Talk:2006/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

UK's WWII debt to the US

December 100000 The United Kingdom pays off its 4.336 billion (thousand million, not million million) dollar (US) World War II debts to the Government of the United States of America.

I have stated which meaning of "billion" was meant according to Wikipedia policy (billion), but the user who contributed this may not have been aware of this. It doesn't seem to be anywhere else on Wikipedia. Is this correct? Brianjd

Is this right, because I do not see it recorded on the article itself? Draig goch20 21:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

HELLO?? Anyone going to answer this?? Will the U.K. end up paying off all the debts of Lend Lease?? This is a very interesting peice of information and would be stupid of wikipedians to ignore it! I posted the above last January and still waiting for an answer! Amlder20 16:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe the entire debt has now been paid. Qzm (talk) 14:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

37 gubernatorial elections?

Christine Gregoire, governor of Washington, may have her contested 2004 election invalidated in time for a mid-term election in 2006. So, in all actuality, there may be 36 or 37 gubernatorial elections in 2006. Velvetsmog 09:40, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Number of the Beast

Removed this preposterous statement:

January 6 - The date, written out in standard international style, is 6-1-06. See the new Number of the Beast.

Actually, this date would be written 2006-01-06 in standard international style. The Number of the Beast is 666, not 6106. One reference to such numerological nonsense is more than enough, and the article already mentions 2006-06-06 as 'Beast day'.
—Herbee 10:11, 2005 May 26 (UTC)

lol, what the hell is this? this has nothing to do with it, i am a christain and it says, the world can end anytime, it can even end NOW!:D people aslo write dates in different forms for example Year/Date/Month Month/Day/Year or Day/Month/Year so... how can it be the mark?!><ino 09:12, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Some manuscripts have 616, which is what he might be talking about. Still silly though.... 203.79.97.94 20:07, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

06-06-06 - yeah I can see what some people mean.

  • The bible does call it a human number, well the year (2006) The month (June or 06) and the date of that day (06- Tueaday) are all human allocated numbers which might be what the bible tried to explain. Whats the point of guessing anyway, Christ will only return when we least expect it, after the beasts done his damage!

Draig goch20 15:24, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

just for the record (since I just noticed this discussion), the "number of the beast" is DCLXVI in Roman numerals which were the numbering system of the time leaving off the highest (M) (all the numerals in order - the equivalent of saying today: 876543210) ... ie. everything lesser (than the divine or greatest) ... aside from its value in Roman numeral it has no real significance.--Invisifan 07:54, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Predicted deaths?

I was wondering if it would be possible if there was a section on the page for predicting possible deaths in 2006? There are a couple of webpages dedicated to this, but it might work to have one here. Of course, death is a squeamish subject for a lot of people, so I don't know this would go, but I just wanted to see other people's thoughts. Posted byD-Day 2:31, 2005 July 23 {UTC)

Do you have a crystal ball? If not, then there's no point. This is an encylopedia, not a game. Average Earthman 08:51, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Someone with a sick mind I think.

Draig goch20 15:26, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

why? Medscin
It is not encyclopedic, as it involves guesswork. There are deadpool sites for that kind of thing. Future events are only listed on year articles when they are definitely going to happen on a specific date, such as an election that has been scheduled. Qzm (talk) 14:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Maddox?

Maddox, owner of The Best Page in the Universe is due out with a book in March of this year.

This seems WAY to trivial to be here, there are LOADS of books scheduled to come out in 2006, so why should only this one be on here? I'm pretty sure that the majority of the people who read this page do not know who maddox is, and simply couldn't care less that this person has a book scheduled to come out (Including me). So I am removing the entry Superdude99

maddox is cooler than you - so put it back up

It should stay down. --Mrdie 14:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

If we're going to talk about Maddox, we may aw well include (url removed) this guy]too. At least he can spell and has a sense of humor. LOL. (I have taken the liberty of removing the url of my website from this comment. I don't want the losers who visit this geek-haven to find my site. Thanks for the thought though. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.94.134.84 (talk • contribs) 07:17 10 May 2006 (UTC).

I feel you are being incivil. Namecalling (calling people who use this site 'losers') is childish and incivil, and is against Wikipedia policy. — nathanrdotcom (Got something to say? Say it.) 21:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
The losers who visit this geek-haven are also smart enough to know how the diff function works.--88.96.3.206 22:28, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Events

LETS US ALL CRACK DOWN ON ALL EVENTS THAT ARE HAPPENING how come the Nintendo Revolution date isn't there but only the Sony PlayStation 3?! and it is good that there was a date for xmen 3:D

i am thinking there should be a subpage for it, for example April 14, there will be a list which links to a sub page list might be Movies, Games, Politics and Music, when someone clicks on it it links to list of games and movies coming out. ><ino 09:16, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Consoles should be up. Putting video games up wastes space unless you want to put up all signifficant releases (which would make it really messy this time of year). Unless someone has a reason why the Guildwars expansion should be up, I'd love to hear it. PS3 release and Wii release should be up, possibally international release dates. Leave video games off. DeMyztikX 23:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Verifiability

This page is hardly be thoroughly eyeballed by people who know truth for each and every major and minor event. Therefore this list may contain only events that have solid confirmations (not simply rumors) in their articles, where the statement has a good chance for verification.

Bandcruft

It looks like this article is heading towards listing all band releases - surely information better served on 2006 in music? Any objections to my removing them, or at least reducing them to the internationally famous (based on reknown, rather than personal music tastes) Average Earthman 20:30, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Ben Franklin's Birthday

Is there any reason not to list Ben Franklin's would be 300th birthday on here, because Mozarts would be 250th is on here?--kralahome 23:59, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

WWIII

I took this out of the undertermined section because there is not factual backing to it, this year isn't in even mentioned in the WWIII article. --kralahome 00:14, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the Doctor Who episode World War III is set in March

Doctor Who episodes

I've moved the dates of Aliens of London, World War Three, and Boom Town back three months to coincide with official chronology. Aliens of London has moved two days forward from that because Blue Peter, is strangely on at 1:30pm, thus 4 hours go by in one scene (Monday), or the more likely BBC2 repeat (Tuesday). This coincides with the National/Regional news that shows around that time on BBC1 Sceptre 13:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Solidarity conference in Bil'in

What is this "solidarity conference in Bil'in" on feb 20-21? It is really some major event? If so, why doesn't it have its own wiki page to link to? Baszoetekouw 21:41, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

An idea - something that will be positive for Wikipedia

I have had an excellent idea which I believe some users of wikipedia would like. I think it would be ueful to promote Wikipedia and will make Wikipedia look good. How about 2006 being the "Wikipedia Year of Knowledge". Though this is an idea and should require the support of at least 30 users of Wikipedia and approval from admins. Draig goch20 23:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Holidays

For the longest time, the Islamic holiday of Eid ul-Adha has been in the 2006 article. In an attempt to be fair to other religions whose holidays shift around from year to year, I added Rosh Hashanah, Yom Kippur, and Diwali. But all along, I was thinking that maybe all those holidays should be eliminated from the calendar, including the Islamic holidays. It seems like the scheduled events section should be reserved for more traditional events (i.e. potential "current event" items). What does everyone else think? joturner 11:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree, recurring holidays are not events, even if they move around a bit. You can look in a normal desk diary for those. Easter falls under the same category. --88.96.3.206 22:30, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Oops, on another look someone has already sorted this out elegantly. The major religious holidays thing is a nice solution.--88.96.3.206 22:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Buddhist Era

Should there be Buddhist Era (B.E.), used in Thailand, included in the articles about years. --Mreult 15:40, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I like this idea. We should be multi-culteral AND the dates we have are Christian so we should show the alternatives, like to Chinese and Buddist beliefs. It's only fair.

Calendar

what's that calendar for? it's not in 2002, 2003, 2005. It can be found only in 2004 and 2006. I'm removing it, please discuss. Kirils 23:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

It was there when I changed it. I thought the wrong calendar was posted and changed it (the first day was Monday and I thought it was Sunday), I then returned it to the correct one. Some of the other years have it, and I added calendars to some of the future years.Rt66lt 05:38, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Orange Bowl

Why is the Orange Bowl listed as January 2nd? The game started on January 3rd and ended at 1 AM on January 4th? SAS 4 JAN 06 16:46 Eastern

You're right; the change has been made. Feel free to make the change yourself the next time you catch an error. joturner 21:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Christmas Invasion

How come Doctor Who's The Christmas Invasion is listed in 2006? I was under the impression it was at least 2007.

I believe it took place in 2006. --myselfalso 00:28, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Quebec

Thirty cities across the Canadian province of Quebec are reconstituted, as the result of a referendum held on June 20, 2004. What does this mean? Is there a link for this on Wikipedia?

I've removed this entry. I suspect it means that an earlier amalgamation is being reversed. I live right across the border from Quebec (in Ottawa) and haven't heard anything about this. I concluded, therefore, that it's an event of stritly local interest. Pburka 16:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
I disagree with its removal (though not strongly so): a host of municipalities across the province of Quebec were amalgamated by the prior PQ government, and some of these were reversed through referenda held by the subsequent/current Charest Liberal government. I'm in Hogtown and I've heard about it. And, though not ideal, there is a dedicated article. E Pluribus Anthony 16:51, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. I think I may have actually heard something about this in the summer, but it hasn't been in the news much. I've now moved it to 2006 in Canada. This event is of some interest in Canada outside of Quebece, but it's not of international interest. Pburka 17:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Agreed; thanks! E Pluribus Anthony 17:09, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Major Religious Holidays section

I added a Major Religious Holidays section so that they aren't clogging up the Events section (which should be reserved for historical events). I was thinking about calling it a Major Cultural Holidays section, but I was afraid that would invite every single holiday to be added. Even if many object to this solution, something has to be done. There is no reason Christmas needs to be in the Events section when it's on the same date every year. joturner 00:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Would it make sense to have a separate page which listed holidays around the world? Clearly they don't belong on the main page, but there seems to be a great deal of interest in adding them somewhere. I can see some value in having a place in Wikipedia to see past and present holidays. Pburka 16:12, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
I think Pburka has suggested a very good idea here. Kukini 16:19, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
It seems like the holidays article attempts to accomplish that. But it doesn't give specific dates for some holidays (especially religious holidays) which tend to shift from year to year. joturner 17:00, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

January 8 Greek earthquake

I've removed the entry for the January 8 earthquake in Greece. The quake was 6.7 on the Richter magnitude scale, but caused no deaths or major destruction. We can anticipate approximately 120 earthquakes between 6.0 and 6.9 this year, so I think we should only include those which cause widespread damage. Pburka 23:48, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

January 6 - Lou Rawls, American singer (b. 1933)

He may not have even died on January 6, let alone in year 2006. Reports suggest he has been dead for some time, possibly since days after Hurricane Katrina, so why have it posted that he died on the 6th?

Which "reports"? Please cite your sources. - jredmond 22:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
I looked around the net, and every source kept repeating that he died on January 6. myselfalso 02:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Howard Stern

I'm unsure about including the following event:

  • January 9 - Radio shock-jock Howard Stern officially begins his new radio show on U.S. based satellite radio service Sirius.

I think that very few television or radio programs are sufficiently important to make it onto a main year page. This event may be the exception, though. What do other people think? Pburka 01:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

The significance of this event is something do be debated about in the future, when we see the impact of his show on Sirius. I'd have to say though, given the significance it has had on television, I would keep it up for now. myselfalso 02:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Come on, this is only interesting for US people, not for anyone else. Please remove it. Baszoetekouw 11:15, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
This program is shown in many countries not only in the USA. Igor Skoglund.
So are 1000s of other programs. That alone doesn't make it a notable enough event to be listed here. Baszoetekouw 12:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Too many events

This page will surely require cleanup. There are too many events currently. January 2005 has only 15 events in 2005. I suggest we cleanup at the end of every month + reformat it according to 2005, e.g. NOT

january 1

  • blabla
  • blabla

BUT

january 1 - blabla

january 1 - blabla

I've trimmed out a few more events and have formatted it as you suggested. Pburka 23:57, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Take note that a) 2005 starts off in the second format (whereby multiple events are each dated), but ends with the first format (whereby multiple events are bulleted). I would like you to also take note that although January 2005 only has fifteen events, December 2005 has twenty-nine, five of which occur on the same day. As time goes on, Wikipedia is getting more comprehensive and therefore I believe we should continue with the December 2005 whereby events are bulleted and all events that are considered significant (not current events) be included. If however, you do decide to date every single item, make sure you wikify every date. For users, like myself, who use non-American date formats (e.g. 15 January), you get something that looks like this -
12 January: A stampede during the Stoning the Devil ritual on the last day at the Hajj in Mina, Saudi Arabia, kills 362 Muslim pilgrims.
January 12: Mehmet Ali Ağca, the gunman who in 1981 tried to kill Pope John Paul II, is released from prison in Turkey
15 January: NASA's Stardust mission sucessfully ends with the return of the first comet samples.
The dates that are wikified show up in my preferred format (12 January), but the unwikified dates show up in the last editor's preferred format (in this case January 12). joturner 01:49, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
IMO, using bullets the layout looks a bit cleaner than when dates are repeated. Trimming down the number of events to list only the _major_ things that happened in each month sounds like a good idea though. It's probably best to do it at the end of each month, when the importance of the different events can be put in perspective of the whole month. Baszoetekouw 11:18, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
I feel that it's better to clean up the article in real time. By allowing obviously insignificant events to build up for a month we'll just encourage the addition of other trivial events. I intend to continue removing these events as they are added. Pburka 05:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

300th birthday of Benjamin Franklin

This entry is included on January 17. I haven't noticed any major media coverage of the celebrations surroudning this event, but I'm not an American. In my opinion, unless there were major celebrations (preferably internationally) marking this anniversary, it needn't be included on this page. Pburka 23:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I've seen some news coverage of the event in the US, but it still is not worthy of inclusion. joturner 23:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Super Bowl bias

What idiot put the premature Steelers victory on the event of the Super Bowl? It's insulting to all the fans of the other teams in the playoffs; especially to me, a Bengals fan.SuperWikiman 9.19 19 January 2006 (UTC)

That would be Bev15003. Grandmasterka 18:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

10/10 for predicting the future, 0/10 for awareness of global interest in US sporting events. The Super Bowl should no more be on this page than the FA Cup Final or AFL Grand Final. Average Earthman 12:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with that. The Super Bowl is one of the largest and most advertised event, American or not, in the world today. It also gets a lot of international coverage, too. I know a lot of people don't like the fact that US sports events get more attention from some people here than others. But IMHO, THE largest US sports event should be listed. Dknights411 14:48, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
The Super Bowl is a world event; it most certainly belongs in the article. joturner 22:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
No it isn't. It's an American event. Americans playing for American teams on American soil for American TV audiences. There is a world outside of the United States of America, and they pay remarkably little attention to US sporting events. I won't be adding the inevitable Chelsea winning the FA Premier League either, before you ask Average Earthman 21:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I've done some checking. The Superbowl in 2004 received an estimated audience of 95 million worldwide (the NFL often claim a wildly inflated number which includes all those people who could have watched it if they'd been bothered). The problem is that 89 million of them are in the US, which leaves just 6 million overseas (don't know if that includes the 300,000 odd US troops overseas or not). Which is why I suggest the superbowl is an American event rather than a major international event. Contrast that to the Football World Cup final (which I did leave in). The last one had over a billion people actually watching it. Now THAT is what I call global interest. [1] [2] Average Earthman 21:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
And one more not mentioned in the above links - India vs Pakistan at cricket. If we're adding the Superbowl for sheer numbers, this has to go on as well. [3] Average Earthman 21:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Well correct me if I'm wrong, because that's likely the case, but this site is in English. Generally there aren't Japanese people searching in this for information, they search in their own language with seperate articles. The US is the largest English-speaking country in the world, and so the largest sporting event in the US should probably be in the list of events. And if you leave out something like that because it isn't really an international event, why include a mudslide in the Phillipines? That isn't an international event. Of course, I could be wrong about all this, I'm just trying to understand how we would decide what to add on here. And I have to note that the Super Bowl IS listed as an event still, so apparently someone agrees it should be listed.--DavidFuzznut 20:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Mine disasters

What criteria should be used for the inclusion of mining disasters on year pages? In January, already, there are 3 mining disasters on the page, and the list is probably far from complete. China alone typically has more than 50 mining disasters which kill more than 10 people each year. Clearly, including all mining disasters in which lives are lost is not feasible. Should we include only mining disasters which receive significant coverage in the English language press? This could, obviously, lead to WP:Bias. Pburka 01:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I think we should mention some of them. well just that one. becauswe it has had a major impact on the mining industry due to the press.

david

  • A mining disaster is influention not just in sheer numbers of victims, but also in its wider implications. Or, to put it bluntly and harshly, China doesn't seem to notice mining disasters in China as much as the US seems to notice mining disasters in the US, simply because they happen more often. Since this article is meant to contain events with global implications, ones where the global community does not pay much attention to shouldn't figure just because we feel we need to match the numbers up. Average Earthman 12:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • February 1 -West Virginia governor Joe Manchin orders an indefinite halt on coal production in the state pending safety checks, after two more West Virginia coal miners die in separate accidents.
  • that right there proves the value of mentioning the mining disasters. that action by the govener as a result of the mining disasters will have major implications on the worlds coal market as well as the rest of the econmy.

Mine disasters are not world events, fatal incidents of this kind should be on articles such as 2006 in the United States or 2006 in China, not on international year articles such as this one. Qzm (talk) 14:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Chinese year correspondence

We seem to have a minor edit war going on concerning the corresponding Chinese year number. By most accounts, 2006 corresponds to most of the Chinese year 4703. The first 29 days corresponded to 4702, so if you want to be really precise, you could map it to "4702-4703". There is some debate about the correspondence, and year numbers like these are not normally used in Chinese culture (see our Chinese calendar article for more information), but the majority opinion is that if you want to make a correspondence like this, it's of 2006 to 4702 4703. (See e.g. http://www.chinapage.com/newyear.html and http://www.math.nus.edu.sg/aslaksen/calendar/chinese.shtml.) But someone from 71.242.*.* keeps changing it to 4703-4704, which I believe is wrong. For simplicity (and incidentally agreement with the two web pages cited), I think it's best to mention just the single, majority-opinion Chinese year number here (that is, 4703), and leave it to the Chinese calendar page to explain the other possibilities and contingencies. Or is this somehow too controversial to include on this page at all? Comments? Steve Summit (talk) 03:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Don't use Western stuffs for Chinese calendar. In history, Chinese calendar does not use continuous number for year, the number 47xx was invented in modern time during Xinhai revolution (1910s), and very rarely used now, traditionally Chinese calendar uses Heavenly Stems and Earthly Branches cycles for counting years. — Yaohua2000 07:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
And I added Sexagesimal cycle back, don't remove those Chinese characters, since the cycles are also used in Japanese, Korean and Vietnamese, but those readers cannot recognize pinyin romanizations. Yaohua2000 07:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, we can't help but use some Western concepts to describe the correspondence, especially on a page (2006) concerning the Gregorian calendar, which is, after all, Western! And I think some readers and editors would object if we tried to shove in too many of the details about the correspondence with other calendars here. I think we should mention one gānzhī year name and one 47xx number, and leave it to the linked Chinese calendar and Sexagenary cycle articles to explain all the details. And since the Chinese and Western new years are so close together, I think it's clearer to present the correspondence to a single year (bǐngxū, 丙戌, 4703), not the range (that is, not "yǐyǒu-bǐngxū" or "乙酉-丙戌" or "4702-4703"). Steve Summit (talk) 14:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Early February events

I have deleted the repetitive references to the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy. Instead, I have encapsulated them all into one item for February 1 (the day on which the pictures were re-printed). This is in accordance with the decision to not include multiple, consecutive references to the 2005 civil unrest in France in the 2005 article.

In addition, I have also removed the reference to the February 6 start of the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui. The Zacarias Moussaoui article itself didn't even take note of the start of the trial on February 6; that event certainly does not need to be noted here. The date he is sentenced may be worth noting though. joturner 22:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Church calendars?

It would be worthwhile to have clarification on what the eastern church calendar and the western church calendars are (neither has a page on Wikipedia). Obviously the dates employed themselves are occuring in the Gregorian calendar, but I believe the way of determining these dates is based in another calendar (lunar/solar) - one of them is surely the Julian calendar, but I can't get a lot of information on it. I wasn't aware of the divide, and I almost changed them all to say Gregorian before I looked into it further.

The Western Church uses the Gregorian Calendar. The most conservative Orthodox churches use the Julian calendar. There is a gap of 13 days between the two, so Christmas, 25 December in the Julian calendar, corresponds to January 7 in the Gregorian calendar. In addition to this - as if it was not confusing enough - the Eastern church also uses a different method for deciding the date of Easter, a method that makes sure that Easter never falls at the same time as Passover - perhaps a somewhat anti-Semitic practice.Das Baz 17:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Elections and inaugurations

Do we really need two or three entries for each national election? For instance, on January 21 the Conservatives won a minority in the Canadian election and on February 6 Stephen Harper was sworn in as Prime Minister. For some countries we also include run-off elections. I propose that, except for exceptional cases, only the final election should be included on a year's page. The inauguration/swearing in/confirmation is largely ceremonial, and usually isn't very newsworthy, so I suggest that they not be included. Pburka 20:28, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Mistake under Death

This "*February 21 - The first newspaper was published United States. " was under Deaths in 2006. I took it out - maybe it should be under February 21 (if it isn't already)?

The statement shouldn't be in the article at all. It doesn't even refer to an actual 2006 event. joturner 04:43, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
I removed that from the February section earlier. I hesitate to even call it a statement, as it looks more like WP:Nonsense to me. Pburka 17:24, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

February 8 PLEASE READ

I would like to make a motion to add the sad death of User:Caroline Thompson to the news of Febuary 8. It may not be the most notable event ever, but Caroline was a special Wikipedia who should be honored. This is not about policy, im my opinion, this is about honoring a good person. American Patriot 1776 01:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that her death is sad and that her contribution she, as a person, made to Wikipedia will be missed. But as an encyclopedia, we cannot include the deaths of people who have made a relatively insignificant impact on the world. May Allah treat her well in the Hereafter. joturner 02:03, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

ok so you are going to put her in wikipedia but not make a page for lonleygirl15 (the girl on youtube who isnt "notable enough")?? that doesnt make sense--203.122.193.244 13:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The death of a Wikipedian should not be listed on year articles, unless the person has a Wikipedia article and is of substantial notability. Qzm (talk) 14:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Trim frenzy

I've been bold and had a clear out of the upcoming events. Basically, we have separate articles for 2006 in music and 2006 in TV, so I've cleared out all the album releases and TV programmes. If some album or TV programme turns out in retrospect to have been a major cultural event of the decade then we can add it later, but otherwise there are better places for them. The sports events could probably do with being cut down as well, but people shouted at me last time I tried that (still don't think the Superbowl is that important outside the US though). Average Earthman 23:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

November - Sony's new PS3 is coming out after a delay

This changes so often that should it even be listed? —This unsigned comment was added by 68.44.187.50 (talk • contribs) .

Good point. Consider it removed. joturner 03:34, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Western Astrology Year?

"The year of Aquarius, the Water Bearer in Western astrology. The next year for Aquarius will be in the year 2018"

The referenced link to the Western Astrology page does not resolve this assertion; it's my understanding that western astrology is based on the planetary angles, including other sky points such as the lunar node, the sun, moon and various galactic points. I know the Chinese system advocates assigning signs to each year, but where does the assignment of a sign to a year come into western astrology? I think this assertion needs a reference link -- Closest parallel I've heard of would be the orbit of Jupiter which, with some funkiness due to retrogrades, crosses approximately one zodiac sign per year.

Catholic saint?

"January 17 - Joseph T. Walsh succumbs after a fight with cancer, Catholic saint." I'm not Catholic, but the catholic.org site [4] doesn't seem to list a Joseph Walsh. (I'm assuming Mr. Walsh didn't die as a result of a fight with cancer and an unnamed Catholic saint.) Google can't find him either. Should this be removed? Steve Pucci | talk 03:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Cassini discovery of water

"March 9 - NASA's Cassini-Huygens spacecraft discovered geysers of water shooting from Saturn's moon Enceladus, signaling a possible presence of water." That sounds ridiculous. Does it mean "...signaling a possible presence of life?" If it does, then that is too presumptious in my opinion. It is stupid to say there is a possible presence of water if there have been discovered geysers shooting it out! Someone needs to clarify this I think. --Marsbound2024 01:50, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, the key word here is POSSIBLE. Noting have been confirmed yet. --Siva1979Talk to me 17:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Well they shouldn't make "discovered geysers of water" sound so definite. Perhaps there should be some sort of adjective describing uncertainty beforehand. Something like "NASA thinks its Cassini-Huygens spacecraft has discovered geysers of water shooting from Saturn's moon Enceladus, signaling a possible presence of underground water reservoirs." Just my thoughts there. Perhaps there is not much of a better way to word it. --Marsbound2024 18:16, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Possible end-of-world

User:xchrisblackx has thrice appended an entry for 25 May to the effect that a prediction (to which an external link is given) has been made that the world will end on that date (so I best complete my RfA quickly). Notwithstanding that it seems altogether untoward for him to have termed the removal of his entry vandalism, and notwithstanding that, having been reverted by different contributors, he ought to have brought the issue to this article's talk page in order better to understand the objections other editors have to its inclusion, I thought I ought to raise the issue here, inasmuch as he has queried me on my talk page as to whether I'd be willing to revert to his iteration, lest he should be forced to do so and violate 3RR. I think it's plain that the prediction isn't sufficiently notable to appear here, but I'm simply opening the discussion in order that others may offer their thoughts and in order that XChris might understand that his insertion is unencyclopedic, even as he acts in good faith. Joe 16:42, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I mean no harm and have not broke the 3rr and the 3rd edit was a double click sorry I was only tying to put in a sufficient prediction Mahogany

Deaths

What's the general opinion about how long the deaths section should be? Since there are other pages (and a category) which include more complete listings for the year, as well as pages for the year in sports, film, etc., I would think that the deaths section here should really include only the 100 or so most notable for the whole year. I think there are a lot of relatively minor figures included here at the moment. MisfitToys 20:42, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I certainly agree with you. We have the Deaths in 2006 article for those who aren't global names. Average Earthman 20:58, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, I don't think they necessarily need to be globally recognized names. But I suspect including about 20 people from entertainment, 20 from sports, 20 from politics and government, 20 socially important figures, and 20 from science and technology, business, labor, industry, etc. would be reasonable; there should be an effort to cover all fields without overemphasizing any. MisfitToys 20:09, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
There is no consensus for a quota of any kind. In some years there will be more famous actors die than in others, and more important politicians in one year than another etc. Inclusion should be based on WP:RY criteria.

Population of USA reaching 300 million

Why is it that this event is predicted on the 19th December and in the month of October? Why also when I correct it do I get my edits reversed? Does anyone know which date is correct?

  • I'd vote for removing it from both dates. There will never be any possibility of verifying the precise date. It's just a statistical prediction. It's also not a very important event. Even in the USA I suspect that it's only of interest as trivia; in the rest of the world it's of even less interest. As a comparison, there is no entry for the date India's population passed 1,100,000,000 people (probably sometime last year) nor for when Mexico's population reached 100,000,000 (probably sometime in 1999 or 2000). Pburka 19:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I guess I'd agree with Pburka... I'm in the U.S., and I can't say I've heard anything about it outside of Wikipedia yet (although I'm sure it'll be newsworthy when the projected date(s) approach.) The world population, on the other hand, is very noteworthy. Grandmasterka 20:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

It will most likely happen in october (unless something very out of the ordinary happens DPM 21:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Stop putting immaterial stuff

Stop putting trivial and immaterial "news" in this article. State/provincial elections, for example, should NOT be considered material that should be remembered in the year 2006.

  • I removed the line about Gerald Ford, if living in november, would be the oldest president of the USA. It seems a local unimportant hypothetical event. Immagine if we did the same for each country.
    • I agree completely. I've been trying to keep the Events section free of cruft but I've mostly left the Predicted and Future events section alone. There are many, many entries in that section that should not be moved to the Events section if and when they do happen. Pburka 23:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Three rocket launches in one day

On the same day, July 4, 2006:

  • The Shuttle Discovery was launched
  • North Korea launched a long-range missile and several medium-range missiles
  • Palestinian terrorists launched a small rocket that landed in a high school in Ashkelon, Israel, causing no casualties and only minor damage

The North Korean launch, although almost at the same time as the Discovery launch, is listed as happening on July 5 because North Korea is west of the International Date Line. Confusing and paradoxical, isn't it? Das Baz 18:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Removal of significant incidents in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict

Why was that done ? I would regard the bombing of Qana as a extremely much more important incident i 2006 than the ending of Top of the Pops imi2 09:07, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I removed it. There have been strikes every day against both Israeli and Lebanese targets. On their own these would stand as significant events. However they are part of a larger conflict. If we included every strike we would need to have an entry for every day of the conflict. Clearly this would quickly overwhelm this page. Instead I've tried to choose the most significant events—events which have actually altered the course of the conflict. These include the start of the Israeli bombing campaign and the passing of the UN Security Council resolution. I don't feel that there is any additional benefit to including a blow-by-blow account of the war on this page. Pburka 18:24, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
And you think the ending of Top of the Pops is a more important event than the bombing of Qana ? I disagree with that, and will propose that at least that the bombing of Qana, maybe even a few others are added from that comflict, because of the importance of the events. We're not talking about all blow-by-blows, we're talking about some events that are amongst the most important of the year 2006, when U make up status, I can guarantee you that. For wikipedia to NOT have the Qana-attacks in the overview of 2006 is just plain silly. imi2 18:53, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the relationship between the Qana attack and Top of the Pops is. Here's what the Qana entry looked like when I removed it:[5]
  • July 30 - 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict: A israeli airstrike on Qana allegedly kills 28 people, including 16 children, with 13 people reported missing. The building collapsed seven hours after being bombed, while refrigerated trucks brought in corpses from around the country.
At the same time I removed the following entries:
As you can see, none of these entries indicate why these particular strikes should stand out from other incidents in the war. In fact, all three entries read like propaganda trying to portray one side or the other as beasts. I'd be happy for the article to include an entry on the Qana attack if the entry is concise, clearly indicates the significance of the attack, and is verifiable (i.e. not a conspiracy theory). Pburka 22:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
The connection between Top of the Pops and the incidents you mnetion, is that the ending of Top of the Pops, a rather un-interessting event is mentioned in 2006, but the airstrike om al-Qaa and airstrike on Qana, which is my book, and the rest of the world, is FAR more important than the ending of a tv-show. These particular strikes, or mass-murders (which some like to call them) are significant incidents for this year, in stark contrast to the end of Top of the Pops. The removal of these events makes the current list of 2006 very funny indeed, and irrelevant, when the most important events of the year is left out. Nothing You have written so far has convinced me the slightest that they should be left out, rather the contrarty, in fact I dont think You have delivered any real argument for removing them. imi2 12:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I understand that you are not convinced. If you re-read my last note you will see that I'd be happy for this article to contain an entry on the Qana attack if the entry is concise, clearly indicates the significance of the attack, and is verifiable. If you explain why this attack is more significant than attacks which happened every day of the conflict we could work together to produce such an entry. Pburka 12:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Death year

Amrish Puri died in 2005. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.164.72.18 (talk • contribs) 02:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Could someone change it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.133.61.147 (talk • contribs) 22:30, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

You can! -- Smjg 17:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Problem with edit links

I've noticed a problem with edit links on this page that seems to have started a few days ago. The first and second edit links are ok, but the third one (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2006&action=edit&section=3) is incorrect. It's the one which appears next to January. When I click on it I end up editing February instead. All of the following edit links are also off by one. Is this affecting other editors, too? Pburka 00:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Congrats

A few years ago I involved myself in trying to keep the year pages free of trivial entries (pop culture, random anniversaries, start of X season in X place, minor sporting results, small transport accidents etc. etc.) and gave up out of frustration. Just want to congratulate the people currently undertaking this thankless task - this page looks quite good and is relatively free of trivial entries! Psychobabble 01:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Meaning of "warmest year on record" since the 1890s, "which had already happened only a year earlier"?

The article currently says:

The first half of 2006 has been tied with 1998 as the warmest for any year since the 1890s, indicating it may become the warmest year on record, which had already happened only a year earlier.

What's that supposed to mean? The way I'm reading it, it seems to say that 1998 was the warmest year since 189X, and 2006 is so far about that warm. Yet 2006 may become a record-breaking year for highest temperature, just like 2005 was. So 2005 was apparently the warmest year on record. Which means warmer than 1998 or 189X. So wouldn't 2005 hold the spot for the warmest year since 189X? The whole sentence doesn't seem to make sense. --Mr. Billion 04:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

  • maybe the year before is referring to 1997? Catprog 02:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Golden Year of Animation

You think so? I mean, there were a lot of good kid's movies that came out this year, like Open Season, The Ant Bully, Monster House, Over The Hedge, Flushed Away, Happy Feet, and of course, Curious George. 70.58.211.220

The comment under the Climate heading seems to be unsubstantiated opinion. It should be removed. Frankly, it is ridiculous to act like that is fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.45.195.11 (talk • contribs) 01:36, November 27, 2006

What does that comment have anything to do with what's above? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.43.21.130 (talk • contribs) 15:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, you are forgetting one thing, my dear ; nearly every single one of those films (the exception being flushed away) was absolutely terrible! --Arkracer 21:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I can understand if you dislike the CGI technology that is a new breakthrough for animation, but it is unneccessary to go raving on talk pages about your complaints. Those companies did the best they could making those movies. Besides, hand-drawn animation(save for Curious George) isn't the current method of animation, if you exclude the upcoming Simpsons Movie. Though I think that may get a PG-13 rating. If you have any problems with the new CGI format, call a meeting with you friends and calmly express your feelings. Happy New Year! 65.101.86.69 03:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)65.101.86.69

To consider for inclusion ... end of torcetrapib clinical trials

My thinking is that I should nominate items for inclusion rather than add them directly myself, considering the vast number of things that could appear on this page. Please consider for inclusion Pfizer's termination of development of the candidate drug torcetrapib; the text of the entry could be '2 December Pfizer terminates on-going clinical trials for their new cardiovascular drug torcetrapib, intended for treatment of hypercholesterolemia'. In the press, this event is being discussed as a significant blow to the cardiovascular patient community. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Removed Death of Robin Williams - 8 Dec

Added by 68.14.130.69; unable to verify --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

James Kim?

James Kim, didn't become noteworthy until after his death. He wasn't well known during his life. Maybe his death notice doesn't belong here. GoodDay 21:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

senior Technology editor for CNET gives some notability ... and even if we consider his death to be the event that made him notable -- he is still notable —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Invisifan (talk • contribs) 22:13, 10 December 2006 (UTC).

Cory Lidle death

It seems that several people have added Cory Lidle as a notable death, and that it is then removed from time to time by others. (It was just added again recently). My feeling is that as an active professional baseball player, his death is notable enough for inclusion as a separate item from the plane crash. (Particularly since he played for the Yankees, the most well-known baseball team). To my mind, his death would be notable whether it had happened by fiery plane crash or heart attack. However, rather than going back and forth in the article, does anyone want to hash it out over here? --TheOtherBob 22:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I've discussed the proliferation of death listings before (see here); I suspect that a number of active pro athletes and coaches die each year, and listing them all here is somewhat unreasonable. The main article for each year should include only the deaths of the most prominent people, not everyone of note who happened to die in mid-career. I think sports figures should be listed here only if they were among the 20 or so most prominent athletic figures to die during the year; players who are members of the Baseball, Basketball, Hockey and Pro Football Halls of Fame should probably qualify, along with a few figures each from sports like soccer and cricket and the most prominent figures from other sports. But a journeyman pitcher who happened to die in a highly public manner? There's other places where his death can be (and is) listed, including 2006 in baseball, October 2006 in sports, Deaths in October 2006 and October 2006#2006 October 11. I'll also note that the re-additions have been done by anon or new users. MisfitToys 23:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
I'll grant that the additions have been by anon or new users - that's part of what prompted me to suggest that it be re-added. If we have multiple members of the "general public" (for lack of a better term) coming to a list of notable deaths and saying "Oh, they forgot Cory Lidle," then it's more likely that the name should be on the list.
I also agree that former baseball players should not be listed unless particularly famous. This shouldn't become "This Week in Dead Baseball." However, current professional athletes who die are really very few and far between - and therefore receive quite a bit more press. (I may be forgetting someone, but I can only name one current professional athlete that died this year.)
Consider Minnesota's Korey Stringer, who died August 1, 2001. He was arguably even less famous than Lidle, as Lidle was a pitcher for the Yankees and Stringer was a tackle for the Vikings. However, his death (like Lidle's) received a good deal more national press than if he had died after retirement.
It seems to me that that should be the test - whether the deaths are widely and deeply covered by multiple reliable sources, so as to make them particularly notable (and to make it more likely that people will expect to find them here). I think that's a better approach than setting a number of deaths from a particular field and limiting inclusions to that number. (While I think we do need to give some attention to how many deaths of a given "type" are in an article, I think too much devotion to that approach gives us perverse results -- e.g. a snooker player is included just to include a snooker player, but a highly notable baseball player isn't because we already have too many American pro athletes.) So I think that's my view on this - I think it should probably be included. --TheOtherBob 00:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Given the sport's profile I wouldn't include a snooker player just to include a snooker player, but I would if they were regarded as one of the best players in history. MisfitToys 19:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • This shouldn't even be debated. His name should def. be on this list. It was a major news story of 2006. I agree, active baseball players, don't usually die. This is out of the ordinary. It should be included. Benje309 02:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
    • It wasn't really a major news story of 2006; it was a big story for a couple of days only because of the crash, which is why I have no problem with including the crash in the events section. If he had died in some other manner, his death would perhaps not even have made the front pages of the sports section. I'll note also that the deaths of Steve Olin and Tim Crews are not included in the 2003 article, even though they also died in mid-career in an accident. MisfitToys 19:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Questions:
  • Did Lidle die in 2006? Yes or no?
  • Does Lidle have a Wikipedia article? Yes or no?

If the answers to both are 'Yes', then he gets a listing. That's standard practice. End of discussion. --CalendarWatcher 11:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

That's not standard practice; it's what the deaths in 2006 articles are for, not the main page for the year. MisfitToys 19:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Lidle has too few articles and is not notable outside the US, hence he shouldn't be on this article. Qzm (talk) 14:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Sky news announces the British debt payoffs

Sky News announces debt payoffs from Britain to the USA and Canada. http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-13559404,00.html - just thought this would be important! Amlder20 00:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Death list of 2006

Removed the 'executed' tag, from Saddam Hussein's entry on the Death section. Causes of death, aren't listed on the other names. Mention of his execution is in the 'Events' section. GoodDay 04:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I might disagree with this because this is the only execution and if his execution isnt in their it might cause some confusion.Sam 08:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Checked up other executions on other Year articles (example: 1989's Romanian dictators execution). Now agree with execution tag in 'death' section. GoodDay 15:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Of all the Deaths in 2006 :

  • Only for Denis Donaldson and Saddam Hussein is the cause of death given.
  • Only Saddam Hussein's name is written additionally in his native language/script.

These details are given in the relevant article and have therefore been removed from the list.
Only minimal details are needed in the list of deaths.
The list should only answer the question "WHO died in 2006?".
Abut 23:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't Saddam's political position be dictator? And is there a pic without him smiling?

Cause / manner of death should not be beside any of the names in the Deaths section. Qzm (talk) 14:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Climate section

January 1 to June 30, 2006 was predicted to have tied 1998 as the warmest semi-year, for any year since the 1890s. Overall, forecasters and scientists predict 2006 to be the third warmest year on record, behind 1998, and 2005.

removed, unable to verify. Does not include source. And not even sure WHERE is the statement referring to. A certain country? The major cities on earth? The entire planet including unpopulated areas? Z3u2 21:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

When the annual report of the meteorological institute in Belgium is downloadable here, someone could add to the climate section that 2006 was the warmest year in Belgium since the measurements started in 1833 (which has already been said in the media, but I didn't find a reference... I guess it will be in the annual report). --Bernard François 16:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Year of the Dog

Why are we discussing the year of the dog here? China now uses the Gregorian calendar. The old Twelve Animals calendar now has no functional usage, and is confined to astrology. There is no reason to mention it in this article on the Gregorian year. — coelacan talk — 19:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

So if nobody has any objections I'm going to take this out soon. — coelacan talk — 04:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
While China is using the Gregorian calendar for businesses and other official events, the old Lunar calendar is still very much significant in the Chinese world+culture. Many aspect of Traditional Chinese still reference to the Lunar calendar, such as birth dates, auspicious date for marriage, house-renovation, etc. We should just leave this in.- Atticuslai 05:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Take a look at what page this is. 2006, in the Gregorian calendar. The Chinese calendar is completely unrelated to this. There is no reason to mention it here. I'm not advocating for deletion of the Chinese calendar page, so there's no worry about the information being lost. I just don't think there's any reason to mention it on a Gregorian calendar page. By your logic, we need to also include on this page the dates in the Bahá'í calendar, Bengali calendar, Buddhist calendar, Ethiopian calendar, Hebrew calendar, Iranian calendar, Islamic calendar, Japanese calendar, Javanese calendar, Kurdish calendar, Malayalam calendar, Nepali calendar, Thai calendar(s), Tibetan calendar, and Zoroastrian calendar, all of which are in use today, and probably many more that I'm overlooking. Let's keep this page about the Gregorian calendar, since it's about a Gregorian year. — coelacan talk — 08:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Why no Singapore 2006

I would thought the annual World Bank/IMF meeting in Singapore is rather notable. - Atticuslai 05:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

1916 Rising Sentence

what does: "Ireland commemorates the 90th anniversary of the 1916 Rising for the first time since 1971." mean - how can there be more than on 90th anniversary?--82.25.171.125 19:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Image of Zacarias Moussaoui

Why is there a picture of Zacarias Moussaoui, when he is not mentioned elsewhere in the article? Sedimin 14:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Alliance for Sweden - right wing?

Hi, My friend clarified the political alignment of the "Alliance for Sweden" by adding "right wing" to the description, and this was promptly edited out by Invisifan. I'd like to know why, since this is in no way a controversial description of the partys involved. It hardly qualifies as POV, from my point of view... 213.113.96.55 10:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Since there has been no replies, would it be OK to edit it back in? 213.113.96.55 10:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
"Right wing" is not an accurrate description, as it mismatches with "Center-right" used on the Alliance for Sweden page. Of course, since this is equivalant to a bullet-point list, you don't want entries to be too detailed. --20:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree. Center-right would be appropriate. I think, however, that it should be stated since 'Alliance for Sweden' means nothing in itself. 83.227.137.33 09:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Formatting

Is there anything we can do about the formatting. In IE there is a huge gap between the January title and the first item in January RobChafer (talk) 10:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Steve Irwin

Why shouldn't Steve Irwin's death be allowed in the main list of events? His death had a significant cultural impact in Australia and around the world, and he was one of the world's foremost conservationists. (Anonymous (talk) 15:52, 8th October 2008 (GMT))

Deaths nearly always belong in deaths, not events; you would really need concensus before moving one from deaths to events. On another page like this, John Paul II was not allowed to move from deaths to events, so Steve Irwin certainly won't. Carl.bunderson (talk) 21:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 15:10, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 2

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 15:10, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 3

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 15:11, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 4

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 03:32, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

2006 is the 5th year of the 21st century,the 5th year of the 3rd millennium — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.180.88.6 (talk) 07:46, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on 2006. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:04, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on 2006. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:47, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2006. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:04, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 2006. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:32, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2006/Archive_1&oldid=1144637402"