| Revision as of 20:05, 11 July 2006 view source163.252.202.73 (talk) →[]← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 22:22, 25 July 2006 view source Kyorosuke (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users12,593 editsm Protected Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Everywhere Girl (2nd nomination): Shouldn't be edited. | ||
| (126 intermediate revisions by 39 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| '''This deletion debate has been blanked upon request of the deleted article's subject.''' Please see ]. ] Co., ] 03:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ===]=== | |||
| {{afdsock}} | |||
| Fails ] and ]. <S>Dell, Gateway, Visa, and all other ads were photoshopped by The Inquirer. Everywhere Girl is a creation by ], with a tendency to manufacture rumors, speculation, and outright lies. Her blog being confirmed by The Inquirer, the creators of Everywhere Girl, therefore means nothing. </s> ] 03:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Note''' Please see for some discussion which was moved from this afd to the talk page (I'm not sure why this happened) ] 04:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ** Also see ] ~ ] 07:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| '''PROCEDURAL NOTE''' | |||
| *The afd nomination itself has now been a subject of an article in the UK IT online magazine, ]. The article, which is sympathetic to Everywhere Girl, directly links to this discussion. The article suggests that her article has been "messed with" (I'm not sure what they mean by this). The article also labels Wikipedians (or perhaps just us delete voters) "Wiki Parrots". ''Sqwaaak??'' As a point of information, I may have had time on my hands at the weekend, but it took less than 30 seconds to discover her real identity once the google cache was found (and I'm habitually check google caches anyway). Anyway, WELCOME INQUIRER READERS. Please read the big red notice above. ] 18:04, 11 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Delete''' fails ] and ]. ] 03:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Strong Delete''' Fails WP:BIO, WP:NN. Misplaced Pages is not designed as an indiscriminate collection for "bits of fun Internet history" (otherwise we may as well dumpload the entire usenet archives onto Misplaced Pages). Finally, even if this girl really is an "ordinary looking" person used in several different ads and not just a Inquirer fantasy, how on earth does that make her any more notable than the thousands of other people who also appear in several ads for different companies, particularly those in stock photos? ] 04:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::*'''Further comment''' On her blog, "Everywhere Girl" writes: ''My acting career is going well. It is a hard industry to get into, but I am making great progress. I have been in dozens of plays, I have a commercial running here in the States, I have done several short and independent films, some of which have made it to festivals such as Sundance and Outfest. I have a great agency with two awesome one-of-a-kind agents. They are diamonds in the rough here is Los Angeles. So yes, it is going well and it has been my passion for many many years. I feel blessed. I do hope that this may help my career, but whatever happens is fine…I am just having fun with it for now.'' A budding actor (who presumably wants to be in bigger films) who starts a self-promoting blog/myspace profile but decides to remain anonymous to the extent of having a hidden identity domain account? And who doesn't want to promote the indie films she's been in? <s>Well, maybe her "awesome one-of-a-kind agents" are actually really bad.?</s> (comment struck out based on everywheregirl taking responsibility for the blog herself) ] 05:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Delete''' per Bwithh. --] 04:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Delete''' and redirect to ]. That's who the few news articles I could find seem to be calling the everywhere girl. Wonder why. ~ ] 07:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Delete''' per further comment by Bwithh. --] 07:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''UNMASKED!!!''' Well that was easy. Here's the real website of the model: http://www.jenniferchandra.com/ Note how she is native to Portland, Oregon where the university photoshoot is said to have taken place. Also note how her resume sounds similar to the blog career posts. Also note how she looks like the girl in the other photos. Then there's this - doing podcasts for a London company - sounds like this. (although that gig does not appear to have become regular. This was (she changed her name on the current version of the blog. It led me , which gave me her website address. I think this is a real model and there are adverts using her which are certainly real. Having said that, this still appears to be much ado about nothing, and I think the blog may be a collaboration between her and the Inquirer - how to explain the blog's strange anonymity? I mean her talent agency page even has a direct contact phone number for her, yet the blog is totally anonymous? <s>I think the Inquirer wants to keep this a long running enigma</s> (comment struck out based on lastest posts by everywheregirl) ] 09:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::"jennaluna" also seems to be the one who first posted the inquirer story about her own blog to digg.com ] 09:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Great work Bwithh! Her real website has so much information about her, I agree with you that it's very strange that her blog is so anonymous. ] 10:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::'''More unmasking''' There's more!! Here's her REAL blog: http://www.jensanity.com/ Her uncle tipped me off in an unguarded moment I dunno. Maybe now she's been unmasked on wikipedia, she can take over ] or something ] 10:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::And her real MySpace: http://www.myspace.com/jennaluna It is interesting to note that her real MySpace has more friends than her fake MySpace. ] 10:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Apparently her name isn't Jennifer Chandra, looks like that's only her acting name. Her real name is apparently Jennifer L Anderson. ] 11:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Strong delete''' per Bwithh. Probably the easiest vote I've ever had to make. --''']]]''' <small>]</small> 12:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Keep'''. Not the most notable subject on Misplaced Pages, but real and somewhat interesting. Misplaced Pages is not a paper encyclopedia. ] | ] 13:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::However, Misplaced Pages is still primarily an encylopedia ] 15:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Delete''' - very non-notable. --] 14:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Delete''' per ]... ]! Hey wait a second... doesn't this whole AfD violate ] now?--] 16:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Delete''' same reasons as last time. ] - <b><FONT COLOR="#FF0000">St</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF5500">ar</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF8000">bli</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FFC000">nd</FONT></b> 17:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Keep''' - Seems verifiable, notable and the photoshoping claim seems to have been made up out of whole cloth, or at least, no evidence has been provided for it. As for her real name, or not, or whatever - add it to the article, if you like, but it has no bearing on weather this should be deleted from Misplaced Pages. ] 18:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Keep''' - it is notable. This picture was used by Dell and Gateway at the same time to sell back to school computers. She has been a featured student at numerous schools. This picture is a great example of the effect of stock photography. ] | |||
| :Should we have articles on every recurrent model in stock photography? ] 15:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Keep''', at least for now. It's not fake, I think I remember seeing her used around. Also see, for e.g., , , . I'm not sure how's jennaluna's related, but it doesn't look like the same person to me. Maybe add more details to the article as the mystery unravels? About importance, there are plenty of articles that are just as unimportant, but that's part of the Misplaced Pages charm, is it not? For e.g., ] or ]. Call it pop culture. ] 20:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::There's a minimum level of acceptability which applies to all articles. Misplaced Pages is an attempt at an encyclopedia, not a free-for-all. Every article is subjectable to afd nomination. The ] doesn't hold much water ] 15:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Jennaluna is her. Compare with . I don't know how you don't see the resemblence. She's also Jennifer Chandra, compare with . Her real name is Jennifer L Anderson. She and her character Everywhere Girl fails ] and ]. ] 21:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Keep''' - Notable phenomena. Easily verifiable - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1565635272 Amazon is hard to Photoshop. Perhaps the anonymity was out of respect to her privacy. Not everyone has to deal with weekly articles being written in the news media. ] 21:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Welcome, fanpuppets. Apparently she wanted to deal with regularly updated blog for her fans ] 15:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *<s>'''Keep'''</s> - Notable. By the definition of Notable 'The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person. Tens if not hundreds of articles can be found written by different authors at TheInquirer and support the definition given within the Everywhere Girl entry. http://www.google.com/search?q=%22everywhere+girl%22+site:www.theinquirer.net ] 22:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Please only state your vote once. The key words in the sentence you highlighted are '''multiple''' and especially '''non-trivial''', as well as '''independent''' (There clearly has been some relationship between the Inquirer and the subject in the past, if not over this blog). Stories in the Inquirer about a fad it itself created are not good evidence of notability ] 15:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I've stricken the second bolded opinion by ]... as ] stated, please only render a bolded opinion once per AfD.--] 17:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Keep''' - Notable. As mentioned before the ma | |||
| in reason for her being noticed was because Gateway and Dell used the same stock photo for both their ads. Perhaps the self promoting via direct links to her blog could be removed and only refer to instead. The Inq have a good history on the event. ] 06:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)riscycdj | |||
| ::Are we to have articles on every person in stock photos used by more than one advertiser? ] 15:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Keep''' - Notable. She's a real person, surprise surprise. The fact that she became an internet phenomenon to begin with is notable. Not to mention the articles written. Something should be added to the article, perhaps, but just because she's been found out doesn't mean it wasn't notable to begin with. --] 06:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :The everywhere girl fad seems to have been a "internet phenomenon" localized to The Inquirer readership. ] 15:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| '''UPDATE''' | |||
| *Everywheregirl now has expressing her upset with the recent revelations above (] and myself have been specifically singled out by Everywhere Girl as mean people who suck. On the other hand, her alter ego, jennaluna, is more pithy and simply calls us arseholes on ). My response is this: | |||
| **The short (mean, sucking, but still truthful) answer is that such risk of exposure is the nature of faddish internet celebrity in the age of personal websites, public personal blogs and myspace. Multiplied by 10 when the faddish internet celebrity has a wikipedia entry and a well-intentioned, but still self-promoting anonymous blog (which highlights that very wikipedia entry) | |||
| **Longer answer- this is because the wikipedia community is inherently full of people who need to '''verify''' through ''research'' - with many or even most of us concerned with encyclopedic notability. This, after all, is not a free-for-all site. It's an attempt at an encyclopedia, and one which has to deal with a large load of transient fads, potential hoaxes, possible vanity articles, and unverified content everyday. I sympathize with Jennifer's upset, but lack of familiarity with the nature of Misplaced Pages does not ethically or procedurally exempt the subjects of articles from the usual Misplaced Pages fact-checking. It may feel like being singled out - but really, this is a routine aspect of Misplaced Pages editing, so Jennifer shouldn't feel that she's being subject to standards of scrutiny different from anything else on the deletion discussion pages. Aside from the specific guidelines and policies Misplaced Pages has in place which frown on marketing/promotional activities on Misplaced Pages, this process is why Misplaced Pages is a poor place for such activities. Also, don't take the nomination for deletion personally - the nomination simply means that someone thinks that there should be a discussion about whether a subject is suitable for an ''online encyclopedia'' and is not about whether they are significant or important beyond that. | |||
| **Some clarifications about aspects which Jennifer may be confused about, based on her emotional posting. Speculation (mostly, I think, followed by efforts at verification and sourcing) is a key part of the Misplaced Pages article for deletion discussion process. ]'s original nomination was based on his genuine belief that the whole everywheregirl fad was a hoax undertaken by The Inquirer (the UK online IT magazine). He seems to have now modified that stance, judging by his striking out parts of his nomination. I too was suspicious that this may be an invention for marketing purposes. My investigation was motivated by Misplaced Pages's core principle of verification, and my results suggested the blog was not a hoax. (I would also note that The Inquirer previously tried to uncover her real identity to the point of asking Inquirer readers to help identify her). I now believe that Jennifer's everywheregirl blog is genuine, although I maintain my stance that the subject is not suitable for an encylopedia on notabiity grounds. During the process of speculation, I wrote a couple of off-the-cuff comments about Jennifer's agents and possible collusion with The Inquirer, which seem to have particularly upset Jennifer. I wholeheartedly retract those speculative comments. Though please note that the discussion, I think anyway (I can't speak for Dionyseus - I think he's mainly concerned about the Inquirer dimension), is now not concerned with whether or not the everywheregirl blog is genuine but whether the whole affair deserves its own article in a major encyclopedia. | |||
| **Jennifer seems to be a genuinely nice person. She also seems to be unsure about how best to best deal with her modest degree of internet celebrity and the related online fans, and is ambivalent about how much exposure she should seek. Perhaps I have an unsophisticated idea about the motives of budding Hollywood actors (largely based on HBO's '']'' - this whole affair would make a great episode storyline if that show is ever revived), so I'll accept that there is no collusion between Jennifer and the Inquirer, and that the anonymity of the blog (plus the digg/wikipedia/myspace promotional dimension) was not necessarily sufficient grounds for not assuming good/pure intentions. But I was half-serious about Jennifer going on to take over ] - specific examples aside, if Jennifer decides to continue to assert her Everywheregirl status, then I suggest she do it wholeheartedly in the spirit of celebrity (rather than the ambivalent mixing of anonymity and promotion) and perhaps she'll have a good shot at finding a rewarding place in the sun in the Web 2.0 world (perhaps in an online video revival of ''Unscripted'' - harness the power of ], Jennifer!). Whether she chooses that path or not, very possibly, one day, Jennifer will be notable enough that even I would approve of an encyclopedia article about her. Best of luck to her. ] 08:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I agree. I wrote a response at her Everywhere Girl blog, it is currently awaiting her approval, but one of the things I said is that perhaps a small section about Everywhere Girl can be added to the ] article. ] 08:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' Ha, maybe ] & ] could star with Jennifer in the made-for-TV movie ].--] 15:18, 11 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Delete''' Fails ] and ] . Perhaps a section about Everywhere Girl can be added to the ] article. ] 08:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Delete''' Fails ] and ] per nom. Excellent research by ]. 15 minutes of fame, yay. ] 09:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Keep''' - this article got me to actually edit something on wikipedia, that surely makes it worth keeping. that and now shees well known enough that peeple actually wonder who she is so again i say keep it. | |||
| *'''Keep''' - Notable, a real world example of the (mis)use of stock photography. ] 14:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Again, are we to have articles on every recurrent image/model in stock photography ] 15:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Keep''' Passes ] and ]. If we use fail criteria outlined by others on this page we would have to delete every actor who has not won an academy award (the afore mentioned Paris Hilton included). The choice of her image out of all of those available in stock photography tells us much about ourselves and our society. She is a valid cultural phenomenom just as many in Andy Warhol's circle (and Warhol himself) ] 14:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' This article does not pass ] and ]. Paris Hilton on the other hand passes ] and ] because she is a widely recognized celebrity. ] 15:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Hilton has also starred in a primetime US TV show and is notable in her own right as a heiress socialite. ] 15:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' Ah, welcome everywheregirl fanpuppets. ] - are you seriously basing your keep argument on Jennifer Chandra's acting career so far, and are you serious in your claim that Everywhere Girl is a current day equivalent of ]? In any case you're exaggerating with your Academy Award comments ] 15:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' Could Dionyseus please explain how this fails ] and ] other than unsubstantiated claims of photoshopping? --] 14:44, 11 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' It fails ] and ] because it does not meet any of its criteria. ] 15:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Keep''' - The reasons why I wrote the article originally still stand. The "Everywhere Girl" is a notable internet/advertising phenomenon. That piece of stock photography was used not just by different companies, but by competing companies. Also, it has since then become a phenomenon in itself. I wouldn't be surprised if companies are using her photos because she's the Everywhere Girl now. It just seems odd NOT to have a Misplaced Pages entry about it. -] 15:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' How is it a notable advertising phenomenon? 2 companies used a stock photo? The Inquirer noticed and ran articles on a slow news day? The subject got a blog and played along? No other news agency picked this up. the subject falls well short of ] and the whole incident falls well short of any reasonable definition of a meme.--] 15:18, 11 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Keep''' ]. I believe this article qualifies for inclusion based on Misplaced Pages Importance due to the discussion. While an addition to "stock photography" could be added I think the "bar has been met" for inclusion.--] 15:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| **'''Comment''', ] is a proposed, not accepted guideline.--] 15:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Keep''' - Notable and definitely genuine. When I started a UK university in 1999, the cover one of the magazines in the information pack featured Jennifer. This was a hard copy and 2 years before I even started reading the Inquirer website. (I would've kept the magazine had I known it would become a memorabilia...)--] 16:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::'''Comment''' No, your university magazine didn't "feature" Jennifer. It had an anonymous photo of Jennifer in it taken from a stock photography database when the magazine graphics editors were looking for a generic college student picture ] 17:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' Is it THAT big of a deal? You started this discussion saying the pictures were photoshopped, which it would seem was your main reason. We all know that this was a bunch of rubbish on your part ]. So tell me, what are your motives for wanting to get her entry removed from wikipedia? ] 16:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' As stated in the nomination, it fails ] and ], the photos were never the main reason. ] 16:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Weak Keep''' or '''Strong Merge''' with ] - Everywhere Girl seems to be somewhat notable - there are 161,000 results on Google for "everywhere girl" with quotes.--] 17:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' Most of those hits are unrelated to this Everywhere Girl, and the rest are just The Inquirer references. ] 17:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Strong keep''' Misplaced Pages is all about being a record for worthless internet history. Bingo! <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) {{{2|}}}.</small> | |||
| *'''Delete''' as non-notable model/actress. --] 17:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Keep''' - interesting and informative (mis)use of stock photography - no - we don't need to write up every one that has a similar experience... <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) {{{2|}}}.</small> | |||
| *'''Keep''' - I wonder how much time ] took to inspect the thousands Google hits for "everywhere girl" since he claims that mostly aren't related to her (how many everywhere girls are out there, huh?). By the way The Inquirer's references are also about her, aren't they? Also, I'd like to know the real ]'s motives to wipe her image. He's clearly crusading against her, the photoshop thing was ridiculous, since INQ provided working links to the very websites. Anyway I'm not citting any laws or rules, but I just "feel" that an article in Misplaced Pages about her is very appropriate. Nonetheless I think I would be surprised if I never came to her entry here. When I first saw her article I actually searched Misplaced Pages for her, and I knew that she had to be here. ] 18:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| **'''Comment''' - Oh, how could I forgot to mention that! I live in Brazil and I saw with my bare eyes her picture in a booth about students traveling inside a mall. Here in my city! I was amazed. Also, I'm a long time INQ reader and I trust with my heart that INQ had no previous relationship with her at all. ] 18:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' Do not assume bad faith. 100's of articles are deleted daily, this is merely one of those articles. ] 18:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| **'''Comment''' - Sorry, but I feel that I'm not assuming. ] 18:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Keep''' Notable, and Misplaced Pages doesn't have the constraints of a paper encyclopedia. ] 18:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Keep''' or '''Merge''' with stock photography. I do not see how it fails ] and ].] 18:43, 11 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| **It fails ] because she meets none of the criteria for inclusion stated in ]. To put it another way, which criteria do you think she meets ]?--] 18:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' All first time contributors would do well to read ], ], and ]. ''I have yet to see anyone here make a credible argument as to why Ms. Chandra should be included based on the accepted guidelines for inclusion of a living person''. As for framing this as an internet meme, there are currently no accepted guidelines for inclusion of memes, but in almost all meme's AfD's I've seen that the meme was successfully kept, someone laid out a strong case that the meme had achieved some level of pervasiveness great enough that it had been covered by multiple independent sources (see the proposed guidelines at ]. Right now I don't see any evidence that Everwhere Girl comes close to being a meme. There is essentially one website (Inquirer) out there that is covering/creating this story, her own MySpace/Website/Blog, a mention on Digg which hovers around 15 diggs (compare with article which has 4450 diggs and still was deleted from Misplaced Pages as falling below the threshold for a meme), and several blogs/forum posts about this. Generally a successful meme will spawn copycats (like ] or ]). I've gone through a number of links off Google to mentions of "Everywhere Girl" and I just don't see anything compelling that leads me to believe this is a widely distributed internet meme that has moved beyond the readership of the Inquirer in any meaningful way. I welcome any evidence to the contrary.--] 18:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| **'''Comment''' - I think it hasn't moved beyond the readership of INQ in a meaningful way, but the readership of INQ means a lot of people. As far as I know there are entries in paper encyclopedias known by much less people. ] 18:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ***'''Comment''' OK, but we are not debating paper encyclopedias, or how many people know about the specific subject of a specific article in a specific encyclopedia. By your admission, I don't know how "Everywhere Girl" could be construed as an ] if it has not permeated beyond readership of one online magazine. That just leaves the ] guidelines to measure against and I don't see any evidence that Ms. Chandra meets any of the criteria laid out at ].--] 19:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Delete''' per above. ] 18:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Keep'''. ] 19:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)<small> acually added by ] who deleted Naconkantari's opinion in the process (should also mention that ] is currently ])--] 19:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)</small> | |||
| *'''Delete''' per WP:BIO and all above. --]<sup>-]-]-</sup> 19:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Keep'''. The internet is all about firsts, and unique things. This is something that just happened, a unique first. Keep the entry, and let history judge... {{unsigned|216.54.25.2}} | |||
| :'''Comment''': User's first and only edit. --]<sup>-]-]-</sup> 19:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Keep'''. You have an article for "Dread Pirate Roberts"; how different is Everywhere Girl? They both appear in media, they both are nicknames, etc. | |||
Latest revision as of 22:22, 25 July 2006
This deletion debate has been blanked upon request of the deleted article's subject. Please see WP:LIVING. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 03:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)