for Marsden-Donnelly harassment case, the entire editing situation surrounding articles about Rachel Marsden is intolerable. I have tremendous respect for the ArbCom and am extremely reluctant to criticize people who volunteer to do a difficult job and make controversial decisions that will be second-guessed (as I'm doing here). However, I think the decision in the above-referenced case did not clarify the situation, but only muddied the waters further. As I explained at DRV, I see future, repeated recreation and deletion of articles related to Marsden under the princples set out in the ArbCom case.

I'm writing to Sam, Kla'quot, SlimVirgin and trialsanderrors to see if we can jointly submit a request for clarification on some points in these principles. I have a working page in my userspace at User:JChap2007/Marsden_ArbCom_request_for_clarification where I've started to work on some questions. Please feel free to add some if you want or propose different wording. JChap2007 22:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for starting this exercise, and in particular for the spirit of consensus-building behind it. I completely agree that the situation is less clear than it was before the case started. I wish RfC or peer review had been used first. Kla'quot 05:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)