User talk:Evilphoenix/Archive 01

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: &#126;&#126;&#126;. Four tildes (&#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! &#9999; Oven Fresh ²  16:29, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style
 * If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Topical index.

Polish nobility
"Hello there. It seems you are working on a project to increase Wikipedia's coverage of Polish nobility. I would like to mention that Wikipedia is trying to focus on creating articles for people who have held notable, important places in history. If you could write information in your articles that you create about people why that person is important, and provide links to sources of information about these people, that would be tremendously helpful. Thanks"

I am using different sources: genealogy sites, Polish encyclopedias, Books etc. Not everyone of the nobles that i have added, held a important places in history. However, for someone who is interesting in genealogy and european nobility, also the articles of less notable nobles are interesting (in the context of the whole family or the connections between the arostocratic families).

Just look on this family line of the Czartoryski family:


 * 1 generation - Kazimierz Czartoryski
 * 2 - August Aleksander Czartoryski
 * 3 - Adam Kazimierz Czartoryski
 * 4 - Adam Jerzy Czartoryski
 * 5 - Wladyslaw Czartoryski
 * 6 - Adam Ludwik Czartoryski
 * 7 - Augustyn Józef Czartoryski
 * 8 - Adam Karol Czartoryski

A family line from 1674 until today --Witkacy 18:16, 14 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Witkacy, What I am encouraging you to do is to make sure that any articles you create have proper citation within each article. A proper citation is one that cites a source other that Wikipedia: A book, an Internet site, magazine article, etc. You listed several websites on the deletion talk page, and that's what we are looking for, now that information just needs to be included on the article about the person you are writing about. Does that make sense? The source does not have to be online, you can cite a book, just as long as theres some indication of where the information is coming from. I hope that helps you understand what we are seeking. Good work on your articles. EvilPhoenix

Votes for deletion/AwesomeFunny
Please explain your votes on VfD pages. What is keep-worthy of a non-notable comic with 15 Google hits and an alexa ranking of over a million? RickK 07:14, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * I'll make an effort to make sure I notate better from here on, thanks. As far as that site, I remembered seeing one of the flash animations listed on the site once, and it was kind of funny, so I figured why not vote to keep. I didn't really feel like I could say why, I just chose to vote for keep, and leave that be, however the arbitrating admin chooses to interpret. Thanks again for your advice. EvilPhoenix

Signing
Hey. Could you please use four tildes ( ~ ) to sign your comments? This leaves a time stamp (and your name), so it's easier to see when you said your comment. Thanks. :) &#9999; Oven Fresh  ²  15:06, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Potter Project
Hi. This may be a bit late, but cheers in return for working on the Potter coverage. I've added an external link to the original letter to Hogwarts headache. -- Kizor 13:17, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
 * cool, thanks. :-) EvilPhoenix 16:51, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Requests_for_comment/Neutrality (2)
I'd appreciate if you could add your sig so that this RfC can be accepted. I'm complaining that Neutrality ignored our attempt at dispute resolution over his recent use of WP:VFD. If you want to endorse it, you should put your signature below mine in the section entitled "Users certifying the basis for this dispute". --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:53, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Cheers, I appreciate you taking the effort to document what happened. EvilPhoenix 05:39, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

Kinnaur
You did a great job on the Kinnaur article. Thanks a lot Moumine 07:54, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. EvilPhoenix 17:36, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

Cao Xiong
Thanks for offering your help to copyedit the article, but please further familiarize yourself with the Manual of Style, particularly with regard to the bolding of terms. :) --Plastictv 12:58, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note. I kind of have been doing a thing where I bolded names the first time they were mentioned, but I had been hoping to locate something that would give me more specific guidance on that, specifically hoping I wouldn't have to go back and change stuff I'd done. :-). Thanks for pointing me to the Manual of Style. However, I couldn't actually find anything specifically referring to bolding, I may have overlooked it, if I did I apologise, but could you help me by directing me specifically to where bolding is discussed? I would like to make sure I follow the correct guidelines. Best regards, EvilPhoenix 16:32, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * i quote Section 1 of the Manual of Style: Article titles, which states that "The first time the title is mentioned in the article, put it in bold." This means that only the issue in discussion (Cao Xiong in this case) is bolded the first time it appears in the article. Anyway you could also look around to see how the other articles are formatted.
 * "I would like to make sure I follow the correct guidelines." That's nice, but do continue to, excuse the pun, be bold in contributing. Keep it up! :) --Plastictv 17:01, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Defence and defense
Thanks for your message. Your Harry Potter book is not the original, but the Americanized version. There are two Harry Potter editions - the British original one (International, by Bloomsbury) and the American edition (USA only, publisher: Scholastic, look at the cover of your book). In British and Commonwealth English, it's always "defence", in American English always "defense". See: J.K. Rowling wrote "Defence Against the Dark Arts". The American publisher (Scholastic) unfortunately decided to Americanize Harry Potter. Please have a look at this interesting article from the New York Times: SpNeo 16:26, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Ahh. I was confused and thought that "defense" was the British spelling. Sorry about that. I did know the versions were different, but I figured they were just using British spelling. My bad. EvilPhoenix 17:10, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

WikiProject Harry Potter
Loving your work. Let me know if there are any specific things you want doing --Drak2 18:35, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Please see the Goals section of the project page, that's serving as the to-do list for the moment. I'm not sure what the correct formatting is for a to-do list, whether that's on a different page or what. But yeah, glad to have you aboard! EvilPhoenix 20:48, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

Templates
You wrote:"nice work with the Templates sub-page. EvilPhoenix 17:22, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)" You're entirely welcome: I was a little worried I was being too bold :-). --Phil | Talk 17:34, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

Drum corps
I was checking out what linked to the drum and bugle corps (modern) page and saw that you did- and I'm excited to hear that you've been considering starting up a drum corps wikiproject. I've been working on some of the articles for a while now, including tables for individual corps pages (still in progress) and if you'd like someone to bounce ideas off of, I'd be glad to help. By the way, I'm looking forward to seeing Carolina Crown this season, I loved them in 2003 and 2004. They have great energy! Mr Bound 17:16, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note. EvilPhoenix 05:57, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

Project Broadway
Okay, sign me up. Dunno how much I can contribute, but I'll give it a shot.

Part of the project will be formulating some standard formats and credits for articles, right? --Calton | Talk 05:16, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Glad you're interested in joining. Yes, creating standard formats for articles is absolutely a goal of the project. Right now I'm working on organizing the project assets before I get to in depth with working on stuff...see especially the to-do list on the New York Theatre project page (I may link the sub-project to-do's to that one. Glad to have you aboard! EvilPhoenix 05:22, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed the three Wikiprojects you just set up related to theater in New York City. This is a good idea, as Wikipedia seems to be rather lacking in these topics. However, I think you are probably spreading yourself too thin with three Wikprojects when one would do. It's a relatively narrow topic, and I think everything would be best together. BTW, your project would also be a "daughter" of WikiProject New York City. I'll be glad to help out with the NYC theatre project as best as (with limited knowledge) I can. Good luck.--Pharos 29 June 2005 03:56 (UTC)


 * Hi, Thanks for your note. You may be right, three WikiProjects may be too many, I just wanted to keep things organized, but I may consider reorganizing it if there's a consensus for it. Thanks also for your suggestion to link to WikiProject New York City, I'll make that change (if someone doesn't beat me to it). Glad to have you aboard! EvilPhoenix June 29, 2005 04:01 (UTC)

Vote
A vote has been called on the Nundu article. Since its been a few weeks since discussion was last posted, I am letting everyone who posted a comment know about the vote.

Harry Potter Spoiler Removal
Thank you very much for the advice... I am still a beginner to wikipedia and appreciate any feedback that you would be able to give me.

I am planning a major overhaul on a few star wars pages that need work, and was wondering if you could point me in the right direction on the subject of the three revert rule and consensus building before editing.

Can I just go ahead and completely edit pages that I can do better?

--jonasaurus 23:45, 12 July 2005 (UTC)


 * As far as the three revert rule goes, I'm not terribly familiar with it, as I've only been reverted once, and I rarely find myself needing to do reversions. However, I'd suggest checking out WP:3RR if you're wanting to learn more. Generally, the consensus on Wikipedia is to encourage editors, new and experienced, to [Be_bold]] in updating pages, and I would encourage the same of you. When I come to an article I want to improve, I like to take a quick look at the Talk page and at the editing history, which will give me some idea of what's been going on with the article. If you want to change something that's not come up on Talk, and a quick scan of the edit history doesnt jump anything particular about the article, go for it. If someone objects, they'll probably mention it on the talk page or something, but generally you'll be ok. If I get reverted, I generally don't revert back, but instead make a note on the talk page of the article and on the talk page of whoever reverted, politely asking for their input on why they reverted my change, but as I said, I've only had that once so far, and you probably won't much either. I guess the big thing to keep in mind is just to be bold, but be patient, and be polite. Check out the new user pages and policy guidelines every now and then as you go, and you'll soon get a feel for the culture here and approach to doing things, which I think is generally a very good one. Anyway, I'll shush now. Cheers, and keep in touch!

EvilPhoenix talk 21:53, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Stubs
There is already a President of Nicaragua article and I am creating stubs from the red links on this page. A stub then makes it much easier for other users to contribute to these tiny articles, expanding them, etc. All these people are clearly deserving of an article, and I intend to do a lot more, SqueakBox 15:02, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * All that is in the President of Nicaragua article is a list of Nicaraguan Presidents, with the dates of their terms, and nothing more. All you are doing is copying this information and pasting it into myriad stubs that do not give any additional information than what is already in the President article. I am all for adding information about other countries, which I believe contributes to Countering systemic bias, but I object to adding stub after stub after stub. I think that you should instead make each article a Redirect to President of Nicaragua, and then if you have enough information and content to expand the article, do so, but I dislike the adding of all these stubs. EvilPhoenix talk 15:56, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Well I disagree. You could always put a Vfd on one of the stubs and see what the community thinks but I would argue that any President of Nicaragua (or any other poor, third world, underrepresented country) is notable enough to deservve an article and I would strongly oppose any vfd,. You would have to delink all the Presidents from President of Nicaragua article to follow your suggestion because otherwise they would just be redirects to said article. I think you should just let me get on with this basic janitorial task whose only aim is to encourage and facilitate especially beginners top contribute to articles on third world places and leaders, SqueakBox 16:50, July 14, 2005 (UTC)


 * For me this shows I am having a positivbe effect, SqueakBox 20:07, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * You haven't changed my opinion and probably won't. I've stated my opinion and you've stated yours, we don't agree, and it's not worth it to me to make a major issue out of it. Cheers. EvilPhoenix talk 20:10, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

ECOLOGICS "Delete"
Updating Evilphoenix, you might want to take a look at the newspaper articles I posted/uploaded on the (deletion page)for editors to review. The secondary sources are hard to recapture because most of them predate the era of the Internest and digitalization.--Adisaji 00:42, 20 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I just read your recent comments and change in vote. THANKS! I really appreciate the time and patience you've shown. I'm working to redevelop the posting each day and think I will also have to write a submission on 'black ecology' once the Ecologics submission is finalized (of course, if the vote is not to delete it).--Adisaji 04:48, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Your comments are well taken, but as a "new member" I need some HELP not immediate rejection. I believe the intent of my submission WAS NOT TO PROMOTE MYSELF, ORIGINAL RESEARCH, or any other ulterior motive. The main focus was to help define the use of the term "Ecologics" which is being randomly used over the years. Everything on wikipedia at some point had a point of origin (original research) -- things that are older have more verifiability and more recent historical phenomenon/processes may not. For example, would we exclude "HIP HOP" music words just because they were "originated" without a clear verifiable process chain? Major corporations pick up on terms like "Whaz Up Yo" but if we found who originated the phrase or the historical material conditions,wouldn't that be of interest to wikipedia audiences? I just need some help and guidance (TIME) to make this submission correct. I hope I get that support.


 * Alright, Adisaji, I appreciate you're being willing to ask for help, and I will help you as much as I can. There is a lot of stuff that comes through the new pages on Wikipedia. Sometimes it is user contributing meaningfully, sometimes it is vandals maliciously attacking Wikipedia, and sometimes it is something that falls somewhere in the middle. When I saw your article, I wasn't sure that it was bad, but I wasn't sure that it was good, so I went ahead and nominated it, mainly hoping that others could give their opinion on the topic...If it was found to be accurate, and could be revised as a stronger article, I would have had no objections to the article staying, and I still don't if these conditions can be met.


 * That being said, allow me to offer some advice. First, please recognise that Ecologics as it now stands is not at the standard that Wikipedia strives for. This can be addressed, and we will help you understand what needs to be done to the article. If editors see a good-faith attempt to write an article on a reasonably notable topic, they will be much less likely to wish to delete it. Your very act of asking for help is a huge step in the right direction.
 * Secondly, please do continue to work to improve Ecologics. However, allow me to caution you. You are a new contributor to Wikipedia, and while your contribution is highly valued, you might benefit from taking time to learn a little bit more about what Wikipedia strives for in its articles, and get a better feel for the culture and conventions that are present here. Understanding these will allow you to contribute in a more meaningful way, and I look forward to seeing your work. So, I advise you to work to improve Ecologics, but to not add any more articles just yet...Get to know the wiki a little better first. We will be here to help you with this. Please continue to not be afraid to ask, most people here will be glad to work with someone who is willing to have an open mind and learn.


 * Lastly, specific to the article. Wikipedia looks to avoid articles that are original research. I believe you understand this, but to attempt to better explain, just to be sure, you need to assert your claims within the article from other sources: books, articles, other websites. If you say "X this is true", you should not merely state that claim, but say "X is true because this person says so" or simply "X is true", with an immediate citation to support your claim. We are looking to find out what sources you are drawing your information from, to ensure the accuracy and thoroughness of the information in the encyclopedia. This is especially true for articles on subjects we are inherently unfamiliar with. I would encourage you to seek out example articles to get a sense of how this is done. I suggest tooth_enamel, it's one that I personally am working on in an attempt to get that article to be a Featured Article. Also check out the Featured Article on the Mainpage, or other featured articles, to get a better sense of what citation on Wikipedia should look like. You need not even worry about formatting it absolutely correctly, just getting it in the article would be a help. I'm going to get off my soapbox now, but I do hope this helps. Do stay in touch, I'll be watching the article closely, and will help you where I can. EvilPhoenix talk 18:54, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

THANK YOU! THANK YOU! THANK YOU! Your comments were heartfelt and I am feeling MUCH BETTER NOW. Honestly, I think I did "jump the gun" in posting the article and I need more time to understand the wikipedia culture and structure. Would you suggest I delete/withdrawl the article (myself) entirely and then really work on this "offline" and then at a latter date submit the article for review if I think it meets the guidelines? I'm beginning to wonder myself whether "Ecologics" might be considered "original research." But, I want to think about this some more. I guess I was really feeling PRESSURE when I saw the "delete" comments posted just one day after I uploaded the submission. I guess my "defensive --ego mode" kicked in. I need some time to read all the wikipedia material much more carefully. I still think wikipedia is an EXCELLENT IDEA AND FORUM,and I want to be a part of the community. talk--Adisaji 02:20, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * We're glad to have you. Glad you're feeling better. As far as the article goes, try adding in some citations to the article text. Just get some stuff in it....information about the sources you used, etc. You can also archive the article text...just go to the edit window of the article, copy out the text, and archive it to something like User:Adisaji/Ecologics. This is a normal and accepted practice for a page up for deletion that a user wants to salvage, it allows you to keep a copy that you can work on and re-submit, should the article end up being deleted. However, I think (but can't guarantee) that the article will be alright. Just go on, add some information about your sources...demonstrating effort to improve the article in face of a VfD goes a long way towards convincing editors not to delete it. Good luck!EvilPhoenix talk 02:33, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

I've gotten no further comments about all the changes I made to the article. Does the lack of additional comments mean the article is voted for deletion or will it be kept. I don't understand why there was a furor of votes/comments and then dead silence when I tried to rewrite/adjust the submission as requested.--Adisaji 14:27, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The article survived the VfD. There should be a link about that on the article Talk page. Most people may not have come back to the discussion after participating in voting. EvilPhoenix talk 04:06, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Broadway-stub
Having a WikiProject does change things a bit, but I'm still not entirely convinced this is a useful split - separating by type of play is a more sensible way to do it. I'm a little reluctant to remove it from sfd - I think it's likely that having the wikiproject will probably save the stub. I will amend my vote, though. As for WP:WSS/C, it's mentioned on just about every wiki page associated with stubs that new stub types should be presented there - that way the use or otherwise of particular stub proposals can be debated for a while before creation (it takes a lot of work restubbing things if a poor stub template is deleted, and it can cause quite a hassle if one is made and goes against the hierarchy that the other stubs fit within!) Grutness...  wha?  06:05, 18 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, I think that splitting out by type of play has certain limitations that using the stub I created addresses, which I have made a brief discussion of on the deletion debate page. EvilPhoenix talk 06:28, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * All those limitations are coped with by the current stub hierarchy, though (see my reply on the same page). Which is the main problem with broadway-stub - it cuts across many currently well-used categories. Grutness...  wha?  06:41, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Re: d00d
HAHAHA. no - no vandalism. took it down to remake it and haven't gotten it up yet. i think that once i reach 500 edits im gonna self nominate and start a campaign for adminship.

I didn't realize that it was you that started the Harry Potter Wiki. It's impressive. I recently spent alot of time on Harry Potter.

Let me know if you like what I did to it. I found that the page was waaay to long (62k or so) so I moved the least relevant sections of the article to other pages.

--jonasaurus 07:37, 18 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Feel free to do what you want on the adminship thing, however, I'd seriously reccommend waiting on that. From what I've been able to gather over there, they generally have much higher expectations for self-nominated admins than for Admins nominated by other users, and it seems that most users with less than 1,000 edits are not promoted to Admin, self-nom or otherwise. I can tell you that personally, during my first month or so (and let's not get pretentious, ive only been here a few months), I really wanted to be an Admin, but after a while, the more areas of the Wiki I found myself interested in contributing to, the more I personally found that I did not need to be an Admin to do the things I wanted to do. I'd still like to be one, but I'm not really in a hurry. I personally have decided that I will wait some more months before considering a self-nom, if I need to, but that's just me. I can tell you that I think you would have better luck being nominated by another editor, and I would be delighted to consider doing so, as I know that you are interested (However, I'm personally gonna stick to the 1,000 edits thing), but as I said, feel free to do what you think is best. Keep up the good work. EvilPhoenix talk 18:02, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

Hey
Hi Evilphoenix. I've been busy with another project recently, so sorry for not being able to respond to your requests on my talk page. Cheers, &#9999; Oven Fresh  ²  20:48, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

WHHS
Why should WHHS be deleted? Honestly, what good does it do to get rid of the page? The radio station itself has a rich local history, why not leave it be? The radio station is also regionally known, which is why it's listed under Philadelphia FM Stations. Please respond on my talk page. Rockafeller 8:00EST - July 21st, 2005
 * I refer you once again to the VfD precedent, which I linked originally: "Radio stations are notable if broadcast at least regionally (i.e. not limited to a single city)". A High school radio station, which by the articles own admission only transmits within a few mile radius, does not meet that criteria. The fact that the article is in a category for Philadelphia radio stations is inconsequential. EvilPhoenix talk 00:27, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Crew Members
''What exactly are you trying to do here? If you'd like to experiment, or work on creating a page before uploading it, I suggest you check out the Sandbox. EvilPhoenix talk 20:26, July 23, 2005 (UTC)''

I hope to add nearly 500 members from the USS Enterprise (CVAN 65) Reactor and Engineering Dept. This page will also be linked to the USS Enterprise page ... I only wanted to get it in place so other members of the crew can come and assist me in adding all of the names ... I can only type so fast. ;) All I have had time to do so far is set up a table ... and then begin to add names as i find time. I can certainly do that somewhere else ... but I did want to encourage others to heip in the editing. Now ... I see the page is being considered for deletion! I do know i have 500 actual crew members who would like to have this page here. Any assistance will be appreciated. thank you. -ts- 21:44, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I don't believe the names of crewmembers of an aircraft carrier is notable enough for an addition to Wikipedia. Additionally, there is a privacy concern about posting the names of military servicemen and women to a public website without permission. EvilPhoenix talk 22:07, July 23, 2005 (UTC)


 * Well ...
 * perhaps you might ask them ... THE people who powered this aircraft carrier
 * it they think they aren't notable enough for inculsion.
 * I WILL let every one of them know they aren't welcome here.
 * -ts- 22:21, 23 July 2005 (UTC)


 * The aircraft carrier is notable, but the names of crew members really are not. Why don't you contribute to the article about the ship? I'm sure there's plenty of information you could add about the ship's history and characteristics, which you would be familiar with, if you work on the ship. By the way, I don't even see where the article is listed for deletion at the moment.EvilPhoenix talk 22:33, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Winoke
I see you suggested my Winoke site should be deleted. Whilst the end of the paragraph may be a little fake, the start is true. As far as Im concerned, just because it is not of any cultural significance, as yet at least, does not mean you are morally obliged to remove it from Wikipedia. By the way, sorry if i posted this comment in the wrong part, still struggling to learn how to use Wikipedia. 7.34 AEST July 24th.
 * Umm...I don't really know how to reply to that. Wikipedia strives for Accuracy and articles of cultural significance, so youre kind of making my argument for me. If you still want to try and contribute, why not go on and get a user account? EvilPhoenix talk 09:47, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * You can't come in here and edit your comments to change what you said. You said what you said, stand by what you said. EvilPhoenix talk 06:08, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

OneNewsAsia/Africa
To me this is splitting hairs a bit. I say that because either way, the page will be deleted. Either way the articles will probably go bye bye. Besides, it's not like there were a ton of votes on either and they had been sitting there for a few days. I can see it your way too but I think that making it a copyvio issue is the right thing to do in this case. And btw, if you think the copyvio page is backlogged now, you haven't seen nothing yet. :) I think this was before you started here, but back in March/April, there were literally 900 items on the copyvio page. The management of it has gotten MUCH better. --Woohookitty 05:21, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
 * personally I wouldn't mind helping out on copyvio, is there much I can do as a non-admin? EvilPhoenix talk 05:26, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, you can't do anything directly with the page, but you can go to the Articles that need to be wikified page and help to weed it out. I say that because lots of those articles are copyvios. THAT is the page that has gotten ridiculous. It was at 300 when I started in Jan. Up to 1900 now. Anyway, so you can certainly help there. You can't remove articles from the copyvio page, but you can certainly help spot the copyvios on Wikipedia. --Woohookitty 05:43, 31 July 2005 (UTC)