| Revision as of 06:54, 15 August 2007 editPablothegreat85 (talk | contribs)2,742 edits rv trolling← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 22:13, 19 February 2023 edit undoSheepLinterBot (talk | contribs)Bots50,297 editsm fix font tags linter errorsTag: AWB | ||
| (91 intermediate revisions by 34 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Archive box|]}} | |||
| ==Archives== | |||
| ] | |||
| == Non-admin closure == | |||
| == For my future knowledge == | |||
| I've just emulated you and made a non-admin closure of an AfD. How much discretion do nonadmins have on these? Would you say it has to be say a 90% keep vote?--] 20:05, 6 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :The guidelines for non-admin closure are at ]. ] <small>] | ]</small> 20:13, 6 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :: Great - cheers.--] 20:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == WPOR CoTW: ] & ] == | |||
| :There's probably an easier way to do this, but I just picked an old AfD and copy and pasted from it. ] <small>] | ]</small> 15:53, 7 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Greetings ] world. Last week was great with the ] seeing lots of improvement, maybe even B class. ] also saw some improvement, maybe enough to bump it to Start. | |||
| == Polite notice == | |||
| On with the countdown, another two Stubs in the High category, both happen to be people: ''']''' a multi-gold medalist; and then world-renowned bridge architect and all-around swell guy ''']'''. Schollander needs sources more than anything, and McCullough needs more of a bio, plus maybe a nice chart for the bridges with type/year/location/length. Again to opt out or suggest future collaborative efforts ]. This week’s safety tip, stranger=danger. ] 18:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == WikiOregon COTW == | |||
| Please refrain from making against me in the future. ] 02:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm not making any allegations against you. I don't think that you read that very carefully. ] <small>] | ]</small> 02:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Hello? For some reason you wrote ... . This is not true. I've been here 1.5 years, I've made nearly 2000 edits. I'm me. I have no other accounts. Stop harrassing me. Happy editing. ] 02:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Harrassment? This is the first time we've ever encountered one another. You approached me. I wrote "Abureem=Mujinga=Striver?" Note the question mark. I have not accused you of anything. ] <small>] | ]</small> 03:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Greetings once again ] members. Thank you to those who help out with improving ] and ] last week. This week is a Stub break, with a Ref improvement drive for ''']''' and a request for work on ''']'''. For the ref improvement, this means sourcing tagged statements and standardizing all existing citations, both of which are needed for GA and FA status. Again to opt out or suggest future collaborative efforts ]. ] 18:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Warning? == | |||
| ==Thanks for your comments== | |||
| thanks for your comments on the ANI Re some editors attempting to get me booted: | |||
| :Oppose Block on the condition that he cleans up his behavior, and he seems to be motivated to do so. However, I think he should be on a shorter leash. That is to say, a block would require less questionable behavior from Travb than from an "average" editor | |||
| Read the guys comments and contributions . He is an obvious troll who hasn't gotten blocked because it would be more trouble than its worth. ] 03:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :] says that troll comments not pertaining to helping the page can be deleted so please remove your warning. ] 03:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I've never encountered this particular user, so I'm not sure whether or not he/she is a troll. I'm going to go ahead and assume that the editor in question is not a troll. Regardless of alleged past trolling, the comment I restored was not an example of trolling and you should not have deleted that comment. ] <small>] | ]</small> 03:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::The whole thing is written sarcastically and he obviously has no respect for how Misplaced Pages works. The post is bait for anyone to try to go against him so that he can continue his whole Misplaced Pages = Olbermann propoganda. ] 03:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I briefly skimmed his contributions and it doesn't appear that he's acting in bad faith. I'd just let it go. ] <small>] | ]</small> 03:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::OMG please read what he writes to other IPs. Geesh. ] 03:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Yeah, he/she probably could be a bit nicer towards IPs, but once again I suggest you let it go. If you want to complain about Haizum to someone who can actually do something (read: not me) then I suggest you go to ]. I still maintain that Haizum's comment was legitimate and that you shouldn't have removed it. ] <small>] | ]</small> 04:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| If you go to ANI, you're going to get blocked for 3RR'ing all over the place. I have plenty of constructive edits and comments, but I don't take kindly to rogue IP editors that don't think the rules apply to them. --] <b> μολὼν λαβέ</b> 04:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Would you two please take this conflict elsewhere? ] <small>] | ]</small> 04:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Hey, I'm sorry you were even bothered with it. You'd think simply reading the rules would be enough. --] <b> μολὼν λαβέ</b> 04:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I stopped editing for two months so I missed this message. Thanks again. If there is anything you need or I can help you with, please let me know. ] (]) 00:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Warning== | |||
| :You're welcome. ] <small>] | ]</small> 07:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Misplaced Pages guidelines dictate that you ''']''' in dealing with other editors. ], and assume that they are here to improve Misplaced Pages. Thank you.<!-- {{Template:Agf3}} --> ] 01:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Do you think that I'm taking this "warning" seriously? ] <small>] | ]</small> 01:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Same old pattern, accusing/warning established editors of pretend violations. He should stay blocked. </font><small><span style="border: 1px solid #F06A0F">]]</span></small><font color="#ffffff"> · </font> 04:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::I am thoroughly amused that he followed through on his threat to report me to ]--which led to him being indefinitely blocked. ] <small>] | ]</small> 05:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Hilarious, aint it. ] (]) 23:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Yup. ] <small>] | ]</small> 00:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Collaboration of the Week == | |||
| Howdy doody ya’ll ], time for more COTW. Thanks for the work on ] and improving the references at ]. This week we are back to Stubs with ''']''' and ''']'''. Both need just a little TLC to make it to Start. Again to opt out or suggest future collaborative efforts ]. ] 01:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == |
== Article for Deletion == | ||
| I hope that I have completed the whole 3 steps for AFD (]). Please let me know. --] 09:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Replied on your talk page. ] <small>] | ]</small> 09:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| May I just have a lowdown on what the heck is going on? And should I request protection on this? -] 04:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :The same IP keeps removing stuff from it. He's been reported to ], so I wouldn't worry about requesting protection unless other IPs join in. ] <small>] | ]</small> 04:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::What IS this movie anyway? I've seen it peppered in the Recent Changes for many days now. o.O -] 04:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::It's ] nonsense. The film fails ] quite obviously, but there was an influx of IPs and SPAs that kept cluttering up the AfD. ] <small>] | ]</small> 04:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| * Could you please briefly tell me that, in the second step, what did I miss? | |||
| == Assume good faith and calm the heck down == | |||
| You mean I should have included: {{subst:afd 2|pg = EuroBasket 2007 Final |cat=|text=}} at the top of the discussion page? Am I correct? I’m asking because to learn the procedure.--] 09:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| **Yes, that's what I meant. ] <small>] | ]</small> 09:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I'm tired of people like you getting in my face typing messages on talk pages as though you were yelling in my face. If you looked at my edit history yo u would see that I HAVE NO INTENTION WHATSOEVER to push a POV and I am extremely offended by your comment. | |||
| == SPAM ala COTW == | |||
| I am curious as to why you have such a short fuse. What about my OPINION sets you off? — ] <sup><i>(])</i></sup> 22:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :First, please don't type in all caps (even if it's just a tiny bit of your message); it's rude. Second, I'm not sure why you think I have a short fuse. Third, you accused me of trying to own the article, so don't lecture me on ]. ] <small>] | ]</small> 22:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Hmm, you would think after many people have been giving you a hard time someone would be angry. You blew a short fuse since you decided to "fight me until I stop editing". That, by definition is intimidation. Intimidation comes from anger. I accused you of owning the article because you came onto me on the talk page of the article as though you were the boss. — ] <sup><i>(])</i></sup> 22:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::That's not at all what I said, straw man. ] <small>] | ]</small> 22:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::You have anything better to do than insult people? — ] <sup><i>(])</i></sup> 22:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::"]" is an attack on your arguments and not you. ] <small>] | ]</small> 22:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I haven't pretended to reject the 9/11 truth movement. — ] <sup><i>(])</i></sup> 22:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Huh? ] <small>] | ]</small> 23:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::That's what a straw man argument would look like in this case. — ] <sup><i>(])</i></sup> 00:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| The straw man argument was this: "you decided to `fight me until I stop editing'." ] <small>] | ]</small> 03:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Indeed. — ] <sup><i>(])</i></sup> 05:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I don't want you to stop editing, I want you to stop POV-pushing. ] <small>] | ]</small> 05:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Funny I wasn't. I simply objected to the source used and you come off and call me a POV Pusher, a term that is normally used to discredit anyone's views. If I said The Olympics will be hosted in Tokyo in 2028Geocities{/ref], someone removes, it, and I said "you no good POV Pusher! Your attempts to DELIBRITLY <u>violate</u> ] will be defeated!" I would come off as unreasonble wouldn't I? — ] <sup><i>(])</i></sup> 06:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Here's another one "John Smith from NYTimes says ] is a spoiled "brat".nytimes - editorial. Oops! We have person who breaches policy on purpose. Now, he oughta be blocked, right? Now since you still say my intention is to push a POV despite my previous comment, you are essentially calling me a liar. I feel this is a reasonable conclusion. — ] <sup><i>(])</i></sup> 06:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I called you a POV-pusher for wanting to add Prison Planet as a source, not for removing that other source. You're becoming incoherent, and I think it would be best if you ceased engaging me here. ] <small>] | ]</small> 15:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ] its time for another episode of Collaboration of the Week. Last week’s show starring ] & ] received high ratings. This week’s show star two more stubs, ''']''' & ''']'''. As always, to opt out or suggest future collaborative efforts, ]. Don’t delay, act today! ] 18:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Steven Jones == | |||
| Hi Pablo! | |||
| == RE: ] == | |||
| You undid my addition to Steven Jones page stating that David Griffin's book was peer reviewed. | |||
| Haha, he really had me going with that one. I had no clue why he wanted to delete the article based on his reasoning. I was so confused. Thanks for clearing it up, I voted on both AfD's. Good luck editing! <br/>] <sup>''] ♦ ]''</sup> 02:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| The book in question is David Griffin's "9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out". When asked by Steven Jones whether the essays collected in the book, including his, were peer reviewed, this was David Griffin's response (email addresses have been removed to protect privacy): | |||
| :I, too, thought it was odd that he was talking about orcas in a wrestling AfD. ] <small>] | ]</small> 02:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == My Rfa == | |||
| On 8/1/07, David Griffin wrote: | |||
| Steven, | |||
| Thanks for voting in my Rfa, which I withdrew from yesterday. Though I did not get promoted, I see this Rfa as being a success nonetheless. What I got out of this Rfa will help me to be a better, all around editor. Because of this Rfa I have decided to become better in other areas of editing. I'm not going to just be a vandalfighter. Though vandalfighting is good, being active in all areas of editing is even better. Have a nice day.--] 22:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Yes, all the essays were peer-reviewed. Most of the contributors were, in fact, asked to revise their essays on the basis of the reviews. And not all submissions were accepted. | |||
| ==Thanks!== | |||
| Cordially, | |||
| {| style="border: 1px solid {{{border|gray}}}; background-color: {{{color|lightblue}}};" | |||
| |rowspan="2" valign="middle" | ] | |||
| |rowspan="2" | | |||
| |style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''My RFA''' | |||
| |- | |||
| |style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | Thanks for participating in ], which ended with 56 supports, one oppose, and one neutral. I hope to accomplish beyond what is expected of me and work to help those that lent me their trust. ] | |||
| |} | |||
| == ] == | |||
| David | |||
| *A draft userspace article has been created. Please see ]. ] 21:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| On 7/31/07 9:44 PM, "Steven Jones" wrote: | |||
| == RfA == | |||
| Hello, David and Peter -- | |||
| What is the meaning of ]? —''']''' 03:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| About the book holding my article, i.e., 9/11 and American Empire, Intellectuals Speak Out -- were all the essays in this particular book peer-reviewed? If so, does the book say so somewhere? | |||
| :Since you're an established user with a good track record that's come back after a long absence to do that, I've blocked you as a possibly compromised account. ] | |||
| == Take Two: Request for change in consensus == | |||
| This seems to be important -- someone is asking me, and we find the peer-review issue arising again. | |||
| Take Two: Request for change in consensus. Change title to "Franklin Child Abuse Allegations" | |||
| Thanks, | |||
| Steven J | |||
| "A small group of editors can reach a consensual decision, but when the article gains wider attention, others may then disagree. The original group should not block further change on grounds that they already have made a decision. No one person, and no (limited) group of people, can unilaterally declare that community consensus has changed, or that it is fixed and determined." | |||
| Since the authors of the book describe a peer review process and indicate that on the basis of this process most of the manuscripts had to be revised (typical for any peer reviewed publication) or ommitted, what is your basis for claiming that the author's are lying? | |||
| The existing title "Franklin Coverup Hoax" is, in the opinion of many who have commented (Gyrofrog, Awfultin, Wayne, Tom1976, Conexion, Apostle 12), fatally biased. To start out saying that the subject material is a "hoax" is indefensible, especially when that point of view is hardly universal. A specially called county grand jury used the word "hoax;" that is all. And there is ample reason to believe that those who comprised the jury had a vested interest in protecting local people. | |||
| You may peronsally disagree with the contents of these essays, but please do not remove my accurate inclusion describing this book as peer-reviewed unless you can provide me convincing evidence that David Griffin included Steven Jones' essay (and the other essays in the book) without asking anyone to review them. Please call or contact me if you would like to discuss this further. | |||
| In the previous section, various editors commented on their support for, or opposition to, a name change to "Franklin Coverup Incident." Those who commented over the space of several days included Sherurcij, PopeFauveXXIII, Wayne, Orange Mike, Apostle12, and Rosicrucian. | |||
| Thank you! | |||
| Orange Mike came up with a suggestion: How about "Franklin Child Abuse Allegations"? Neutral, takes no position regarding "hoax" or "coverup" claims. | |||
| Respectfully, | |||
| I '''support''' this newly proposed title change and am asking for additional comments at this time from concerned editors. ] (]) 20:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Mark Patterson | |||
| 434-326-0180 | |||
| Mark@MarkCentury.com | |||
| :Where did you get these e-mails? ] <small>] | ]</small> 22:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==] == | |||
| Thank you for your support in my Request for Adminship. Unfortunately the nomination did not succeed, but please rest assured that I am still in full support of the Misplaced Pages project, and I'll try again in a few months! If you ever have any questions or suggestions for me, please don't hesitate to contact me. Best wishes, --]]] 03:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :You're welcome. ] <small>] | ]</small> 06:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == RFA for Haemo == | |||
| When you create ], please copy the text of ] as my nomination. (Link to the original page in the edit summary so that people know it's from me.) Thank you. ] <sup>]</sup> 12:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == WPOR Collaboration of the Week == | |||
| Greetings ] member, we are starting a weekly collaboration project where we will announce two articles that are currently stubs that we hope to work together to improve. No pressure to help, but if you would like to, just stop by one of the articles and see if you can find information to expand the article with, copy edit what is there, help with formatting, or add some images. This week’s articles are: ''']''' and ''']'''. ] 22:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Accepted == | |||
| Okay-dokey; I've accepted the nomination. Wish me luck! --] 06:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 22:13, 19 February 2023
 Archives |
Non-admin closure
I've just emulated you and made a non-admin closure of an AfD. How much discretion do nonadmins have on these? Would you say it has to be say a 90% keep vote?--Bedivere 20:05, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
- The guidelines for non-admin closure are at WP:DPR#NAC. Pablo Talk | Contributions 20:13, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
- Great - cheers.--Bedivere 20:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
WPOR CoTW: Don Schollander & Conde McCullough
Greetings WPOR world. Last week was great with the Barlow Road seeing lots of improvement, maybe even B class. Columbia River Plateau also saw some improvement, maybe enough to bump it to Start. On with the countdown, another two Stubs in the High category, both happen to be people: Don Schollander a multi-gold medalist; and then world-renowned bridge architect and all-around swell guy Conde McCullough. Schollander needs sources more than anything, and McCullough needs more of a bio, plus maybe a nice chart for the bridges with type/year/location/length. Again to opt out or suggest future collaborative efforts click here. This week’s safety tip, stranger=danger. Aboutmovies 18:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
WikiOregon COTW
Greetings once again WikiProject Oregon members. Thank you to those who help out with improving Conde McCullough and Don Schollander last week. This week is a Stub break, with a Ref improvement drive for Oregon and a request for work on Portland Police Bureau. For the ref improvement, this means sourcing tagged statements and standardizing all existing citations, both of which are needed for GA and FA status. Again to opt out or suggest future collaborative efforts click here. Aboutmovies 18:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments
thanks for your comments on the ANI Re some editors attempting to get me booted:
- Oppose Block on the condition that he cleans up his behavior, and he seems to be motivated to do so. However, I think he should be on a shorter leash. That is to say, a block would require less questionable behavior from Travb than from an "average" editor
I stopped editing for two months so I missed this message. Thanks again. If there is anything you need or I can help you with, please let me know. Travb (talk) 00:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- You're welcome. Pablo Talk | Contributions 07:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Collaboration of the Week
Howdy doody ya’ll WPOR poke, time for more COTW. Thanks for the work on Portland Police Bureau and improving the references at Oregon. This week we are back to Stubs with Eastern Oregon and Fort Vancouver National Historic Site. Both need just a little TLC to make it to Start. Again to opt out or suggest future collaborative efforts click here. Aboutmovies 01:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Article for Deletion
I hope that I have completed the whole 3 steps for AFD (EuroBasket 2007 Final). Please let me know. --Avinesh Jose 09:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- Replied on your talk page. Pablo Talk | Contributions 09:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- Could you please briefly tell me that, in the second step, what did I miss?
You mean I should have included: {{subst:afd 2|pg = EuroBasket 2007 Final |cat=|text=}} at the top of the discussion page? Am I correct? I’m asking because to learn the procedure.--Avinesh Jose 09:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, that's what I meant. Pablo Talk | Contributions 09:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
SPAM ala COTW
Ladies and Gentlemen its time for another episode of Collaboration of the Week. Last week’s show starring Fort Vancouver National Historic Site & Eastern Oregon received high ratings. This week’s show star two more stubs, Johnny Kitzmiller & John Wesley Davis. As always, to opt out or suggest future collaborative efforts, click here. Don’t delay, act today! Aboutmovies 18:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
RE: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of marine parks with Orcas
Haha, he really had me going with that one. I had no clue why he wanted to delete the article based on his reasoning. I was so confused. Thanks for clearing it up, I voted on both AfD's. Good luck editing!
Gonzo fan2007 02:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
- I, too, thought it was odd that he was talking about orcas in a wrestling AfD. Pablo Talk | Contributions 02:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
My Rfa
Thanks for voting in my Rfa, which I withdrew from yesterday. Though I did not get promoted, I see this Rfa as being a success nonetheless. What I got out of this Rfa will help me to be a better, all around editor. Because of this Rfa I have decided to become better in other areas of editing. I'm not going to just be a vandalfighter. Though vandalfighting is good, being active in all areas of editing is even better. Have a nice day.--SJP 22:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks!
|
My RFA | |
| Thanks for participating in my request for adminship, which ended with 56 supports, one oppose, and one neutral. I hope to accomplish beyond what is expected of me and work to help those that lent me their trust. east.718 at 02:30, 11/4/2007 |
Zeitgeist (video)
- A draft userspace article has been created. Please see Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2007 November 8. Pdelongchamp 21:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
RfA
What is the meaning of this? —Kurykh 03:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- Since you're an established user with a good track record that's come back after a long absence to do that, I've blocked you as a possibly compromised account. east.718 at 04:00, December 28, 2007
Take Two: Request for change in consensus
Take Two: Request for change in consensus. Change title to "Franklin Child Abuse Allegations"
"A small group of editors can reach a consensual decision, but when the article gains wider attention, others may then disagree. The original group should not block further change on grounds that they already have made a decision. No one person, and no (limited) group of people, can unilaterally declare that community consensus has changed, or that it is fixed and determined."
The existing title "Franklin Coverup Hoax" is, in the opinion of many who have commented (Gyrofrog, Awfultin, Wayne, Tom1976, Conexion, Apostle 12), fatally biased. To start out saying that the subject material is a "hoax" is indefensible, especially when that point of view is hardly universal. A specially called county grand jury used the word "hoax;" that is all. And there is ample reason to believe that those who comprised the jury had a vested interest in protecting local people.
In the previous section, various editors commented on their support for, or opposition to, a name change to "Franklin Coverup Incident." Those who commented over the space of several days included Sherurcij, PopeFauveXXIII, Wayne, Orange Mike, Apostle12, and Rosicrucian.
Orange Mike came up with a suggestion: How about "Franklin Child Abuse Allegations"? Neutral, takes no position regarding "hoax" or "coverup" claims.
I support this newly proposed title change and am asking for additional comments at this time from concerned editors. Apostle12 (talk) 20:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)