User talk:SlimVirgin/archive21

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

[edit] My contributions are systematically deleted by Muslims

Dear Slim, I have started editing the pages Islamophobia and Useful Idiots. However my contributions are systematically reverted by Muslims who work in group and seem to be more motivated by their ideology and protecting the immage of their faith than by love knowledge. Despite the fact that I kept modifying, adding and removing different citations, the result is immediate revert. I urge you please to intervene and see to this matter. If necessary please protect (but please this time protect my version) until the dispute is resoved. Thanks! (21:33 23 October 2005 OceanSplash)

[edit] WikiSort Project

Hey, the WikiSort Project has begun! Come on over and check it out!the1physicist 02:42, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding protecting the Tajiks page

Thanks Slim for protecting the Tajiks page. I'm sorry it had to be done in the first place, but the guy who kept editing it is off his rocker. Thanks again and adios. Tombseye 08:53, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RfA

What I did was actually to restore a lot of comments, including BYT's vote, but some other stuff was apparently lost in that process. I apologize if I have contributed to the confusion there, but fact is that I was actually also a bit confused myself about what was actually going on, and at the same time the servers are terribly slow today... However, when I now take a closer look at the diffs there, it all seems to have been solved (due to your efforts!). I apologize again if my edits somehow made a mess there, but it was never my intention. -- Karl Meier 19:49, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Islamist?

I didn't realise you converted. Congratulations. Does that mean you have to resign from the Zionist Cabal, or will they make an exception for you? I suppose if both sides accuse you of bias, that probably suggests you're getting it right (or have Dissociative Identity Disorder). Guettarda 17:19, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't know enough about OS, but the conversation you linked to on Will's page looks like some sock + puppeteer conversations I've seen, but I doubt Rangerdude is that vicious (or dumb enough to conclude you are a Muslim for your actions). Guettarda 18:30, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
Me, I'm holding out for full membership in Unitarian Jihad. BrandonYusufToropov 18:43, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
I'll sign up just so I can be Sister Flaming Sword of Moderation. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:55, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
Lol! --a.n.o.n.y.m t 18:57, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
Please move all the comments from the voting section to the talk section. That's why it is there. I can see how you'd be reluctant to move the comments to another page. Maybe one solution would be to add a copy of the current voting page to the talk page including both the comments and votes. Then, on the voting page, delete all comments except for the person's vote and the person's userid. --JuanMuslim 19:08, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
I've moved the comments to the talk page, and I copied some of the votes because without them the comments made no sense. The page should be easier to edit now. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 19:39, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Adminship

I don't want the thanks from a Islamist like you. gren グレン 23:12, 26 October 2005 (UTC)


(Thanks a bunch for all of your help, and I hope those silly things go away :) gren グレン 23:12, 26 October 2005 (UTC))

[edit] Gimmiet

Incidentally, when you blocked User:69.195.126.149 for being User:Gimmiet, and then extended Gimmiet's block for block-avoidance...

that's not him. That's not his IP. It resolves to Missisauga. I know him from pre-Wikipedia, I know where he lives, and he lives several thousand miles from there. DS 00:22, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

It's definitely him, Dragonfly. I'll leave more details on your talk page later. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:09, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Admin-ness questions

I've been reading the admin material again and I just had two questions. Firstly, there was a page ARRY bONDS with the concent "Misspelling of Barry Bonds" or the like. I'm pretty sure there is no need to have it... it's just a bad redirect... should I put something that obvious on redirects for deletion or should I just delete it under CSD? Secondly, there was Category:Richard Thompson and Linda Thompson albums I deleted it because the proper is Category:Richard and Linda Thompson albums. I just transferred everything and deleted it arbitrarily (my true reasoning is that it was created by User:Rydia whom personally told me to delete it so there was no need for him to blank it and put up a CSD template since we're 5 feet away from eachother). For things like that should I be dealing with it through requested moves (had it not been my roommate and just some anon)?. Thanks. gren グレン 00:45, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vandal?

Excuse me, but why did you revert me like a vandal for removing section headings that RfAs never have? -Splashtalk 01:45, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

An edit summary to that effect would have been better. But I see why the headers are there now. -Splashtalk 01:52, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikilante

Hello, SlimVirgin, love your handle and the story of it. I created this article as a result of what is going on over at Dominion of Melchizedek. Do you think it is a good idea? From what I read on your user page, I'm impressed with how fair and the patience you are said to possess. I believe DOM needs someone like yourself, to help with this article. I've reached out to a few others tonight asking for help too. Sincerely, Johnski 08:16, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Watching, always watching...

Well, thanks to this I've found several new sets of contributions to observe! - brenneman(t)(c) 08:56, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] FYI

I got a mass email today. See User_talk:Muwaffaq#email Guettarda 13:15, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] DOM

SV thanks for protecting the DOM page. I think there is more then reasonable suspicion about the sockpuppets that are trashing that article and others. The DOM page have been reverted by Johnski/KAJ/SamuelSpade as well has his IP addresses over 60 times in two months. If you need any specific proof, let me know. Thanks... Davidpdx 14:40, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

  • After that round of fire fighting between Gene Poole and Wiki-facts, you did the right thing to protect. All I've tried to do is take from credible sources using parts that have some consensus and balancing some areas with the other side of the story. I gave up on that, and just started posting POV check at the top of Gene's article. That POV check is even considered vandalism by some that claim I have sock-puppets. As you can see I need help. I'll give you an example of something that needs balancing as I see it. An employee of the US OCC has been quoted as saying that DOM is illegal, whereas the offical web site of the US OCC only refers to DOM as an "unrecognized soverignty" that licensed a bank that may be operating without permission in the USA, so I and another wikiuser tried to get consensus (even boldly editing) to add this fact, as a "however" following the employee's quoted statement. Am I way off base here? Sincerely, Johnski 07:27, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] AE

SV, I already thought about writing you yesterday, but didn't then. I'm sure that you understand at least some of my issues that I've listed in these discussions. I wanted to write you yesterday that you could maybe (because you were the nominator of AE and regardless of how the vote turns out) from time to time take a look at AE's contributions, and if there are edit conflicts he's involved him kind of mediate and point out to the involved parties ways to solve the issues. You were also once proposed for a Request for Comment regarding Anon. Anyway, I'd be glad if some of the issues that I listed could be dealt with in good faith by Anon and in view of positive changes that are acceptable for everybody. User:Kefalonia

[edit] Massive clusterf*ck

Even, I myself am surprised by all the opposition that Anonyme raised up. I was expecting this to break (30-40) vs (10-15) and die gracefully as no concensus. The best thing is for someone to suggest that he withdraw, because at this point it's not going to pass, and the longer this drags on the more animosity and frustration for everyone. I feel bad for Anonyme, because I bet he is really surprised by how many don't trust him to be an admin.

I guess his fighting over at the India/Pakistan dispute got him a fresh batch of friends. Compared to the Arab-Israeli conflict that sort of thing is very very very bitter (Israeli's as a class no longer care about the fate of the palestinians and so don't take the conflict very seriously anymore.)

Some folks it seems think that there exists a giant anti-muslim cabal on wikipedia, but that isn't true. The number of editors who are strictly working off of an anti islamic bias are faily few,fairly obvious and merit no further discussion. I don't think that there is any mass network of sockpuppets.

There are however alot of people who are annoyed at the extra tolerance that muslim editors seem to get. The Yuber arbcom case being a classic example. Most westerners have this great fear of being labled intolerant, while many people on WP take pride in being very tolerant, they take especial pride in being very tolerant of the intolerant.

How ever a certian fraction, beleive in the existance of moral standards and universal human dignity, and find that special privliges are abhorrent. And if being called "islamophobic" is the price of expecting that people not to kill each other and condemning them for doing so. Then so be it, for Satyameva Jayate. Klonimus 18:25, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Don't you mean you are surprised by all the support? You're the one with the "opposition." --JuanMuslim 18:43, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
You would think that Klonimus would bequiet now that its all over.:) --a.n.o.n.y.m t 20:29, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Klonimus, what kind of language is that to use in a heading? If you're not very careful, you'll leave fast-scrolling newcomers with the impression you have a bias on some of these issues ... or even that you have occasional problems sustaining civility. BrandonYusufToropov 21:12, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
You already think that I am biased, so I can hardly hope to convince you of anything. I'm not surprised that Anonyme got as much support as he did, but the level of opposes votes was almost as great as in your RfA BYT. Unlike lots of people, I'm not running for Admin, so I feel free to say things as I feel them, on the talk page. I personally felt that Anonyme's RfA was unsalvageable and that it was preferable that it be ended early rather than drag on, and end up like BYT's RfA which died with more oppose votes than support votes. Anyways this message was in reply to to comment of SV's on the talk page of the RfA. The amount of bitchiness on WP is truely astounding sometimes. Klonimus 21:27, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Daniel Brandt

Why delete it? The old article looked good... Can you please restore it, or put it up for AfD? I don't understand what the POV issues are that made you decide to scrap the article. Note also that it is being recreated regularly... +sj + 09:27, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Boy, this is weird. My google alerts today included a line about Daniel Brandt. I thought I was seeing things... but no. +sj + 08:00, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I thought this stuff's been solved! -- Svest 03:12, 30 October 2005 (UTC)  Wiki me up™

I heard your story on d news! -- Svest 03:42, 30 October 2005 (UTC)  Wiki me up™

[edit] unprotect

I *think* the freaks have gone, so would like it if you could please unprtect my user Page.

Cheers --Irishpunktom\talk 20:26, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you :-D --Irishpunktom\talk 20:47, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] zionist terrorism

Fair comment about the point making. However read the entry I modified by jayg and I'm sure you'll agree that it was also very much a WP:POINT. I'm getting a bit sick of the whole insist on tertiary sources thing - which I note is a favourite tactic with Israel/Palestine articles. Basically someone insist ont he form of words "X is used to refer to" - then inssit on examples not of X refering to but of X being used to refer to. A classic is the Occupied Territories article. It's eeasy to find references to the phrase "Occupied Territories" and it's clear from what this refers to. It's very hard to fund references to "occupied territories is used to refer to" (which is a meta search searching for a secondard source showing uage not a secondary source of the fact). Fortunately this is a pattern I've now recognised and will be trying to ensure doesn't proliferate. "No Original Research" relies on secondard sources not secondary sources showing evidence of other secondary sources. Unbehagen 22:14, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] help

The well written article about the plight of "Snowball" as been renominated for deletion...
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Snowball (Hurricane Katrina dog) (2nd nomination)
Please vote to keep this article! Many thanks!

[edit] Anonymous Editor - Ahmadiyya Muslim Community

Would you mind taking a look at a dispute I am having with Anonymous Editor regarding the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community/Ahmadiyya Movement in Islam? Anonymous Editor doesn't want to use their official name, or any name that refers to them being Muslim/part of Islam, because he does not consider them to be truly Muslim. He insists that they agree to the removal of any reference to Islam from themselves, and that we should do so for the purposes of "NPOV". The discussion is at the bottom of his talk page and mine. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 03:06, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Don't worry SV. I have solved the problem. Jayjg and I have reached an agreement. Btw, it wasn't that I didn't think they were "truly Muslim" but that I suggested a possible choice that both mainstream Muslims and Ahmadis could agree to rather than making it one-sided. The discussion was huge though; I think that's the largest one sentenced discussion I've had! :) Regards --a.n.o.n.y.m t 03:38, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Naming conventions for articles on Jews

As there is a great deal of inconsistency in the naming of articles about Jews, I have proposed that they be made consistent. I'd appreciate it if you could commment on this here: Template_talk:Jew#Name_of_articles_on_Jews. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 07:55, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Would you (yes, you Slim) consider weighing in?

Jayjg has been belligerantly restoring a statement on the Golan Heights having Israel's only ski resort at the Israeli-occupied territories article. You are aware of the fuss he made about how references to anything as trivial as water resources don't belong in that article. My relationship with Jay is such that there is no point in my trying to discuss anything with him, so would you leave him a message at his talk page requesting that he refrain from putting information he apparently considers "crap" back into the article? If he continues to misbehave, your action would complete a step in my formal complaint against him. Marsden 14:38, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] My admin

Thank you - I followed the instructions on the relevant page and posted the page (with my answers) to WP:RFA. Thank you so much once again! Ramallite (talk) 15:26, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Straining times

I'm feeling strained from and drained by an attempt to reiterate what long ago I argued should be clear. A discussion of these issues is currently ongoing on my talk page. Please offer your thoughts on these matters, and perhaps on my conduct throughout the affair, specifically. Thank you. El_C 15:43, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, strike that. Guettarda has just now entered the discussion and I want to avoid any appearence of numeric superiority (i.e. 3 versus 2) and underhandedness therein. Though, of course, numerically, only a tiny minority seems to have supported/supports my opponents position. El_C 16:10, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Well, the conversation seems to have reached its end rapidally and unpleasently enough. El_C 16:36, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Intelligent Design

Reply from User_talk:Benapgar

Will you say the same sort of thing to User:FeloniousMonk? Will it make a difference? He does not assume good faith of anyone. He talks about conspiracy theories with bloggers on the discussion board, so I do not see why I cannot discuss my conspiracy theory of administrator cronyism in relation to why FeloniousMonk ignores me and simply reverts anything I change in the article. I have argued my case, probably said at least 1500 words arguing my case to introduce two sentences into the disambiguation part of the article.

The first is to, in my view, properly, characterize the article content as unrelated to the literal phrase except culturally (i.e. idiomatically, though I'm not sure if that word is entirely the correct one to use). This is because the phrase "intelligent design" is vague and amorphous.

I also wanted to add "If you want to see an article about the concept of an intelligent being who designed the universe, see Theism." I'm sorry but for the life of me I cannot figure out why FeloniousMonk says this is factually inaccurate and POV. I don't even know if it is possible for that statement to be those things.

When I explained to FeloniousMonk my reasons as well as I could, he ignored and/or misinterpreted and/or misrepresented all my arguments. This, in my opinion, is common when someone has an axe to grind and are unwilling to listen to anyone else's opinions. User:Guettarda understood my argument, and I used it to show what I was talking about. I received no comment from him or, as far as I remember right now, anyone else after that. It seems every time I broach the subject, I am met with absurd commentary unrelated to my points, and anytime I make a good point, it is just ignored. Attempting to even add a "clean-up" tag did not even work, as FeloniousMonk reverted it no less than half an hour after I added it. I also attempted to have a discussion regarding the relationship between Deism and the article, and was met with absurd, unrelated, and suspicious comments.

I am extremely frustrated and I have no idea what to do other than filing an RFC against FeloniousMonk. Something which I do not want to do as it would take up a lot of my time considering how bulletproof it would have to be as FeloniousMonk is an administrator. The contentious nature of the article also suggests that in an RFC people will think with their personal opinions about Intelligent Design, and side with administrator FeloniousMonk given the movement's infamous nature, not their opinions on whether or not I have a valid point and FeloniousMonk is intentionally ignoring it.

If you could talk to FeloniousMonk I would appreciate it, but will he do anything? I told him numerous times he was misinterpreting my comments and my arguments, but he did not listen. --Ben 07:29, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Reply from User_talk:Benapgar

That was my only real edit. The other edits were a short revert war on the same sentence with FeloniousMonk who was saying nothing about why he was reverting, and a few others of putting templates on the page. Those templates were a factually inaccurate template, which FM reverted, a clean-up template and a expert attention template, and FM reverted both of those within 30 minutes. I realize that the disambiguation part that I was trying to add is not really clear, but that's the best way I thought of of describing it to make sure people knew what the article was about. I am not trying to define what "intelligent design" is, I was trying to define what the article was about--how it has been written, what it deals with, etc. A lot of people get confused about what intelligent design means and have pre-conceived notions. I thought it would help to explain it so they don't get angry like I did the first time I read the article, expecting a discussion about theism.

If you would like to read and see that FM is not paying attention to what I am saying, you can start here (my first comment I made is about a page-length down, and then I start commenting again after I say "I've added the disambiguation link, it's ok with me now." That's when FM reverted it the first time. After I apologized for saying the article was violating Wikipedia policies, I don't say anything more in that section and noone responds to me anymore.

The next section would be a section I talk to FM in is a section I started after I tried to add the change again since FM had just stopped talking to me. I think this was the 3 revert war. Anyway, I ask him why in this section. That's about it.

My other comments are 2 or 3 scattered comments, including chastising admin User:RoyBoy for responding to trolls by saying "Wikipedia is not a chatroom." I also tried to have a discussion about ID and Deism, which I mentioned earlier. That one is here. The last discussion is when I wrote to tell everyone that FM, amongst others, are admins because I thought it would be good for people to know that. I could not understand why FM and others were ignoring and insulting me, and why almost everyone I talked to on the page did the same thing, including another admin whom I told that it was FM who was revert warring because he was the one not discussing his changes and ignoring me. He just told me to file a RfM. When I found out that FM was an admin, as was a bunch of other people who had been misinterpreting and ignoring me I figured it was a case of cronyism. Not that I can prove it, but I thought it would be good for potential contributors to know in the interests of disclosure the number of admins editing the article and discussing on the talk page. An admin User:Duncharris even showed up literally out of nowhere to call me a "lowly troll" which of course further reinforced this belief. Then everyone attacked me for posting this information and I defended myself.--Ben 08:01, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Also read my reply in the Ben's Point section that Ec5618 just made if you want to know more about my motivations for the changes. --Ben 11:02, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "A Very Unpleasant Experience"

  • "Marsden, you're way out of line here. I didn't withdraw from editing because of losing any argument over the name. I withdrew because of your (and saxet's) personal attacks and I made that clear at the time. If your attitude to editing is that the way to make "progress" is to "beat" your opponents "into submission," then you'll end up winning all your battles, because all decent editors will withdraw from you at some point, until someone takes you to the arbcom and they ban you. You make editing a very unpleasant experience. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:02, 1 November 2005 (UTC)"

Slim, it is only my attitude toward editing when Jay is involved that the way to make progress is to beat him into submission, and I like my chances if I'm taken to the arbcom over a dispute with him, regardless of the fact that he's on the committee. And, given how you tend to edit -- threatening new users, joining your friends in edit warring without even looking at what is being disputed, belittling people for not having many edits, accusing administrators of abusing their power for unblocking people whom you managed to get blocked unjustly -- maybe it's best for Wikipedia that you find it a very unpleasant experience.

By the way, have you really made a prediction about how long the word "occupied" would remain in the title of the Israeli-occupied territories article? Given the long and contentious debate that finally reached a consensus for that title, don't you feel some incling of responsibility to warn the people who have toiled on that article if you think some POV plot is waiting in the wings for the opportunity to thwart the collective will on what the article should be called? Do you feel any sense at all that, in order to make Wikipedia as good as it can possibly be, editing should be done in the open, and subject to the scrutiny of people of differing opinions? Do you see Wikipedia in the least as a worthy end in itself, or is it just a means for you to accomplish something more important to you? I don't expect you to answer, but if these comments make you uncomfortable and make editing Wikipedia a very unpleasant experience for you, I would consider that a good thing.

Have you ever read F.A.Hayek's essay, "The Use of Information in Society," which makes clear why centralized control isn't a very effective way to manage information?

Marsden 08:03, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Mormon_jew

Looking at a new article called Groups Exiled from Judaism, and not quite sure what to make of it, I was shocked to see that the well-used Template:Jew has now been "taken-over" by a pro-Mormon user and a new similar-looking Template:Mormon_jew is now being utilised. This Mormon template plagiarises and makes confusing use of the original Template:Jew. The Mormon template must be radically changed ASAP. Your attention is needed. Perhaps we should follow official channels too. Thank you. IZAK 16:44, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Plagiarizes a Wikipedia template? LMAO --Zephram Stark 18:34, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
Jolly glad that you think it's so funny honey... IZAK 07:17, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't a Wikipedia template be just as open for use, copying, and changing, as an article?
The Mormon's don't mean any harm, and you can actually use them for your benefit. After all, another eleven million people supporting Jewish Zionism is nothing to sneeze at. --Zephram Stark 21:49, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
I don't understand what is the problem with the template, especially one that requires "official channels" to deal with. --Vizcarra 22:09, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
What do you think, SlimVirgin? Since Mormons apparently migrated from Jerusalem in the sixth century B.C., don't they have a right to call themselves Jews? --Zephram Stark 00:01, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Zephram Stark

Hi SlimVirgin, I noticed that in the past you have blocked sockpuppets of Zephram Stark. This user is being a massive disruption at Inalienable rights and United States Declaration of Independence (even resulting in that page being protected). Just wanted to point out User:D'Arby (contribs), who I think is another one of his sockpuppets. This edit is clearly written in the same rambling style. Is there any way to ban this person, or ban him from specific articles? It's really getting ridiculous.--JW1805 17:44, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

  • P.S. He posted a message recently on my talk page saying that you were "completely corrupt" :)
Actually, I said, "SlimVirgin sometimes protects the User:talk page of the person she's blocked too. Unless you can think of any other reason for her to do that, I would have to say that it proves she is completely corrupt." --Zephram Stark 18:27, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Recently in the news

In regards to your work on the article concerning a certain critic of a certain search engine, I just wanted to let you know that I applaud your moral fortitude for sticking your neck out where you weren't obligated to. You are truly one of Wikipedia's most valuable contributors. Thanks. Nohat 19:06, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Accusing others of being sockpuppets

Why do you think I am someone`s else sockpuppet? I have been a membe of wikipedia for roughly a year...I hope you didn`t do that only to help your nominee to win this voting. Thanks PMLF 21:30, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Being called a sockpuppet is just Slim's way of saying that she doesn't like you. Don't worry. According to the official reasons to block someone, you can't be blocked for being a sockpuppet. Of course, SlimVirgin doesn't follow any rules or policies, but being called a sockpuppet has nothing to do with that. She blocks people without citing any rule or policy on a regular basis. The important thing to remember is not to buy into her crap. If she gets you believing that she has power over you, others may believe it too. --Zephram Stark 21:59, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the tips. I won`t alllow her do that.PMLF 22:01, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Clarification

While I'd like to distance myself from Rangerdude's wild accusations, I would like to know what your edit to WP:PPol was for. It's just that I don't see what you're trying to say. Could you respond to this? Thanks. Dmcdevit·t 23:05, 1 November 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Intelligent Design

Reply from User_talk:Benapgar

Ben, I saw your note to FM. You can't file an RfAr as a first step; they won't accept it. You could try to file an article RfC, not one on an editor, but asking the community to comment on the article. Would that be a better idea? SlimVirgin (talk) 23:16, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

This makes me nervous because, unless you commonly peruse FM's talk page, he is informing you of what I say through back channels which does not do anything to lessen my concerns about collusion amongst certain administrators. In fact, yesterday I noticed that administrator Duncharris, who showed up completely out of nowhere simply to call me a "lowly troll" on the ID talk page, came onto a page I created and worked on, Coingate (the activity there is very low), and reverted one of my edits without explanation[1]. In fact his reversion made no sense. It reverted back to old information and a factual error. I had clearly explained in the history why I made my changes. Duncharris had to have seen this. There was also vandalism on a page I recently edited yesterday (the activity there is just as low). This the first time that the page was vandalized.
Anyway, if FM will not participate in an RFC, an RFA is my only choice. I believe FM has clearly violated numerous Wikipedia policies, and I believe I can cite precedent when arguing my case. Whether the ArbCom will see it fit to hear my case or judge in my favour is up to them to decide. It is also possible that I will also have sanctions placed against me for my actions. I accept that. I would like you to please ask FM to respond to my question if you could.
p.s. I already filed an article RFC. We talked about it before. That is why FM contacted you. [2] --Ben 23:33, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Reply from User_talk:Benapgar

I believe FM is violating Wikipedia:Ownership of articles, Wikipedia:Assume good faith, Wikipedia:Resolving disputes, and Wikipedia:Wikiquette. He refuses to discuss my points. His responses are all off-topic and insultingly dismissive. He simply says something to the effect of "your change is factually inaccurate and POV." This is what he did the first time and he offered no more explanation than that. When I asked him to, his response has nothing to do with my edits, he starts talking about "Intelligent Design" as if it was a book he read rather than something you'd find in an encyclopedia. I attempted to clarify myself numerous times and in numerous different ways. His responses again were dismissive and any discussion he added was off-topic. He is obstructing changes to the article.
Two other admins, RoyBoy and Duncharris are both blatantly violating Wikipedia:Civility. Duncharris saying "you're just a lowly troll" is a violation and, further, his reverts of my contributions to Coingate I believe violate Wikipedia:Harassment. RoyBoy with his comment "Who's on first? A disingenuous creationist," which he later called his "favorite" joke, was not just likely offensive to creationists, but he was engaging an obvious troll, contrary to Wikipedia:Trolls.
What do I hope to achieve? Well, I believe the article violates WP:NOT in that the article is like a personal essay. I would like to see that change. I believe restructuring the article, or at the least, characterizing the article accurately for potential viewers and provide disambiguation will be helpful. It cannot change with these people there. I am not the only one who thinks the article is bad. People on ID's nomination for featured article status page[3] attest to this, saying things like:
"many contributors are concerned with winning the debate, rather than dispassionately summarizing it"
"Article presently violates "Fairness and sympathetic tone"
"Shows Wikipedia At Its Worst," "makes Wikipedia look like a home for self-indulgent contributors"
"Who nominated this diatribe?" "This is one of the worst articles I've ever read on Wikipedia"
"The article often does not accurately represent the ID position it criticizes"
Here is a good example: on the Intelligent Design page, there is section solely devoted to the criticism "Who designed the designer?" This is appropriate for an essay on the subject, but not appropriate for an encyclopedic article. The question of "who designed the designer" is not at all unique to "Intelligent Design." It is a common critique of a variety of religious ideas. See Turtles all the way down.--Ben 06:48, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Reply from User_talk:Benapgar

I no longer wish to talk to you about this. Please refrain from posting on my talk page from this point on.--Ben 06:53, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Daniel Brandt

You're probably not crazy about hearing this name again but there's been some tag-team blanking of the page and it's gone through a couple protections. At the moment I have it protected but I'll probably unprotect it here in a little bit. I know you were involved in this so I thought I'd drop you a note about it. Rx StrangeLove 23:43, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Revert war on Israel & West Bank

Take a look at the antics of User:Aabaas http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Aabaas recently in Israel and West Bank articles. Thanks IZAK 07:18, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dominion of Melchizedek

Hello Slim Virgin, since you protected the DOM article, and you say you are here to help, why did you ignore my question below:

"After that round of fire fighting between Gene Poole and Wiki-facts, you did the right thing to protect. All I've tried to do is take from credible sources using parts that have some consensus and balancing some areas with the other side of the story. I gave up on that, and just started posting POV check at the top of Gene's article. That POV check is even considered vandalism by some that claim I have sock-puppets. As you can see I need help. I'll give you an example of something that needs balancing as I see it. An employee of the US OCC has been quoted as saying that DOM is illegal, whereas the offical web site of the US OCC only refers to DOM as an "unrecognized soverignty" that licensed a bank that may be operating without permission in the USA, so I and another wikiuser tried to get consensus (even boldly editing) to add this fact, as a "however" following the employee's quoted statement. Am I way off base here? Sincerely, Johnski 07:27, 29 October 2005 (UTC)"Johnski 08:09, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Here is the proposed text:

According to John Shockey, former special assistant, U.S. Comptroller of the Currency, in an address to the 4th International Financial Fraud Convention in London, 27 May 1999: "The Dominion of Melchizedek is a fraud, a major fraud, and not a legitimate sovereign entity. Persons associated with the Dominion of Melchizedek have been indicted and convicted of a variety of crimes." [4] However, the only offical website of the U.S. Comptroller of the Currency refers to Melchizedek as a "non-recognized sovereignty" that "licensed" Caribbean Bank of Commerce. [5]

Do you think this section could be replaced with the current section? The last sentence is the only addition to the current version. Wouldn't this quote from the US OCC's official website help to give balance to the article?

SV I caution you to actually look at the links he's posted. Clearly, it does not say what he says it does. This is part of his campaign to twist the truth. He also goes around posting proposed pieces of text and then claims (fraduantly) he has consensus. This is exactly why no one will work with him. Davidpdx 06:03, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Here is the exact text: "Information has been received that the subject entity holding a bank license issued by the Dominion of Melchizedek, a non-recognized

sovereignty, has an unauthorized address in the United States."KAJ 07:08, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Email

Please check. Thanks --a.n.o.n.y.m t 01:16, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] She's breaking up. Eject, eject!

So, how was my acceptance concession speech? ^_^ - brenneman(t)(c) 01:37, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

"You appear to have violated 3RR at your RfC page. You may wish to take the opportunity to revert yourself."

Does that mean you'll block yourself for violating RFC instructions? Or will your enforcement be selective? I think reverting vandalism is excluded from the 3RR rule. FuelWagon 03:49, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

"You're deleting other people's comments, which you have no business touching, but you're leaving your own."
I don't know of any threaded comments by me that I've left on the RfC page. If I disputed a comment by someone I copied and pasted their words into my response area, and then responded to their post there, that is completely acceptable. The only other threaded comment I know of by me was answering a statement by Ann Heneghan by giving her diffs to two posts by Ed Poor. But Ann's comment was also a threaded comment, so I've moved the entire block of threaded comments to talk. There are no other threaded comments by me that I know of. FuelWagon 03:58, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
Oh, and people have no business leaving threaded comments anywhere on the RfC page, as per RfC instructions. So, moving them to talk is acceptable. Actually, Bishonen was the first to start moving comments when the threads started getting heavy. Have you talked to Bishonen about "having no business touching" those comments too? or again, is your enforcement selective just against me? FuelWagon 04:00, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
Oh no. I sometimes wonder if what people see in Tony and I is what I see in the two of you, although I suspect that we're all insulted by that comparison in some way. I do wish that there was something that could be done to end all this fussin' and fightin'. I think I'm going to assign myself some homework and read up on the (certainly lengthy) history. Barring that, I'd be happy to do whatever it was thought it would take, just ask. - brenneman(t)(c) 04:17, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
Whoa. That's like some kind of performance art. I try to put on my NPOV tinfoil hat when looking at RfCs - you know, to leave my preconceptions at the door and just examine the evidence. But this, it's so bizzare and compelling, with tables and stuff. I'm certainly willing to concede that there could be a conspiracy, with you as the black widow in a fuzzy jumper sitting in the middle. (Note - I always imagine you wearing the same jumper as the dog. Is that rude?) If you were going to pick someone to "snowball" FC would be a good candidate, the word smog makes it easy for people to ignore things he says regardless of their veracity. It's like a car wreck, I can't look away. Still, of course, reserving judgement until I examine the evidence. Whoa. - brenneman(t)(c) 04:43, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Ok, I've got sore eyeballs, but I've reviewed the RfC pretty thouroughly. Before I tell you what I think, I'd like twelve words or less sketching out your opinion on my powers of judgement. (I.e. How seriously are you going to take anything I say.)
    brenneman(t)(c) 11:11, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wiki Birthday Balloon

Image:Wikiballoon1.jpg Wiki birthday to you! Wiki birthday, dear SlimVirgin! Wiki birthday to you!

Congratulations on your first Wikibirthday at Wikipedia (November 2, 2005.). On behalf of the community, we'd like to thank you for your countless edits in the past year! Keep it coming!.

This Wiki Birthday Balloon was awarded to you by: SoothingR

Wow! Congratulations. ~~ N (t/c) 17:25, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Happy Birthday SV!--a.n.o.n.y.m t 21:09, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
Happy Birthday SV!--a.n.o.n.y.m t 21:09, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gabriel's back again

The_Great_Saiyuki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log). Blocked indef; I extended Gimmiet's block to two months from now. Cripes. I'll CC you the email I send him.

Fwiw, there's some question on whether this was him. See User talk:The Great Saiyuki. Friday (talk) 19:47, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
Thanks very much for your follow-up on this. I'm actually quite happy to find out the IP was from an entirely different region. Friday (talk) 00:12, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Eid Mubarak

Eid Mubarak and best wishes from my side . F.a.y.تبادله خيال /c 20:01, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Eid Mubarak from my side too SV. Best wishes --a.n.o.n.y.m t 20:52, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Disruptive ?

Slim, in what way I am disruptive ? Please take a good look at the use of such word. We all are only editing pages. Nothing disruptive as long as the software semaphores can deal with two or more editors editing the same page at the same time so please explain. If indeed I am disruptive I will stop editing the RfA. It really does not matter any more as it is far from consensus. Zeq 21:14, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I tried the discussion page but could not edit for some unknown reason so i am doing what you and others have done and editing the project page. Thanks, for your note. Zeq 21:27, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Try this: [6] - what you suggested does not work and since no one used it I am still asking how was I disruptive ? Zeq 21:29, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Month long block on a DHCP IP User_talk:66.69.128.146

I'm aware of the blocks being made today against the user editing islam from tor and other places, so I understand why you blocked the IP, but a one month block for a dhcp pool address is somewhat long, dontcha think? --Gmaxwell 03:11, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I haven't seen that IP do anything blockable recently, and I don't see any evidence he's Enviroknot. Of course, I know next to nothing about Enviroknot. I'm supopsed to be on a wikibreak, so just do what you want with it and i'll trust your judgement. Anyway, if you reblock it, I would suggest a shorter block time, since it's a dynamic IP. --Phroziac(talk) 05:20, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sock Puppets Of Johnski

SV, here is a list I've compiled of possible sockpuppets he is using. Most of them have the exact same edits and content:

Here are the user names: User:Johnski, User:Wiki-Facts, User:KAJ, SamuelSpade, User:207.47.122.10, User:202.162.66.158, User:12.202.45.74, User:67.124.49.20, User:63.164.145.198, User:71.130.204.74, User:66.245.247.37, User:208.57.91.27, User:68.123.207.17

I had posted a message on David Gerard's user page and got no answer. Please let me know if your able to find anything out. Davidpdx 05:59, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Ms. SlimVirgin: It should be easy to establish that I am only one of the users listed above (KAJ) and I have only used one IP address before my user name, which I disclosed. You may notice that Davidpdx didn't show the same good faith. It is easy to believe his agruments unless you read the entire history between Davidpdx and Johnski which showed that Johnski patiently made attempts to compromise. It appears that they had a hard time of it because they were trying to handle the entire subject instead of one issue at a time. Mr. Harrison suggested one issue at a time, but nothing happened in that direction. Let's just see Davidpdx honestly deal with the issue of the US OCC, and some locigal reason why that part shouldn't be balanced. This will expose which side is being reasonable. I don't think you have to be an expert on the subject to handle this one issue. It is quite simple, as an employee (Mr. Shockey) of the US OCC has been quoted as saying DOM is a "scam" but his boss (Mr. Stipano) wrote in an US OCC official publication only stating that "Melchizedek is an unrecognized sovereignty" responsible for granting a "license" to a bank called Caribean Bank of Commerce. Should an article give both sides of an argument, regardless of where you stand on the issue? Whether it is a scam or not isn't the issue, only that if there are publications that provide different views, you don't just include one side. In this case, isn't the higher authority, an official publication, more important than a quote of a verbal statement?.KAJ 07:02, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] What is trolling ?

Slim,

Show mw other Rfas where some question are on the main page and other moved to talk. Don't abuse your powers. Zeq 08:34, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] === You are now making threats ===

Slim,

You are threating to block me. I prefer Dialogue not threats. If you remove the threat we can continue to talk. Zeq 08:45, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Slim, I am glad you stopped. Clearly, as you point out in [7] what you have been doing is not appropriate, not as the nominator, not as an admin and not as a civilized way of solving disputes. I am glad you changed your mind and decided not to reveret me for the 3rd time and not to block me for speaking my mind. I now expect that your request for others to do this on your behalf will be withdrawn as well. Wikipedia rulls are for a reason and getting others to violate them for you is not a nobel thing to do. Zeq 09:08, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rabin 10 year annivarasary not on main page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Main_Page#.3D.3D.3D_Rabin_.3D.3D.3D


[edit] Thank You

Thanks for your help in updating the main page with this sad day in Israel's history. The day peace was murdered. Zeq 16:39, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Controversy

Wow! You seem to be in the middle of lots of controversy these days! A nice girl like you - who'da thunk it? ;) I hope there is more collaboration and less conflict in your future. And more hot baths too. And maybe some fudge. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 21:44, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] PRueda29 RFA

Thanks for your support! I really appreciate it. PRueda29 23:37, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attack

Hmmm, looks like you are expecting personal attacks, eh? Well, I don't see any recent ones, so if you want, I will loan you a few. When you are done with them, you can return them to me.

(fill in blank with tauntee's name)

  • "_____ is a meanie"
  • "_____ is a poopie head"
  • "Roses are green _____ is smelly" (this is a dumb taunt - it doesn't have to rhyme)

Rex071404 216.153.214.94 01:29, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

I was moving this past week, and it took me ages longer than I expected to get fully back online. My apologies for being so slow. In part Bishonen has been doing more work than I have (as usual :-P ) , NullC also may have been tracking stuff iirc, and finally, see if you can ask NicholasTurnbull to find some more folks to help you (tell 'em kim sent you). IRC (irc.freenode.net, #wikipedia) will also often get you far, and there's a chance I'd be online too.

Once again, my apologies for the unanticipated slowness.

Kim Bruning 03:22, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Veganism

Saw your comments to FuelWagon on the Veganism page, about his bizarre interpretation of POV policy. I went round and round with him via email, saying the same things you did, but he insisted that it's POV to say something objective like "People become vegans for a number of reasons, primarily out of concern for animal rights". He then removed that phrase from the article, so I reverted it. It's funny, I suspect that he's someone who's just really rubbed the wrong way by veganism and thus wants to counter every sentence, even the NPOV ones. I do think that the overwhelming majority of non-vegans would correctly identify the phrase in question as being a good description of vegans' motivations -- whether they agree with those motivations or not. Michaelbluejay 06:07, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Notes about quality of sources

Hi Slim,

While working on the history of Australia at the Winter Olympics, I've come across a book that I feel is semi-dodgy. The book is "Australians at the Olympics: A Definitive History" by Gary Lester, with an ISBN of 0 949853 05 4 , published 1984. The book appears to contradict itself (saying that the result in an event was X in one part of the book, and that it was Y in another), suggesting that inaccuracies may occur not just because of genuine confusion but due to sloppiness. Thankfully, I've got another source I've been checking against, but is there somewhere where I can note that a certain source is dodgy?

Thanks, Andjam 13:10, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Nevermind, I've found out about wikibooks errata: Errata/0949853054 Andjam 02:59, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] WP:CP images of October 19

Hi. Could you provide an update on the images currently listed under October 19, 2005 on Wikipedia:Copyright problems? That is, if permission has been received to use the images. Would like to clear them from the backlog. Thanks. RedWolf 21:52, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Could you add the appropriate fair use rationale to all of these images as required by the fairuse tag? Thanks. RedWolf 22:15, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Turki al-Hamad

I know you will delete and revert this but i dont care i have aol and my ip changes every few minutes. But i find turki al-hamad offensive and he is against my religion please remove him or i will. 152.163.100.67

Can´t you tell us just what you find offensive? And do you feel everybody has the right to try to destroy everything they find offensive? Regards. Huldra 22:28, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Well yes in this case I find it to be the only proper thing to do. TIP Check discussin page

But WHY do you find it the "only proper thing to do"? Just WHAT is it about the Turki al-Hamad article that you find so offensive? I am genuinly wondering. Regards, Huldra 03:06, 6 November 2005 (UTC)PS: if you make reasonable sivilized comments, you will find that you are not reverted. But if you cut out a lot of material other people have spend a lot of time working on, and/or insert nasty language; well, there are a lot of people on "vandal patrol". Always.

I have a question do these vandal patrol people get payed. and how do you become an administrator? RESISTANCE IS FUTILE Really whats the point in blocking my ip i have aol and it takes maybe 5 seconds to change it so all you people are doing is affecting other aol users not me

No, the vandal patrol do not get payed, not to my knowledge! (Just as I do not get payed for creating articles about Emily Ruete etc..) But a LOT of people voluntare to do patrol. Articles that are often vandalized are put on the "watch-list" on many, many, MANY editors. Everywhere in the world! When an article is on a users "watch-list": then you can see if it has been changed recently.
You become an administrator by being a useful member of the Wikipedia community for some time (normally a minimum of a few months), and have a minimum of, say, about 1000 edits. The community (here: the registrerd users, i.e. those who have registred with a user name) vote on whether to support or oppose that persons "adminship". And if that user has made good edits (and not offended too many people....), then he/she will be elected.
Now; I´ve taken time on answering your question, could you please consider answering my question? WHAT is it about the Turki al-Hamad article that you find so offensive? I am still genuinly wondering. Regards, Huldra 03:32, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

If you want to contact me or ask me a question you email me at usnsealn2012@gmail.com this is not my main one but only one of my many so you dont need to search the wikipedia database for it because you wont find it

I have emailed you, Regards, Huldra 04:39, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] KAJ

Ms. SlimVirgin: Check your gmail for the subject KAJ.KAJ 03:34, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

In case you didn't see it on the DOM talk page:
Kaj, can you supply a link to the WP article, please? SlimVirgin (talk) 18:59, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
SV, I found it here: http://www.melchizedek.com/press/war-france.htm Rriter 23:49, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
Ms. SlimVirgin: You can get a cleaner version from Nexis-Lexis that doesn't have inserts like "(what religion)". It is confusing because some of the other inserts are part of the article. KAJ 19:21, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

P.S. The portion with inserts are not related to the issues of Mr. Shockey saying it's phony, or the response "who's to say it's phony" if that is what you are looking for.KAJ 19:43, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wiki-facts

Hi SV,

It may just be me, but I was surprised to realise that "wiki-facts" is actually a user name. Regardless of behaviour, the name itself is (at least to me) confusing.

Regards, Ben Aveling 08:18, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ramallite

I'm not really familiar with this user, but in spite of your claim that he interacts well with people from all POVs he seems to have substantial opposition for being a POV warrior. My own reason for opposing him is his lack of Wikispace presence, suggesting a lack of familiarity with process. But it seems he'll get consensus to pass anyway, so I'm sure he'll do his best. Yours, Radiant_>|< 11:35, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ramallite tally clarification

I didn't mean to misattribute a comment to you. I just figured that rather than get in a revert war over how the tally was summarized, it would be good to alert the bureaucrat that the given tally included some questionable votes. I changed your comment slightly, but kept part of it (which is why I put my name as "co-author"); it seemed like the simplest thing. Anyway, I'm very happy to have the clarification comment just be from me. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:15, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Talk page vandalism

Hi! I would like to inform you about vandalism going on at the Talk:Republika Srpska (hot topic :). An anonimous user is deleting posts made by User:PANONIAN. Evidence is here: [8], [9], [10], [11]. I think that one of the worst and most perfid forms of vandalism is erasing posts on discussion pages. Could we do something about it? -- Obradović Goran (talk 21:33, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Tks for quick response! I'll let you know if this repeats. -- Obradović Goran (talk 22:15, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Double degree

Within ninety minutes of your unprotecting it, Howardjp (talk · contribs) leapt in and deleted the section under discussion. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:39, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

It's strange, I know; he's behaving like fans editing articles on their pop-heroines, or people editing articles on the more extreme areas of politics or religion, yet it's just a sampling of relevant institutions. The only explanation for his behaviour (including the emotional commitment he brings to it) is that he has some sort of chip on his shoulder about universities, but I can't work out what it is. Perhaps he's just trapped himself in a need to stick with his initial action. I see that Winnermario (talk · contribs)'s other account, Hollow Wilerding (talk · contribs), has pitched in — just about the only non-pop-music article in which he's shown interest. Odd coincidence... --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:16, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Haldane's dilemma

I reverted haldane's dilemma then saw the reversion was done by you so i reverted it back

[edit] Missed a bit

I'd undo this. Caesar's wife, etc. Someone else can carry the load, trust us a little. - brenneman(t)(c) 02:41, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Now that the ordeal is over, are you going to put yourself forward to help the (probable) newest admin overcome the shortfall in wikispace edits? Or are you just going to point him at WP:DRV and say "go crazy"? Just as cover until the Ijtihad replaces WP:5P, of course. Or are you a neo-Zionist this week? I can never keep it straight. - brenneman(t)(c) 02:58, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
So I'm off the main RfA page! Ramallite (talk) 03:31, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
I took you off because the vote has closed. If you want to be back on it, feel free to revert me, or if you feel uncomfortable doing that, let me know and I'll revert myself. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:36, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Could this become a featured article?

Hi Slim,

I'm considering trying to make Australia at the Winter Olympics a featured article before the 2006 Winter Olympics starts. Currently it's nowhere near featured article quality, but I'd like to know if the topic is noteable enough or whether such a proposal would get voted down no matter how good the article is. What would your view be?

Thanks, Andjam 03:01, 8 November 2005 (UTC)