Talk:Jimmy Wales/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Talk archives for Jimmy Wales (current talk page)
<< 1 < Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 > 10 >>

Contents

Infobox

The infobox for me lists information that is not typically listed for other people's biographies. Generally, when we do not have information, we do not put it in the infobox. I think it looks very strange to have my salary net worth listed as "unknown". In a random sample of pages I looked at which also have this infobox, it is normally blank (so it does not show at all) unless we have an actual figure.

Additionally, a quick search on the net on the name "Christine A. Wales" reveals that the Wikipedia article itself is essentially the only place on the web where this name appears. There is no source given.

In my opinion, the entire discussion of Larry's spurious claim to be cofounder of Wikiepdia is about as horrible and biased as it has ever been, but years of complaining about this have done me very little good. Still if there could be some appreciation of the fact that Larry's claiming something loudly and for a long time does not change the facts, that would be a very good thing. --Jimbo Wales 20:32, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

  • I added a bio-dispute tag, since I see a lot of citation needed tags. I hope this helps. --Umalee 21:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

He was on Wait Wait... Don't tell me.

Jimmy Wales was just on Wait Wait... Don't Tell Me!. It should be added.

Moreover, he got his three questions, which were about information found on Wikipedia, wrong.

  • The statement that is in the article is unsourced. I'm removing it. It can go back in (hopefully a little better written) when it cites a source. A link to the archived audio of the show would be a primary source, a link to the NPR website page that lists him as a guest would probably be considered a secondary source. The part about the number of questions he got right or wrong would probably be considered original research, since it would be a synthesis of fact (conclusionary) of the primary source. Unless a reliable secondary source can be cited stating how many questions he got wrong, that part should stay out. - Crockspot 16:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC) Actually, the information was in two different places in the article, both unsourced. Removed both. - Crockspot 17:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
It is pretty trivial to verify that he did appear on the show. http://www.npr.org/templates/rundowns/rundown.php?prgId=35 As for the answers -- the number of questions right/wrong can also be easily verified by listening to the audio feed -- hardly OR. Although, how the significance of that fact gets characterized is a matter that could easily be distorted. older ≠ wiser 17:16, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time to verify the appearance. I will disagree about the OR nature of reporting the number of questions that were missed. Reporting this would require that the contributor listened to a primary source, and characerized the content of what he heard. Is not the act of listening, and then reporting on what was listened to original research? Producing a direct transcript of the audio would be probably the only way this would not be OR. (Listening and writing down accurately exactly what was said. Could even be Wikisource material.) Summarizing and characterizing the content would be synthesis, and WOULD be OR. The audio of the show is a primary source, and should only be used to further verify a secondary source, such as a newspaper article, or possibly a comment about it on NPR's website. Otherwise, it should be left to the reader to listen and draw their own conclusion. - Crockspot 17:40, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Reading the transcript to determine the number of correct/incorrect answers entails precisely the same sort of determination as listening to a recording of the show. If you consider one to be OR, the other is as well. I don't agree that reporting such uncontroversial and easily verified factual determinations as the number of right/wrong answers to be OR. Anyone who listens or reads the transcript will come to precisely the same determination--there is no ambiguity as to the number of questions answered right or wrong. Even a simple summary of the questions asked and the answers given would not be OR, IMO (if that is OR, then half of Wikipedia goes away instantly). Of course, whether it is necessary to include that level of detail is debatable though. But I agree that attaching some significance or characterization to the answers beyond their factual existence is another matter. Any sort of evaluative judgment would need to be sourced. older ≠ wiser 18:01, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
"then half of Wikipedia goes away instantly" - Hopefully, at least half. I wish I had a magic wand. OR is a cancer that is eating up WP. You make a decent argument though. I am basing my opinion on the Wikisource standards, where, copyright issues notwithstanding, direct transcripts of audio and language translations of other primary sources is allowed. (The simple act of accurately converting one format to another.) If it is significant, notable, or ironic enough of an incident that it deserves inclusion in the article, one would think that a reliable secondary source would make note of it over the next few days. If Wired News doesn't even make a peep about it, then the notability of the questions missed would be limited to a crufty audience, ie., Wikipedia editors who like to take shots at Mr. Wales. - Crockspot 19:07, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
further comment - As someone who has not heard the broadcast, I found the statements to be somewhat stick-jabbing. If I am going to read that he missed the questions, I would also like to know what those questions were, and what he answered. Were they "trick questions"?. Were they questions about minute trivia facts about the Great Prince Edward Island Potato Revolt of 1916? (I just made that up, btw.) - Crockspot 19:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't recall the details, but the questions were about pretty obscure trivia, supposedly found using the Random article function. older ≠ wiser 19:58, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
That right there tells me that it is not noteworthy that he missed three questions. I use the random article link all the time to find uncategorized BLP articles. About three fourths of the hits are things or people I have never heard of, nor would ever hear of, except that someone somewhere on Earth found it necessary to creat an article about it. Crockspot 20:04, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Not that I can include this in the article, of course, but I just finished listening to the podcast edition of "Wait Wait" a minute ago that featured Jim Wales. For the curious, he did indeed miss all three questions, which the host claimed ((possibly in jest) involved trivia culled using the Random Article button on Wikipedia. The actual questions of the segment called "It must be true, I read it on Wikipedia" were -
1) "The early 1970's TV kids show The Banana Splits was a cult hit that inspired many artists over the years. It inspired which of these artists? A) George Lucas, who says that the aliens in his famous Star Wars cantina scene were based on the lovable characters Fleegle, Bingo, Drooper, and Snorky?; or B) Reggae legend Bob Marley who used a version of the theme song in one of his most famous reggae ballads; or C) Avant garde film maker Matthew Barney who says his obsession with modifying the human body began when he used to daydream about ripping off Fleegle's costume"
2) "Constance of Sicily, wife of the Holy Roman Emporer Henry IV, had a problem. She was 40 years old when she finally became pregnant and she knew that people wouldn't believe that the child, the heir to the throne, was actually hers. So what did she do? A) Arrange for her dress to "accidentally" fall off in the middle of a procession so everybody could see just how pregnant she was; B) Have a spot tattooed on birth her back and the baby's back and then claim it was a shared birthmark; or C) Give birth to her child in the middle of the town square?"
3) "Who, or what, or where is a "ah-sarah-too-wallow" (ed: pronunciation spelled out here)? A) a tiny island near Samoa which was once in the 1880's history's smallest independent nation; B) the third NFL player to openly declare himself to be gay; C)an assistant demon in the Japanese video game Tales of Symphonia?"


(Answers: 1-B (in the song Buffalo Soldier); 2-C; 3-B (Esera Tuaolo) )
Very funny segment. Kudos to Jim for giving it his best. Dugwiki 00:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Guardian article

[1] Worth listing in further reading? Hammer Raccoon 21:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

YouTube

There's this interview with Jimbo on YouTube. "Jimmy Wales from Wikipedia". --71.224.24.99 00:07, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Is that the chick from Real World Seattle interviewing him? The sound isn't so hot (I could barely understand what Jimbo was saying, Irene comes through VERY CLEAR), and it looks like the cameraman passed out for about ten seconds, but it actually looks like it might be one of the few You Tube links that is acceptable, since it was posted by the producers. No apparent copyvio. In the interview, Jimbo says that one of the most important rules of WP is don't be a dick. :) - Crockspot 01:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi again

Have a question. Jimbo's talk page is protected, why is that? -71.224.24.99 00:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

  • This would be a topic more appropriately taken up on.. um.. Jimbo's talk page. :) It's semi-protected from unregistered and brand-new users. Not uncommon for pages that get a lot of vandalism. If you register a username and use it for a day or two, you can probably edit that page. Crockspot 01:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


Hackers

i fear that someone is trying to hack onto my wikipedia accound since he knows my password. But when i created my account i opted for no email adress so i cant get a password is there another way? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Stone not Wood house (talk • contribs) 12:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC).

This is not the place to ask. Try the Pump. oTHErONE (Contribs) 22:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Pashto language Wikitionary

Hallo Sir!

I want to change the interface of Pashto Wikitionary. i can not do that unless i am not the admin of Pashto wikitionary. I am responsible for the translation of ps.wikipedia.org, now i want to change the interface of the other Pashto wikisister projects. So if you could grant me with adminship permit on that wiki i would be thankful to u for that.

kind regards

[Najib Biabaniاحمد-نجيب-بياباني-ابراهيمخېل]

The facts according to Wikipedia press releases and page histories

I'd like to point out, for the benefit of those working on this article and related articles, that according to Wikipedia's own first three press releases, until 2004--including two press releases that I didn't have anything at all to do with--I was billed as a founder of Wikipedia. See:

Also, until 2004 or 2005, all of the articles about me, Wikipedia, History of Wikipedia, and even Jimmy gave me billing as co-founder of Wikipedia. Just thought it might be useful to point this out for those who weren't aware of it. --Larry Sanger 20:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I am grateful to Larry for all he did getting things working and writing down the policies and all; however, this is not as clear as supposed the January 2002 press release reads since Larry wrote it. Furthermore, like most press releases, the later ones copied much language from the first one until Jimbo choose to make his feelings about the matter publicly known. My personal view is that Larry was an integral part of the establishment of Wikipedia. He documented and clarifying many of (as Jimbo calls them) "our cherished principles" which are neutral, verifiable content created by people who show love and respect for one another and who share the joint goal and vision of creating an encyclopedia. He established patterns for applying these principles in real life situations. See:
  • Wikipedia policy as of 5 November 2001
  • Be bold in updating pages as of 16 November 2001
  • Most common Wikipedia faux pas as of 1 November 2001
  • Wikipedia as of 6 November 2001
  • Naming conventions as of 6 November 2001
  • Now I am sure that Larry would clarify that many contributed to the formulation of these policies, but the fact remains that it was Larry who was there every day to make sure the project kept moving and to whom we owe a debt of gratitude as Wikipedians. If you read through the above, I think you'll be surprised at how similar the basic principles were over 5 years ago. (Please note that the first edit from the history available at the above links is not the first edit to the page as the history prior to late Oct/early November 2001 was not recoverable or transferable to the new mediawiki software installed at that time.)
As to the Founder debate: It seems Jimbo wants Founder to be defined in the sense of an Entrepreneur where the founder is the one who organizes, manages, and takes on the risks of the enterprise. Whereas Larry thinks of the term founder in the sense of "One who establishes something or formulates the basis for something." The main difference being that Jimbo hired Larry to create an online encyclopedia and together they worked with technical employees from Bomis to have the tools they needed. Then there was a joint "ah-hah" time period where the group came to the decision to use wiki technology and let anyone contribute such that it is difficult to tell who contributed exactly what thoughts - like in most verbal collaborations.
To emphasize the co-founder nature here - rather than just saying "a founder" or "founder" is to emphasize the dispute. Additionally, in my view it diminishes the credit to the person who took the risks of the enterprise by elevating an employee of his to equal status in the visionary idea to create an encyclopedia for all human knowledge. Personally, I wish Larry would have accepted a formal title like Editor in chief - so that it would be say something like, "Jimmy Wales founded Wikipedia as a continuation of his vision to create an online comprehensive freely available encyclopedia. Larry Sanger was hired as its first and only Editor-in-chief to give direction to the vision and do much of the heavy lifting and coordination needed by the project in its infancy. Larry remained editor-in-chief until the project no longer needed someone to function in that position." But it's too late for that.
I am removing the co-founder language, because I do not think that we should emphasize the dispute. --Trödel 23:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Picture

Can someone please remove the penis at the bottom of the page? i cant seem to find it in the code to remove myself --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 02:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Move

This page should be moved to Jimbo Wales per WP:NAME. Let's face it. Hardly anyone ever calls him Jimmy. And besides, his user name is User:Jimbo Wales. I'd move it, but it's protected. --AAA! (AAAA • AAAAAAAA) 12:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

please set up the proper header (see WP:RM). Patstuarttalk|edits 14:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


Also, please set up the proper survey section for the move (all see WP:RM). --Serge 18:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
It takes less than a minute to do. Better to light a candle than curse the darkness. Dragons flight 04:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no move Patstuarttalk|edits 22:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

Jimmy Wales → Jimbo Wales — This page should be moved to Jimbo Wales per WP:NAME. Let's face it. Hardly anyone ever calls him Jimmy. And besides, his user name is User:Jimbo Wales. I'd move it, but it's protected; so we'll have to do it the old fashioned way. --AAA! (AAAA • AAAAAAAA) 12:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

Survey - Support

  1. Weak Support per nom Patstuarttalk|edits 12:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Survey - Oppose

  1. Oppose - if Jimbo wanted there, it'd be there. -- Beardo 04:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. In mainstream press, his name is most often presented as "Jimmy". "Jimbo" is more of an insider's nickname. Google web results are unreliable mostly because you can't easily filter out the numerous clones. Google News is revealing, 194 results fo "Jimmy Wales", 1 result for "Jimbo Wales". older ≠ wiser 13:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  3. weak oppose - should use name used in press (and fyi google gives "Jimmy Wales" a 56% to 44% edge (when trying to exclude wikipedia mirrors) --Trödel 17:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC) (BTW - weak only because I don't really care that much where it is at as long as a redirect went to the other - but it is obvious to me that Jimmy is the name used more often in the news etc. )
  4. oppose per Bkonrad and Trödel. It is irrelevant what we call him within the Wikipedia community. The more common name used in the real world is what should be used for the title. - Crockspot 17:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  5. Oppose. The press call him Jimmy. --Sam Blanning(talk) 19:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  6. Oppose. Just scan down the list of references for the article. It does not appear that "Jimbo" is used much in print outside of Wikipedia. -- Satori Son 19:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  7. Oppose. Wales is called "Jimbo" informally, but his name is "Jimmy" and the press calls him that. Titoxd(?!?) 20:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  8. Oppose, as his Facebook and Wikia email address (he doesn't use a Wikimedia one ever, to my knowledge) are both as "Jimmy". -- Zanimum 15:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  9. Oppose Moved vote from Support per points made above. --Serge 18:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Wouldn't Jimmy also be a nickname? Shouldn't it be James Wales then?? --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 01:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Asked and answered many times previously. E.g., [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], and you get the picture. older ≠ wiser 02:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
We should just close this thread, as it's clearly it won't be renamed. -Patstuarttalk|edits 21:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

"the founder"

Beginning the article "Jimmy Donal Wales ... is the founder" of Wikipedia implies that he is the sole founder of Wikipedia. Since this is a much-disputed subject, we have to avoid taking sides, and so we cannot use "the founder" without qualification.—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 20:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Oy gevalt. Not this again. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 04:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Hrm, after looking at Larry Sanger's helpful section above: "The facts according to Wikipedia press releases and page histories", if Wikipedia had at one point itself acknowledged Sanger as a Founder as well - perhaps the intro paragraph to Wales should read "co-founder". Smeelgova 09:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC).
That just leads to edit wars, clarifications and mess. Better to just say "founder" and leave the discussion of Sanger's involvement to the later part of the article. This debate isn't the most important factor. -- Beardo 10:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I dunno, Sanger seems to make a really good case above, and using Wikipedia's own history no less. Smeelgova 11:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC).
I am not trying to argue the case one way or the other. Just saying that debate does not belong in the intro paragraph here. -- Beardo 11:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Really, "Jimmy Wales is founder of Wikipedia" is not much better than "Jimmy Wales is the founder of Wikipedia". Beside being mildly dysgrammatical, it still implies that there is one founder. I don't know if it is a good idea for us to discuss the controversy in the intro, but, if not, it appears that the balance of citations so far point to Wales being the co-founder. Accordingly, I'm going to change the text to that effect.—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 22:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
See my explantion of restoring "founder" above --Trödel 23:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
"Founder" strongly implies he is the only founder, whether or not that is the intention. Perhaps we can say "a founder" as a compromise? Though admittedly that suggests he is not the only founder, it is certainly not inaccurate, and doesn't emphasize the debate. Owen 23:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I was about to suggest the same thing.—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 00:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
"A founder" is acceptable, but why not summarize the whole matter in one sentence (see my last edit which Beardo reverted)? Bramlet Abercrombie 00:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
The last version by User:Bramlet Abercrombie seemed reasonable. Smeelgova 00:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC).
I disagree with Bramlet Abercrombie's version: I don't think this controversy should be summarized in the intro paragraph. But I do agree with the "a founder" suggested compromise. -- Satori Son 01:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Exactly - rather than ask why not ? Ask why ? The controversy is really not thta important and does not deserve to be in the opening paragraph - especially not in a manner that causes a casual reader to stop and have to puzzle out what is being said. -- Beardo 04:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I think "a founder" does not imply co-founder or only founder - so it could be a solution that would satisfy most. --Trödel 04:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Good. It's always a relief to see such a simple compromise working for people. Much better than having to add a clarifying blurb or leaving the article taking a definitive position. Owen 08:25, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I see the "the founder" vs. "a founder" vs. "a co-founder" issue is flaring up again. It appears to me that there is a consensus for the compromise language "a founder", but I don't want to keep reverting it without double checking here. Am I correct? -- Satori Son 18:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, co-founder works best here IMO, but "a founder" will work as long as it says "along with Larry Sanger". Just H 23:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for the confusion: I'm not debating whether the Sanger controversy should be addressed at all or not (currently, it is covered fairly extensively in the "Wikipedia" section of the article). I'm just trying to confirm what the consensus is for the wording in the very first intro paragraph. -- Satori Son 15:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
My personal opinion is "co-founder". Just H 20:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I like the "a founder" language. It has, in addition to almost total neutrality, a tasty ambiguity to it that characterizes the entire project's multiplicity of authorship. The use of the indefinite article "a" underscores the fact that Wikipedia is a collaboration, while offering a respectful recognition for Wales' important role in its inception.--Crestodina 01:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
"tasty ambiguity"? Ambiguity is bad in any case, "tasty" or not. Just H 01:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia has a strict policy of "not biting the newbies". I like "a", and I'm particularly fond of "tasty ambiguity". NinaOdell | Talk 01:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
You're right, Nina. That wasn't right of me in regards to that edit summary, but I still stand with removing the "a" and any ambiguity. I only like "tasty" things that I can eat. :-) Just H 12:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Links of interest

To the best of my knowledge, I was first described as co-founder of Wikipedia back in September 2001 by The New York Times. That was also my description in Wikipedia's own press releases from 2002 until 2004. With my increasing distance from the project, and as it grew in the public eye, however, some of those associated with the project have found it convenient to downplay and even deny my crucial, formative involvement. In fact, in the early years of the project, my role was not in dispute at all.

The following links have come to light, and they should dispel much of the confusion:

http://www.larrysanger.org/roleinwp.html

--Larry Sanger 22:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

While you were certainly influential in the early project, the first of these press releases was essentially all written by you. Mav copied the sentence in question, which you wrote, directly to the second press release, perhaps not bothering to question the information found in the original release. Note that you also wrote the original article on "Wikipedia", on 6 November 2001, citing yourself as co-founder. -- Zanimum 21:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
This is a very weak reply. There's plenty of other evidence on the Web page linked above, first of all; second of all, all three of those press releases, no matter who wrote them, reflected the very public stance of Wikipedia as an organization. That's what press releases do: they explain the sense of an organization. --Larry Sanger 02:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. What's given as press releases can be taken as the official opinion of the organization; it's unlikely that Jimbo wasn't reading them. If designating you as a co-founder is truly "preposterous", you think he might have intervened much earlier. Owen 22:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikimedia Foundation sources of support

"By the end of its February 2005 fund drive, the Wikimedia Foundation was supported entirely by grants and donations.[citation needed]" <-- Can we cite the external audit by Gregory, Sharer & Stuart, P.A.? --JWSchmidt 05:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Considering the Foundation released the document into the public, as per what I believe is necessary as a US charity, I'd say yes. -- Zanimum 21:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Question RS

In one of the references, there is "Wikipedia diff showing modification by Mr. Wales". Are Wikipedia diffs counted as reliable sources? Anomo 13:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Annonymous edits to Wikipedia

I just need to make a comment: Why the policy of allowing annonymous users to edit Wikipedia? registering as a user is quick and simple, and you stay just as annonymous as before. But 99% of the time vandalism is done by unregistered users. I probably revert at least 5 vandalisms to wiki every day; multiply by all the editors, and the amount of time fixing vandalism is staggering. I don't see a benefit to allowing unregistered users to edit. But there is tremendous downside. The policy should be changed in my oppinion. Dullfig 07:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

This isn't the place for that discussion. -- Beardo 11:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Just telling me that this is not the place to discuss this, without telling me where you would suggest i go, is not very helpful at all. Where you expecting me to guess? Wher should i take my comments? Dullfig 19:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Heh, heh; this isn't the right place to ask where to take your comments, either! Just kidding. You might try Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Cheers, Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 21:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! Dullfig

Nonetheless, MOST edits by anonymous editors are valid contributions. Michael Hardy 01:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

This is apparently the appropriate place for such discussion as long as it involves endorsing policies Wales has declared to be sacrosanct. The real reason registration is not required is because most competent attorneys will tell you registration to a Web site is best coupled with terms of service. If people were required to agree to terms of service before registering, that would spoil the fun of inviting anybody in the world to edit then chasing half of them away. Mergerlomanica 04:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)