Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:14, 28 January 2007

Archives

Up to January 2006 January to April 2006 May to October 2006 October 2006 to early May 2007 May 2007 to February 2008 March 2008 to April 2008 May 2008 to early January 2009 January 2009 to August 2009 August 2009 to present

Help Desk horizon

How many days prior to today do you think should remain before being archived? The reason for this question is so that the parameters for the upcoming archiving bot can set. This is not a "forever" decision but our best guess for a starting point. My own review indicates that there are virtually no responses to a question posed more than three days ago and so accordingly, I've removed (archived) all but three days prior. In a perfect world, there would be a deeper horizon that we'all could just skim through or ignore or just start from the bottom of the page and go up from there. In the real world however, the folks with less than optimal bandwidth (say, dial-up) are burdened with unnecessarily long load times and so we need to compromise between the two. I've posted this question at the HD so as to gather more input and have requested that comments be posted here. --hydnjo talk 22:42, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

It was confusing to see the message saying you have archived all the topics more than three days old, yet messages four days before that message were still there. Until WP gets better discussion software, there's no good answer. I might be on the computer, ask a question here, then not get back to my WP for another week. Should occasional users not ask for help? But keeping discussion around long enough for that is unwieldy. The bot should look at the timestamps from the ~~~~, and archive based on the most recent date in each thread. In theory, a discussion from a month ago could keep going that way, but that doesn't seem to be the way this page works, and if it does, what's wrong with it? As for the amount of time, I say three days from most recent message, but if you can only do it based on the age of the root of the thread it needs to be longer.-- Randall Bart <wiki@randallbart.com> 03:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Time passes and I've added new date headers but archiving is still a work in progress so the page will lengthen. Your archiving suggestion has merit but I don't think that the archiving bot has the capability of examining the response timestamps. The bot would also be confounded by the lack of a timestamp on way too many questions and answers which is why it has been designed to key off of the date headers. --hydnjo talk 03:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC) addendum: The questions moved from the active HD are always available at the archives and I agree that there should be a provision for questions with persistance beyond the archiving horizon. Perhaps a Previous questions still active section could be added at the top of the page which is ignored by the bot and is dealt with manually (both added-in and archived). --hydnjo talk 04:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the bot was set to 'three days from most recent' last I checked. --ais523 09:49, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes it is and that seems like a reasonable compromise. Page length is resonable and haven't noticed any activity on the date to be archived next. --hydnjo talk 03:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Why was my page deleted?

Not directly related to the help desk, but between the number of times this question comes up here, and the sorts of editors likely to congregate here, I'd like a moment to announce that a new Misplaced Pages page has been created to try and help editors figure these things out. It was just made tonight -- if anybody sees ideas for improvement, please don't hesitate to be bold and help beef it up a bit! Luna Santin 06:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Mine too my MonoMetro page was deleted why? I have seen worst stubs here and I think its a subject Misplaced Pages should cover, Shouldn't more time be given for improvements rather then these hasty deletes?Oxyman 22:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this entry was meant as an opportunity to vent about deleted pages. You'd be better off visiting the link and perhaps discussing it on the talk page there. Kesh 00:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Why was I labeled sock puppet and my page defaced?

Hi - I think what's going on here is simply outrageous. I was slandered as a sock puppet and my page defiled by some idiot. Now, is there a due process of any sort or someone with powers of devinity (why? who?) can just brand other users with slanderous titles and place sock puppet tags on their pages? I am using Roobit user name in English and Russian wikipedia and only English wikipedia has been affected. I am not a sock puppet of anyone, I never used proxy and I register and write from my own email address. What is taking place here is absolute disgrace. If someone dislikes your views, he can just brand you a sock puppet? Do you need a crowd of tame users who express identical opinions or have no opinions on their own? How has the power to slander other users in this manner and what is the remedy against it/him? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roobit (talk • contribs) 06:19, January 3, 2007 (UTC)

Again, this is not the place to discuss this. See my link above. -- Kesh 20:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

RefDeskBot Archives: Caution

Cross-posted on Misplaced Pages talk:Reference desk

Just a couple of things to look out for to ensure that the archiving goes through with smoothly. There are a couple things that will confuse the bot at the moment, but they're easy to prevent if we're paying attention.

1. Make sure every question has a proper title.

   Do not allow non-titled text to sneak in below the date header. If somebody adds a question without a title tag, give it one. Not doing so will currently make the archives pretty messy.

2. Make sure the date headers are done properly, i.e. = November 13 =, just to be on the safe side.
3. Do not change the number of days transcluded, or move around the links to the transcluded pages. If you want to suggest an extension or shortening of the transclusion time, talk to Martin so that the bot doesn't get confused again.
4. Be careful when restoring pages after a blanking so as to restore it in exactly the same manner.
5. Add <nowiki></nowiki> tags or codify HTML/scripts in article titles to keep the archive indexes from screwing up. Normal Wikilinks are OK.

If a couple people keep an eye out for these things there should be no problems : )!  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  11:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Suggested new step for asking question

Something I think might be useful to add in the instructions for people asking a question: "If you are asking a question relating to a specific article, please name that article in your question so that the context is understood." Probably somewhere close to the currently bolded instruction. Confusing Manifestation 13:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

That might be an idea - a fair few requests come through from people, without them mentioning the specific situation they're talking about. But on the other hand, a 10-second search through their contributions will usually give you the relevant info. I don't really mind either way about an addition. Trebor 16:10, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not a problem except when people talk about deleted articles; it's important to have a reference in such cases, because the contribs won't show anything up. It would save a small amount of time even for bluelinks, though. --ais523 13:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I came here to suggest the same and saw it was already discussed. Some people unprecisely mention existing articles they have not edited. Editors waste time searching and may not guess right (recent example). I think the instruction should ask for "the exact article name" (and maybe ask for ]). PrimeHunter 14:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Redesign

Could anyone check the blue box at the top of the page? I mean that the text is not clear.

--Meno25 04:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

And do what with it? (I amssuming you are talking about the archives icon). Viridae 04:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that the following sentence is not clear: Ask questions about how to use Misplaced Pages. (Note that I am using Firefox under Windows XP). The word Misplaced Pages overlaps with the two words questions and about. Maybe we need to use a smaller font.

--Meno25 08:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

It broke for me as well, but only when I set my browser to an abnormally large font size. I've fixed it (hopefully) by putting a bit of CSS in that only applies when it wraps to the second line; does it work for everyone now? --ais523 09:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

On my browser it looks fine too me. — Seadog 22:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Proper criteria

What is the standard protocol for adding a website to an article as an external link without being accused of spamming wikipedia, vandalizing articles, or infringing upon previously external links that administrators have paced within the article to promote their own sites, and yes I can prove that to be the case!

Thanks in advance to unbiased/impartial editors, 69.167.97.81 03:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Here's the process step-by-step as I would do it.

1. Check the article and your link to make sure that your link is relevant. If it isn't, don't bother.
   • The primary Misplaced Pages guideline exists at Misplaced Pages:External links
   • You can ask on the talk page to see if other editors would mind the addition of the external link.
   • If possible, use the link with a <ref>{{cite web}}</ref> setup to reference a statement in the article. This usage is ideal if used appropriately.
2. Add the article in the external links section with the format "any notes"
3. Use a good edit summary describing your edit.

By the way, I recommend that you get an account - logged-in users are generally treated with more respect in regard to potential vandalism. Nihiltres 03:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

If you can prove links were added for self-promotion, do so on the article's talk page. Regardless, even if you can prove others have done so, your own links must be able to stand on their own merit. Kesh 04:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I shall create an account, yet this in this situation I have been perceived as a spammer, which is utterly rediculous because I had nothing to gain by requesting to add the external link that was ultimatly never included.

Bottom line, I understand you people deal with a massive volume of spammers, vandals, hate propagandists, and self-promoters on wikipedia, yet in your crusaide of fairness you crucify honest inexperienced contributers who make a mere rookie error. I want to know what makes certain individuals "Wikipolice" while many of thier edits to articles clearly convey biases and "POV" slants, while the newbies are verbally abused for seeking consensus on adding a pertianant link to an article.

There is a trend upon wikipedia of persecuting descent people while facilitating blatent racists to "doctor up" the image of notorious bigots. Just review the past 500 edits to the David Duke biography alone. Constant revisions, omission of factual information, and the revision of truth results in a constant edit war among three parties, the xenophobes, excessive liberals, rational people who find valid evidence of a Ku Klux Klan history and still find themself in a debate whether or not David Duke should be placed in a Ku Klux Klan catagory.

It is almost humorous to me that you waste your time chasing me for posting messages on talk pages, while wikipedia is being used as a vehical to spread nonsensical and unmistakable latent hate speech.

Sorry for the rant, yet I think it is time some of you Misplaced Pages aficianatos utalize your talents to combat an occourance of diproportional misuse as opposed to hollering at me for doing what I thought was right.

P.S. I would greatly appreciate a realistic responce instead of a one sentence replay telling me I am a bumbling idiot for posting this material here.

Thank you,

• 69.167.97.81 08:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be under a misunderstanding. People tend to edit what they're interested in. Some folks who were watching the article you attempted to add a link to felt it was inappropriate and deleted it. They then noticed you had added the same link to many other articles, which is a tactic most often seen by spammers. No one personally attacked you, but they were concerned that your behavior appeared to be something we've seen a lot here.

Second, controversial articles such as the David Duke one are going to attract people who argue vehemently for either side, leaving actual neutral parties acting as referrees and janitors to clean up the mess. However, just because controversial articles exist does not mean people drop everything and concentrate on those. There are thousands of people editing Misplaced Pages, and those who are more knowledgable about the controversial topics are better suited to monitoring them for vandalism. As an added point, WIkipedia does not censor subjects. Unfortunately, this does allow bigoted and racist elements to exist in articles, as those items are documented and part of history (as in the case of David Duke). We have to take the good with the bad here, while maintaining a neutral point of view.

Lastly, your own comments are rather impolite, which does not encourage others to help you. Talking about "wasting time" and misconstruing short answers as calling you an "idiot" are not conducive to dialogue.

I do hope you stick around and help contribute to Misplaced Pages. But, one of the first rules here is that you have to have a tough skin. People will edit your work, you will be criticized and some people will be rude. That's what happens when you get thousands of anonymous people working on the same project. Just stick with it, and I think you'll find it worthwhile. -- Kesh 19:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Contributions missing

Hi, what happens if you contribute to an article created by someone else, and then someone deletes what you wrote with no justification? I wrote good information that was useful on an article, then someone else deleted it for no reason. This should be changed so that people can't do this. What can someone in my position do when this happens? Tkma 18:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi. If you're referring to this edit, yes, the person should have given a reason for deletion in the edit summary. However, it was also unsourced, original research, giving undue weight, and was potentially meant more as a defammatory remark than a reasonable statement. Patstuart 21:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

As a note, this is a talk page to discuss the Help Desk, not the Help Desk itself. Also, if you feel that an edit was unwarranted or unclear, you can always ask that editor about it, or express your concerns on the article's talk page. —Keakealani 23:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Questions about how to create pages

Since these are coming up quite a bit, I wanted to mention how (I think) we should be handling them.

It's best to link to Help:Starting a new page A.K.A. Help:creating a page for these questions. This eliminates redundancy and since there is a dedicated page for page creation instructions, it can be more robust and is likely to be quite current in reflecting any new changes to the way pages are created in the future. The tl;dr arguement exists, but my opinion is that anyone who was given the link to the information and can't be bothered to read enough of it to start a new page shouldn't be writing articles anyways, since they certainly won't familiarise themselves with our core content policies. BigNate37_(T) 18:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that's what most people are doing - whenever I see that question, I simply respond with ":See ]". It would be cool if someone made a template, but since it's not a long thing to say, it's okay. It would be good to standardize what we say, but then people might assume we're bots rather than real people, which may reduce the helpfulness of the HD. —Keakealani 23:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Archive

The help desk page needs archiving desperately. Queries from 17 December are still showing up. Are the bots not working anymore? — Lost 16:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Misplaced Pages Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 19:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Scrolling TOC

Could we revert back to a standard table of contents? That scrolling version is annoying. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:11, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Or if it could at least be not quite as narrow, so that the titles of each section fit on one line. -- Natalya 21:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, what was wrong with how it used to be? Trebor 21:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree and have commented out the special TOC code. BigNate37_(T) 17:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for taking care of that! -- Natalya 23:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Is a movie article too long?

Question moved to Misplaced Pages:Help desk#Is a movie article too long?. BigNate37_(T) 01:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

What do these colored numbers mean?

I think we should be adding Help:Watching pages#What do the colored numbers mean? to our Very Frequently Asked Questions. Not to mention maybe just displaying it in big bold letters on the Help desk itself. We're getting a lot of questions about this. -- Kesh 00:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I've done just that.Harryboyles 01:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Dates

Is there meant to be a bot updating the dates everyday? Simply south 13:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Dates where? Fethroesforia 14:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The main dates for each day. I mean the titles. I have been splitting up the page when it moves from the query on, for example January 5 to January 6, so i have placed the titles there. Simply south 16:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The section dates are supposed to be added each day, here and at the RDs, at about midnght (UTC) by RefDeskBot. The bot is the creation of and operated by Martinp23 but seems to have become a bit cranky lately (the bot, not Martin). I'll call it to his attention and in the meantime please add the dates manually. BTW, the same bot was also tasked to archive the oldest section at the same time as adding the newly dated section. --hydnjo talk 19:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes - due to increasing system instability causing all sorts of strange stuff to occur, I had to take all my bots off the Linux box and only run them on the dev PC. Unfortunately, I'm not awake at 0000Z sometimes, so it doesn't always run. Fortunately, I've not got a different dsitro installed on the box, and it should be plain sailing in future (or fairly so - my interent may decide to break half way through the archival... (or Misplaced Pages will)) Martinp23 11:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes - the bot adds the dates (the most visible sign of its presence) but it also fully archives every desk (and it's just finished getting up to date (yay!)). Martinp23 11:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Wait, but i've been adding the dates - at least here and Ref Desk Misc up until January 7. Simply south 12:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you in a time zone ahead of the bot? James086 13:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

(The bot is in GMT). Simply South - thanks for doing that - the bot has been down for a while due to hosting issues (it will, hopefully, work today). Just a general note to anyone adding date headers when/if the bot doesn't - please use a full date: = January 8 = - this makes it quicker for me to get the bot back online. Thanks, Martinp23 22:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Shorthand and its deterioration of communication

I'd like to ask that the responders on the help desk avoid linking to policy and guideline pages by only referring to them by their abbreviations. I just read a response to a question that referred the questioner to WP:COI. If you mouseover this link, all that the browser will tell you is that it links to WP:COI. So if you had no idea what COI stands for, you still aren't any closer to an answer. You have to click on the link, go to the page, find out that it stands for Conflict of Interest, and finally you can go back to the original page to continue reading the response. So, to avoid this, you could link to things in the following ways:

• ...this presents a conflict of interest...
• ...this presents a conflict of interest. For policy on that see WP:COI

Seeing as how this page is supposed to help newbies as well as experienced users with Misplaced Pages related questions, I don't see why everyone should be assumed to know what all of our abbreviations stand for. Dismas| 01:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

To pick up on your example, I don't think most people would understand what was meant by "conflict of interest" in the sense it's used at WP:COI unless they clicked on the link anyway, so I don't see this as a big problem. I try to do as you ask in my Help Desk responses myself because it makes them read better, but I also think exposure to some of these abbreviations (many of which will be encountered in other contexts here on Misplaced Pages, after all) is not necessarily a bad thing. Just my $0.02. --Tkynerd 01:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if not understanding the abbreviations will make people more likely to click on the links and actually read a bit of the policies, which would be a big plus. delldot | talk 02:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. I'd almost say: cryptic abbreviations for the newbies (to lead them to the more detailed information they need), linked jargon for old hands. --Tkynerd 03:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

It is certainly always nice to pipe the link to give the title of the guideline page. -- Natalya 04:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I'f I'm linked to anything, I open it in a different tab to read when I finish reading. I really don't think it's a problem, and the thought that it heightens curiosity is valid, in my opinion. I agree that piped links are good in most cases, but I don't think it's all that much of a hassle. *shrug* —Keakealani·?·!·@ 06:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

When answering Helpdesk questions, I normally pipe a link so that the WP: shortcut's used as the target, and a description of the page is written on the link. For instance, I might write "you might want to look at an essay about avoiding acronyms". There are a few cases where I use a lone abbreviation, in cases where I think it would be more useful; for instance, in response to something like "I can't remember the name of the page where you're supposed to report a vandal who's been warned" (the implied question implies that the user has been to the page before, and is just trying to find it again), I replied "WP:AIV", because the shortcut is more memorable than Misplaced Pages:Administrator intervention against vandalism, and also faster for the person who asked the question to type when going back to the page in future. Despite my personal answering tendencies, I also agree with what Keakealani says about this above (I tend to open in a new window when I'm linked to an abbreviation I don't understand). --ais523 10:14, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I would normally have no problem with opening links in another tab or window... at home. I do quite a bit of editing at work and although I work for one of the largest technology companies in the world, the computers that we're allowed to use quite simply suck. And we're forced to use an old version of IE which doesn't have tabs. This put to my mind the home user who may not have the greatest connection/computer/broswer/computer apptitude and it would help them, and me, if the abbreviations were explained. I do agree with User:ais523 in that if a person basically describes the page that they're looking for, giving them the abbreviation is probably the best course of action in that case. Dismas| 10:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Surprisingly, your situation is similar to mine. I'm using IE6 on a computer to which I don't have admin access (so I have no chance of installing another browser), and I don't have tabbed browsing. My browsing is mostly of the 'right click - open in new page' variety, and so I've had 6 windows open at once before (although that's nothing to my bot, which had 21 windows open at once trying to meet its edit rate on one occasion, so I had to slow down the edit rate). --ais523 10:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Date Error

Looks like the section headers for the Help desk page are messed up. It currently only runs up to January 10, though articles in that section are dated for the 11th. -- Kesh 00:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

At the moment, date headers are added manually, so they may not be added every day. I will go and correct that, but it's largely inevitable because it doesn't matter enough for people to religiously change them at midnight XD —Keakealani·?·!·@ 05:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikispace

Maybe I should ask on the help desk, but is there a reason this is in the Misplaced Pages space instead of Help space? James086 05:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The Help: namespace, as far as I know, is for articles telling people how to do things; also, they are usually copies of articles on MediaWiki. I don't know for sure, but I'd assumed that's why. Also, it makes more sense of WP:HD to be in the same namespace as WP:RD. —Keakealani·?·!·@ 05:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok thanks, it just seemed a bit strange to me that it was WP: and I couldn't find anything in the archives. James086 06:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Because the Help Desk is a Wikiproject, and not part of Misplaced Pages's documentation. — Kieff 06:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Images

Hello, I am a new user. I was just wondering how you put pictures on articles? Thank you and I await your response so please respond soon. Radical3 00:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

This question was copied to the Help desk - please look for the response there. -- Rick Block (talk) 15:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Template

I noticed that despite the gigantic headers, we still get a lot of reference desk type questions. What do folks think about creating a template, such as {{see RD}} to point them to the RD? It could have wording like this: "This page is for asking questions about how to edit Misplaced Pages. You may be able to get the answer to your question by using the search box or at the reference desk." I doubt many people would realize they're being templated, since most are not that familiar with WP practice. Thoughts? My appologies if this has been discussed before. delldot | talk 04:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that makes sense to me. Trebor 07:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Have you tried Misplaced Pages's template {{RD1}}? It specializes in directing people to the place to answer knowledge questions, and will serve to answer any question in the universe (except a question about how to use Misplaced Pages, since that's what this Help Desk is for). Just type {{subst:RD1}}, write your signature, and save away. I hope this helps. --ais523 10:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Hah! --Wooty Woot? contribs 06:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

There are actually three:

• {{RD1}}, for general refernce desk
• {{RD2}}, with the section of the reference desk as a qualifier to direct someone to a specific part of the reference desk
• {{RD3}}, with an article as a qualifier, to direct them to a pertinent article or the reference desk.

-- Natalya 15:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, thanks, I should have done more research before posting. delldot | talk 06:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

No worries. :) Now more people will know about them, which is good. -- Natalya 18:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

For more information about usage, see Misplaced Pages:Help desk/RD tip. PrimeHunter 19:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect placemark on Google Earth

There is a land mark on "Google Earth" for Indooroopilly, Queensland at (27°29'49.28"S 153°03'58.02"E) that should be at (27°30'07.86"S 152°58'27.42"E) (only about5 or 8 km too far east) and this is the only place I can find to make a comment and as I can't change I hope someone can now that Ive noticed it.The wikipeia story seems ok though but nothing related to what I started out to look for Cheers (non-Von)DutchDutchinspace 11:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

CSS|XHTML: Size, Border, and Background Color of Classed Templates

Would like a heads up on if it's possible to override a classed template (e.g., "infobox city") with a style attribute and not rewrite the entire table? If it's possible to add to a stylesheet, and because I'm still learning Wiki code, can you please explain how? Just want to change the table size, border and background color, but leave the rest of the formatting alone.FResearcher 12:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)