User talk:70.189.74.49

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

Here are some other hints and tips:

  • I would recommend that you get a username. You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, but creating an account is quick, free and non-intrusive, requires no personal information, and there are many benefits of having a username. (If you edit without a username, your IP address is used to identify you instead.)
  • When using talk pages, please sign your name at the end of your messages by typing four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically produce your username (or IP address) and the date.

If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or type {{helpme}} on this talk page and a user will help you as soon as possible. I will answer your questions as far as I can. Again, welcome, and I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian. Ursasapien (talk) 00:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Your recent edit

Your recent edit to Thematic motifs of Lost involves an issue that was currently being explored on the article's talk page. Please comment on this page regarding the reasoning behind for your edit. Thanks, Ursasapien (talk) 00:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Thematic motifs of Lost. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. Ursasapien (talk) 09:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I have reported you for a 3RR violation. Please see WP:AN/3RR for details or to make a comment. Ursasapien (talk) 06:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] July 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent contribution removed content from Thematic motifs of Lost. Please be more careful when editing pages and do not remove content from Wikipedia without a good reason, which should be specified in the edit summary. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Angel Of Sadness T/C 16:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please stop. If you continue to blank out (or delete portions of) page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Thematic motifs of Lost, you will be blocked from editing. Gscshoyru 16:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make any unconstructive edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant warnings.
That's fine but please have an edit summary in future as it just looks like you are removing content without a reason which is vandalism. Thank you and Happy Editing Angel Of Sadness T/C 17:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
You have been removing content without reason. There are two references and the theme is evident throughout the series. There has been an ongoing discussion on the article's talk page regarding how to determine which thematic motifs to include and which to exclude. This is not a theory, original research, or fancruft. This theme (the end of the world) has been alluded to by the show's creators and is part of the official mythology of the show. I am trying to assume good faith but you seem to have only edited this article or user pages defending your blanking of portions of this article. This smacks of an account that is trying to make a point and may even be a disguise of another editor. You have broken both the spirit and the letter of the three revert rule and I believe your behaviour should be brought to the attention of an administrator. I would be happy to engage you in thoughtful debate on the article's talk page but I will not continue to "edit war" with you. Ursasapien (talk) 04:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thematic motifs of Lost - Apocalypse

Thought you consistantly delete my entry on "Apocalypse" for reasons of "No Original Research", your unwillingness to give the simple respect of explining as to why this entry should be deleted forces me ask if you are even familiar with what the text actually states regarding "No Original Research"

From the article "No original research": "Research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged... This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia... Although most articles should rely predominantly on secondary sources, there are rare occasions when they may rely entirely on primary sources (for example, current events or legal cases). An article or section of an article that relies on a primary source should (1) only make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims. Contributors drawing on entirely primary sources should be careful to comply with both conditions."

I would argue that a currently running television series should be considered one of the "rare occasions" when an entry may rely upon primary source material as there are only a handful of secondary-sources currently in existence, and as it is, again, currently running. I plainly cite the primary sources I use. I do so in such a way that I believe complies with the two conditions listed in the above quote - 1) my entry is descriptive, in that it only lists the specific and overt instances of apocalyptic references in the narrative. 2) I do not analyze these apocalyptic references, nor do I attempt to draw some grand synthesis linking them with other aspects of the show, nor do I offer an interpretation of their meaning in the larger context of the show, nor do I attempt to explain their occurence, nor do I evaluate them in any way. I simply point them out, just as the entry of "Eyes" simply points out the instances where eyes are overtly referenced in the narrative.

I recognize that some may say this is simply my interpretation of the rule. However, I am applying my interpertation consistently to all entries, even the one with which I may not personally agree. I feel that some individuals are being very inconsistent with their edits, deleting some entries for what appears to be reasons of "No Original Research" or "Fancruft" but leaving other entries which are just as much based on original research and can just as easily be labled as "fancruft." I find this inconsistency very frustrating, as it suggests that there is no set criteria that governs entries, only the arbitrary opinions of a few editors. What I'm ultimately trying to say is this: I can accept if others have a different interpretation of the rules, even though I may not agree with that interpretation - what I can't stand is when the rules (whatever they may be) are inconsistently applied. If my or anyone's entries are deleted for reasons of original research or fancruft, then every entry should be subject to those same strict rules. If you are going to kill my entry for reasons of "No Original Research" then why are you not deleting other entries which are obviously based on original research as well, such as "Eyes" or "Black & White." The fact that you are not leads me to suspect that you are not editing objectively, with a set of rules, but with some unknown personal agenda. These entries lack references to secondary sources, same as mine. The rules are there to give this project some degree of objectivity and credibility, thus all entries should be held to the same standards. Thank you.

--Qwerty7412369 18:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Thematic motifs of Lost. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. Gscshoyru 21:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
How about instead of useless repetition, putting your warnings on Ursasapien (talk · contribs) and Qwerty7412369 (talk · contribs) for repeatedly reinserting their own unsubstantiated theories, and ignoring the requirements ofNo Original Research to provide reliable sourcing. As I pointed out above, all unverifiable content can be removed at will; re-adding such content is vandalism. "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material.--70.189.74.49 21:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
They aren't actually in violation of the 3RR. You are. They only have about 2 edits apiece in the last 24 hours, you have at least 5 or 6. They've said stuff on the talk page, you just revert and revert and revert without discussion. However, I'm trying to be fair here. Please discuss this on the talk page, and come to a consensus. The edit summaries aren't for arguments. The talk page is. Gscshoyru 23:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
If you'd look at the article's talk page, you'd see that there's already been a discussion, with Leftyman basically laying out the same points. The individuals seem to refuse to believe that they are required to provide an actual source for their material. Again, as Jimmy Wales said, "I can NOT emphasize this enough...[Pseudo-information] should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced."--70.189.74.49 00:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I realize this. But you haven't said a word. To be totally honest, the only edit you've ever made (but one) is to revert those changes... what do you have against that information that is probably true, but unsourced? There's lots and lots of other information like it out there. And though you are going along with wikipedia policy... that still doesn't change the fact that you are in violation of the 3RR. Please discuss it on the talk page, alright? Gscshoyru 00:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Please comment on the article's takl page regarding the argument that primary_research_is_NOT_original_research. Ursasapien (talk) 05:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material."

As per your frequent use of the above quote, I have (once again) presented my argument for restoring the material which you repeatedly delete in the article "Thematic motifs of Lost." I am confident that the evidence I offer is both strong and supportive of my position. I invite you to join the conversation on the article's discussion board, particularly the discussion in which I argue that primary research is not original research, and I ask you to examine the discussions concerning Apocalypse and Original Research as they provide the background for this discussion.

In these entries you will find a detailed discussion of the following points:

1) I assert that contrary to your belief, the entry in question is not "unsourced" - it clearly cites its sources, specifically the episodes listed in the text itself (for example, I explictly cite the episode Man of Science, Man of Faith in the entry).

2) I assert that contrary to your belief, the entry is not based upon original research but instead upon primary research, something altogether different and acceptable under Wikipedia's own guidelines as stated in Wikipedia:No Original Research.

3) I assert that contrary to your belief, there is no valid reason to delete this entry under Wikipedia's stated policies.

4) I assert that you yourself are disregarding Wikipedia policy by refusing to use the article's talk page to talk directly to myself and the other editors in an attempt to reach a consensus, a clear disregard of Wikipedia's policy on conflict resolution which has resulted in the edit war in which we currently find ourselves.

If you disagree with my points, by all means, feel free to add your counter-argument to the discussion page. Who knows, you might even convince me. As it stands now, however, you are unlikely to convince anyone unless you join the discussion and talk to the other parties involved!!!

As they say, "The ball is now in your court."

--Qwerty7412369 06:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A Reply

First off User:70.189.74.49 - thanks for finally finding the time to address me directly rather than deleting my entries without comment.

So, to answer your message, I do not believe I am "misreading or willfully ignoring" the No Original Research policy. I have reviewed it many time in the course of my discussions on this article's talk page, and am satisfied that my entry is comfortably within its guidlines.

With regard to the Wikipedia:No Original Research text itself - "Although most articles should rely predominantly on secondary sources, there are rare occasions when they may rely on primary sources (for example, legal cases)." I would argue that a currently running television series should be considered one of the "rare occasions" when an entry may rely upon primary source material as there are only a handful of secondary-sources currently in existence, and as it is, again, currently running. Though you correctly point out that the example given for this is "legal cases," nowhere do I see it explicitly or implicitly suggested that "legal cases" are the sole instances where primary souces may be used, and to suggest otherwise is to contort the text beyord all recognition.

Continuing with the text - "An article or section of an article that relies on a primary source should (1) only make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge." I plainly cite the primary sources I use. I do so in such a way that I believe complies with this condition: my entry is descriptive, in that it only lists the specific and overt instances of apocalyptic references in the narrative. The references listed are only those explicitly stated during the show, and typically these references come directly from the mouths of the characters themselves. This is easily verifiable by "any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge;" indeed, anyone with a TV and the a meger attention-span would find these same references easily.

Furthermore, the text states - "An article or section of an article that relies on a primary source should... (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims." I do not analyze these apocalyptic references, nor do I attempt to draw some grand synthesis linking them with other aspects of the show, nor do I offer an interpretation of their meaning in the larger context of the show, nor do I attempt to explain their occurence, nor do I evaluate them in any way. I simply point them out. In your message, you claim that "You are not providing descriptive claims, but creating a novel interpretation" - I challenge you to give me a clear example of any analysis, synthesis, interpertation, explanation, or evaluation I have made in my entry.

Now I would like to clarify some errors you made in your message to me:

First, you state in your message that I "admit to being the originator of the "Apocalypse" analysis." This is incorrect; I admit to being the author of the "Apocalypse" entry - as I have stated, I do not see any analysis in this entry and I have deliberately avoided making any such analysis, therefore I do not and would not admit to being the "originator" of any such analysis. I have simply listed a explicit recurring theme in a show that I happen to enjoy watching.

Second, you site the policy on Verifiability, which states, "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed." As I have said many times before, I provide a source - the episodes I list in the text itself are the primary sources upon which I have constructed my entry and verify the information provided within. I do not know what source could be more reliable for the material that that. Furthermore, I do not understan why you continue to challenge my entry when I am providing reliable sources; such action seems to run contrary to the very rule you are citing.

Third, you conclude by stating "As there is no source for your unique analysis/interpretation, stop re-adding it." I have repeatedly given you the sources I am using, and I have rejected and will continue to reject your claim that I am making a "unique analysis/interpertation" until I am provided with evidence and clear examples to the contrary (simply put: just because you say it, doesn't make it true.) Therefore, you have no basis to demand that I stop restoring the entries you insist on deleting. I will continue to restore the article until I am convinced that doing so is not the proper thing to do.

In conclusion, I would like to point out some problems I am having with your edits:

One, by my count, you have now made six reverts to this article in a 24-hour period, well in excess of the Three-Revert Rule, thereby creating an edit war.

Two, until now, you have refused to discuss this issue with myself and other editors, nor have you attempted or are you currently attempting to reach any consensus, thus acting in clear disregard of Wikipedia's policy on conflict resolution and inflaming this edit war.

Three, your singular focus on this one article (as revealed in your edit history) suggests that you may be pushing your own personal agenda rather than attempting to improve what is, lest we forget, a collabrative project.

Four, you are being quite inconsistant in your claims of Original Research. I would point out that by your claims, the entries for "Black & White", "Eyes", and "Literature" should be removed as well yet you are strangely silent on these entries. Whether this silence be from your own bias, a personal interest in these entries, a "gut-feeling", or any other reason, the fact remains that you are inconsistantly applying your own rules, which only weakens your own position.

Ultimately you own flouting of Wikipedia's rules and policies coupled with your obvious inconsistant application of the very rules you claim to endorse make it very difficult for me to take your position seriously, let alone that you position does not seem to be supported by Wikipedia's own policies.

I should let you know that I will be reporting your more flagrant violations of the rules (i.e the Three-Revert Rule) to an administrator, and I am seriously considering sending this article up for Mediation as it seems we no compromise or consensus developing, only discussion posts which are growing less civil by the hour.

--Qwerty7412369 10:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Please stop assuming ownership of articles such as Thematic motifs of Lost. Doing so may lead to disruptive behavior such as edit wars and is a violation of policy, which may lead to a block from editing. You are becoming increasingly uncivil. Perhaps you should take a wikibreak. Ursasapien (talk) 10:58, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


[edit] The issue at hand

I will take it by your rather simplistic assertions that you and only you are 100% correct (which, I would add, have all the eloquence, tact, and insight of the Jerry Springer Show) coupled with your failing to (once again) provide any concrete examples or evidence that I am making a novel analysis or interpretation that you have no valid critiques of my position and are at this point simply arguing for arguments sake. Your obvious hostility toward viewpoints other than your own only serves as further evidence of this fact.

To clarify (once again) - It is not the case that my entry has "no sources" as you incorrectly assert; my entry has at least four Verifiable primary sources cited in the text which back up the information given in the entry. If do not accept primary sources as legitimate sources, fine - but as I point out again and again (as you again and again fail to notice) Wikipedia's own policies allows for the use of primary sources as the sole source for an entry (See: Wikipedia:No Original Research). If you disagree with Wikipedia's policy, again, fine, that is your right, but it is also your problem, not mine. I must therefore ask that you please stop foisting your personal problems on the rest of us who are simply trying to contribute to a community project in accordance to the established rules of Wikipedia. Remember - this is "Wikipedia.org," not "User:70.189.74.49ipedia.org." If you cannot understand this then perhaps it is you and not I who is, as you so eloquently state, "wasting everyone's time" with "ridiculously pointless replies."

--Qwerty7412369 17:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Because of the three-revert rule violation from this IP address, the article Thematic motifs of Lost has now been semi-protected. This means only established users may edit it. If you would like to continue working on the article, I suggest you register a username and sign in before editing. Even with a username, it will be a few days before you will be allowed to edit the article, but you are welcome to continue discussing your concerns with the other users on the article's talk page. Further disruption from this IP address may result in a block. Kafziel Talk 19:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 19:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] August 2007

Please stop. If you continue to blank out (or delete portions of) page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Thematic motifs of Lost, you will be blocked from editing. Freedomeagle 06:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make any unconstructive edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant warnings.

This is your last warning.
The next time you delete or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia, as you did to Thematic motifs of Lost, you will be blocked from editing. Xdenizen 06:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make any unconstructive edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant warnings.

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Thematic motifs of Lost. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. Ursasapien (talk) 06:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Reported. Xdenizen 07:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

This is your only warning.
The next time you delete or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. Xdenizen 07:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

[edit] Incivility

Go back and read the five pillars. You will see that one of them has to do with civility. You are being bullheaded, convinced that you are absolutely right. "End of the world" is symbolic, much in the way "Eyes" are symbolic. I have edited a number of articles, whereas you seem fixated on this one. This makes me wonder about your motives. Perhaps, it is time for you to take another wiki-break and stop with the point-making. Regards, Ursasapien (talk) 07:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "Good faith edits do not constitute "vandalism" -- and just because someone is an anonymous editor does not make them any less capable of knowing how to edit properly. Wikipedia:Vandalism states,

"Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism."

Blocking for good-faith edits is abuse of sysop privileges. also: Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#When_blocking_may_not_be_used"

Decline reason: "Comments such as "dude, get a clue and read the friggin article, and get some edumacation", "Try editing something that you do understand", etc. are clear violations of WP:CIVIL and evidence that you are not making a good-faith effort. — Yamla 14:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.

  • WP:AGF much? You didn't bother to even read the article, did you? No wonder Wikipedia is going down the drain and is now the laughingstock of academia. Clueless editors and admins supporting inclusion of ridiculousness (like claiming "Canada" is a thematic motif), even in a relatively lightweight article, proves just how insipid this site has become. When dealing with willful and insistent ignorance, there is no use in trying to provide edification. Maybe someday someone will figure out that a motif is a symbol and not a theme or a subject. But apparently reading comprehension is a lost art. Oh, and yeah, if I were to have graded your efforts in my class, I would have given you low marks indeed. Chalk that on your WP:CIVIL blackboard, Bart. 70.189.74.49 01:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Right back at ya!

See: meta:Don't_be_a_dick Ever think that maybe, just maybe, you are dead wrong, because you just don't really understand the article? Try editing something that you do understand.

I have never seen someone who needed to heed their own advice more. Ursasapien (talk) 02:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thematic motifs of Lost: Canada

You have repeatedly described my points on the links between Canada and deception in Lost as inane, silly, and not even worthy of acknowledgment. I could do without these degrading comments. Perhaps my article does not coincide with your definition of a motif, and if the administrators agree with you, I suppose I will stop inserting it. However, in all your arguing with Ursasapien you keep classifying the rest of the points that you're against - Apocalypse, etc. - as possible themes, but certainly not motifs. Yet you keep assuming noone wants to talk about the Canada article and seem to consider it even further below the other points you are criticizing. I suppose at first glance, my article does seem silly compared to the others, but I encourage you to give it some further thought. I have been watching the scripts of Lost carefully since it started, and have only seen Canada mentioned five times - each one linked to a deception of some kind. Ursasapien and I both agree that while we don't know why this is so, it is all but certain these links are intentional insertions by the writers. If you are going to keep deleting and criticizing my article, I would appreciate it if you at least acknowledge that it has some merit, possibly in a list other than Lost's motifs. I however, would still like to see it included here - though that doesn't seem to matter since all this arguing and deleting - which you have certainly contributed to - is likely going to get the whole article deleted. Burnside65 17:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please consider registering

Hey anon (if this is who I think it is): if you don't have one already, you might do better on editing if you register a username. Good luck on the Themes thing, though you may want to tone down the rhetoric. Just a thought. --LeflymanTalk 03:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thematic motifs of Lost

Sorry about the semi-protection, I had to do it because I was being harassed by another anonymous user. As for the deletion of the history, I reviewed my own, since there were strong arguments either way. I'm not going to restore the history - however, I left open the option of userfying it (moving it to the userspace of an established user) so it can be worked on and possibly restored. If you want to pursue that, go on and contact a user who's interested in having the article userfied (or register an account) and I'll userfy it. --Coredesat 06:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I would be happy to provide space to work on this article. Of course, I will continue the debate on the discussion page. I already have an old copy of the article at User:Ursasapien/Sandbox/Lost. Ursasapien (talk) 10:51, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Coredesat has put the article Thematic motifs of Lost and it's history here. I have asked that he move the discussion and its history here. I think the next step is to open a discussion regarding how and if we can bring this article to the point of recreation. I am considering whether it would be good to open a RfC about this article. You're invited to help improve this article. Ursasapien (talk) 04:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stop the attacks

I realize you are frustrated that we continue to edit war over "Thematic motifs of Lost," however, you are not assuming good faith when you accuse me of "lying"! We have a disagreement over what constitutes OR. To imply that I am deliberately being deceptive is dead wrong. I firmly believe that the apocalyptic themes, as well as "coincidence versus fate" and "the conflict between science and faith" are well-documented in the primary source (and alluded to in a number of secondary sources). On the other hand, eyes are not sourced and are not a thematic motif. In conclusion, please stick to debate about the content and not attacks on editors. Ursasapien (talk) 02:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello, discussions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lost#Ongoing disputes between Ursasapien and 70.189.74.49 and Talk:Lost (TV series)#Thematic motifs of Lost concern you. --thedemonhog talk • edits 06:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)