User talk:Will Beback/Old Archive2

LaRouche Talk template

Hi Will, just to let you know that I've created a LaRouche Talk pages template, containing most (not all) of the LaRouche-related Talk archives, to make it easier for editors involved in discussion with Herschelkrustofsky and Weed Harper to find archived material that may relate to the discussion, as most of these issues have been discussed at length before. The template looks somewhat untidy due to its length, but I'd be grateful if you'd resist the temptation to go through the archives and merge them, because I discovered today that Herschelkrustofsky has been deleting material from previous Talk pages, saying he was "closing" or "retiring" the discussions. I'd like to have a chance to go through the history to check that nothing relevant has been left out. I've already started this process and know roughly where things are now, so it would help me if they could not be moved. Once I've done that, I'll merge some of the archives so the list isn't so long, and once the disputes are over (or at least more settled), we can remove the template altogether. I've also put up an RfC asking for help with Lyndon LaRouche, Political views of Lyndon LaRouche, and Schiller Institute. It would take the load off us if more editors could become involved. Hope that's okay. Best, SlimVirgin 07:33, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

Honorifics and titles

I have posted a proposal on honorifics in my user space that I would like you to read: User:Ford/proposals. Based on your comments at Talk:Pope John Paul II, I would guess that you would support it. Thanks.
— Ford 22:29, 2005 Jan 15 (UTC)

LaRouche

Will, I respect the efforts you are making on the LaRouche articles. However, I feel you are approaching the point of making too many concessions to the LaRouche editors. Normally, what you are doing — seeking consensus through compromise — is the right thing to do in Wikipedia. But you are dealing with a political cult and a leader who, it appears, is a fantasist, a homophobe, anti-Semitic, and by some accounts, a fascist, and a Holocaust denial. It is therefore inappropriate, in my view, to seek a middle position between that person's views and the views of, say, The Washington Post or other researchers and journalists who know about the movement. The first draft of the gay section that you wrote was already a compromise, and was accepted as such by Cberlet and myself. But you are now watering it down even further. The first sentence (I am paraphrasing from memory) is something like "Aids was an important issue for LaRouche," which is an odd way to lead into some of the things LaRouche has said, and you have drastically reduced the quotes about gays, citing space concerns. I agree with you that the article is too long, but there is a great deal of nonsense in it that could be deleted first. I was also concerned about your edit in the intro that LaRouche's "formal position" as of 2003 was as a member of the International Ecological Society, when all that happened was they gave him an award in, I believe, 1994.

Herschel requested informal mediation between himself and, I believe, three other editors regarding these articles some months ago (I was not involved). The point of mediation is to find a middle way, but it was not appropriate for these articles, and it resulted in the articles you saw when you first started editing, which were a far cry from anything an objective observer would have written. The mediator meant well, and you mean well, but please be careful about taking it too far. The articles must be a fair representation of the truth (in the form of generally accepted ideas published in reputable oulets), not just a compromise between whichever editors happen to be editing at any given time. Also, in future, should you decide to revert any of my edits, I would appreciate you discussing this first on Talk, and waiting for my response. I have not reverted any of your edits, even though I have disagreed with several of them. SlimVirgin 11:02, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)

You have disagreed with several of my edits?! That's impossible. All of my edits are perfect and without flaw. ;-)

Just in case some of my edits might be slightly less than perfect, don't worry. My heart is in the right place. The Truth will find its way. Cheers, -Willmcw 11:17, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for undoing the revert. I know your heart (and head) are in the right place. I have never doubted your good intentions and good faith. If you have not done so already, I would like to suggest that you carefully read the Talk archives. It is dull to plough through them, but worthwhile because you will see that all of these discussions, if not in the particular, then certainly in general, have already taken place, and will take place again. I feel this may be a case of those who do not read history are condemned to repeat it. Unfortunately, the mediation material appears not to be there, but you'll get the flavor of things without it. Herschelkrustofsky and Weed, I am sorry to say, are fanatics, who will never post anything negative about LaRouche, and who are not themselves willing to follow the Wikipedia NPOV policy, though they complain loudly when other editors behave as they do. Nothing is going to change that, and strictly speaking, they should not be editing these articles. If the articles are left in a POV condition when we have finished with them, all that will happen is that the next bunch of editors who decide to tackle them will have to go through the same thing all over again. The way to put an end to this (a potential end) is to get the articles into an NPOV state, or as close as possible. That is the thing most likely to stabilize the pages for the future. SlimVirgin 11:24, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)

Slim, while I appreciate your efforts to keep the LaRouche-related articles NPOV, let's remember that the overall project is a collaboration and all of the editors need to work together. I did not 'revert' your edit on the Chip Berlet article - I wrote an entirely new sentence. And in the Political Views matter, I spent days working with you and the other editors to build a consensus, only to have you toss it out. This is frustrating and inclines me to go work on other parts of Wiki. -Willmcw 00:50, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Will, you changed the version I agreed to. You can't then claim the agreement stands and get aggrieved when I "toss it out". I could equally claim you "tossed out" the version I wanted. I appreciate and respect that you were trying to take control of these articles in order to wrestle it away from the LaRouchites, but my own view is that no one should seek to control them. These events show the importance of sticking to Wikipedia's policies. Finding a consensus doesn't mean coming up with a compromise between whichever editors happen to be involved at any given time. If you have one editor saying six million died in the Holocaust, and three saying it was one million, writing a compromise between those versions is not appropriate. LaRouche is not a journalist, LaRouche does not have a position with the Int. Ecological Society, and so on. Facts matter. The fact is that LaRouche has made certain important statements about gay people, which revealed his views towards people who would have been his constitutents had he ever gained electoral support, and therefore those views matter. Cberlet and I wanted to use his own words. This is the correct and appopriate approach. After those quotes, HK could have provided the LaRouche analysis, but the summaries and analysis should not become a substitute for the views themselves. The scholarly, historians' approach is to let the subject speak for himself. SlimVirgin 01:30, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

Oh and by the way, don't underestimate how much the LaRouchites love watching us disagree over them. That is the only reason I have kept quiet so far, and have supported your edits, even though I disagreed with your approach from day one; but in an effort not to "feed" them, I went along with you. So please take into account that all my agreements with you have been examples of me compromising, and do not accuse me of failing to compromise. They have done this before to editors, and in exactly the same way, playing people off against each other, with their accusations of bias against the nasty editors with knowledge or research expertise, and their injured-innocence appeals to the new editor on the scene (which is why they have asked four or five times for the intervention of mediators). If you want to get involved in these articles, I ask you to read the archives very thoroughly, and speak to those editors about their experiences. If you're not prepared to do that, the problems will continue, and you have probably made the right decision to stop editing them. SlimVirgin 01:40, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

Will, I want to apologize for writing to you inappopriately. I find the situation very frustrating, but should not have taken it out on you, as it's not your doing. I tried to e-mail you via your talk page, but you haven't entered one. By all means, feel free to e-mail me if you would like to discuss this off the Talk pages. Just click on "email this user" on the left of my talk or user page. Once again, my apologies. I do respect what you are doing. SlimVirgin 21:03, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

Not to worry. Editing by committee can be frustrating even when there is a common goal, and I'll certainly admit to getting frustrated myself. Let's just keep working to make Wiki a better encyclopedia. Thanks for all you do. Cheers, -Willmcw 03:27, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Will. SlimVirgin 04:21, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)

Will--please, oh please--do not abandon us to the Stygian stables of editing LaRouche pages.--Cberlet 19:42, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I am still crawling up the learning curve...--Cberlet 21:30, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No need to apologize. Everybody in the Wiki community is figuring this process out as we go along. I only know about the "controversy" tag because I just looked it up. While formats and protocols are important, the aim of the project is to create useful content. That is happening. Cheerss, -Willmcw 21:38, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the note about the German wiki. I took a look and it's basically the same stuff, some of it added by the same people, nothing outrageous, just the usual whitewash. I'm finding this situation quite depressing because of the lack of progress. I do almost no editing of these pages because every edit causes either more talk, a revert, or both. I think I'll get back to some real editing for the next couple of days (on other pages) to get the Wiki-spirit back. :-) SlimVirgin 02:57, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

User accounts

Will, for your information, I have left the following note on Herschelkrustofsky's and Weed Harper's talk pages:

"A request was made recently to the developers regarding the relationship, if any, between the user accounts User:Herschelkrustofsky, User:Weed Harper and User:C Colden. The reply from the developers is: "On technical evidence, combined with similarity in posting patterns, Herschelkrustofsky and Weed Harper can be considered to be operated by the same person. C Colden is either the same person or working in coordination with them, but is not *firmly* established to be the same person." Assuming this is correct, it would be appreciated if you would choose either the Herschelkrustofsky or Weed Harper account to edit the LaRouche pages. There is no policy against using multiple accounts, but they shouldn't be used to create the impression of more support for a position than really exists, or to get round 3RR violations. Alternatively, if you feel the technical information is misleading, any light you can shed on the relationship between the accounts would be helpful."

I've been told that the correct thing to do is to leave a note for C Colden asking if s/he can shed light on the relationship between the C Colden account and the other two, which I have also done. SlimVirgin 01:35, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

This is quite a surprise. -Willmcw 03:51, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Just to let you know that Herschel has been blocked for 24 hours for violating 3RR at Lyndon LaRouche. SlimVirgin 07:01, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

This must be taking a lot of your time and other's as well. Pity that we can't all be writing new articles instead of re-re-re-re-writing the sames ones. Even so, the LaRouche articles are getting better. Of course, regardless of the presence or absence of other editors, it is incumbent on each one of us to aim for NPOV articles. This might be a good time to step back and create an outline for the LaRouche series and each article. The simple issue of "what goes where" keeps coming up (cf John Train Salon). And I'm sure you already know that I think it's all too long by half. Anyway, thanks for your efforts for Wikipedia. Cheers, -Willmcw 07:26, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the glitches, I am indeed using a Mac. It seems to happen sometimes where there's an umlaut or an acute, but not always. Regarding the pages, I agree that there has been a significant improvement, though I admit I'm losing track on the main pages (LaRouche, Political views of, and U.S. versus). I also agree that there's too much information. If you feel up to creating an outline, I'd almost certainly support whatever you came up with. I feel too information-overwhelmed right now to try one myself. Best, SlimVirgin 08:08, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

But if I can help by responding to suggestions etc, I'd be glad to. SlimVirgin 08:08, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

Will, when you have a minute, if you don't use a Mac, could you go to Helga Zepp-LaRouche and correct the first reference of Buergerrechtsbewegung Solidaritaet? I have written it without the umlaut, using an "e" instead of the two dots (which is acceptable in German), as my umlauts are causing strange letters to appear, but now it won't link to its article. I therefore did a redirect from the version with an "e" to the version with two dots, but of course, as I can't do the dots in the article, I couldn't do the redirect either (duh). What it needs is to get rid of the "e" in the first word "Buerger" to "Burger" with two dots about the "u". And in the second word, the last three letters "aet": instead of the "e", it should be "at" with two dots about the "a". Hope that's clear enough. Sorry for the confusion. SlimVirgin 10:09, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

Is that any better? -Willmcw 10:23, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes, perfect, thank you. Umlaut patrol may step down now. SlimVirgin 11:22, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

Just to let you know that the Weed Harper account has been blocked for 48 hours for editing while the H account was blocked. The person who spoke to the developers confirmed to the admins that the two accounts appear to be the same person. Correction: he said they are the same person. SlimVirgin 19:31, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

danby

i dont like the sentence you wrote. it doesnt seem to read well. added to that, i dont think it links this critisism to danby's support of israel/opposition to terrorists (here, meaning people who go into cafes and nightclubs where lots of young people hang around and murder everyone) which is why he was critisised. the fact that muslims in labor support danby, show that these critics are radicals and dont represent islam as a whole as HK is trying to suggest. as such, i was wondering if you could make another reword of the sentence. Xtra 04:18, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

thanx for your efforts. btw, this whole problem at the danby page seems to stem from the fact that adam carr works/ed for danby and HK has a longstanging feud with adam. i am not a political supporter of danby, but i would still like to see articles, especially those about a politician who represents me, to be as accurate and truthful as possible. Xtra 05:21, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

LaRouche

Hi. If you have the energy, just rearrange all three sandbox articles, and then insert notes where you want more material sourced and inserted. :-) Someone has to come up with a master plan. Collective editing can come later.--Cberlet 02:43, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Don't mind my if I "play around" in the sandbox. I think we all agree that major changes are worth making. Moving the blocks of info around into logical arrangements is one element of the changfes needed. However, it may be tough for several editors to be making sweeping changes at the same time. Let me know when you want a turn! Cheers, -Willmcw 02:49, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think I should bow out for a couple days then pop back and see what you have done. I've been editing for 35 years and if I have learned anything it is that there are an infinite number of ways to edit a complex batch of text, and when someone has an idea--it makes more sense to make suggestions and fill in details after the text blocks have been moved around into a "through line" that is internally consistent and coherent in one person's mind. Collective editing can flow neatly after that is done at least once by one individual. They can explain their thinking, and others have to come up with something that the group sees as a better model. Seldom happens. Then the tinkering and tweaking can begin as a group process. That's how we edit collectively at PRA. More work--better outcome.--Cberlet 04:21, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree that major reorganization and copy-editing do not go hand in hand. Let me keep playing for tonight and see how far I get. Beside rearranging what we have now, I think that the Presidential bids article should be turned into a polical action discussion, and that an article, or section, needs to be created to give an overview of the whole operation. Overall, I'd like to see the Bio organized chronologically, and the Political views organized thematically. I'm still not sure how to handle the conspiracy theories - They need more coverage, but I'm not sure if they should get an article of their own or if they can be fit into another article. Anyway, let's see if we can't make this series both more comprehensive and shorter. Cheers, -Willmcw 05:11, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Lyndon LaRouche Part Deux. I didn't know Snowspinner was going to do this, so I have quickly cobbled together a request to add to his. If the request is accepted (I don't know how many arbitrators have to agree), the issue moves to an evidence page, which is where all the diffs have to be produced. SlimVirgin 05:16, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

Are you looking for specific help? If so, let me know what you're looking for. Cheers, -Willmcw 05:27, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the offer, Will. I don't know what help will be needed, as I didn't know this was going to happen. I've been putting together the diffs for a case against them myself for the last 10 days or so, but thought I'd have a bit more time. We probably have to wait to see whether the arbitrators accept the case, and then have a think from there. Best, SlimVirgin 05:59, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

Will, thanks for your hard work in the sandbox. Your suggestions and fixes are substantial improvements. SlimVirgin 09:00, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

Hi! I spent a bunch of time moving stuff around on the Political Views sandbox page to make the outline work better in terms of the flow of ideas. I only added a few things. I saved a version after each section of work so you can compare the changes step-by-step. Overall, I very nuch like the rearrangement of the pages that Will did, and did not move anything between the pages he created.--Cberlet 15:30, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I dreamt last night that I'd been taken to arbcom because I had used Abba's Dancing Queen as a source in the LaRouche article, but was accused of having deliberately misquoted it. I was asked to send in the lyrics with a video clip of me singing them, and dancing to it, to show my good faith. SlimVirgin 22:09, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I can't stop laughing. A moratorium on editing may be good for the sanity of all of us. (Was Helga in ABBA?) Cheers, -Willmcw 22:15, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Helga! Of course, the dark-haired one. I'm beginning to see a pattern here. SlimVirgin 22:16, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

Re: Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/organization sandbox. Will, you're a genius. SlimVirgin 02:07, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

Twisted! Posted image files for the "Ghetto Mother" quote - found typo in it!!!) (OK it was only the word "more"). [1] --Cberlet 02:36, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

In case it's easier than posting to our various user talk pages, I've created a sandbox talk page. It's Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/organization sandbox/talk for discussions related to LaRouche-sandbox editing, or the arbitration if we want to talk about that. However, you may feel we're getting bogged down with newly created pages, so feel free to ignore it. SlimVirgin 02:56, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

Re: your query. I'm currently compiling a list of section headers; some diffs; and some pages I want to refer people to. I'd probably prefer to discuss this by e-mail simply due to prying eyes, so if you'd like to do that, click on "email this user". In general, we should discuss whether you want to submit anything; if so, which part; and whether you know the format. Each person submitting evidence has 1,000 words and up to 100 diffs, and it must be presented in the format the arbitrators want, and on the evidence page, otherwise they may not take it into account. It's a pain to say the least. SlimVirgin 06:38, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I just wanted to make sure the wheels were turning. I placed some "diffs" on the talkpage that you've seen, and I doubt that I have much more to add. Obviously, I think that the LaRouche series is bloated and in need of major revision. But there is no error so glaring that it can't wait to be fixed. Computers make us (well, me) impatient. Cheers and wikilove, -Willmcw 06:52, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The process could take weeks, so patience may be required. If you want to submit any diffs, they have to go on the evidence page in the format given there (there's a template) or they won't be taken into account. Did you see what Weed has written by the way? Chip and I are apparently part of a British plot connected to the Iraq war. Also, I thought you might be interested in this article from EIR [2] for your rewrites. It compares Schwarzenegger to Hitler, which might be worth a mention. Bear in mind that others are allowed to edit the LaRouche pages if you feel something needs fixing or replacing. SlimVirgin 07:48, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

Satanism, Mars, and the beast-men. Alistair Crowley? Edgar Rice Burroughs? -Willmcw 07:59, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

La Rouche arbitration

The La Rouche arbitration part two has been accepted; temporary injunctions have been proposed which would affect your editing of La Rouche related articles; please made any comments at the talk page of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Lyndon_LaRouche_Part_Deux/Proposed_decision#Proposed_temporary_injunctions. Fred Bauder 15:47, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee injunction

Pending a final decision on the case concerning you, you re also prohibited from editing articles on Template:LaRouche or creating new articles related to the LaRouche movement pending resolution of this matter, though you may continue to work in the present sandbox articles Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/sandbox, Talk:Political views of Lyndon LaRouche/sandbox and Talk:United States v. LaRouche/sandbox. Violation of this injunction will result in a block of up to twenty-four hours. Pages relating to the case are not included. Please see the injunction order for details. -- Grun t 🇪🇺 04:02, 2005 Jan 27 (UTC)

Reversion of Jewish ethnocentrism

If the edits are relevant, why not copy them across to the KM article? JE is only part of his theory and it's ridiculous to have summaries of his books on JE but not on his own page. And note that Some critics... without a reference is a sure sign of original research (by someone ignorant of the field who has not researched MacDonald). Jacquerie27 09:16, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Gee, can I say it any louder? Make a new article and dump this over there. OK, I give up, I'll do it myself. It's too much of a scholarly debate to include in the K.McD. biography, and it's too much of a K.McD. debate to include in a general article, such as Jewish Ethnocentrism. As I've said before, the only sticking point to a "third article" is a title. On the principle that it isn't hard to move an article to a new name, I propose that we put it under Culture of Critique, the title of K.McD.'s most famous work. (Other proposals have been floated, we can decide later.). -Willmcw 09:25, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sorry about the edit confusion at Jewish Ethnocentrism, Will. SlimVirgin 10:30, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

LaRouche

I was more planning on stepping in if nobody else gathered the evidence. I suspected that once the case was raised everybody involved would probably begin to hurl evidence at one another. But I'll deal with it soon if nobody else does. I have papers to grade this weekend, though, so I'm not sure when that will be. Snowspinner 13:50, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

Please note that you are not on my "list of violators", but rather on my list of editors to "be warned against further violations." I don't think you have broken any rules to date, although you did sort of embarrass yourself in your hunt for LaRouche-under-the-bed, especially at Classical music. --HK 15:58, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Since I haven't committeed any violations, I don't think I can commit "further" violations, but that's semantics. Cheers, -Willmcw 16:19, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Will, thanks for the links. Would you mind if I put them on the evidence page under your name? We are only allowed 1,000 words each and I am nearing that limit (and still have material to add), and as you compiled them, it would both be helpful and more appropriate if they were in your name. I've started putting my evidence up. See here Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche Part Deux/Evidence. On another note, have you seen this? Heavy Metal Umlaut: The Movie It's a very interesting mini-movie about Wikipedia. (Warning: it will start loading when you click on it.) We should make such a movie about the changes on the LaRouche pages. LOL SlimVirgin 08:34, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

The words "division of labor" have brought tears of gratitude to my eyes. Yes please, do go ahead with the "promotion" section. I am currently compiling a list of personal attacks on editors (e.g. editors being accused of hating LaRouche or being activists), and I suspect my word limit will be up with that. The date of the arbcom ruling is a little unclear, as the last vote was on August 2, 2004, so the thing was probably in force then, but it sat around for three weeks until someone closed the page on Sept 13. See here [3] I would probably go with the earlier date simply because all parties knew then what the writing on the wall was, and it would not be regarded as acting in good faith if Herschel had decided to squeeze in a last-minute batch of promotion between Aug 2 and Sept 13 ;-) Regarding which pages would be relevant, promotion of LaRouche on pages not "closely related" is a worse offence, but I would say blatant promotion of LaRouche on related pages would count too: for example, by deleting material critical of him, particularly if it was referenced. Good luck and thank you! Best, SlimVirgin 09:23, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

Hi Will, your stuff looks good. The format is:

==Evidence from Willmcw==

then your preamble, if you have one, then:

===Jan 31, 2005===

01:21 Jan 31, 2004 SlimVirgin smiled at Willmcw, followed by the link to the diff.

The basic rule is that they like dates to be the headers with three equal signs on each side. Any further subheads can be four equal signs, then five equal signs, and so on, so you get subsections, if you follow (I barely do). I also meant to say yesterday that I don't know what the deadline is. I suspect we have quite a bit of time before they start asking for it. SlimVirgin 07:16, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

Correction, it looks excellent. ;-) SlimVirgin 07:22, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

Your evidence is just the way they like it, and very convincing. As for the two links you left on my page, bingo: you've connected them. Well spotted! H didn't post to Danby under that user name until August 27. Yet, as you say, he's defending his edits on that page to the arbcom in July. Do you have a link for the different WH email address? I found someone else (BarryGoldwater@ausi.com) on Usenet posting using the two IP address sets, the 64 etc one (which is a home DHL link) and the 172 dial-up AOL addresses, which look like an office. Peter_Abelard@ausi.com is a name WH has used on Wikipedia. SlimVirgin 22:59, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

your DEL

special population groups: that's an example political correctness can be useful to describe people outside the majority, discriminized by undesireable action. this makes more sense than to attach labels about sexual preferences. the nastyness in it is that the construct has a more broad meaning.

your DEL comment, HUH, is not helpful. probably you can contribute an article about "forwarded defense"- this is newspeak for attack maneuver.

Akidd_dublin 200501301600 01311423