User talk:EPO/Archive4

Archive: July 23rd, 2006 - January 8th, 2007 Archive: March 12th, 2007 - April 24th, 2007 Archive: December 7th, 2007 - September 16th, 2008

Archive: January 8th, 2007 - January 26th, 2007 Archive: April 29th, 2007 - July 12th, 2007

Archive: January 26th, 2007 - February 12th, 2007 Archive: July 16th, 2007 - November 6th, 2007

Public Domain

On this page [1] (in german) I read, that in the USA every picture who was published before 1964 is in the public domain. Is it right and I'm allowed to upload photos I found here to Commons? (When they weren't published in 1964 or later)--Ticketautomat 16:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Not every image before 1964 is public domain. Only images where the copyright never was renewed. For that specific page I am not sure. But probably not. You should ask on Commons:Help desk for further help. --|EPO| 16:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for helping so much--Ticketautomat 18:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Why was File:CentrifCompressorCross-sect.png deleted?

EPO: I have just learned that you deleted or removed the File:CentrifCompressorCross-sect.png about a week ago for some reason.

That drawing came from a page on the website of the Sundyne Company, whom I presume were the originators of the drawing and therefore the copyright holders. I exchanged a series of emails with them asking for them to grant Wikipedia a GFDL license to use the drawing.

On January 29th, 2007, Mr. Tom Maceyka (the Business Manager of the Sundyne Company) sent me an email granting the GFDL license I had requested. On that same day, I uploaded the image and I also sent an email to Permissions@wikimedia.org to which I attached my exchange of emails with Mr. Tom Maceyka of Sundyne (including the one in which he granted the GFDL license). On February 15th, I received an email from Permissions@wikimedia.org thanking me for the information that I had sent them.

In view of the above information, I don't understand why you deleted the subject image. Would you please explain why? And also how can I get it re-instated as a valid image?

If you will give me your email address, I will send you all of the above emails with the Sundyne Company and also the emails with Permissions@wikimedia.org.

Please let me hear from you as soon as possible. My email address is mbeychok@cox.net and my user name is Mbeychok both here on Commons and on the English Wikipedia. - Mbeychok 17:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Image deleting.

I am the User:Fede T from Spanish Wikipedia and I am asking you for the recent suppression of the Image:Escudo de Concepcion del Uruguay.PNG. That image was uploaded by myself and it was provided by the Municipalidad of Concepción del Uruguay in Argentina. This one corresponds to the category of Symbols of Public Authority, nevertheless I am noy very acquainted with the uploading methods for images in Commons and it is possible that I have omitted information of the same one. Could you help me? (I am sorry by the grammatical mistakes, my english can present faults. Please post your answer in my Spanish Wikipedia User Page, thanks)

Laurence Parisot images

Can you recover them... I have forgotten the OTRS permission number : 2007031410011711 Kelson 13:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The images have now been restored and I have added the OTRS ticket number to the pages. Please make sure you remember to add the OTRS permission as this is your evidence that you are not violating copyrights. --|EPO| 13:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:Bidofono2.jpg

Hi, the file Bidofono2.jpg was taken by the site jabberwocky.it. I had a conversation with gianluigi Gamba of permissions. He sent me a authorization number, 2007020510011195. The bidofono2.jpg entry is identical to bidofono1.jpg which was not cancelled, they were made at the same time, taken from the same site and had the same authorization. Should I made a new entry? Orkolorko 14:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC) from the italian wikipedia

Image:Bidofono2.jpg was deleted because there was no license template. I have talked to some Italian speaking OTRS volounteers who confirmed that the permission is fine for both images.

I have restored Bidofono2.jpg now. Please add a license tag and the proper OTRS templates found at Commons:OTRS. --|EPO| 15:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

thank you Orkolorko 10:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:Ac papyrus.png

Hi. Why did you have deleted this picture, which is copy (with transparency) of the free picture Image:Ac papyrus.jpg ? Kelson 09:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the image because it was tagged as a copyright violation by User:Gildemax. If you want to know the reason why it was a copyright violation please talk to him. --|EPO| 09:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

This picture was not tagged copyvio (since the 19 febuary), why did you delete it the 13 mars ? Kelson 10:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Gildemax marked it as a copyright violation February 18th. Next day you reverted this edit without telling why. If you don't have a very good reason for this the edit it is considered vandlism. If you disagree read what the template reads: "If you disagree with its speedy deletion, please explain why on the image page, or its talk page."

Just reverting the template without any discussion or stating a reason is not allowed. --|EPO| 10:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:Kura.JPG

You are so fast ;-) I was just editing description page. For suture, please give the user (at least myself) three minutes for description of details. I hope you don't mind I reverted your notice. Pilecka 13:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I just saw a user uploading an image stating PD without any proof of permission. This should be done at time of upload and not afterwards. But as you seem to be an experienced user (wish there were more of such) I trust you are doing the right thing and I will not bother you anymore :) --|EPO| 13:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:Ocha05e.jpg

Hi,I founded and discoveried that sorcefile. And added that image sorce file link. Please confirm it. Thank you.--擬古猫(GIKONEKO) 06:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi

Hi Epo, I've put a source webpage where some of the pics are. How do I go about doing the rest of the things you suggested? I've looked at the image page and don't know where to do some of the things. Thanks

Forgot signature/ Image:Testigoscover.jpg

These images are on Flickr Jodiolocosucio and / or Flickr Estudio828 --Suji 17:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

This image very much looks like an album cover for which the Flickr user does not own the rights for. It is therefore a copyright violation on Flickr as well.

Please note that not all material on Flickr licensed under a free license in deed is free. Many users upload copyrighted album covers, movie posters or images they find on various sites on the internet and uploads them claiming they are free. --|EPO| 20:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Rouffiac17

Hello,

would you mind unblocking this user ? I am not contesting the validity of your actions but he posted a message on the French wikipedia which makes me think that he didn't understand quite well how commons is working. I will be trying to help him adding informations and licenses to his upload. Best. Poppy 21:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC) (If it can help you trust me, I am sysop in the French wikipedia).

He is no longer blocked. I trust you have educated him well. --|EPO| 21:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll try to keep an eye on him until the end of the week. Poppy 22:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Ted Kulongoski

Hi, you tagged the Ted Kulongoski photo with "this is not own work". I didn't originally load, it just took it from commons to Swedish wikipedia. As User:Jgilhousen attests toward the end of the discussion page of image:Ted kulongoski.jpg the licence for the picture is GFDL. Wouldn't it be better to tag the picture with GFDL than to delete it? After all, as the discussion at the picture page proves, an enormous amount of work by different users has been squandered to prove that the picture is ok, and distributable worldwide by permission of Kulongoski's office (it says already who gave the permission). Prematureburial 11:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The image still needs to has its permission confirmed via an OTRS ticket number. Until this ticket number has been identified there is no evidence of permission. I have replied on the talk page at English Wikipedia and awaits a response.

Without evidence of permission the image should be deleted from Commons. --|EPO| 13:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

How can you get a response if User:Jgilhousen, the person who went through all this trouble to get that picture online, no longer is available at wikipedia or commons? His user page says he has gone for a break and is not sure to come back. How can anybody now do anything about it? Anyway, thanks for taking up the issue at English wikipedia. If the picture should be deleted from commons, it should also be deleted from English wikipedia for exactly the same reasons (permission not having been proven). How do you think Kulongoski's office will respond if someone contacts them yet again to be able to use the same image they already once have given permission to use? I at least couldn't contact them as I'd never know how to prove that I'd really have received the affirmative answer (and they'd probably never answer a European like myself as I'm not a voter from Oregon like User:Jgilhousen). Prematureburial 14:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

My hope is that perhaps the person who had the case in OTRS would respond. I have tried to search OTRS - but I just can't find the ticket. So someone must give some inputs.

I am sorry too. But this is one of the bad effects we get from the strict copyright policies. --|EPO| 15:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:AustralianLightHorseBrigade.jpg

Just wondering...why are you deleting images like this, which was tagged as public domain, as being tagged with no license? --Connel MacKenzie 19:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Recording to image description the photo was taken in a Palestinian desert. Recording to the license template it was created in Australia. Therefore User:Wikipeder nominated it for deletion March 12th. As there was no clarification I deleted it today.

Also mind that the image was lacking a source. --|EPO| 19:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

If you think you are right, you should delete the rest of Frank Hurley's photos too. Gsl 00:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Billede:Poulblak.jpg

Hei EPO.

Linken til tillatelsen går til en side som ikke finnes. Imidlertid gjelder Ticket#: 2007031910014137 samme bilde, men her sier Blak at lisensen er Creative Commons - Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 Denmark. Hva er riktig her? Hvorfor merket du bildet med {{GFDL}} når det er CC-BY-SA Blak brukte? Hilsen Kjetil r 21:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Jeg har ingen problemer med OTRS-linket, så det kan jeg ikke forstå. Billedet blev oprindeligt lagt op som GFDL, men dette blev der sat spørgsmålstegn ved og brugeren blev bedt om at skaffe tilladelse til OTRS. Det er den tilladelse siden henviser til. Poul Blak gav så tilladelse til GPL. Jeg svarede ham og gjorde opmærksom på, at GPL er til software - og ikke til billeder. I stedet anbefalede jeg ham cc-by-sa. Da jeg ikke modtog nogen opdatering på den ticket markerede jeg billedet som GPL med link til OTRS.

Det er først nu jeg ser, at der er en anden mail. Det må skyldes, at han ikke skrev det oprindelige Ticket# i emne-feltet på sin mail.

Så hvad med at flette de to tilladelser sammen under det første nummer og så bruge CC? --|EPO| 09:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Fletting og bruk av CC høres bra ut. Flytter du bildet til Commons samtidig? Kjetil r 09:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Det skal jeg nok sørge for. --|EPO| 10:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Copyright

please look at this : [2] , sorry but i dont speake enghlish, This foto is my : [3] and parisinos Copyright --tony esopi 11:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I have corrected the informations now. Thank you for the notice. --|EPO| 11:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I was just informed from User:Tonyesopi on my talk page in the greek WP that most of the images User:Parisinos has uploaded are in fact copyrighted and to be found in relevant sports books and magazines. Either he has no idea what copyright is or he chooses to ignore it. I saw that you already tagged at least the two most recent of them. As I was told, most of them he gets them from this website and it is highly doubtful that they have a licence themselves either. Just a word of notice!--Archidamus 15:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

On March 29th I tagged all of his uploads as lacking source. So unless he can prove these are released under free licenses they will be deleted. Though thank you for the warning. I will keep an eye on him. --|EPO| 10:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:Flag_of_Prague.svg

Hi, I noticed you deleted Image:Flag_of_Prague.svg because it lacked permission. It's a hundred or more years old flag, and even if it weren't, all works of the Czech government fall under the public domain. An .svg version of the flag would be an insufficient change to claim copyright. So I'm asking you to please un-delete it. Cheers, +Hexagon1 ^(t) 11:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

It was marked as "not in conformity with the law" by User:Boris Wolfgang Dobak. I will contact a Polish speaking administrator and ask him to assist. --|EPO| 11:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I dont speak that language (Czech), but clearly that user though that municipal law of Prague city requires prermission for using the flag. Maybe he's right, but's that has nothing to do with copyright. A.J. 11:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

See also: User talk:Boris Wolfgang Dobak. A.J. 12:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

D'oh.. Czech - not Polish. Damn.. I must have been pretty tired this morning.. Thinking Prague is in Poland.. At least it seems like the problem was handled well anyway :). --|EPO| 17:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Lack of experience

Hi. I have taken most of the images I uploaded from the www.axaioi3.gr website, in which I am a regular member, and they almost all concern Panachaiki. Of course being new in wikipedia I could not be aware of the strict policy concerning images so I ended up uploading some in a few other articles. There is no need of presuming I am deliberately using other people's work. It was a purely practical matter, as I was trying to upload them somehow. Wikipedia is a non profit, educational project after all. I'm sure you've been new on the field yourself some day in the past. Anyway, feel free to delete any illegaly uploaded images, although I think I pretty much took care of it myself. Sincerely, --Parisinos 02:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

You should just read the rules more carefully. For many of the images you have stated yourself as the author releasing the image into the public domain. Even if one has not read the rules it should be common sense not to state own work for the works of others.

I am now deleting all your uploads as they are violating Commons policy and international laws on copyright. --|EPO| 09:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I did obviously not get any kind of reward for releasing these images into the public domain. I was trying to help the wikiproject and my purpose was strictly educational. As for mentionning common sense, I do believe that lawsuits are not about an educational project. Do whathever you have to do with the images. No hard feelings. --Parisinos 19:59, April 4, 2007 (UTC)

Manuel María Fernández Teixeiro

Hello EPO,

Can you explain to me why the image from this article was removed. The widow of Manuel Maria, Saleta Goi, handed the picture over to me to upload it to the Commons, and gave explicit permission to place this picture in the public domain. I also indicated this in an email to the Commons. Please explain what is the trouble,

--Hardebits 12:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I would very much help you. But I need the filename of the image before I can help you with anything. --|EPO| 16:27, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

The filename is: Image:Manuel_Maria.jpg

--Hardebits 12:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Three hours after your upload it was marked as missing documentation for permission by User:Dantadd. It was deleted on April 5th by me as documentation had not been provided.

By saying you have sent e-mail to Commons do you mean OTRS? If so I will need what e-mail address you sent the e-mail from in order to search for the e-mail. --|EPO| 13:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

My email is mcrolla[removethis]@telefonica.net —the preceding unsigned comment is by Hardebits (talk • contribs)

Found the mail: Your Ticket# is 2007032510012707. Seems like Michelle Kinney who handled your case forgot to put an OTRS template on the image.

But I would like you to forward the permission you received from Saleta Goi including your request for this. This is for documentation reasons. Because in your mail you have stated you received the permission - but nobody can see this permission. In order to prove the permission if there should be a copyright question in the future we need both mails.

I am sorry you was not informed of this before. --|EPO| 11:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Saleta Goi is a retired lady, she does not use email. I will go and see her but that will take some time. Afterwards I will mail to where, with the ticketnumber? —the preceding unsigned comment is by Hardebits (talk • contribs)

Mail OTRS with your permission. --|EPO| 11:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Tagging images as no source

Hi.Why have you tagged the image Image:The Rape of the Sabine Women.jpg as no source? It says on the image page that it is a painting by Nicolas Poussin (1634-1635). Since the digital image is a faithful reproduction of a two-dimensional work of art and therefore doesn't qualify for copyright on it's own that should be all the source info that's needed. /Lokal_Profil 12:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

A digital image of a painting does very much qualify for copyright. But as the digital version only shows a 2D version of nothing but the painting it self it is considered a direct copy of the original work. As a direct copy it follows the original work's copyright status. With PD-art you state that the original painter has been dead for more than 70 years, which means the copyright has expired.

As well as with any other non-"own work" license you must provide a source, which states the author's name and the copyright status of the image. Using a PD-art or PD-old license you must provide documentation that author has been dead for more than 70 years - e.g. link to page saying "AAA painted BBB and lived CCCC-DDDD". --|EPO| 16:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

And a link within commons to the painters gallery page or teh creator tag doesn't qualify?/Lokal_Profil 22:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Unless the Commons gallery lists all his works this does not tell that he painted that exact work. What I want you to find is an external source stating, who painted the painting in question and that e.g. due to authors year of death PD-art qualifies. --|EPO| 14:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Does this qualify for all paintings, would you require it for the Mona Lisa or only for paintings which you don't know are made by a specific painter. Would the wikipedia article of the painter be enough or must it be properly external. If it's external how official must it be... etc.

If you're going to tag paintings by these criteria I'd recommend another tag then the speedy no source-one. In this case there is a source (which by the majority(?) is considered enough) but you are contesting it. I'd recommend taking the discussion more public so that if necessary these list could be compiled. /Lokal_Profil 20:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Well.. Some could argue that a source have been provided as the artist has been named. But then I could just tag it with {{subst:npd}} as there is no evidence that this person in fact is the author and have been dead for so long.

On the other hand others could argue that no source has been given as there is no information about where the image is from. After all we are not all experts. Some of us does not recognise each painting. Therefore a source with information about work and author must be provided.

If you still disagree feel free to mention it on the Village Pump. --|EPO| 17:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Written Permissions sent to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org

Hi,

I have written permissions for most of the tagged photos uploaded by me. Could you please remove the tags for the following photos whose permissions I have already sent to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. (my emails are s2shafie@ryerson.ca and sia_va_akbar@yahoo.com)

Image:Yazd_Iran.jpg Image:Minarets_Qom.jpg Image:Naghsh-e_Jahan_Square_Isfahan.JPG Image:Sheikh_Lotfallah_Esfahan.JPG Image:Khaju Bridge Esfahan.jpg Image:Khaju Bridge Iran.jpg Image:Sio Se Pol.jpg Image:Naghshi_Jahan_Isfahan.jpg Image:Sareban_Minaret_Isfahan.jpg Image:Shah_m.jpg Image:Persepolis_Carvings.jpg Image:Friday_Mosque_Yazd.jpg Image:Ferdowsi_Statue.jpg

If you need me to re-send any of premissions please feel free to contact me. By the way is there any non-commercial license that is compatible with commons?. thanks - Marmoulak 19:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I will strike the links above once the permission have been stored in OTRS. I have replied some of your new mails, but will leave the rest for others. Just so that your cases will not be handled by solely me. In a bad world some could accuse me for not looking with a fresh mind at each of the cases. --|EPO| 14:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Alright no problem. Thank you for your help - Marmoulak 19:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Bernoud

Could you kindly explain me which is the problem? The author is clearly stated. Category:Alphonse Bernoud --G.dallorto 10:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I suppose the author of the photographed book is Alphonse Bernoud who died in 1889. But did you take this photograph yourself or have you found it somewhere? --|EPO| 11:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:Husayni.jpg

Hi,
Husseini died in 1948, ie 59 years ago. Either in Israël or Jordania, copyrights for pictures are limited to 50 years after the time the picture was taken. After they fall in the public domain.
I tried to write it more clearly on the picture page. Ceedjee 16:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

That may very well be, but it is not documented anywhere that this image was created in any of these places. Therefore details about author and creation is needed.

There must be a link to a trustworthy page somewhere confirming these informations before it will be accepted. --|EPO| 16:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I would advice you to change the way you talk : "before it will be accepted".

I cannot find the author but I will look for sources that indicate where Husseini spent his whole life.

In all arab states where he lived laws concerning copyrights are the same of even less strict (25 years).

Best Regards,

Ceedjee 18:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

For your information : [4]. Ceedjee 18:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

For your information : [5]. Ceedjee 18:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Information missing is: That this photograph is under the copyright laws of Israel and the British Mandate of Palestine. Currently only the image page is stating this - but an image must be provided with a source allowing others to verify its license.

As this image has no such source it is tagged as such.

The template I put on your talk page and the template I put on the image page also says this.

Don't worry for that. Just worry to source all the pictures you introduced in wikipedia. Unless you can send an official document from authorities stating all the pictures you claimed to have taken are indeed your intellecual property, they will be subject to deletion. In a few time when some administrator that has nothing else to do will request your a "proof" of what is clearly obvious, you will remind this. Ceedjee 07:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:Gotlands_läns_vapen.png

And one more. I already complained to User:MECU about deleting Län vapens without caring whether they are used. There was no need for speedy reaction, so you should change all instances of the image before deleting it. It is used on 22 pages in other projects and these articles are broken now. The image was marked superseded, so why did you delete without replacing? Please correct that. --::Slomox:: >< 17:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Lokal Profil marked the image on April 9th as missing source information. With this edit it was also marked superseded to direct to an alternative (Image:Escut de Gotland.png).

Today I deleted the image as it had been marked as being without source for at least 7 days. I did therefore not violate any rules - on the contrary it may be speedy deleted after 7 days. That is why I did not replace.

Also the CommonsTicker bot should have noticed you and others that the image was missing a source and could be deleted. --|EPO| 18:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with deleting, but not with damaging articles without urgent need. If somebody uploads a copyright violation, there is urgent need to delete. But this was only a "no source" image, which is not the same as copyright violation. And it was on Commons for nearly two years now, so there is absolutely no urgent need.

CommonsTicker is a nice tool, but most projects don't have CT activated or don't care about it. the images get lost without notice. --::Slomox:: >< 18:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I have now replaced the image on all used wiki except Bulgarian. Here I could not figure out the page or template it was used. --|EPO| 19:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. --::Slomox:: >< 12:37, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

copyrights violation

Could you prove me you are the author of this picture : Image:Livgardens kaserne.jpg. Nothing proves me you are Danish.
... Ceedjee 18:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I cannot prove it. But I can tell you the circumstances at the time: It was during the evening in my apartment in Copenhagen I decided to go for a walk an enjoy the snow. Unfortunately I forgot my gloves, so I kept my hands in my pocket. At some point I reached Kongens Have with the barracks. I tried to find a proper angle to take the photo. But the sun was going down so the time was limited. At some point I just put the camera lense into a hole between two wires in the fence and pressed the button. At that time my hands were freezing and I hurried home.

This of course is no evidence, but merely circumstantial evidences, which may suggest I took this photo. One other circumstantial evidence could be that the camera used at that photo is the camera I still use for my photos. --|EPO| 18:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I see.

Abdel Kader al-Husseini was born in Palestine, studied in Beyrouth in Cairo, fought his whole life the British and than the Zionists in Palestine and Irak. In whole these countries, copyrights laws are the same.

You see you cannot prove anything either. So just think about what happens when you will meet a guy who will simply ask you absolutely real "proofs". Note that all emails received at foundation could be faked too... So good luck. Ceedjee 07:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes it does

Hello,

you claim on my user page than Image:Tulipa liniifolia1.jpg has no permission. This claim is incorrect. On the image page it says:

Permission granted to use under GFDL by Kurt Stueber

This is true for a few thousand images, and I have the e-mail in my possesion. I can forward it to you if you like.

--130.89.163.94 10:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I forgot to log in. --Gerrit 10:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

See also: User:Topjabot.

As the template notice on your talk page says you should forward these to OTRS. --|EPO| 14:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)