User talk:GoldenGoose100

Re:Don't Spam
Hello Gonzo fan2007. ''I noticed that when I corrected the redirect on the Getting Played page so that someone could fix it, you changed it back so that it would redirect to the Yu Gi Oh! page again, then wrote "Redirect is fine." Please stop spamming and destroying articles.''

— Preceding unsigned comment added by GoldenGoose100 (talk • contribs) 02:50 (EST) Oct 12, 2007''


 * First and foremost please refrain from personal attacks and please assume good faith. I am a hard working editor and just happen to be human and do make mistakes.  Please, instead of accusing me, simply explain why your version is right or how I made a mistake, and I will be glad to revert my changes.  From what I can see, the redirect is fine, but if you want to explain to me why I'm wrong, please do.  Thanks. (Feel free to respond here or on my talk page)  Josh Matthews  talk ♦ contribs 07:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh for your future reference, Spam explains what spam is and what it isn't.  Josh Matthews  talk ♦ contribs 07:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * For your reference, I spent some time and figured everything out. The page is created, if you can add anything, please do as long as it is sourced.  Sorry for the confusion, but next time you can just come and ask me and Ill always try and help out.  Good luck editing!  Josh Matthews  talk ♦ contribs 08:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem, if you have any other questions or concerns feel free to ask and I will try to help or point you in the right direction.  Josh Matthews  talk ♦ contribs 08:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

US Open (tennis)
Hello. Please see my comments at Talk:US Open (tennis). I hope that clear things up. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 11:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I won't move it unless you suggest it at the talk page. If no one objects after a reasonable amount of time, I'll move it myself. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 12:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * A link is red when the article doesn't exist. This may be because of two reasons: (1) it was never created, or (2) it was deleted. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 12:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Hidden comment
There is a way. You have to use the following code:

You don't see the message, right? Edit this page and look again at my comment in the edit box, there should be a hidden message saying INSERT TEXT HERE. Use the bracket code sorrounding the hidden text and add it in the article. Be very careful though, it should only be placed in certain circumstances. I have used it to warn editors of a particular situation, such as adding spam websites to external links, or adding wrong entries to lists. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 01:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Getting help
There are various ways. The first, for emergencies or for serious help, type  in your user talk page (this page!). This will raise a flag where other users will come to your aid. Be sure to leave a question below the helpme sign so that users know what's the problem.

Another way is to visit the Help:Contents page. Just type WP:HELP in the search box to your left and it will take you to the best navigation page on Wikipedia. You can learn all sorts of stuff. If you have a particular question, or do not have the time to research it yourself, in that page click on the Frequently Asked Questions link, just below the Help Contents title. Or, go to the bottom where it says Where to ask questions. Click on any of the three links below that line depending on what question you want to ask. Those three pages are monitored by many users, and replies by more experienced users are given almost instantly.

Hope that helps. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 10:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Federer
It was not vandalism...at the very most it was a bad edit in good faith, but to say I vandalised? All I did was provide clarity and make it like almost every other tennis article. It's a lot easier to see if he's won more than one Indian Wells Masters by removing the second links, rather than drowning it in a see of blue. With the GS's, the emphasis is shifted to the year next to them, which contain links to the tournament for that year. And tie-break scores should be include; they provide more detail and are not intrusive — getting rid of them only serves to simplify the article. Yohan euan o4 (talk) 07:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, I see the edit you think I made (strips clubs etc.) Well, I didn't make that part of my edit, and I'm at a loss to explain it.

I could do it like this: 7-63. I'll take them out for now but I won't remove the other parts of my edit, because it makes the page harder to navigate. Yohan euan o4 (talk) 08:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it's pretty bad...I think I know what happened: I attempted to make my changes, but Wikipedia wasn't working so I saved it on a Word document and turned the PC off. Obviously there was some vandalism in there and when I'd logged back in it had been reverted. Defintely agree that users should be registered, would cut down on the number of people who treat the edit function like its a game and have no intention of ever being constructive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yohan euan o4 (talk • contribs) 21:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Tie Breakers
Well the tiebreak scores are at the bottom of the page already, you see where it says "career Finals"....It looks sloppy with big brackets so I don't think you need it in the part where it says "Grand Slam Singles Finals". Whats the point of having the tiebreak scores twice? especially since they look so sloppy on the page. Is there another way to put tiebreak scores besides ugly big Brackets? Also almost every other Tennis Players (such as Pete Sampras) dont have the Tiebreak scores on there profile so why should Fed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tennis Magician (talk • contribs) 07:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Redirects for deletion
Hi, I saw your PROD after you moved Into the Sun (song), and thought I'd let you know that there is a separate process for redirects: WP:RFD. Maybe just wait and see if this one goes through anyway; I'll endorse it anyway. - Fayenatic (talk) 13:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I understand the rules regarding weasel words, but you should go check my edit once more, and you will notice that the weasel words were already there. I revised the sentence because it was incoherently worded. The sentence read, "some fans considered this as the series had jumped the shark." That just doesn't make sense. Next time I will remove the weasel words as well. MikeFlynn52

Records of Roger Federer
Thanks for your recommendation. I would like some help though to source all the records in the article. I've listed 15 on the talk page, Talk:Records held by Roger Federer but I've never created such a long list of references before. Can you help me? Benkenobi18 (talk) 07:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm trying to source the article. That was the main complaint in the deletion that the records were not individually sourced. I've done so for the first fifteen, as you can see in the talk page. What I am having trouble is taking those 15 sources, and putting them in the main article properly. I've done it for one or two references at most, but not 15. Benkenobi18 (talk) 09:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

First, something can be both a record and a comparison to another player. Also, although the title of this article says "records," the introduction makes it clear that certain high levels of achievement should be included in the article even if not technically a "record." Second, please cite to me where I can find the Wikipedia principle that completely fact-based comparisons are not allowed in Wikipedia articles. Finally, exactly which items in the article are redundant. Tennis expert (talk) 08:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I've never asserted "ownership" of this article, and for you to warn me about doing so violates Wikipedia's "assume good faith" requirement. If an editor believes your edits are reducing the quality of an article, your edits may be reverted even if they are not technically "vandalism."  You do not have a "right" for your edits to stick.  Now THAT would be asserting ownership.  Tennis expert (talk) 14:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

hello GoldenGoose100, i have noticed that you have changed consecutive weeks for federer at no. 1 from 210 to 209, can you please recheck your math once again. there are 48 weeks in 2004 for fed no. 1 ranking (feb 2 - dec 31st), 52 weeks each in 2005, 2006 and 2007 and 6 weeks in 2008 as of february 4, which includes the week of feb 4, 2008.

another way to calculate weeks is like this 366 days from feb2, 2004 to feb 1, 2005 (due to lunar year its 366 days instead of 365 days), 365 days from feb2, 2005 to feb 1, 2006, 365 days from feb2, 2006 to feb 1, 2007 and 365 days from feb2, 2007 to feb 1, 2008, which are total 1461 days translating into 208 weeks and 5 days from feb 2, 2004 to feb 1, 2008, so that means 209 weeks upto sunday feb 3, 2008, so 210 weeks starts on feb 4, 2008. maybe you are only counting weeks upto Monday February 4, 2008 and not including the week of Monday February 4, 2008.

Thanks and have a nice day and pleasant evening. makhan100 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Makhan100 (talk • contribs) 18:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Is tmz not a good source?
On will smith I got reverted by accounts with no talk pages or userpage that would come by every 3 months to revert or vandalize a page. Is tmz not a good source? There's a whole bunch of sites that look like credible news sources and then I find they're not. William Ortiz (talk) 23:01, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah a day ago I saw news that Britney Spears was having an affair with one of her paparazzi. I thought it was worthwhile news. So I followed the source through several tabloid blogs and it ended up being started by one tabloid blog and passed to others and others, but no real "notable" news sources so I complained to the blog I found it on that the source wasn't credible and that's it. William Ortiz (talk) 04:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: RFPs
I see what you're saying. It's natural for some articles to have a moderate level of vandalism (Roger Federer is well-known enough that some vandalism is not surprising, and the fresh prince list look to be as many good faith edits as vandalism). We try to balance too much vandalism with letting IPs edit articles, and it seemed like the other two weren't particularly bad on that spectrum. If you disagree with my choices, you can wait a little while and see how the vandalism holds up and try again in a day or two. Wizardman 17:31, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Your comment
Hello... with all due respect, I have to take issue with the comment you left on my talk page. It was inappropriate and unfair, in that it does not properly reflect my actions at all. The edit summary I left here was a comment on the content, and can in no way be construed as a "personal attack". Furthermore, the text I removed in that edit was vandalism, pure and simple, and as such it is pointless. I appreciate that your action was probably well-intentioned, but in this case the warning was completely unwarranted. Thank you. --Ckatz chat spy  02:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You're entitled to your opinion, but we'll just have to agree to disagree. However, I'm under no obligation to retain your comment, given that I feel it is neither accurate or appropriate. Cheers. --Ckatz chat spy  18:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Powers of 10
Thanks. I chose my hobby as username. I made some Wikipedia searches and it looks like there are enough articles for a disambiguation page: PrimeHunter (talk) 04:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Powers of 10 in mathematics, but I'm not sure what to link, maybe Orders of magnitude (numbers) or Exponentiation
 * Power of 10
 * Power of 10 (Australian game show)
 * Powers of Ten
 * Powers of Ten (album)


 * What I call "my prime records" were either discovered on my PC (usually with help from software by me), or with help from my software on a computer operated by somebody I cooperated with over the Internet. My PC is always running in search of prime-related computational results. Between your two posts I just found 8 twin prime pairs as closely together as possible for primes above 4: 3394626647600811182237+n, for n = 0,2,12,14,30,32,42,44,54,56,60,62,72,74,84,86. 3394626647600811182237 is the smallest occurrence for those n values. Earlier I had found a smaller occurrence for 3 other possible sets of n values within 87 numbers. The fourth (and last) set was harder.
 * I have time to make a disambiguation page in a day. Most existing links to the above articles will remain unchanged. PrimeHunter (talk) 06:59, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It took more than a day but I have made Power of 10 (disambiguation). PrimeHunter (talk) 04:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Smallville
It wasn't rude, it was a straight question being asked. Also, there are no error messages in the references section (I just checked to make sure).  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  02:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, the same can be said to you. You inferred that I was being rude to you, thus you accused me of being so on my talk page, whereas you can have simply asked me if my intention was to be snive or if my choice in words was merely not the best ones. You came to me warning me as if you were positive that it was my intention to be rude to you. Regardless, the reference is good, as is the solitary "Persona" reference in the lead. The one in the lead is pulling the information that is being cited in the Episode section. It's a ref name so that I don't have to plug in the same information twice.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  02:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Federer Edit Summaries
I wasn't trying to direct any summaries at anyone per se, I just feel that adding nicknames is not exactly "encyclopedic content". I have removed said content something like 5 times and am getting slightly sick of it; I have not seen any other biological pages with nicknames. I hope I did not anger you or anyone in any way. -- tennis man  16:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Navratilova
The 1984 Australian Open was November 26 through December 9, 1984, and counted for 1984. Martina Navratilova would have won the calendar year Grand Slam had she won the Australian Open that year but fell to Helena Sukova in the semifinals 1-6, 6-3, 7-5 who in turn lost to Chris Evert in the final 6-7, 6-1, 6-3. From December 1977 through 1985, the Australian Open was the last Grand Slam event of the year. (In fact, the International Tennis Federation formally ruled that the December 1977 edition would not count towards 1978.) Before December 1977, the Australian Open was considered the first Grand Slam event of the year, a status it resumed in 1987. Best regards. Tennis expert (talk) 20:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

tsonga
whoops, that message was supposed to go here.

I got a little excited... What a match!!! KRay 10:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... yeah that looks good. I wish there was a way to emphasize the historic imapct of this match in an NPOV way... I'm gonna try one, but feel free to revert if you like. KRay 11:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kray (talk • contribs)

It's getting a bit silly... I'll let the revert hawks do what they will. Nice discussing an edit for once, lol KRay 11:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kray (talk • contribs)

ugh... i replied on my own page. Don't want to copy KRay 11:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kray (talk • contribs)

The math is not wrong!
Sharapova won 3 qualifying matches during her first Australian Open. Those matches count towards her win-loss record, which gives her 21 match wins through 2007. You can verify this on the WTA website. Tennis expert (talk) 04:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * She also won 3 qualifying matches during her first French Open, which accounts for all 6 "extra" wins. Tennis expert (talk) 05:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Image
Two identical images were used in the same article, that's why I removed one. Ban Ray  22:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * oh and I believe there was no need to leave me a warning-like message, I've reverted dozens of cases of vandalism there in the last few days alone and even had to require page protection yesterday. Yeah, I might make an occasional mistake and you're welcome to inform me whenever I make one, but please be polite, at the end of the day we all try to improve the encyclopedia. Ban  Ray  22:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protect
Hey GoldenGoose, I do remember you. Sorry I actually was sleeping when you sent me the message :( Did you get the protection you needed?  I hope so, sorry I couldn't help you out last night.  Hope you have a good day/night.  Gonzo fan2007  talk ♦ contribs 15:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well that's good, Im glad things were taken care of. Gonzo fan2007  talk ♦ contribs 20:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Haha very true. Its mostly because people dont have the patience to go and make one good edit, they just figure that 5 crappy edits = 1 good edit.  And then you got the vandals, the trolls, and everything else.  But I still think this is a great idea, and will continue to work to make this place better.  Good luck on your vandal-hunting! :-)  Gonzo fan2007  talk ♦ contribs 21:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Response
Here it is. "So, we should just sit on our hands while adverse edits are made, huh? WP:BOLD You seem to have made up your mind already about what I do and why. WP:AGF" I really don't have anything more to say about your erroneous assumptions and misstatements of fact. See WP:UP. Cordially. Tennis expert (talk) 01:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You said, "This talk note is a record of communication and is not supposed to be removed from the talk page." You are incorrect.  From WP:UP, "Policy does not prohibit users from removing comments from their own talk pages...."  See also this and WP:HUSH.  Tennis expert (talk) 01:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

2005 Tennis Masters Cup Surface
Hi! Check this link out from the ATP website:. This is quite interesting, the official Masters Cup website listed the surface as indoor hard. But the ATP website listed it as Indoor Carpet. I am betting on the carpet surface though, in the context that Federer has an active winning streak on the hardcourt surface during that tournament. And though news articles reported that the streak was snapped when he lost to Nalbandian in the finals, the articles also reported that he extended his hardcourt winning streak during the new season in the succeeding year. And that same record has been included in Federer's wikipedia article. Joey80 (talk) 10:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Minor Characters in 24
I saw your note on someone's talk page, that article, we both have been working on extensively, she mainly reduced the size of each section, I've been working on redirecting the links to that page, and also, I sorted them by season. But we worked on it together, taking no credit away from them.

Also, I don't think they made the TOC align right, this was done to fix an error with navigation. Steve Crossin (talk) 06:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I posted a reply on my talk page in case you haven't noticed. миражinred سَراب ٭ (speak, my child...) 07:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not too sure if you would be able to redirect to the actual character's section, as the sections are now divided by season, not by character. However, if you know a way to do this, I'd be more than happy to help.

Yes, it took quite a while to do. Currently, I'm trying to find citations for many 24 characters, trying to keep them from merging. So, mainly what I've been doing is improving character pages. However, there is a large amount of in-universe information, and plot summaries, which need cleaning up. One example, Karen Hayes Steve Crossin (talk) 09:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Tiger Woods
Hey GoldenGoose, thanks for the correction! I'm sorry for the error - for a little while there my mind played a trick on me. Tied for fourth becomes sole fourth, NOT third. Cheers and have a nice day! ricadelide

Transformers
I had this whole bump during the FAC road over the bolding. Originally we bolded the vehicle forms too, and found this ugly. WP:MOSBOLD states bolding is appropriate for definition lists: in this case, who played who. Devastator, Blackout and Scorponok weren't played by anyone. Hope that answers your question. Alientraveller (talk) 09:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Honey (2003 film)
Heh, I thought that film was kind of cute...apparently I am the only one that thinks that judging from the ratings ;)  Voice -of- All  08:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Post on my talk page
Well, when I added that comment, he had put "Support" under the "oppose" section. Soon after I said that, he changed it to "oppose". I probably should have removed what I said after he changed it, but I never remove anything from talk pages unless it is blatant vandalism i.e. swearing, cursing, etc. Basically, he clarified my confusion, and I did not remove my statement because I do not remove stuff from talk pages. I did not think (and still don't think) I was attacking him. I was going to just change his thing to "oppose", but I thought that may not have gone over well. If you look at the edit summary I gave when I added that, you will see that I meant no harm in saying that. J.d ela noy gabs adds 15:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem, If you looked on my talk page just a few sections up, you would see that I accidentally warned an IP who made insanely large (and good) contributions to an article... J.d ela noy gabs adds  17:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Demonstar
The article Demonstar you nominated as a good article has failed, see Talk:Demonstar for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of said article. If you oppose this decision, you may ask for a reassessment.

Re: Hancock
I am not sure what weasel wording exists in that section. Here are the relevant quotes that match the passage: Please feel free to identify exactly why there is weasel wording. The passage matches the context of the article. — Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * "Along with, among others, Michael Mann, one of the producers of “Hancock,” and James Lassiter, Mr. Smith’s longtime producing partner, the two belong to what Mr. Goldsman likes to call a loose collective of like-minded filmmakers. By their own account they keep pushing an increasingly corporate entertainment industry to do what scares it a little — and not just stick to a summerful of sequels and animated sure shots."
 * "Their picture has a spot on the schedule filled last year by Paramount’s toy-driven crowd-pleaser, Transformers. As of mid-April, however, it had been twice to the ratings board and tagged each time with an R, not acceptable for a movie that must ultimately be rated PG-13 to reach its intended broad audience."
 * "'We had statutory rape up until three weeks ago,' Mr. Berg said, describing just one of the elements that has turned Hancock into an exercise in brinkmanship."
 * "The filmmakers, for instance, long ago conceded that their hero should not get drunk with a 12-year-old. But their concession was a bargaining chip, aimed at keeping a similar situation with a 17-year-old in the final version, which was still weeks from being locked as Mr. Berg spoke in April. Another touchy area, Mr. Berg said, involved flying, never mind driving, under the influence."
 * "By Mr. Berg’s lights the executives became comfortable with the film only recently. That occurred when they settled on a marketing approach that played down drama in favor of action and humor. In one of the trailer’s highlights Mr. Smith heaves a beached whale out to sea and smashes a sailboat. 'The ad campaign for this movie is much friendlier than the film,' Mr. Berg noted."
 * Hello, all these quotes came from the New York Times article that is cited at the end of the paragraph that you dispute. Surely you couldn't have missed it.  As for the "preferred" rating, it was purposely vague -- the studio and the filmmakers, who brought the film to the MPAA for review, wanted the PG-13 rating.  Who else would prefer it, you know? :-P (Though we could make that point clearer.) — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 13:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Jo-Wilfried Tsonga edit has been undone
No harm, no foul. Just a few points:
 * 1) The quote is a little more prescient in the context of Tsonga's eventual win at Bercy&mdash;you'll notice I waited till he actually won the final today before making the addition. The point is to sum up the whole tournament&mdash;his maiden Masters shield.
 * 2) It struck me as notable in its contrast to 99.99% of post-match tennis quotes, which rarely deviate from the well known PR formula: "It's always tough, you know; he played well, I was just a little sharper on the decisive points... I hope I can play my best tennis and keep going." Some tennis players (Roddick, Ivanisevic) are infamous for their rupture with protocol in press conferences, so, as a description of Tsonga's personality, it doesn't strike me as a breach of notability per se.
 * 3) It helps to highlight the embryonic Tsonga-Djokovic rivalry, which was a common theme in the French press.

So, it's a judgment call, really. You may be right. But I'd like to think it's not a random bit of trivia.

I disagree over "tasted revenge," by the way: people become so indoctrinated by the Wikipedia practices designed to prevent Armageddon in pages like this that they tend to go overboard on NPOV and forget that sports journalism enjoys a freer set of conventions. And without these little flashes of character, sports articles very quickly dissolve into unreadable quagmires of victories/defeats and stats. Albrecht (talk) 18:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Heh, I think you're reading too much into this&mdash;it's not meant as a snipe against Djokovic (take a look at my contributions; tennis edits are exceedingly rare&mdash;I think it's fair to say I don't have it out for any of the players). It could've been Roddick, it could've been Blake, for all I care; it just happened to be after the Djokovic match that Tsonga gave a colourful quote expressing his growing confidence and pride; his prophetic vision for Bercy. Nothing much I can do about that.


 * But anyway, it's just the odd edit. No sense in arguing about it. Albrecht (talk) 19:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Venus and Serena's GS doubles results
Hi GoldenGoose100: Withdrawals are not included in losses.so Venus and Serena's doubles results should be 68-6. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vswfan (talk • contribs) 18:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Re:Attendacne?
http://www.cbssports.com/nba/gamecenter/boxscore/NBA_20090425_LAL@UTA --Ted87 (talk) 04:29, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Interview request
Hi there!

I'm a journalist, writing a story for the blog Urlesque on the enduring online popularity of "Family Matters." As I saw you're an editor of the "Family Matters" wiki page, I figured you'd be a perfect source of information about the series. Email me at daniel dot daddario at gmail dot com to talk about this.

Thanks!

-- -Daniel D'Addario 68.199.72.114 (talk) 23:28, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:35, 24 November 2015 (UTC)