User talk:Kaihoku

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Recent edits[edit]

Howzit Kaihoku, I was hoping that we could work together to resolve some of your concerns with some articles. I've reverted most of your changes because it wasn't clear what you had originally objected to specifically, and it seemed that you were pushing a POV instead of trying to find an NPOV. If you'd be kind enough to work with me, and share your concerns, I'd like to see if we can improve the articles you recently edited.

Mahalo! --JereKrischel 07:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Detailed responses[edit]

I'm sorry you see me as so controversial - I don't have a particular bias against the Hawaiian monarchy, although I must admit I have a much more favorable view of the Kamehameha dynasty than the Kalakaua dynasty. I don't believe the 1893 overthrow could be called "legal", since all overthrows are by their very nature "illegal" in the eyes of the overthrown, but there is significant evidence to make the claim that it was justified.

I know that what I've written and sourced contradicts much of the revisionism of hawaiian history perpetrated since the 1970s, and observing that contradiction can give anyone a headache - I suppose I can only ask for your indulgence to examine the references I put forward before disbelieving them entirely.

That aside (since our personal POVs shouldn't really be pushed in this matter), I wanted to address some of your specifics:

RE: The Queen's poll, you say she "claimed" she had support. "Claimed" implies she was less than truthful. We have no real way to know if she was truthful or not. "Concluded" is far less inflammatory.

Concluded is fine with me - I took out "from the results", since we have no real way to know if she was truthful or not. Hopefully that's a good balance for you.

RE: The Queen's "overthrow". Nope, more correctly it was an attempt to RESTORE her power.

That's really not true - she swore an oath to the 1887 constitution, and never had the powers she was seeking. That being said, i think "internal crisis" is probably a better description. Does that suit you?

RE: Minister Stevens, you're implying that his actions had the support of the United States government, when many believe he overstepped his limits, including Grover Cleveland. Therefore, "The United States Government, through its..." should be left out.

Actually, his actions did have the support of the United States government at the time. Cleveland didn't take office till months after the overthrow. That being said, I think the point of having that phrase in was to paint the U.S. as some sort of bad-guy - I'm happy to see that gone.

RE: Political unrest. Many believe that Stevens used the situation to his advantage, so my change to "what he saw as" pol unrest is far more nuetral than stating he "reacted" to the pol unrest.

I agree. That change seems perfectly reasonable.

RE: Landing of the Marines. The addition of "obstensibly" to this sentence allows for different opinions on whether the action was valid or not.

Ostensibly seems POV pushing - I modified the sentence to include the exact details of their orders, and who they got them from - Stevens requested the troops, but they were ordered by G.C. Wiltse. Hopefully by sticking to the plain statement of fact we avoid any characterization of whether or not an action was valid.

RE: Grover Cleveland's message to Congress. This is an essential part of the story and further illustrates the difference of opinions.

I'm not sure if it's particularly helpful, since he reversed himself, but if you'd like to include it that's fine.

RE: The Provisional Government "quickly" gaining recognition. This is a matter of opinion and also has a subtle POV push. "Eventually" is far more nuetral and in my opinion, far more truthful given the intrigue surrounding the overthrow.

There is no matter of opinion there. Every consulate from every nation with diplomatic relations recognized the provisional government within 48 hours. Eventually is definitely not neutral.

You still have MANY pro-Republic POV sentences in this article that convey your POV. If you need examples of these, I'll be glad to list them tomorrow. For now, I need to get to bed.

Any further examples you have would be welcome. I know I don't always manage to craft language properly the first time around, but I'm sure together we can improve things to address your concerns.

Mahalo for your kokua! --JereKrischel 06:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

More details[edit]

BUT FIRST, it occurs to me that we need to examine why this section and the following section are even IN this article. This is about the 1887 Constitution, not the 1893. There's already an article on the 1893 Const. not to mention the article covering the Overthrow. This doesn't belong here.

MAYBE we keep a modified version the first paragraph, with a link the 1893 Const. and Overthrow articles? I PROPOSE WE DO THIS!

Yeah, I think you're right, that whole section really doesn't belong in the 1887 constitution article. --JereKrischel 19:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Appreciate the deletion. Mahalo nui loa! --Kaihoku


Why did you add the phrase about "eliminating suffrage from American and European residents"? I've read the 1893 Constitution, and Article 62 states the qualifications for voting. There's nothing in there that would specifically eliminate suffrage as you contend.

Actually, the 1887 specifically granted suffrage to American and European residents who weren't naturalized subjects. Look at Article 59 of the 1887 constitution, and see how it is distinctly different from Article 62 of the 1864 constitution.
As surprising as it may be, immigrant voting rights were fairly common even in the United States - Apparently, from 1776 until 1926, 22 states and federal territories allowed non-citizens to vote in local, state, and even federal elections in the United States. [1]. --JereKrischel 19:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, first, I was referring to the 1893 Const, not the 1864. However, the articles are identical, and it seems a lot more inclusive the 1887, which has specific restrictions...
1887 sez "Every male resident of the Hawaiian Islands of Hawaiian, American or European birth or descent..." which seems to disenfranchise anyone else including Asians, not to mention... "he shall have resided in the country not less than three years."
1864 & 1893 both state, "Every male subject of the Kingdom, who shall have paid his taxes, who shall have attained the age of twenty years, and shall have been domiciled in the Kingdom for one year immediately preceding the election..."
So, 1864 and 1893 sound a lot more inclusive to me, unless "subject" specifically meant citizen. However, even if it does mean citizen, that article doesn't disenfranchise those citizens of European or American descent/origin or of ANY origin.
And while I'm OK with immigrant suffrage, I can see the denial of it to non-subjects as a way the Queen was trying to protect her country from outsiders taking over.
--Kaihoku 02:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
You're right - the 1887 constitution both increased suffrage, and reduced suffrage in the Kingdom. The people who got the worst of it were Asians, of course. And, FWIW, "subject" did specifically mean "citizen".
An interesting POV you might not be aware of, and I'm certainly not personally advocating for it, but a lot of the people who imposed the 1887 constitution were trying to protect what they saw as their country from a corrupt monarchy taking it over. They felt very possessive about the country, and the government in particular, mostly because it was upon the backs of their tax revenue that it existed...much in the same way the "no taxation without representation" sentiment existed in the 13 colonies in 1776. Denying suffrage to tax-paying residents, especially if those residents pay the vast majority of taxes, seems like a formula for unrest - especially when you drive the entire country into debt, as the Kalakaua dynasty did.
That being said, if you really look back at Kingdom history, the real battle being fought was between the British and the Americans - the monarchy actually was just a pawn in that game. And had the Brits won out, and gotten Queen Emma elected instead of Kalakaua, who knows what kinds of arguments we'd be having today. In either case, it was the common man, be it the Asian laborer, or kanaka farmer, who suffered.
In the end, both sides wanted to claim the moral high ground - Liliuokalani claiming support from "her people", and the Reform Party folk claiming support for "good government". It's very hard to look at either side and not see the hypocrisy of elites deciding the fates of commoners. --JereKrischel 06:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, upon further review I find the phrase "threatened to impose" a bit strong and definitely POV. I've changed it to "proclaimed that she would promulgate".

Sounds like a decent compromise. --JereKrischel 19:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Awesome! --Kaihoku 02:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Right before the sentence about the Queen's poll, I've also added "The queen had been presented with petitions for a new constitution, signed by an estimated two-thirds of the kingdom's voters." I feel that this historical note shows the diverse opinions at the time regarding the 1887 Const.

Do you have a reference for that? It seems highly unlikely given that since the 1887 constitution, the electorate wasn't really in her favor - the Reform Party was quite strong back then. Do you have a cite?
That's from "The Overthrow of the Monarchy", Pat Pitzer, Spirit of Aloha Magazine, May 1994. Apparently her reference is from the book, Hawai'i's Story by Hawai'i's Queen.
--Kaihoku 02:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I'll take a look at Liliuokalani's book, and see if we can come up with a direct quote. Attributing claims is the best way to keep them neutral. --JereKrischel 06:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Moving over to the Morgan Report, your section on "Contradicted by the A.R. " falls under the Controversy headline. Should there not be both sides of the controversy represented? It's not a rebuttal, it simply states the opposite view. How can you expect to throw up your POV without the opposing POV represented?

I've left comments on the Morgan Report talk page - I think you're right, the expectation that PL103-150 has a strong factual basis is a pretty fringe view. --JereKrischel 19:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
You're mistaken, I never stated that I felt PL103-150 did not have a factual basis, nor do I agree that it's view is a fringe view. However, as stated many months ago on that discussion page, I'm glad that the "Contradicted" section was deleted altogether.
--Kaihoku 21:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Hawaii Overthrow and related articles[edit]

Kaihoku, I could use your and others' assistance in attempts by a certain editor to protect the existing POV tone of several Hawaii articles. I merely inserted a POV tag to reflect the current sad state of the articles, but even this minimal step to flag the material as NPOV to outside readers is challenged. It seems that there are basically two people -- including myself (on the moderate side as I am no radical) -- interested in improving the article, and as others have already noted, the other editor's political ideology seems all-too-evident in the tone of the articles. In any event, your help in monitoring -- not getting into further edit wars, which frankly I don't have time for at the moment, or at all actually -- would be much appreciated. Thanks in advance for your help. Cheers and aloha. Arjuna 09:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Aloha Kaihoku, please forgive Arjuna's tone - I assure you I'm quite interested in improving the articles in question. However, Arjuna has seen fit to tag them with POV tags without giving specific citations to support his concerns. I have politely asked him to remove the POV tags until he can more clearly express his concerns, and provide sufficient reference to bolster his point, but he seems to be misunderstanding my concerns, and I'm afraid I've been unable to sufficiently express myself to him.
If you could either help Arjuna by providing specific references to back him up, or help convince him that it would be a good idea to remove the POV tags until he can be more specific and focused in his concerns, it would be greatly appreciated. Mahalo! --JereKrischel 10:00, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Kaihoku, sorry to drag you into the middle of this. I'm only here to say that I'm afraid that JK is misrepresenting both me and himself on this, and that I stand by my comments entirely. The POV tags are perfectly well-backed up on the talk page, and JK is using repeated demands for details as a stonewalling tactic. (And yet I did provide citations as he requested.) As he well knows, and I have stated, his selective presentation of the facts has resulted in a highly misleading depiction of history. But you can judge for yourself. And by the way JK, it is inappropriate for you to "apologize for my tone", which is disingenous at best. Cheers, Arjuna 22:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Aloha Kaihoku, we are currently discussing a citation by Pat Spitzer from Aloha Magazine, and comparing it to citations from Shoal of Time by Gavan Daws. Rest assured my requests for details is not a stonewalling tactic, and your help in addressing the details is welcomed and appreciated.
I look forward to any contribution you may have to this dispute between Arjuna and myself. Mahalo! --JereKrischel 23:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


Aloha Kaihoku! Howzit -- I saw some of your work and thought I would just stop by to say hi. I gotta say itʻs nice to see Kanaka who are strong for Gay rights; as a more-or-less straight supporter whoʻs been fired for sticking up for local glbt kids, I get real tired of the stereotype of discrimination being a "local" thing. Iʻm a born&raised Kaneʻohe Bay person myself and this is where my deepest Aloha ʻAina is. Keep up the good work & good manaʻo. Aloha, --Laualoha 01:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Since you asked, here's the story: /Laualoha's GLBT Kids story. Aloha!--Laualoha 22:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Aloha Kaihoku, thanks for your comments on my talk page and it's great to see you back and active again -- as you know by now, we need ya! I've been out the last week with a heavy workload, so trying to catch up on where things are in the articles, but thanks for putting the cite needed tags (haven't looked yet but my guess is they're probably justified...) JK and I have had our wars (and probably will again) but gadfly is not an unwelcome thing sometimes (Hey JK -- can't live with you, can't live without you.) Oh, and no worries on the user tags -- I did the same from others here and there and I assume that's what they're there for! Arjuna 09:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Gloria Molina article[edit]

Well, first I'm not sure that adding a controversy section to a pol's page to creat balance is necessary or good. Second, those sentences were lifted almost verbatim from the cited article - that's why it needs copyediting. If you really wanted to make the article snappy, writing a section on the Torrista vs. Molinista thing would be a good idea. --evrik (talk) 18:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

It was added because the particular issue was important to me. And it was not lifted verbatim; it was appropriately re-written. Kaihoku (talk) 09:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Hawaiʻi WikiProject Newsletter - Issue I - April 2008[edit]

Aloha. The April 2008 issue of the Hawaiʻi WikiProject newsletter has been published. To change your delivery options or unsubscribe, visit this link. Mahalo nui loa. WikiProject Hawaiʻi 15:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Hawaiʻi WikiProject Newsletter - Issue II - May 2008[edit]

Aloha. The May 2008 issue of the Hawaiʻi WikiProject newsletter has been published. To change your delivery options or unsubscribe, visit this link. Mahalo nui loa. WikiProject Hawaiʻi 17:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Hawaiʻi WikiProject Newsletter - Issue III - June 2008[edit]

Aloha. The June 2008 issue of the Hawaiʻi WikiProject newsletter has been published. To change your delivery options or unsubscribe, visit this link. Mahalo nui loa. WikiProject Hawaiʻi 04:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Hawaiʻi WikiProject Newsletter - Issue IV - July 2008[edit]

Aloha. The July 2008 issue of the Hawaiʻi WikiProject newsletter has been published. To change your delivery options or unsubscribe, visit this link. Mahalo nui loa. WikiProject Hawaiʻi 13:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Hawaiʻi WikiProject Newsletter - Issue V - August 2008[edit]

Aloha. The August 2008 issue of the Hawaiʻi WikiProject newsletter has been published. To change your delivery options or unsubscribe, visit this link. Mahalo nui loa. WikiProject Hawaiʻi 13:26, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Westlife lead section[edit]

Apologies about the edit to the Westlife article (the lead section). I noticed at some point the formatting had been lost and after checking several recent edits, I didn't see any changes (of course, you had made amendments just hours before), which I didn't pick up upon. My revert was for wiki linking/formatting restoration, not content associated. Bungle (talkcontribs) 18:45, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Hawaiʻi WikiProject Newsletter - Issue VI - September 2008[edit]

Aloha. The September 2008 issue of the Hawaiʻi WikiProject newsletter has been published. To change your delivery options or unsubscribe, visit this link. Mahalo nui loa. WikiProject Hawaiʻi 14:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Aloha to hawaii[edit]

Hey man, just wanna say i love hawaii. im random like that. Captain Spleen (talk) 21:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Hawaiʻi WikiProject Newsletter - Issue VII - October 2008[edit]

Aloha. The October 2008 issue of the Hawaiʻi WikiProject newsletter has been published. To change your delivery options or unsubscribe, visit this link. Mahalo nui loa. WikiProject Hawaiʻi 17:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Kai![edit]

Howzit Kai! I've been crazy busy with work, kids & da frontlines, but have managed to squeeze a little edit time in, so I thought I'd say hi before I get swept away by "high surf" again. Hope everything's well...aloha!--Laualoha 09:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Hawaiʻi WikiProject Newsletter - Issue VIII - November 2008[edit]

Aloha. The November 2008 issue of the Hawaiʻi WikiProject newsletter has been published. To change your delivery options or unsubscribe, visit this link. Mahalo nui loa. WikiProject Hawaiʻi 06:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

rippey-tourk affair, equal footing with marriages?[edit]

hey, Kaihoku! i found a page that I hope communicates the way I see things. If you feel strongly about it, maybe a separate section apart from personal relationships entitled "Controversies" would be compromise? I left a clearer explanation on the discussion page for the article. I'm waiting to hear what you think of the changes... --Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 05:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to join WikiProject United States[edit]

Flag of the United States.svg

Hello, Kaihoku! WikiProject United States, an outreach effort supporting development of United States related articles in Wikipedia, has recently been restarted after a long period of inactivity. As a user who has shown an interest in United States related topics we wanted to invite you to join us in developing content relating to the United States. If you are interested please add your Username and area of interest to the members page here. Thank you!!!

--Kumioko (talk) 20:41, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Christine Maggiore. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.
In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

  1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. MastCell Talk 03:11, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

You are wrong. I made one revert, and that's it. Do you not understand the concept of edit-warring, wherein multiple reverts are made? Obviously this does not qualify as such. Or do you simply like to scold regardless of the truth of the matter?
Far more telling is that you didn't put this same edit-warring notice on the pages of Yobol and Skinwalker, the other two users involved. This seems to indicate your bias regarding the subject at hand. Kaihoku (talk) 05:40, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Frank Zindler[edit]

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

A tag has been placed on Frank Zindler requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject of the article is important or significant: that is, why an article about it should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you can assert the notability of the subject, Speedy delete contest button.png. Clicking that button will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the article's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. You may freely add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

See the guidelines for specific types of articles: biographies, websites, bands, or companies. --Djc wi (talk) 08:58, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Works in progress[edit]

Just thought I'd mention that there is a special tag for showing that an article is a "work in progress", its the "under construction" tag, like the one below.

This is the best way to mark an article under construction, though it might be a good idea to create an article in user space first and check it with a few other editors before moving it to mainspace. Though obviously its up to you. Mrmatiko (talk) 19:34, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Hey thanks, I'll use that. Kaihoku (talk) 20:26, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Frank Zindler[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Frank Zindler has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners or ask at Wikipedia:Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 15:02, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 18[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Bruce T. Halle Library, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ford Hall (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:17, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Oahu Wiknic on June 23rd[edit]

Aloha! I am planning to set up an Oahu Wikinic for June 23, as described at Wikipedia:Wiknic

My Wikipedia user name is Peaceray, I started about 15 months ago, & I have about 2,500 edits on I have been hankering to meet with some fellow local Wikipedians, especially since a few of us live in Kailua. To that end, I am sending email to or posting on the user Talk pages of 19 of us from the Wikipedia:WikiProject Hawaii/Participants page who I could identify as possibly living on Oahu.

Please see Wikipedia:Meetup/Oahu/1 & Wikipedia talk:Meetup/Oahu/1

I am open to any of the locations mentioned in the post, or other alternatives. I am like-to-operate-by-consensus type of guy, any workable location on which we could soon decide would be great!

Mahalo, Peaceray (talk) 23:10, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 3[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited John Fitzgerald Kennedy Memorial, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Phillip Johnson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 21:17, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Hawaii edit-a-thon![edit]

Hello. I'm interested in attempting to put together an edit-a-thon for Hawaiian cultural topics something during the Makahiki festival perhaps around the month of November. The hope is that our lackluster coverage of Hawaiian mythology could be improved with help from the Bishop Museum, Hawaii Pacific University, and the Honolulu public library. I am in the process of making initial contacts with these organizations as well as Wikimedia DC's GLAM project. If this sounds like something you might be interested in participating in, or perhaps helping to coordinate, could you please add your name to 2014 Makahiki Edit-a-thon?--v/r - TP 21:23, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Looking for editors to help with an Asian Pacific American edit-a-thon in Honolulu[edit]

WikiProject Hawaii.svg
On Oahu? Edit Wikipedia or Wikimedia sister projects? You are invited to help the Smithsonian Asian Pacific American Center with an Asian Pacific American edit-a-thon in Honolulu this September.
Smithsonian logo color.svg


Last summer I moved to the Seattle area after 14 years in Kailua on Oahu. I immediately fell in with the Cascadia Wikimedians User Group as it formed, joined its board and became its first president as well as the GLAM representative for Washington State.

Recently, Adriel Luis, Curator (Digital & Emerging Media) at the Smithsonian Asian Pacific American Center, contacted me about setting up an edit-a-thon like the previous Wikipedia APA edit-a-thon. In addition to discussing one for Seattle, he wrote:

As I was working two jobs while I lived on Oahu, I did not have the opportunity to meet your or any other Wikipedians at the time. Hence, the reason why I am contacting you now.

If you would like to help, please contact me through one of these methods:


To unsubscribe from future messages from Wikipedia:WikiProject Hawaii, please remove your name from this list.

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 16:29, 23 November 2015 (UTC)