User talk:JRM/Archive5

Anonymous editing
I was a little confused by your comment on IRC a couple of weeks ago, but now all is clear! I would say that it's a cool idea, but a shame that Wikipedians have such set notions about anonymous editors... Reminds me of a certain fiasco with a certain user page-less RFA candidate! Anyway, nice to know that I was nice, and nice to know what's going on (for once). smoddy 19:53, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, you did make these edits. They do kind of give the game away.  It shows, I guess, that there are but two types of people in the world.  Wikiholics, and those who are about to be... Cheers, [[User:smoddy|smoddy] 08:41, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nazi Punks Funk Off
I'm glad to see my user page attracts at least some visitors. If I were to award myself that internet insignia in a non-"deceptive" manner, can I keep it? Or, in light of your constant vigil and (dubiously) stringent policies regarding self-mocking material that can grace a user's page, perhaps you are more deserving of it than I, and I should be presented with a yellow star. OnwardToGolgotha 02:47, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hello
Thank you for at least trying to to defuse the tension between Ambi and I. It was appreciated! Dan100 18:33, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

Wiki e-mail
It's not very reliable, so I gotta ask: did you get my message? Bishonen | talk 20:42, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Logical fallacies
It is on the list in a sense, as just a special (and particularly popular) case of making a valid argument from a false assumed premise, where the assumed premise p is "If you understand it, you will like it" and q is "you do not like it", and from there on it's a valid (if unsound) modus tollens. I don't know if there's a particular name for that specific case, which is probably what you were looking for, hence my failure to answer on the refdesk&mdash;although I might propose "argument from pretension". Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:23, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * That's not the wiki way&mdash;it's like saying you failed to make a perfect article and are therefore keeping it in your sandbox. Since this is arguably a better answer than nothing, it should be on the RD, really. :-)
 * This indeed seems to be a case of a false premise. If that's the most specific name we've got so far, than that would seem to be the answer. Maybe someone will pop up and say "of course, that's the ol' argument from pretension" yet, but it's good enough for me. This is just my banal curiosity asking "and have we named this yet?", not something that truly serves a purpose... JRM · Talk 21:51, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)
 * Well, I didn't expect I'd be telling you anything you didn't already know, but I may as well put it up since I've bothered to write it, then. It doesn't appear that mostly-useless answers are discouraged on the refdesk, after all, but I prefer not to add to the noise if I don't have anything useful (or amusing... my restraint isn't that strong!) to add. Oh, and I *do* sandbox articles for far too long, a few half-baked and moderately embarrassing additions to the contrary. I know, I know, the wiki way, but no article is ever finished, and I like to always leave things in a presentable state, at least... Mindspillage (spill yours?) 23:12, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * The wiki philosophy is that you can and should go out in your pajamas any time you like, and rely on others to properly dress you if it's taking too long. In your case, I would of course first put on a hat. JRM · Talk 23:32, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)

Wiki e-mail II
Sorry to be a pest, but again, e-mail? Bishonen | talk 14:49, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Message relay

 * Hi JRM... I've recently moved house and can't get online until I get the telephone line hooked up. Would it be ok with you if we postponed our match until I can get back online? I'd hate to forfeit. Thanks! -- jasabella

Message received via IRC. -- Cyrius|&#9998; 02:44, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Criticism of Wikipedia
Not that you're concerned, JRM, but just for interest: I merged Criticism of Wikipedia into Wikipedia and made it a redirect. The redirecting was briskly reverted, while Wikipedia remains fattened with the new material, so now you can really talk about overlap. OK [shrug], I shot my bolt and half of it got unshot. Maybe the reverter plans to complete the operation, or else the Invisible Hand of the wiki principle (=somebody else) will clear up the mess some day. Bishonen | talk 23:14, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Okay with you?
Hi, JRM. One of your subpages has been tagged for deletion. I was wondering if it was okay with you to delete it? User talk talk:Filiocht/European toilet paper holder on wheels/Anti 'T' bias poll on a pogostick SWAdair | Talk  06:05, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Judging by the redlink, I'm too late now, aren't I? :-) Seriously, though, while we could have a long debate on how to interpret the CSD policies in this particularly intricate case, I doubt Wikipedia is worse off from just having it deleted. With some bemusement I notice that the thing was dragged off to VfD for "being in the wrong namespace". Now with that sense of humor going around, this page really is better off deleted. JRM · Talk 17:54, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)
 * LOL! Yes, I agree.  I thought I would ask, since it was a user subpage.  It was possible you wanted to keep and move/rename it.  Considering the nature of the page, it was unlikely, but still...  it was your call.  Oh, well.  Back to the janitor closet.  SWAdair | Talk  02:44, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The power of the Wiki
(from Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents)


 * Don't be too proud of this editorial terror you've constructed. The ability to destroy a vandal is insignificant next to the power of the Wiki. JRM · Talk 19:43, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)


 * That was a great one! Thanks for the laugh. --cesarb 20:34, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Stole it! I did!
Hey JRM! I stole your "Wikipedia:Babel" table for my userpage, and as my pennance, I am hereby awarding you this plenary indulgence! Pax tecum! Essjay (talk) 06:02, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * For your honesty in admiting that I wasn't the first to steal the table, I say you get to keep the indulgence. (In fact, I'll give you another, and if you tell me when you want it, I'll give it to you after you commit some particularly fun sin...Being a heretic is such fun!). However, if you really, really feel you can't accept an indulgence, then I award you a big gold star! Essjay (talk) 11:28, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

Nemine
Oh, get over yourself, Joost. Click on that username, Fredy-whatever-it-was, see how he spent one minute on the whole thing: creating an account, creating a talkpage, creating that comment. Symmetry demands that you and I together spend at most one minute considering him. (Pete's delightful rebuttal deserves more, of course.) Thanks for editing my list. Oh, no, it's not mine, it's Wikipedia's, etc, etc! Bishonen | talk 21:51, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Get over myself! That's a good one. If I had a nickel... but anyway. The mere fact that someone would go to the trouble of creating such an account just to post that one comment is enough to really sour it for me. I know we have jerks on Wikipedia, but why do they have to be in my sight? :-) JRM · Talk 22:07, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite sure what "get over yourself" means, but I've always liked it..! Yeah, it's sour, but I'd think you'd be used to it? If you want to be inoculated against sourness forevermore, go talk with user:82.35.37.118, or just read his post "The 'purely factual' version is inaccurate" on my page. The reference is to my protecting his talkpage, but please don't go look at that, you'd only have to de-admin me. Remember how you hate it when Elizabeth and I put you in those kinds of positions..? Bishonen | talk 22:19, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * No, I have no particular problems with persnickety prickmedainties who will exit the stage, bemoaning the harsh welcome of teh kabal, clasping their bosom and going "alack! alack!", but I don't have any intention of becoming one myself either. (How's that for getting over myself?) I'm just venting steam at pettiness, and going "it should have been I" at you, because I damn well feel like it. There is nothing that could cause me to leave Wikipedia for good, except, perhaps, if we ever disallowed anonymous users from editing. But that, fortunately, is not likely to happen. JRM · Talk 22:32, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
 * Yes, yes, feel better, and I do in fact agree, let's do it loudly together: It! Should! Have! Been! You! Bishonen | talk 22:54, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Young people these days. Always making fun of everything. JRM · Talk 23:32, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
 * Yo mama! Bishonen | talk 00:09, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nuclear
"Fusion power - Reactions, you idiot, not reactors -- what were you thinking?" This personal attack was self-directed, I assume? Tom Haws 17:00, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * Of course. In retrospect such things are probably a bad idea because they confuse people. Then again, a little confusion now and again is a good thing. JRM · Talk 18:05, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)

at atheism talk
I replied at the atheism talk page.

Can you conceive of two different people having two different definitions for what an atheist is? Can you concieve of someone that fits one of those definitions but not the other? I assure you such exists. And that person is therefore an atheist from one point of view and not an atheist from the other point of view. 4.250.132.180 00:21, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Replace "atheist" with any other noun and the argument applies likewise. The argument you're making is a staple of metaphysics, but I do not see the added relevance applied to atheism specifically. We can similarly claim that one person's Christian is another person's heretic; that one person's brilliant movie is another person's turgid mess... It's all very true, but it's not specific enough to be of added value. JRM · Talk 00:26, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

This article makes a very big deal out of counting percentages of atheists in the heading and a section about this and that and the other poll. Those references to counting atheists makes it relavent here but not in articles that define a term but don't go out of their way to assert so many percent are in the group. Remove those references and the contradictory use and nonexclusive use is no longer directly relevant. So remove those and then I would agree with you. Leave them and pointing out the difficulty in counting atheists remains relevant. The child of two Jews is adopted by a Catholic and given infant baptism. The person has no specific religious beliefs. That person is counted as what? At age two? at age 20? inbetween? The point is relevant. The way I made it could undoubtably be improved. But the point is better made as is than not made at all. 4.250.132.180 00:42, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I just added a few more responses on the atheism talk page. I'm turning off my computer now. I'll be back tomorrow. Thanks for entering into this conversation; for the longest time no one would talk sense to me about this section, so it never occured to me to make it fit this article more specifically. You're helping. Thanks. 4.250.132.180 01:20, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Glad to hear it. JRM · Talk 01:24, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

Boldness!
Thanks for the little insertion - now, we'll have to see if people actually listen and edit the proposal, or sit on their butts for eternity, whining about how trolls will take over the world. :) – ugen64 00:20, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Ouch. You don't want me to guess which is more likely, do you? >:-) JRM · Talk 06:27, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)

eerste nl.wikimedia.org ontmoeting
ik zou iedereen graag willen uitnodigen te overwegen of zij een rol willen en/of kunnen spelen in de oprichting van een nederlandse wikimedia-organisatie. een eerste ontmoeting wordt momenteel georganiseerd, zie daarvoor hier, op de nl.wikimedia.org wiki. er zijn nog vele stappen te nemen, en meer wikianen nodig, om e.e.a. op verantwoorde wijze verder te ontwikkelen. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 10:50, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

3RR violations in Pakistan
After you un-protected it, there have been 4 revert-counter reverts so far between and. Please protect the article again, and look into 3RR violations. Thanks. --Ragib 19:14, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Summarized: if you feel you're being treated unfairly, you can ask the community to step in and intervene&mdash;politely or more forcefully. Since multiple people have already tried to intervene, an RFC probably won't do much&mdash;I suggest going directly for mediation or even (if you think your case is clear-cut enough and many people agree) arbitration. You cannot, however, ask for a license to indefinitely revert someone, no matter how wrong that person may be, and no matter if I were to agree with you. Similarly, whether I agree with you or not cannot play a role in whether I decide to block you and Sam for 3RR violations&mdash;fairness and sensibility demand I block you both to stop an unproductive and potentially endless exchange of reverts, without introducing bias of my own. The most difficult but also the most productive thing you could do is to tolerate what you see as Sam's unfair treatment of the content while you discuss it. You're free to put a notice of your disagreement (&#123;&#123;accuracy&#125;&#125; or &#123;&#123;pov&#125;&#125; or &#123;&#123;totallydisputed&#125;&#125;) on the page while you do so. Be confident that eventually, matters are going to be resolved one way or the other. JRM · Talk 23:43, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
 * Thank you for warning me about 3rr. I was acting in goodwill as proposed by kmccoy's mediation, by substituting the compromise (temp) version of the article for the disputed one. All previously disputed parts were reworded and entered into that version before to encyclopedia standard. Sam insists on reinserting the same disputed sections plus adding another section into the article without any discussion on the issue! So far he even deleted the compromised part of the article and replaced it with his own. I believe that is unfair to me and all the other editors who were involved in the dispute with him and clearly this shows that he does not want to solve disputes on the article. Please review edit history to see the additional sections that he added and the prior discussions on the talk page. If you do choose to protect this article, I sincerely hope that you will delete the three disputed sections so that it is protected without what all the editors (beside Sam) consider to be irrelevant and disputed. Btw, I was originally there to mediate too, but this issue has escalated with Sam's countless arbitrary decisions. Please see talk page.Thank you. --Anonymous editor 22:38, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * I will not protect the article if one person persistently reverts against consensus, but neither am I going to block solely that person for engaging in a revert war. Revert wars are harmful; nobody has any business engaging in them, even if it is to revert someone who seems to be stubborn and unwilling to cooperate. Revert wars and page protection harm anyone who wants to edit the article, including anonymous editors, and they should be limited as much as possible. We have procedures of dispute resolution for such cases, including asking for requests for comment, mediation and, if nothing else will do and the person who is obstructing progress will not listen to anything or anyone, arbitration. These procedures are long and time-consuming, but they're better than blanket protection or declaring one person wrong and putting them on revert watch.

Deletion of Xiong
Is this really serious? I hope not: I'm a real 'newbie', have been 'looking around' and this my first encounter with something potentially nasty. I have made a comment somewhere on his stuff - you could probably find it. It (the comment) is a bit elliptical, referring to some of his contributions - which is how I came across him. I'm not surprised about his concerns - but I've seen nothing elsewhere to back them up. Thanks for help - and for all your lightness. Jeffrey Newman 04:54, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Hey JRM: Jeffrey asked me about this one as well, and I filled him in. I thought I'd let you know so you didn't go to the trouble of duplicating. -- Essjay ·  Talk 06:42, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Blockiptext
Have I misunderstood the policy?
 * repeat violators may be blocked for a maximum of one month; there are various rules of thumb by which sysops decide how far to extend the blocks of habitual vandals,

Does that also constrain the extension to one month or not? As the text stands, this is unclear. Thanks Dysprosia 07:48, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * That way lies absolute madness. I've seen people try to get some clarification on what an ambiguous phrasing means; this never works because it will turn out that people who favor either interpretation will come out of the woodworks and insist this or that is the correct way to read it and it is in fact the policy so will the rest please shut up already.
 * I can easily read it both ways. Maybe the maximum is always one month and the clause only talks about exactly how much the block is extended each time (i.e. do you go from 1 day to 7 or 1 to 30 for egregious cases); maybe you can block "habitual vandals", who are worse than "repeat violators", for longer than one month even if they're on IPs. I can't tell.
 * I've seen careless admins block dynamic (!) IPs indefinitely, so I wouldn't take admin behaviour "in the field" as a reliable guideline. But if you really want to get to the bottom of this, I suggest asking on WP:AN what the deal is, or rather what we think the deal should be. I know there have been well-reasoned out permanent blocks of static IPs, in contravention of a strict policy reading, because the risk of blocking the wrong person was deemed too minimal to justify continued disruption from a certain IP. On the other hand, tales of people being wrongly targeted by overenthusiastic blocks are also common. JRM · Talk 15:01, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)

Blocking MARMOT IPs
I regret to inform you that I had to undo two of your blocks on IPs used by MARMOT, because they were cache proxies and used by many other people. See also Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. JRM · Talk 22:34, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)
 * Do not worry, I was faster than you &#9786;. Take a look at the block logs.
 * 22:31, 25 Jun 2005 JRM unblocked User:62.253.96.44 (NTL cache proxy)
 * 22:31, 25 Jun 2005 JRM unblocked User:62.253.96.40 (NTL cache proxy)
 * 22:30, 25 Jun 2005 CesarB unblocked User:62.253.96.40 (NTL proxy)
 * 22:30, 25 Jun 2005 CesarB unblocked User:62.253.96.44 (NTL proxy)
 * [...]
 * 22:09, 25 Jun 2005 CesarB unblocked User:62.253.96.42 (Side effect block of User:UkPaolo; requested on WP:AN/I)
 * --cesarb 22:38, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Lucky! JRM · Talk 22:42, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)

Proxy block
I saw you blocked User:193.65.177.205 as a proxy.

How do you know? I've been trying to establish this for the last few minutes now, and then I saw you had already blocked.

Are you just using the heuristic "same user, radically different IP", or something more tangible? JRM · Talk 00:03, 2005 Jun 26 (UTC)
 * I can't say how CesarB did it, but it's running an open web proxy on port 80. --W(t) 00:33, 2005 Jun 26 (UTC)
 * I know now how CesarB did it, but I can only pass the trick along to members of the cabal. That is, everyone who's not a vandal. Security through obscurity, so this isn't posted anywhere. JRM · Talk 00:37, 2005 Jun 26 (UTC)

SWOW award
The Skulking While On Wikibreak (SWOW) Garbage Disposer is awarded to JRM as a foretaste of the appreciation of the community. When you return full time, be sure to see us first for all your laundry, beverage chilling and outside grilling needs! Bishonen | talk 6 July 2005 18:03 (UTC)
 * P.S. Please use for obvious CSD's only. Bishonen | talk 6 July 2005 18:06 (UTC)

Welcome to irc!
--Bishonen | talk 19:30, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Can't find no cream. :-( Sushi?


This is perfectly normal, folks. You're not supposed to understand what's going on here. JRM · Talk 19:43, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Sig

 * That sucks, I like this alot. people are always getting after me for my signatures... I tell you what... come up w an appropriate title for me, and I'll change it to that. As far as the readability, my thought was that people could simply click on it if they have some sort of hover-aversion. So that you know, the next signature I was planning on was or some variation thereof. Oh, and yes, you are the first to mention it ;) ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 23:06, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

YAP
Are you there? I just posted YAP, Yet Another Plea, on WP:ANI, might you wish to pitch in with something technical or at least magisterial? Bishonen | talk 17:42, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Fine yapping, thanks very much! Bishonen | talk 11:57, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Welcome!
Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Someone must have been lazy, as you have not been welcomed yet. Thank you for your contributions. Since you have been here for a while, we can pretty much assume you are not a troll, vandal, or clueless newbie. I hope you continue to like the place and don't get all grumpy and leave over nothing. Here are a few good links for newcomers, even though you aren't one:


 * How to edit a page
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style
 * Merging, redirecting, and renaming pages
 * If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Topical index.

I hope you still enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian, and won't get mad over something stupid and leave! By the way, please be sure to continue to sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes (&#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (&#126;&#126;&#126;) for just your name. 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, and sorry for your not being welcomed in the past!

--Bishonen | talk 22:39, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Adolf Hitler
I hadn't quite realized what a lot of that pushy Bishonen there is on this page, sorry. Anyway, this time it's this: have you noticed that Adolf Hitler is on WP:FAC? Maybe you have comments, or a vote? Bishonen | talk 11:42, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Removing comments from talk page at Talk:Pakistan
Hi JRM, while I myself dislike the meaningless rant left by a user at Talk:Pakistan, is it OK to blank that section? You have written yourself that ''Regardless of (the absence of) any policy, please don't edit anyone's comments but your own, not even to fix a typo. It tends to upset people, and I don't want to upset people over my talk page. Thanks.''. So, is it ok to remove talk page content? I think the content should stay and be judged by itself, and removing content, no matter how bad or partial it is, is not the correct solution. Also, Wikipedia's official policy asks us not to blank talk pages, right? Let me know your arguments. Thanks. --Ragib 18:57, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * A user talk page is completely different from an article talk page. I feel user talk pages should be absolutely free-for-all, and I feel strongly about never deleting anything from them&mdash;I've never seen anything good come of this. People should be free to speak their minds to others, directly and openly. This opinion is not held universally; some people feel their talk page is theirs to censor, and will remove comments they don't like. In the spirit of respecting everyone's freedom of personal expression where there is no goal to work to, I've put up that "don't touch other people's stuff" notice on my page.
 * An article talk page, however, has a clearly defined purpose: it is supposed to be a meeting ground where editors can discuss constructively about what would improve an article. Even so, we are very lenient about allowing comments that don't really improve an article on talk pages, if they don't actually hurt either ("I really like this TV show!") But when it comes to comments that don't just serve no purpose to improving an article, but actively hurt it by being inflammatory and abusive to readers, I don't feel the same tolerance should apply.
 * I'm all for leaving content that actually pertains to the article, no matter how controversial it may be. But the comment I removed had nothing to say about the article: it was a long personal rant on the topic of the article. Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. Users are free to create blogs or visit forums if they want to be heard on matters not related to Wikipedia.
 * Finally, Wikipedia's official policy is indeed not to blank pages. But that policy applies to articles, not talk pages, and even so, removing a single comment from a talk page does not constitute blanking.
 * I hope this clears things up for you. If you disagree with my assessment, feel free to reinstate the comment yourself; I will not override this decision. JRM · Talk 19:08, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Important VFD
Please see the VFD for commons:List of victims of the 1913 Great Lakes storm. This is of vital importance. This list and others like it are being pushed off of the entire Wikimedia project. It started at Wikipedia, where they were VFDd in favor of moving to Wikisource/Commons. Now they are being VFDd off Wikisource (they don't really belong there, since they are not original source texts), with people there saying they should be on WP/Commons, and it is also being VFDd on Commons, where people don't realize that Commons accepts texts (says so right on the Main Page). This will set a precedent for any user-created lists. -- BRIAN 0918  22:24, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

The only problem with bringing it back to Wikipedia is that a similar list was VFDd from Wikipedia, and it's Undeletion request also failed (see further up on the Commons page, where that list is also currently being VFDd), so there's no way they're going to be on Wikipedia. Since the main page of Commons says it'll accept texts, and text must be in some specific language (eg English), I don't see why this list can't be on Commons. Regardless of the language, the names will remain spelled the same, so people can always extract that information if wanted. Commons is the only place left for these lists, so please support them remaining there until such time that they are undeleted from Wikipedia. -- BRIAN 0918  23:16, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Commons says it possibly accepts texts, which I read as "there may be some need, though we can't really see how that would work". It doesn't seem to fit the intent of Commons at all. I could imagine something like a transcripted DNA strand (CAATGTAGT...) to end up on Commons rather than Source, seeing that that's language-independent and of potential interest to articles in all languages, but a list of victims of a maritime disaster? I have a hard time separating that from its article. The framing text of the list is English, the references are all English, how is this going to be useful separately? The "let's just keep it here for now" argument isn't compelling to me; the main article can exist properly without a live link to something that may need to be moved or transwikid yet again. I'd rather have this issue sorted out properly than a half-hearted "let's stick it there and forget about it". If this sort of thing really doesn't belong on any Wikimedia project, we should have that spelled out. JRM · Talk 00:26, 31 July 2005 (UTC)