Talk:MEST (Scientology)/Archive 1

Series Template
Removing this Series Template from across the Scientology related pages. This is not correct usage of Series Templates per the guidelines. They were set up to show the history of countries and were different articles form a sequential series. This is not the case with the Scientology pages, which are random pages on different topics – not a sequence of any kind. Wiki’s definition of a series is: “In a general sense, a series is a related set of things that occur one after the other (in a succession) or are otherwise connected one after the other (in a sequence).” Nuview, 15:15, 10 January 2006 (PST)
 * See:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_series
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_article_series
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Navigational_templates#Religion
 * There are both timeline-specific series, and series based a unifying theme. Ronabop 03:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

This is really a terrific template and really works. Scientology is both a technology and a system of beliefs. It is quite helpful to have practices seperated from beliefs and beliefs from things which are more like education. Its great! can we call it a "Subject Navigational Template?" Terryeo 15:20, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

pasting a paragraph here from the article
This seems to use the acronym "MEST" but it doesn't have a lot to do with the meaning of MEST, can we talk about it? "Stacy Brooks, of the Lisa McPherson Trust, observes: "This is how Scientologists are taught to think: The Genetic Entity is the part of a person that is still tied to the universe of Matter, Energy, Space and Time - known as the MEST Universe in Scientology -- that we will leave behind when we are able to become stably exterior with full perceptics. This is the real goal of a Scientologist - to be free of the MEST Universe, to be able to discard the body and be completely free of the limitations of MEST. When enough Scientologists reach that goal (a goal which no one to my knowledge has yet attained) and Planet Earth has been cleared, they will be able to travel at will anywhere in the galaxy to clear other planets and, eventually, the entire MEST Universe. They will do this without the encumbrance of their bodies, of course. They will be free of their bodies. They will just pick up new bodies on whatever planet they go to. They might be meat bodies like the ones on Earth, or they might be doll bodies, or any of a variety of other kinds of bodies thetans use throughout the MEST Universe. But the point is that they will be able to mock them up at will, because they will be totally at cause over MEST." "Terryeo 17:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

removed certain false informations from the article
Hey, if you are going to state, "Cause over the physical universe by thought alone" you are going to have to have some pretty good verification. No one is going to believe that ! The citation that was in the article didn't say that. LOL, that funny. Terryeo 21:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC) Raymond Hill placed this link which states: "OPERATING THETAN
 * 1: a being who is at knowing and willing cause over form, matter, energy, space, time, life. From: Theta Clear Congress
 * 2: knowing and willing cause over all dynamics. From: Clearing Success Congress
 * 3: one who is able to continue in this universe and to handle it as a thetan without a secondary agency called a body. From: Anatomy of the Spirit of Man Congress"
 * but none of those 3 definitions say anything about causing the physical universe to move around however you think you want it to. Knowing and willing cause yes.  But man, You can throw a baseball at will can't you?  None of those say, "Can bend spoons at will" but are general statements and not specific statemetns like the article was saying. Terryeo 21:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * As usual, reverts without discussion, against wikipedia guidelines when uncited or dubiously cited material has been removed from the article for reasons given in the discussion page. Terryeo 02:39, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Let's look at this again:
 * OPERATING THETAN
 * 1: a being who is at knowing and willing cause over form, matter, energy, space, time, life. From: Theta Clear Congress
 * 2: knowing and willing cause over all dynamics. From: Clearing Success Congress
 * 3: one who is able to continue in this universe and to handle it as a thetan without a secondary agency [sic] called a body. From: Anatomy of the Spirit of Man Congress
 * First, I don't think it's uncited or dubious, it's from Bridge Publications site. Now Terryeo, how would you interpret "handle [this universe] as a [spirit] without a secondary [agent] called a body"? Furthermore, there was another reference provided by AndroidCat, where Hubbard wrote that OTs shouldn't show off their OT powers yet ("it's a horrible temptation to knock off hats at fifty yards and read books a couple of countries away and get into the rotogravure section and the Hearst Weeklies", "History of Man, chapter 5). That could be used as another citation. More sources are available from Advance! magazine, I will certainly look into that.
 * Raymond Hill 16:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Terryeo, you reverted again although it seems clear that the reference provided clearly says that an OT can handle the environment without his body. I'm putting back the sentence, along with a more references, this should satisfy you now. Raymond Hill 18:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Well at least you are discussing. That doesn't satify me.  Any person who carefully reads those 4 links which are provided will not find any mention whatsoever of "by thought alone"  The links are pefectly good links and references.  They do not contain the information which is implied by referencing them.


 * The first which is presently labled [2] states: "able to handle it (the physical universe) without a body". That has not said, "by thought alone" It might sound like it to you, it might sound like the two statements are synonymous.  I am not arguing that you made your edit in good faith.  But please examine them, they are not the same statement.  "By  thought alone", you picture a guy bending spoons or something.  I submit that "to handle" does not mean to handle "by thought alone".  If this makes sense to you as I have stated it, good.  If not, let us discuss because the two statements do not mean the same thing at all and I am completely dissatisfied.


 * The second reference which is presently labled [3] leads to Hubbard's History of Man chapter 5. That chapter talks about the capability of an individual and about MEST, but at no point does it say, "handle MEST by thought alone." It does state: "a thetha being is capable of emitting a considerable electronic flow."
 * Excerpt: «it's a horrible temptation to knock off hats at fifty yards and read books a couple of countries away and get into the rotogravure section and the Hearst Weeklies ...» Here Hubbard is talking about "theta cleared" abilities, a "theta cleared" is a thethan cleared of a necessity to have a MEST body. Raymond Hill 21:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The third reference which is presently labled [4] references The Fundamentals of Thought, page 62. I don't find the statement, "influence the physical universe by thought alone" there either.
 * Here is the excerpt: «The test of this is conclusive in that a thetan "mocking up" (creating) mental image pictures and thrusting them into the body can increase the body mass and, by casting them away again, can decrease the body mass. This test has actually been made and an increase of as much as 30 pounds, actually measured on scales ...» Raymond Hill 21:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The fourth reference which is presently labled [5] points to a website which has a copy of Auditor Magazine, issue 15 which states, "I pushed his car forward about 3 inches with pure intention". Well,  I'm not sure how to react to that.  That's a possibility as a source of information.  It comes from a published, widely circulated magazine which is itself quoted on a website.  It comes close enough to saying, "by thought alone".  Okay about that one. Terryeo 20:01, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Some time gone by, no discussion yet. I don't want to get into an edit, counter-edit, reversion, counter-reversion.  Can we discuss please?Terryeo 03:02, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * More time gone by, I see Raymond has made edits on other pages and has not replied here. I will remove the first three of those citations for the reasons stated above because you have not discussed and because they do not state, "by thought alone". I will leave the forth one. If you don't like it, discuss it.Terryeo 22:44, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

our thetans
sorry, anyone who ever says, "our thetans ....(this)" or "our thetans ...(that), misunderstands and is misapplying the term. Perhaps the article Thetan could explain how that would be a misuse of the word "thetan" or, if you like, I'll explain it here. Terryeo 21:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

"must" vs "can"
The article states: "..we have become contaminated or debased by the influences of MEST, which must be transcended, if we want to save the planet." What drivel! It is uncited. What drivel! Yet when I make a statement that is at least reasonable: "we have become contaminated or debased by the influences of MEST, which can be transcended" it is reverted by at least 2 editors. The first sentence is uncited and silly.Terryeo 18:50, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Can a Scientologist become an OT without having the ability to trancend MEST? Is it the goal of Scientology for its members to become OT?  What does it mean to you when you hear Church of Scientology leaders speak about "saving the planet"?  Do you think that CoS means that they want there to be less OTs in the world?  Or do you think CoS is ambivilient about increasing the number of OTs?  Does Scientology wish to spread by increasing the number of OTs?  Can one become an OT without conquering MEST?  Does Scientology encourage people to transcend MEST?  Is transcending MEST something that is strongly encouraged by the Church of Scientology?  Vivaldi 02:09, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Errr, Scientology has one goal, the rehabilitation of the human spirit. The Church of Scientology has one goal.  "..without criminals, where honest men may prosper ...etc."  Do you see something in there about "transcending MEST?"  I don't. It means what it says, that's all.  Yes, it is easy enough to misunderstand and many people have misunderstood.  But as editors we don't have to misunderstand, we are not obligated to misunderstand.Terryeo 20:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * To answer your question, Vivaldi, the short answer is no. There is no such goal or parameter or whatever you want to call it.  Maybe the problem lies in what "OT" means.  Everyone (according to Scientology) is a spirit (or Thetan) who is operating a body.  Everyone already is an operating thetan (operating / motivating a human body).  But, there are additional levels of competancy that a person can achieve.  The Operating Thetan article spells them out.  None of them say the least thing about "transcending MEST", that is someone's opinion who is hostile to Scientology and read something and tells you their interpretation.
 * What is it with you guys? We make a statement and we cite a source.  Isn't that simple enough?  "Must transcend MEST" keeps creeping into this article.  I keep replacing "must" with "can" because there is no citation in the CoS which says, "MEST must be transcended or you are not OT (xxxx)".  It is a pile of dog doo doo anyway.  If we just follow Wiki policy, if we just make a statement and we just cite a source, this nonesense would never creep into the article.Terryeo 20:50, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Hm.... Christians "can" avoid hell. We don't say that christians believe they "must" avoid hell (they still have a choice). Secular humanists believe they "can" be a force for good on this planet. We don't say that secular humanists believe they "must" be a force for good on this planet. Bhuddists *can* achieve enlightenment, we don't say that they *must* do so. This looks like some loaded wording to me, to imply that CoS members believe they *have* to do something. Ronabop 08:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * There are many Christian churches that teach that one "must" believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God, or hell is the consequence. The Church of Scientology teaches that a person is capable of transcending MEST when they become an OT.  So in order to become an OT, one must be able to transcend MEST.  I'm afraid Terryeo has not yet received the end cognitions that one receives at the end of the OT Levels.  Time to get out your billfold!  Vivaldi 10:03, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Ty very much Ronabop, sometimes I feel like I am screaming good sense and everyone is ignoring good sense, heh ! One editor used the edit summary, "(corrected the wording. Those under the control of MEST cannot be OTs. OTs have power of MEST. The ultimate goal for Scientology is to make everyone an OT.)" I mean really. set a ball down in a field.  Now look at it.  How is it controlling you?  And how would you transcend its control of you?  HEH! What could be more obvious, it isn't controlling you. It never has controlled you, if it does control you it is your own darn fault ! heh. This "transcend MEST" idea though, well as an example, people sometimes feel they are controlled by pieces of metal we call coins, or by their paper equivalent.  People can hold an idea that the physical universe exerts some control over them.  But it is a consideration a person holds, you see?  And there is no "must" about any Scientology.  You do it or you don't do it, that's all, its a matter of understanding, not force.Terryeo 17:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * There are many "musts" in Scientology, liar. You cannot be a Scientologist and continue to openly visit with your family members that are declared SPs.  You cannot enter the Church of Scientology buildings once your are declared SP, until you go through the A-Es.  You cannot be a practicing Scientologist and continually discuss the failings of L. Ron Hubbard as a person.  You cannot become a certified "clear" unless and until many courses and payments are made.  Vivaldi 10:03, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * "liar" without verification would be considered to be a personal attack, a name calling with no basis. But Vivaldi, if a person doesn't care about the Church of Scientology, why would they want to enter such a building or be recognized by the Church as being "Clear" or take any course or even make a payment?  Why would such a person want to do any of that? And please stop calling me a liar,  it detracts from the possibility that we might communicate with each other. Terryeo 17:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

And when you become an OT, Scientology promises that you will gain the ability to transcend MEST. Transcending MEST -- leaving and reentering the human body at will -- at cause over matter -- all abilities promoted and advertised to the prospective OT course takers. Of course, one may opt not do anything. So if one wants to stay on their current location on the Bridge to Total Freedom, then one mustn't do anything. If one wishes to advance up the Bridge to Total Freedom, one "must" do certain things. Vivaldi 10:03, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Scientology doesn't say, "transcend MEST", the article says that. Hostile to scientology, suppressive persons say that.  If you believe that the Church is saying that, you are buying bullshit.  The church does not say that. Scientology does not say that. Terryeo 02:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Scientology makes few, very few if any promises. I think if you carefully read you will find that, for example, OT I has an "end phonomea" which is not promised to anyone, but which states something.  If a person exhibits or states by saying so, they have reached that state of existence, then the person in charge of that technology might judge that the person has finished OT I.  It isn't "promisies fulfilled" but might appear that way.  Want to talk about this area? Terryeo 17:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I understand, Vivaldi. You want any Scientology information to be presented so as to present the broader subject as evil.  However you accomplish that justifies your edits and discussion page discussion.  Calling me a "liar" is a perfectly acceptable method, as long as it contributes to your POV presentation in the article.  However, allow me to point out,  my requirements within the article are Wikipedia's requirements within the article.  If you want "must be transcended" then you must follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.  Find a source which states that, quote the source which states that and cite the source which states that. Until then, the line "must be transcended" should not appear in the article.  I know it to be a misunderstanding on the part of some editor.  That does not mean that I am attempting to stifle you.  By all means, find a source which states that.  Fortunately, there is an option.  You need not do anything. lol. Terryeo 17:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

undue weight
Note the structure of this article: Clearly, the article needs a lot of work cleaning up its obvious bias. Highfructosecornsyrup 05:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) One short paragraph defining the term.
 * 2) One very short paragraph which is mostly redundant info from the previous one.
 * 3) One very short paragraph about being at cause over MEST.
 * 4) One very LONG paragraph criticizing the subject, by "Rick Branch, author and cult critic" (who is this? why is his word golden?)
 * 5) One very LONG paragraph criticizing the subject, by Stacy Brooks who is a critic of Scientology and for some reason has her very article for no other reason than that.

ok. who can do it then..??
Is there anyone in the world, now or before, that claims to reached the final level, and is now being able to manipulate "matter" or "space", or something without physical means?-- Procrastinating@ talk2me 03:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

regarding 'engram' in this article
The article had a paragraph obviously cut and pasted from a link. It was this: "As Scientology endeavors to render this MEST mess intelligible they write, "An engram comes about when the individual organism suffers an intense impact with MEST. Every moment of physical pain contains with it a partial or major shutdown of the analytical function of the mind" (Science of Survival, Book Two, p. 28). Thus, an engram is a memory which is caused when any accidental event (be it major or minor) is experienced. However, at the instant that the engram is formed, often the person is unaware of the event. How is this possible?" but the last sentence was not included in this article. This is an excellent example of how people misunderstand perfectly simple, straightforward Scientology technology. "How is this possible?" Well, when a person experiences a lot of pain then a person is not aware of much else at the time. That is what is meant by "unconciousness" and that is what makes an engram differenet from other memories. At a moment of intense pain a person has difficulty being aware of anything but the pain. The cut and paste from that other website brought that confusion here, to Wikipedia. Well, I hope I stated the situation better. For verification, hey, just think of any moment of intense pain, were you aware of everything else that was going on? Most people aren't, but it is possible you were. Anyway, that's the idea of an engram and a moment of unconciousness. Terryeo 09:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * STOP inserting your own opinion and commentary like "not an official site, misstatements" into the articles! wikipediatrix 13:56, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * huh? okay, but let's talk about how to present these ideas, especially this one, MEST.  Should we treat it as a theory per

WP:NOR or can we simply expect the reader to understand what is meant by a straightforeward definition? Terryeo 15:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * How about you not treat it at all? Write what the sources say, weighted and selected per policy, and don't take a position on the veracity of the information.  Whether a site is "official" seems wholly irrelevant to the information it lends to the article.  Additionally, your opinion of whether the information is correct is not properly a part of the article.  If the information is not contained in the cited source then remove it, and if it is, your opinion on whether it is or is not a mistatement should not creep into the article.  Add other views on the info if neccesary, but there is no reason for wikipedia to have personal opinions inserted into it.  It should certainly not take a position on any controversial issue ever.--Δζ (talk) 00:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Just an FYI, the user you are replying to has been indef blocked. Cirt (talk) 11:03, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

pasting sentence here for discussion and verification
"the ability to influence the physical universe by thought alone" appeared early in the article, but had no verification to it. I don't believe there is any verification anywhere in the Scientology literature which states that, but hey, if someone finds such a verification, let's talk about it. Terryeo 05:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * (pasted from Raymond Hill's talk page) I see you cited a confidential document on the MEST article. Any chance of getting into communication with you about that sort of contested verification?  You probably know the legal status of the document.  Do you intend to bring Wikipedia into the "Church of Scientology vs.  xxxxx (wikipedia?)" arena?  I mean, we got a good thing going here on wikipedia, why not follow WP:V and use unimpeachable sources?  What gain is there in doing as you have done in the MEST article? Terryeo 06:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


 * huh? What legal status?  How does citing document bring liability upon wikipedia?  Its hard to know what argument your making when you fail to make it, but rather obliquely refer to a possible argument.  Anyways, I think it would be good practice to not conflate legal considerations and what's good for the article.  Do you have any authority for the proposition that it is editor's buisness to consider the legality of citing information?  Seems to me that would be something the owning company would deal with.--Δζ (talk) 01:23, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I posted the above post by Terryeo from my talk page, because I wish other more experienced editors can comment on whether the link I provided as a citation was legally a problem. I didn't think it was a problem (I saw other links to OT material on Karin Spaink's site in other articles.) It's a link to OT V writings on Karin Spaink web site. This material can also be found on Dr. Touretzky's site. Raymond Hill 18:14, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Do you mean that all along Hubbard was talking about knocking hats off at 50 yards (HoM, end of Ch.5) by using bricks? I can see why he was against it then. AndroidCat 17:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I put back another citation, from Bridge Publications itself:
 * OPERATING THETAN
 * 1: a being who is at knowing and willing cause over form, matter, energy, space, time, life. From: Theta Clear Congress
 * 2: knowing and willing cause over all dynamics. From: Clearing Success Congress
 * 3: one who is able to continue in this universe and to handle it as a thetan without a secondary agency [sic] called a body. From: Anatomy of the Spirit of Man Congress
 * Raymond Hill 18:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is sure what the words say all right. okay, let us suppose for just an instant there were an individual who was not using a body but was handling the physical universe.  What tools does he have?  Well, thought is the first tool a person thinks of, I guess.  But there would be other possible tools, wouldn't there?  What about decisions?  If an individual makes a decision (with no thinking, just plain decision) is that a thought?  Then if the tree falls in the forest because he makes a decision, is that handling the physical universe "by thought alone?"  I am not trying to argue, but to have the article state the situation clearly. Terryeo 20:05, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Vivaldi, for redoing what anon editor 86.140.102.129 removed from this discussion page. Terryeo 02:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Racism
Does anyone feel that the author of the "Blacks and MEST" section as biased towards making Hubbard look like a racist? RUL3R (talk) 22:44, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It doesn't really matter what motive led to the material being placed in the article; what matters is whether it belongs in the article. Hubbard made his statements about the relationship that "a negro ... down south" had to MEST in order to illustrate the nature of MEST; today it still illuminates the concept, and the fact that what it illuminates about the concept is something that modern Scientologists find uncomfortable cannot justify taking it out. -- 65.78.13.238 (talk) 19:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The question must be, is it the only example Hubbard used? If he had a lot to say about MEST and this is the only one we mention, it does seem a case of cherry picking quotes to make Hubbard look bad to me. If not, then it's probably fine Nil Einne (talk) 23:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what relevance the motivation of the editor is, but I get your point. I don't think it matters at all whether it puts hubbard in a good light or not.  If we presume this is the only time he ever mentioned blacks, then so what?  I don't see that counseling against inclusion of a verifiable, relevant, and illuminating piece of info.  If your going to argue it gives undue weight to one quote which gives an inaccurate picture, then fine, but this would have nothing to do with the motivations of the editor nor the way in which hubbard comes off.--Δζ (talk) 01:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Racists Mother F**ker, L Ron was a racists MEST F**ker, cracker — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.37.187 (talk) 21:52, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Somewhat related to this is the removal of Hubbard's quotes without discussion, not once but twice. The material was in the article for over 1.5 years when it removed (for no stated reason) in April. I reverted back, but some guy named Benj or Benji or something said that was vandalism and removed it again! Section blanking is vandalism (especially without stating why) folks! If you have a problem with what Hubbard said about black people and MEST, then talk about how to improve it here! The quotes are cited, they talk about MEST. Geez! 76.120.66.57 (talk) 06:35, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * A good article, if there isn't one on that, could be "Scientology and Race" or "Scientology and Racism" or "L. Ron Hubbard And Race/Racism", etc. And such a comment by Hubbard might fit well in that article - although even better would be secondary sources which discuss his or Scientology's attitudes towards race. But I think, in an article about a rather different issue (Scientology's theories about the nature of the material universe), it is a bit out of place to bring that issue up. Surely another quote could be found from Hubbard about MEST, and that quote could be saved for an article about race specifically???? 10:48, 9 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.225.114.230 (talk)

This article could use some expansion
At the moment, it essentially just defines the term 'MEST', and then gives a quote from L. Ron Hubbard about black people. It doesn't make it remotely clear what the concept really is, or what role it plays in Scientology. Can anyone help with this? Robofish (talk) 22:40, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed, however, there aren't very many third-party publications that spend much time talking about MEST. It's not even talked about much in Scientology literature. Someone who has access to material that is contemporary with Hubbard would be the best source. The Hubbard quote in the article only exists because someone from outside (or who left) the church saved an audio recording of Hubbard and that piece became widely distributed. Official Scientology material that actually dates back that far has been revised heavily, making it barely the same thing it was 30-60 years ago.76.120.66.57 (talk) 04:59, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Relation to Einstein
Are there any sources detailing Einstein's influence on Hubbard on this point? Especially since the early days of Scientology coincide, roughly, with when Einstein's ideas first entered mainstream consciousness. MEST refers to relativity, since Matter-Energy-Space-Time - relativity claims that both Matter-Energy and Space-Time are each respectively part of a single whole (Matter-Energy: E=MC^2), Space-Time (Minkowski spacetime). And that is special relativity; general relativity adds that Matter-Energy bends Space-Time, or is the curvature of Space-Time, and so Matter-Energy and Space-Time are further unified. So Hubbard is listing four things which classical physics tends to see as significant, but largely distinct, aspects of reality, while relativity sees the four as much more closely connected, in some ways as different aspects of a unified whole. 60.225.114.230 (talk) 09:50, 7 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't know, did Hubbard ever acknowledge real geniuses in his writing?
 * →Ben Culture (talk) 00:34, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

why does most of this article read like a racist rant?
2407:7000:9D08:1200:C438:311B:3A0C:5703 (talk) 12:56, 21 January 2019 (UTC)