User talk:Simon D M/archive1

Another Warning

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, but we regretfully cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses novel, unpublished syntheses of previously published material. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. Sfacets 09:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

perhaps you need to be clear what you are talking about.--Simon D M 08:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

3RR

I can't tell which accounts/IPs are which, but it appears that you may be using the 'revert button' too much. Just because another user is revert-happy doesn't give anyone else the allowance to match their bad behavior. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

With weeks of discussion with you-know-who on minor/non-controversial issues as the alternative, revert has a seductive appeal. Will do better but would appreciate advice on other options. --Simon D M (talk) 11:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Drop me a note and I'll send you my dispute resolution suggestions. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Can we see your suggestion too ? Or it is just between you and Simon DM ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agenor 77 (talk • contribs) 10:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

November 2007

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
If you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did to User_talk:Sfacets, you will be blocked from editing. Persistant vandalism Sfacets 14:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, Simon D M, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ~~~~; this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!

TheRingess (talk) 20:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Warning from from Sfacets

Please note that the account under the IP address 163.119.105.27 has been identified as an alternate account of this one. Continued editing from that account may lead to your account being suspended. Sfacets 22:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

This is an invalid and inappropriate warning. There is no policy that requires users be logged in when editing. It is certinaly appreciated, and if done to hide edits itcould be a problem, but so long as no subterfuge is involved there is no harm. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

There is a policy of users only having one user account to make edits to the same articles. Here the editor is actually using two. There are too many edits made not logged in to justify forgetting to do so. Sfacets 00:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Editing without logging in is not the same as having multiple accounts. Can you cite the specific policy language that you think requires users to remember to log in every time? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Just forgot to log in one time that's all. I expect Sfacets to jump on my case so it's no big deal.--Simon D M 10:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

One time? [1] Sfacets 13:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Oops, done it again. No big secret though. --Simon D M 17:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Sfacets 18:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Sfacets, as you well know I was reverting your reversions of my constructive edits. Shame on you for the uncivil and hypocritical warning. --Simon D M 10:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

If you had bothered to read the discussion page before editing (as I requested you do), you would see that many of your edits are being discussed/have previously been discussed. The warning was just that - a warning. If you'd like I can forgo the warning and report you right away -would that be better? Sfacets 10:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I have read the discussion page, have you? Yes, edits like the Bohdan one had been discussed but your objections (eg that there may be 2 Australian GPs in Sahaja Yoga called Bohdan Sheyovich) are absurd and you have not been able to improve upon them. Edits cannot be held up by such flimsy nonsense - that is not discussion, it is just filibustering. --Simon D M 10:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Can you provide a source showing that they are the same person? Wikipedia policy is ery clear about using secondary sources to analyze primary ones. There are 21,127,000 people in Australia - is it inconceivable that there are two people using the same name, even if it is unusual (it is actually quite common among Russian populations). The doubt is there. Dispell it with a source. Sfacets 11:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Logic 101: you cannot prove a negative. See Negative proof --Simon D M 11:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

It isn't about proving a negative. It is about proving that they are the same person. It isn't impossible. Sfacets 11:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

If the name is as common as you claim, then the spelling must be very uncommon, because another one doesn't come up on the whole of Google. Yet you suggest that there just happen to be 2 GPs of the same name from Australia in Sahaja Yoga, that both are senior enough to be entrusted with hand-delivering Mataji's letters or being World Leader, and that offical SY sources don't bother to distinguish between the two. As you & SahajHist are both in SY and both have connections in Australia you could confirm this very easily but you don't because you know it's stupid. In fact both Sahajhist and Bohdan are listed as Australian representatives on the Sahaja Yoga Media Project: http://talks.sahajayogaonline.com/welcome.html Case closed. --Simon D M 12:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Are you serously using a Google search to prove your point? Also please do not reveal editor's identities, real or imagined. Sfacets 13:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The fact is that the Google search does undermine your claim that the name is common. --Simon D M 13:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

...because Google indexes all the information in the world, right? Sfacets 13:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. Because any common name will come up multiple times, unless all the many folks called Bohdan Shehovich are a statistical freak of nature. --Simon D M 13:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

See Search Engine Test --Simon D M 11:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately any deity (or Google for that matter) isn't considered a reliable source without a secondary source. Sfacets 14:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Nevertheless, it, along with the other directly accessible facts, are enough to show to anyone that you are filibustering. See WP:UCS and this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:FRINGE#Sourcing_and_attribution especially the section on parity of sources. --Simon D M 14:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Jolly good old sport. Now you can contribute using reliable secondary sources instead of relying on your Original research. Sfacets 14:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I take it you can read and didn't bother reading the bit on parity of sources. Sources of criticism only need parity with the sources putting forward the opposing view on the fringe theory. --Simon D M 14:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia editing

I don't know if you've had a chance to review Wikipedia's basic policies, but if you haven't I suggest you do so right away. A simple set is at WP:SIMPLE. Two key ones to highlight are Wikipedia:No personal attacks. That boils down to "comment on the edits, not the editors". A second important one is Wikipedia:Biographies of living people. Despite its name, it actually covers any mention of a living person, even outside of biographies. The policy sets the highest standard for referencing and neutrality regarding assertions about living people. The website you've been using as a reference for some assertions about living people is not sufficiently reliable and neutral. I removed some of the material here: [2]. Please don't restore it without better sourcing. Lastly, a bit of advice: Wikipedia is a long term project. We don't need to get things right today, tomorrow, or even this year. We're working to improve the encyclopedia all of the time. Be patient. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

So are you saying that the information on the Sahaja Yoga World Leader being on the Home Office's immigration list needs to be removed because the source of the accusation and evidence is not reliable and neutral enough? Are you saying the same thing about SY's statement on his threatening behaviour? Is it OK if the name is removed from the article? I only included it so that we don't get into a multiple Guido scenario like we have with Bohdan. If it's not OK, I can remove it. --Simon D M 11:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that, so far as I can tell, http://www.freewebtown.com/sahaja-yoga does not qualify as a reliable sources for Wikipedia articles due to the fact that it is self-published. If there is an editorial board or similar review process similar to what one would find in a newspaper or journal then it would be acceptable. This is covered in our core policy, Wikipedia:Verifiability. Official sites belonging to the subject of an article are treated differently different, and even if they're self-published may be used for non-contentious facts. While sourcing issues are problematic in any context, when they concern living people the standard is to remove the material immediately and then discuss it rather than the other way around. I realize this is not "fair" in that there are different standards for internal sources versus external ones. That's an inherent part of how Wikipedia works.

Another point is that reverting the work of others is discouraged. Just because another editor does it doesn't make it alright. Some reverting is tolerated, but there is a strict limit of three reverts per day, and making more will result in being blocked temporarily. See WP:3RR. A good practice is called "BRD". That means boldly make a change, if it's deleted revert once, then discuss the change on the talk page. Another way of expressing it "1RR", for the one revert rule. Sfacets has committed to limiting himself to only one revert per day, and I encourage you to follow his example. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Will, do you not think the issue of Parity of Sources applies here. We are dealing with a new religious movement, not climate change. There's a danger that only SY's claims can be sourced from self-published sources but all the important criticisms such as sexual and physical abuse in the 'divinely protected' schools and ashrams cannot be mentioned because they haven't been picked up by some NRM academic (SY is not that notable in NRM circles, it is one of thousands of NRMs in existence and probably only has 30,000 or so members). --Simon D M 10:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Quotations in Sahaja Yoga article

Hello Simon D M,

You revert what I have editing by saying

that is not correcting a quotation, that is changing a quotation

I meant by "correct quote" the "exact qotations" youcannot add quotations of someone to give a wrong sens, a confusioning sens or even the sens yo wish. Either you put the full quotations without cutting anything, either you just add the ref and let the people read the full quotation. Thank you for your concern. --Agenor 77 12:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Agenor. I agree the right sense should always be given, although quotations can be cut and can even have clarifying words added in square brackets. This is standard practice.--Simon D M 10:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Impartiality

the following are a copy of a discussion held on the [talk page of Sahaja Yoga] We can slowly slowly understand through it the impartiality an motivation of Simon D M to spoil topics on Sahaja Yoga.--Agenor 77 08:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• WP:EL says Yahoogroups are normally to be avoided but it also says that sites to be considered include: "Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources."

--Simon D M 10:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

They didn't knew that someone will post on a yahoogroups whatever he need to confirm he's own vision --Agenor 77 22:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you are talking about tasy or syrc. TASY is worthy of consideration as it is from a lineage of mailing lists that has included contributions from the world's foremost academic authority of SYoga, indeed she was the moderator of one of those lists before being driven off and publicly reviled by some of the Sahaja Yogi contingent. SYRC is also worthy of consideration because it is not a discussion forum, just a repository for official Sahaja Yoga communications and other documents of note. --Simon D M 11:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Unbelievable! More twisting of facts by Simon. Jude Fox (nee Coney) was never on TASY, and she left an earlier yahoogroup because she was starting a new phase in her life helping her husband with his research (on SE Asia). TASY itself consists of a handful of bitter and twisted old ex-yogis bemoaning their 'wasted years'. SYRC is one of Simon's self-publishing projects, others of which have been commented on above. Sahajhist 12:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

It is part of the same lineage of lists beginning with Vlad's on the Alberta listserv. When Vlad moved from Alberta, the list moved to onelist which got merged into egroups which got merged into yahoogroups. The original YahooGroup was vandalised by a spineless Sahaja Yogi who you, SahajHist, know very well, and reincarnated as TASY which has posts from ex-members, members, relatives of members, etc. It is the only community on the Web that accepts various views on SYoga, all the official forums being exclusive and monitored. The barracking that Judith received is clear for all to see here and included a section of a webpage on geocities (now moved to adishakti.org) written to condemn her (the Sahaja 'yogis' eventually were told to remove it because Judith had contact higher up the SY food chain). Are you disputing the authenticity of any of the documents on SYRC? --Simon D M 12:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

for your information Simon, the section of the syresponse webpage on Jude Fox was removed at my request. I also requested a toning down of the comments on yourself, which also happened. Make of that what you will. Sahajhist 19:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The record shows that at the time Pavinsky said at the time the removal of the stuff on Jude was "out of our hands" - that's not easy to square with the idea that you were the sole cause, although that's not to say that you didn't make such a request. Any request to tone down the comments on me was obviously ignored. --Simon D M 21:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I understood nothing ! --Agenor 77 21:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

We're talking about some pages created by a group of Sahaja Yogis intent on discrediting SY's critics. The pages not only include doctored photos and known lies, but forged documnets. A truly shameful episode in the history of SY. See the pages here: (link to attack page edited out— Coren ^(talk) 15:56, 2 December 2007 (UTC)) --Simon D M 21:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

It's you on the pic ? --Agenor 77 22:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

This is not relevant to the article. I strongly discourage anything that could be construed as harassment. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes sorry. But it is relevant actually. We can understand the impartiality of Simon D M then. Then undertsand his motivation. Then understand, just by reading this talk page how much he's manipulating infos, quotes etc.. Add the discovering of this page he pointed out, we can clearly see and understand that he's there for revenge. So ? Which credit will we (reader of wiki) give to his editing now ?--Agenor 77 07:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah right, because I've revealed that I've been abused by Sahaja Yogis, I am therefore not longer fit to edit the wiki article.--Simon D M 11:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your agreement on that matter--Agenor 77 11:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll assume that you're not really stupid enough to mistake reductio ad absurdam for agreement, although you should feel free to correct me :-) --Simon D M 11:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Now comes the insult ! What next ?--Agenor 77 11:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

No insult, I was just giving you the benefit of the doubt and indulging in a little light joshing. --Simon D M 11:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

You could be very good as lawyer --Agenor 77 11:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I sometimes flatter myself with the same thought. --Simon D M 11:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I fully trust you : ) --Agenor 77 11:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it would be a problem if Shimon didn't bombard the article with his edits tenuously held in place with unreliable sources. Once consensus is reached on the sources a lot of the 'impartial' material will go. I also do not believe that there is anyharassment going on (at least not in Simon's direction) Sfacets 09:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The vast majority of my sources are official SY websites, same as yours. Seems like yet another case of the pot calling the kettle black. --Simon D M 11:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Problem is the other vast minority of your source. --Agenor 77 11:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's leave that discussion to the relevant page, anybody reading it will be able to assess the validity of your claims. --Simon D M 11:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

you said supra : "The vast majority of my sources" thank you to recognize that not all of your sources are valid. You see it's not my claim, it's your testimony --Agenor 77 11:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't have anything in mind, I just don't like to make absolute claims. --Simon D M 11:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

LOL --Agenor 77 11:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Glad to see a little flicker there too  :-) --Simon D M 11:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad you start to see flicker now :-) --Agenor 77 11:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

A good number of sources aren't (see discussion). Also the relevance of your edits (like including information about a random russian leader who resigned) leaves a lot to be desired. Sfacets 11:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's leave that discussion to the relevant page, anybody reading it will be able to assess the validity of your claims. Incidentally, I didn't add the info on the Russian leader who resigned. --Simon D M 11:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Block for edit warring (ie repeatedly restoring NPOV wording & sourced material)

You have been blocked for 24 hours for edit warring at Sahaja Yoga. In the future, when in content disputes, please discuss your edits on the talk page and seek consensus. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Should you wish to contest your block, you may add {{unblock|reason}} to your talk page. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Simon D M (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

The person whose edits I was 'reverting' does not participate in the Talk page of Sahaja Yoga and their only interaction on their own Talk page is to remove content with flippant and misleading edit summaries. The person in question was extensively removing sourced material and replacing npov wording with pov wording, with misleading edit summaries, and no discussion on the talk page. Yes, I could have opened a discussion on the Talk page with somebody who never visits on whether sourced material should be removed and whether it is OK to replace NPOV with POV, but I don't have the time to dance like an idiot. Incidentally, I am involved in a lot of more real discussions on the talk page.

Decline reason:

We strongly discourage edit warring. See WP:3RR. — Yamla (talk) 15:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Thanks for for your consideration, although a more thoughtful response would have been appreciated. --Simon D M (talk) 17:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

International Sahaja Public School

I didn't see it. I'm a vandal patrolling (with WP:LAVT) and I get in about 300 commits in an hour reverting vandals, spam, and test edits so I sometimes miss fire. It probably appeared to be spam links at first glance. Sorry! ZacBowling^talk 18:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I am also acquainted with this editor Simon? And he was spot on with the spam link observation. Sfacets 21:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Another Warning from Sfacets

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, please do not add promotional material to articles. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" is strongly discouraged. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. Sfacets 23:17, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

LOL! --Simon D M (talk) 08:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Sfacets shirks responsibility for destructive co-religionists like Teamantime and even rushes to their defence

Sfacets, as Teamantime appears to be a member of your group, could you and/or SahajHist have a word with him/her about how to behave. --Simon D M (talk) 11:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Group? I'm not going to even dignify that with an answer. Sfacets 11:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The pattern of their edits shows, beyond all reasonable doubt, that he/she is a Sahaja Yogi trying, among other things, to remove any reference to the fact that Sahaja Yogis routinely worship Nirmala Srivastava as the Adi Shakti. --Simon D M (talk) 11:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

...And this matters to me because..? Sfacets 12:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Because when you didn't like my edits, you jumped down my throat. I assume that this was because you wanted to see a better wikipedia page, written in NPOV style and sourced with reliable materials. Clearly Teamantime's edits go against the the goal let alone the correct procedure. I assume that you will want to engage with them to find consensus. Everybody else who has attempted to communicate with this particular Sahaja Yogi has been given the flip. --Simon D M (talk) 12:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the user's edits have been reverted. I also note that this is a new user, and so may not be knowledgeable of Wikipedia policy. Sfacets 12:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, so I thought you might want to make a friendly visit and explain a few basics. --Simon D M (talk) 12:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you would need me to do this - why don't you give it a shot? You have been editing for a while, you know the basics of Wikipedia editing. Sfacets 20:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

He/she has already given me the flip, it's up to you and SahajHist. More Sahaja Yogis seem to be showing up, leaving libellous edit summaries etc. If you guys don't get your house in order it's just going to bring further shame on you. --Simon D M (talk) 10:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Could you also have a word with Try-the-vibe, 121.210.52.44 and 203.49.171.174. These are clearly all Sahaja Yogis, the latter two are from Australia, the same country as you and SahajHist. It seems that as soon as Wikipedia has a few bits of sourced info on what Sahaja Yogis get up to, a lot of Sahaja Yogis come out of the woodwork in an attempt to suppress it. Are you going to spend your whole lives hiding? --Simon D M (talk) 11:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Do I look like a janitor? Sfacets 13:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

When Simon D M did try to communicate with one of these new accounts you deleted his comment.[3] If you won't do it yourself themn please don't interfere when others do. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

It was a bogus warning, the user's edits were not vandalism. Sfacets 20:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

A) Simon D M didn't call the edits vandalism. B) Dealing with vandalism is a job for janitors, which you've rejected. C) It's inappropriate to remove comments posted by others. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

He used a vandalism warning template. It's ok - I see you have more than made up for the removal of said template. Sfacets 21:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

He didn't use a template. He simply copied the text that's in the template which doesn't mention vandalism. Please don't remove civil comments from others to others. It's disruptive and "pointy". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

The difference being? He inserted content from a warning template is the same as if he had used a template. It wasn't a civil warning, much like your "welcome" message. Sfacets 22:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying that {test} is not civil? I use it a dozen times a day. If it's not civil you should suggest changes rather than deleting it when applied to a particular user. The reason for such warnings is to alert users they need to change their behavior, a legitimate goal. That process is interfered with when 3rd parties come through and delete them. If you want to take responsibility for other SY users then fine, but since you've said you won't then please don't interefere with legitimate, civil efforts to get to them to comply with WP norms. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Legitimate like say this for example? Sfacets 06:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Did I remove the warning? Nope. Is there a policy requiring users with accounts to sign in? (Please let me know if there is, because I think there are some other users doing so on the SY articles). ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Or perhaps [4]? Sfacets 06:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Sfacets, I'm not surprised you thought better of it and removed this from your talk page, it doesn't reflect well.--Simon D M (talk) 18:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't really care less, more for me to draw on when I start an RFC on your editing habits and Personal attacks. Sfacets 23:57, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. --Simon D M (talk) 10:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you use an online tool to generate your cheesy idioms? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfacets (talk • contribs) 11:03, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Had a great comeback for that, but decided to resist in order to maintain the tone of the discussion.--Simon D M (talk) 11:08, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure you did: Click, Ctrl+C, Ctrl+V. Sfacets 11:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)