User talk:Circeus/july-december2008

Thank you
Hello,

Thank you for your contribution to my recently-created article about Diane Hébert. May she rest in peace.

CielProfond (talk) 18:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank-you for tidying up those references! Much appreciated! --Katie322 (talk) 14:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Lacandonia
Thanks for the copyedit! I however do think that the redlinks to the authority should remain. My personal opinion is that like every species, every botanist who describes a species and receives an authority abbreviation is notable enough. I've come across some oddball ones in the past, thinking "there's no way this person has an article already" and there it was! Thoughts? Thanks again for giving it the once over -- it was a very quickly written article. --Rkitko (talk) 11:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Fourth of July, or bust, Thanks!
Thanks for pushing us, with your timely remark that many NHLs needed splitting out of merged articles with towns or other topics. We took it to task, and made a huge dent in that problem! Funny, i thot you were going to stick around and be more a part of the solution, but thanks anyhow! :) Cheers, doncram (talk) 16:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Got ur message back. Glad u were puzzled for a moment!  Surely, a political border doesn't mean u can't join wp:NRHP properly, please do, of course.  Ur contributions are appreciated.  Also, by the way, I am interested in forming a Task Force on Canadian historic sites, as part of WikiProject Canada or as part of a new world-wide wikiproject on historic sites.  I got my feet wet on Canadian historic sites with one or two covered in List of octagon houses, and chatted back and forth with one other active Canadian wikipedian.  Isn't it time for some formalization of efforts, development of suitable Canada-specific infoboxes (which i believe i could help with), etc., n'est-ce pas?  salut, doncram (talk) 18:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Waltzing in and out is fine, we each have to follow our interests. Your help in opening a Task force on Canadian historic sites at least initially would be most appreciated, and it is needed IMHO.  I recently discussed this with Mindmatrix, at User talk:Mindmatrix.  Mind matrix suggested raising it at the notice board for Canada, and/or opening a world-wide wikiproject.  What do you think?  I am kinda interested in opening a world-wide wikiproject on historic sites, to include the U.S.-based wp:NRHP as a task force or otherwise associated project.  Surely that would be better than opening Canada as a task force within the U.S.-based project, which i saw someone suggest once. :) I researched that there are about 1,000 Canadian officially listed places, people and events, which suggests a different structure than what the US NRHP project covers.  And i know that Japan registers individual persons as "National treasures".  But, world-wide, i expect that a project on "historic sites" would be the most meaningful, and could allow nation-specific task forces to cover events, people, too.  Again, what do you think, and should i/we proceed with raising this on the Canadian notice-board or put forth a world-wide wikiproject proposal?  cheers, doncram (talk) 19:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Pulmonary contusion
Hey, thanks for working on pulmonary contusion, sorry to undo part of your work. I definitely welcome your contribution, I can use all the help I can get. Peace, delldot   talk  04:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the copyedit
in the International Checker Hall of Fame! TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 00:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Pteridomania
Hey Circeus, thanks for doing some clean up work on Pteridomania. You and I have been accidentally collaborating for several years now and it's great to see you are still active here! (Curiously, we have an editor trying to get the whole thing deleted but I'm laughing off the attempt.)  Best wishes and keep up your excellent work. – House of Scandal (talk) 03:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

could you have a look...
''At Magnetic resonance neurography? I was cleaning up the references and it turns out that clearly the contributor is one of the inventor of the technology. While I don't think there is much COI going on, I figure it'd be best if someone with a more medical background had a look. Circeus (talk) 17:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)''


 * There is some COI, but the writer has done a good job of keeping it neutral, yet I am still puzzled and have left a note on the talk page as we need to get an idea of the treatment in context, usage and criticisms. If this clinic is the only one which does it I start to worry about notability and why a treatment first researched in 1992 has not been more widely taken up. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I need to sleep (after 1am here), but I have Willie Wagtail almost ready for FAC – if saw any glaring errors I would be most grateful. Don't spend too long on it though. :) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Unblock of AdultSwim
You don't seem to be editing right now, but I'll try anyway. I detect a slight consensus to unblock AdultSwim at the ANI thread. It isn't unanimous, so I'd feel much more comfortable doing it with your OK. Do you mind if I try? --barneca (talk) 01:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd also be more uncomfortable with your input, but since you've gone offline, waiting for that input may cause an overlong delay. Gone ahead with an unblock, which I hope will be okay with you. AS an KK seem to have patched up their differences, at least, so I hope we don't have similar problems moving ahead. – Luna Santin  (talk) 02:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I was going to wait an (arbitrary) half hour, but I'm secretly happy you beat me to it, because now I don't have to write the message to AS explaining how an unblock is not the same as vindication, how the recent actions were not on, etc., etc. --barneca (talk) 02:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Wicks n' More
After seeing your comment, I was curious what were the questionable wordings you saw on Wicks n' More? I'd like to know so I can avoid them in the future, and correct them now if need be.-- Bedford Pray  03:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Quote marks
I undid the Scapa Flow and Bridgewater parts of this edit because you probably didn't intend the effect it produced. A hook's link to its article is normally bolded according to the rules, not italicized and single quoted. (Some article links are both italicized and bolded, but that situation didn't occur here.) Art LaPella (talk) 23:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The Impression That I Get
I restored the track listing. While I agree Singles are predominantly about one particular songs, they are also physical items with more than one track, and not listing those is clearly unencyclopedic. We have several singles FA (e.g. Just Like Heaven (song)), and all have track lists, often several. Circeus (talk) 21:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem. But perhaps you should add an explanatory sentence about this referring to the physical single and differentiating it from Let's Face It? – House of Scandal (talk) 13:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Vittorio Fiorucci
The best way to avoid articles being singled out for deletion is to make sure they are properly referenced with inline citations from the outset. Maybe put an template at the top or else work on it in your user space first. Article creators are not allowed to remove speedy tags, but can place a template, and explain on the talk page. This was not a CSD candidate anyway, as it asserts notability, so an admin would have removed the speedy tag. Proposing an AfD is not the way to go and wastes other people's time and energy.  Ty  23:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Nope. The tag says in bold "do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself." Admins aren't exempt. I thought you didn't know the policy, and didn't realise you were an admin, but with that and the AfD, maybe there's some wiki-stress going on here. If so, take care of yourself. :)  Ty  23:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Balch Creek
Thank you for your helpful comments at Featured article candidates/Balch Creek. In response, I reduced the citation redundancy and added three nameless tributaries to the course description. Please let me know if you see anything else that needs fixing. Finetooth (talk) 19:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

ISBN and OCLC
Regarding this, how are OCLCs and ISBNs redundant? I know the ISBNs are listed on worldcat, but I still prefer if both these IDs remain in the article. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 12:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Anglicanism portal link box
I reverted this edit of yours because, according to the template list at WP:Anglican, it is supposed to go on all related article pages (if there aren't any others). Maybe this is against overall policy, but other projects do things like this, and if it is someone should let them know. Daniel Case (talk) 22:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!
Hey thanks for the help with the Sarah Conlon article. :) - Samuel  Tan  06:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Hi Circeus,

Just a thanks for copyediting my articles and submitting them for DYK each time. You might find a few articles will be devoid of interesting facts, simply because there has been no research on some of these species, so don't worry if there's no DYK. I also would like your opinion on what to do with the Carangoides ciliarius article. I know you would have read through the painful taxonomic mess surrounding Carangoides armatus, and i am certain C. ciliarius is a synonym of C. armatus. I would normally just redirect C. ciliarius to C. armatus and include this in the taxonomy section, but both Fishbase and ITIS (the two 'primary' authorities to believed over any other according to Wikiproject Fishes) keep both species as valid (although it should be noted the Fishbase page for C. ciliarius is pretty much empty, no picture or common name). A number of people have synonymised the two names, including the 2002 FAO Catalogue. It just seems like a waste of time to basically write the C. aramtus article out again, just under another species name. I would like to just redirect the article and leave it at that. I would like your thoughts on this if possible. Thanks again Kare Kare (talk) 04:09, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The article is up, and consists of a discussion of the taxonomy, which is quite lengthy. I still have to go back to the Williams and Venkataramani article to find their reasoning for suggesting C armatus be given priority (its only available in hard copy, and i only photocopied the page describing C. armatus in detail, but i know they have a significant discussion on the matter). Feel free to rearrange the article if need be. Cheers Kare Kare (talk) 09:46, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Deleted image
Hello, according to the and article history, you deleted the Image:Giovanni Maria Nanino.jpg. However, this image is still present on Italian Wikipedia at it:Immagine:Giovanni_Maria_Nanino.jpg (downloaded from en:) and is tagged to be transferable on Commons. Could you tell me why it was suppressed and
 * if I ask for its deletion on it: or
 * if I proceed with its transfer to Commons

Thanks. Jérôme (talk) 08:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Taxoboxes
Thanks for noticing my taxobox errors on Desmanthus bicornutus and elsewhere. I resolve to be more cautious so you'll have more time to fix other editors' screw-ups. – Boston (talk) 20:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "...massive misunderstanding of taxonomic terms"? Wow...bitey!  I actually do know that the genus of Callophrys mcfarlandi is, of course, Callophrys (or Sandia, but that's another issue) so this is an error indicative of my general stupidity rather than any stupidity specific to taxa.  Cut me some slack...I write like 3 articles a day...am I expected to get the facts correct as well?  Anyways (seriously) thanks again for catching and correcting my errors. Boston (talk) 22:50, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, I owe you an apology for that one. I had sort of forgotten I was editing one of your creations, and you probably did knew better, and just had a brainfart (I write stuff like that when I begin a sentence and change what I want to write in the middle of it). Circeus (talk) 12:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No worry, it made me chuckle and reminded me again to be more careful! – Boston (talk) 14:13, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.
Thanks for your comment on the my list review, I was thinking about that. Now all the albums listed on List of number-one Billboard Top Latin Albums of 2000 have their own article with succession boxes for the next one.

Hope you like it, Jaespinoza (talk) 06:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Cobblestone Farmhouse at 1229 Birdsey Road and naming conventions
Hi. I trust you don't mind i moved Cobblestone Farmhouse at 1229 Birdsey Road back to that name, from "1229 Birdsey Road". It is in fact a "formal" name for the property, as it is the title of the NRHP registration document and it is also the title given by the National Park Service in the two webpages for new listings and weekly announcements, linked in the article.

I wonder if there is a general issue to discuss, perhaps at wt:NRHP, perhaps for writing into draft wp:NRHPMOS. I have noticed while working on the List of RHPs in NYC recently that the NRHP names for many properties are in format "House at 1227..." or "Building at 1227..." while sometimes the article names are not in that format. I feel that the NRHP name is a formal enough name to use, but there is a gray area. It is an even grayer area, too, about how to name Canadian octagon houses being added to List of octagon houses, etc., where there is no NRHP name and the only available reference may be one of the two fairly informal personal websites about the octagon houses, which don't give titles for the houses the way that the NRHP program does.

Anyhow, Lvklock and i are working on that cobblestone farmhouse article for DYK right now so I hope you don't mind keeping that one in place under the current name for now. doncram (talk) 16:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know if my sentence "I wonder if there is a general issue to discuss..." rubbed you the wrong way; it didn't come out as intended.  I meant to show interest in understanding what is your perspective.  Comments like the NRHP is "moronic" does not really enlighten me, oh well.  :)  doncram (talk) 19:52, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

St Wulfrun's
Hi Circeus; don't worry about accidentally editing one of my sandboxes—you've shown me how to do note labels properly now, so I'm grateful! I copied the template from one of my old articles (Senior Railcard) despite having reservations about using it, as I suspect it is now deprecated or at least on its way out (?), but I hadn't got round to working out the proper method. I'll be moving the article across into mainspace soon, and (not surprisingly) writing a DYK hook. Cheers, Hassocks  5489 (tickets please!)  18:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you very much for your help on my List of number-one Billboard Top Latin Albums of 2000, which is now a Featured list.

Sincerely, Jaespinoza (talk) 20:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Template:Algal carbon isotopes
Thanks for your efforts to clean up the Wiki. However, would you mind un-deleting this template so I can use it on other articles, please? Thank you. Martin  (Smith609 – Talk)  20:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Yes, I may have a use for -ve range – I've so many projects on Wiki I don't always have time to complete each of them before moving onto the next! Martin  (Smith609 – Talk)  20:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Gabumonmatt.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Gabumonmatt.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
 * That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 01:22, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

St Andrew's Church, Waterloo Street, Hove
Hi Circeus; the reference in the article to St Margaret's Church actually relates to a different, now demolished St Margaret's in central Brighton, not the extant one in Rottingdean. The old St Margaret's (a fine, unusual chapel incidentally) was on Cannon Place, near the Churchill Square shopping centre, but was demolished in the 1950s. I'll clarify the article; thanks for picking up on the ambiguity. Hassocks 5489 (tickets please!)  11:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

William Commanda
Just as an FYI, there are two William Commandas of importance: William Commanda, the former chief of Algonquins of Pikwàkanagàn First Nation, and William Commanda, the former chief of Kitigàn-zìbì Anishinàbeg First Nation. CJLippert (talk) 18:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

use of template:main
In this edit to White River Glacier (Oregon)‎, you removed. I guess I'm fuzzy about the use of main. Should Palmer Glacier and Zigzag Glacier also have main removed? —EncMstr (talk) 21:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Re. A few pointers?
(copied over from my talk page:) Many thanks for this. I (and they, I'm sure) are very grateful for all your help. Don't feel you need to go to the lengths of writing an essay in your userpage. I'd say drop a note on the talk page for Woman Hollering Creek and Other Stories and/or WP:NRG. Again, thank you so much! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 05:17, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

FLC Extreme point of India
Do you still oppose the nom? I made the changes to Featured list candidates/Extreme points of India sometime back? Please could you review it again? =Nichalp  «Talk»=  15:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

legal footnotes
Since you indicated here that you're not that familiar with legal writing practices, just a note for future reference: Getting rid of Latin terms because the MOS feels we need to accomodate our not-so-swift readers out there (as if the Simple English wikipedia weren't already there, as if the sort of reader confused by Latin abbreviations even knows there are footnotes to begin with, as if we actually had an MOS section on legal subjects — but anyway ...) is one thing, but when doing so in articles about Supreme Court decisions, it's important that you retain the aspect of the note that indicates if it's a dissenting or concurring opinion ... there's nothing about that conflicts with WP:FN AFAICR, and it's helpful (also, do remember to maintain a consistent short name all the way through. It looks really sloppy when one footnote refers to Prima Paint, only to have the next one say Prima Paints). Thanks. Daniel Case (talk) 19:59, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

As if writing an encyclopedia isn't something of a scholarly endeavor :-)? We have peer review and an adminship process that makes the average tenure year look like a breeze sometimes, yet we're too hip to use Latin abbreviations in footnotes? Latin expressions whose meaning anyone with two neurons to rub together can usually intuit, or (God forbid) follow a wikilink. That said, I think you're confusing the arguments against using "Ibid.", which there's no need to do with the current referencing system and which I haven't done since its use became the standard with the arguments about using "author, op. cit., page number". If you want to argue that dropping the Latin in the middle saves server space, I'll actually be more receptive, but neither option changes the fact that if some well-meaning other editor (usually new) decides to move vast chunks of the article around, it's necessary to manually readjust the footnotes so that the full information comes on first reference regardless of whether you use a Latin abbreviation or not. As for Supra., it makes it a little clearer that you're referring to the same decision, just a different opinion or page, regardless of whether it was the same reference as the preceding footnote. It's used that way in legal documents both in and out of court, more like op. cit. than Ibid.. The real problem, of course, is that no one's really put much thought into adapting our footnoting system so they automatically readjust to first or succeeding reference when moved around. It's possible, one of many complaints I have with how the referencing system works and doesn't work. I'm not the one with the skills to do it, but there's got to be someone who could. Daniel Case (talk) 20:43, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Commonscat-inline
Template:Commonscat-inline has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. OhanaUnitedTalk page 12:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought this had been settled and that the proposal to delete had been withdrawn, but the tag advising users of a discussion on the issue is appearing whenever the template is used - see George Charles Beresford ciao Rotational (talk) 08:27, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Medicine/Dermatology task force
I am looking for help improving the dermatology content on wikipedia. Would you be willing to help, or do you have any friends interested in derm that would be interested in helping? Kilbad (talk) 14:25, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

No content in Category:"Politics of" templates
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:"Politics of" templates, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:"Politics of" templates has been empty for at least four days, and its only content has been links to parent categories. (CSD C1). To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:"Politics of" templates, please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that '''this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here''' CSDWarnBot (talk) 04:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Troy post office
I understand your point here, but as I will be creating Central Troy Historic District (since, basically, my next dozen articles are all on contributing properties to it) after finishing this one I thought I'd save myself some time. Daniel Case (talk) 15:25, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

And my understanding was that it was used when the property was listed independently, but also located within a district (Which sort of makes more sense ... do we have articles about every contributing property in a district? There isn't a lot to say about some of them other than a few lines. There are 9,000 CPs in, say, the Butte-Anaconda Historic District ... that's an awfully large load). Perhaps we should clear this up on the project talk page. Daniel Case (talk) 00:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

OR dilemma
Can I prevail on you for some advice and/or a copyedit?

I wanted to write a climate section for North Island (Houtman Abrolhos). North Island has had a weather station for nearly 20 years, so there is plenty of data available, but no-one has synthesised this data into a model of the island's climate. If that was all there was to it, I would conclude that I cannot write a climate section, because any conclusions I might draw from the raw data would be original research. But wait, there's more! The weather station on North Island is the only weather station in all the Houtman Abrolhos. Our Bureau of Meteorology haven't published climate data for the Houtman Abrolhos either, but a description of the climate of the Houtman Abrolhos has been published by a marine biologist / oceanographer. That description is (explicitly) based on the North Island data. I therefore think it should be possible to write a climate section for North Island, but it is a challenge to make it readable without misrepresenting the specificity of the source (which I haven't cited yet, but I will!). I had a go, but it isn't very good.

Hesperian 01:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

2008 CIS football season
Thanks for correcting the wikilinks there. I intended to expand them and then completely forgot. Cheers! Double Blue (Talk) 17:30, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Tree grows cover smith.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Tree grows cover smith.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
 * That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 17:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Talk:List of waterfalls in Canada
Thank you for your comment about notable waterfalls missing from the Talk:List of waterfalls in Canada. All ....four... have now been added.:-)  SriMesh |  talk  04:01, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

South Canara
Hello, you merged South Canara with Dakshina Kannada. They are not the same. Please check Talk:South Canara. Let me know if you are not convinced. Kensplanet Talk  Contributions  08:40, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * South Canara is areawise twice as large as today's Dakshina Kannada. Udupi is in South Canara and not today's Dakshina Kannada. The reason behind seperating this is the entire South Kanara District Gazetteer is available online at http://gazetteer.kar.nic.in/

If you check http://gazetteer.kar.nic.in/data/gazetteer/postind/11_1973_3.pdf there are a lot of statistics available about the people, languages etc...there are many more PDF's that way. Just change the last no from 3 to 2 etc...Some speak about the distribution of industries. But where do these statistics go. Definitely not in the Dakshina Kannada article because Dakshina Kannada and South Canara are not the same. I'm sure someone can easily elevate South Canara to FA status with the stats. Hence, 2 articles can exist. Thanks, Kensplanet  Talk  Contributions  05:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, you can also check the maps File:Karnataka TuluNadu.png of South Canara and File:DakshinaKannada.png of Dakshina Kannada and compare the areas. Kensplanet Talk  Contributions  05:44, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Fishkill
I would assume that link (to the village article) was correct. The settlement that became today's village is pretty much what they would have meant by Fishkill at that time. Daniel Case (talk) 04:33, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: Mongolian nationality law
I've responded to your comment at the article's talk page.

Xmas

 * a fine Xmas message for all of us to be mindful of.... hehehe. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:52, 24 December 2008 (UTC)



Seward Memorial pic
Yeah, had I had my druthers, in retrospect I realize I could have gotten away with PD (which I ultimately did for File:Washington Irving Memorial.jpg when I realized that French's death year made it much more arguably PD and that panorama freedom covers the architecture.

With the Seward pic I wasn't as sure because I don't know what the controlling date is for a work published after the author's death (There'd be no incentive for publishing anything posthumously). Does some fixed period elapse? A lot depends, too, on whether the copyright was formally renewed, and whether that was done prior to or after 1962 (or 1978, the year copyright went from being opt-in to opt-out). I don't think the architecture matters since the picture was taken after 1991.

We should ask at ICQ. Had I no concerns as to the fair-use policy being predictably applied, that image would be at Commons, but over there I think they look for reasons to bump images and I don't trust them. Daniel Case (talk) 07:21, 28 December 2008 (UTC)