User talk:Siawase/Archive 2

Geri Halliwell
Please don't think this malicious, but I don't see what is wrong with what I put on the Geri Halliwell page. Am I expected to provide links to these (easily found) pictures? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.79.206.200 (talk • contribs) 07:13, 27 June 2009

thanks
For that revert. The Bookkeeper  (of the Occult)  08:17, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Rollback
✅ for you! Pedro : Chat  10:34, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Boiling frog
The article Boiling frog you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. It hasn't failed because it's basically a good article, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Boiling frog for things needed to be addressed. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 04:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

My contribution that was pulled from the Action Figure page
Dear Siawase,

I was sent the following message after I had submitted information this afternoon the Action Figure page. "Your recent addition to Action figure has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Siawase (talk) 18:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC)"

However, I am the owner and author of the website from which this material was taken. Everything posted was in my own words, but simply from my own website. There was no need for me to rewrite the material. It took me quite a long time to place that addition into Wikipedia, and I really wish I had been contacted before it was pulled. I am glad to offer proof that the website that was cited in the addition is my own.

Is there anyway that my recent submission can be reinstated without me having to re-enter it?

Thanks, Felixthecat70 (talk) 22:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Action Figure submission
Dear Siawase,

Thank you for the clarification on the material that was pulled. I resubmitted the material, but did remove any citation to my site. However, just to make sure everything is cleared regarding copyright, I did place a message on my site above the material in question allowing permission for it to be used by others. If you need the link, please let me know.

Hopefully, this will be sufficient in proving that I am the author, and will thus allow the content to be able stay on Wikipedia.org. Please let me know if there are any other problems. Your help is greatly appreciated.

Thanks, Felixthecat70 (talk) 22:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Beatrix Potter
Thanks for the heads up on the images and categories! I've replaced the image with an upload to Wikipedia. I'm unfamiliar with the intricacies of image uploading, rationales, etc.. If you have a moment, could you check it out? I'll take the category up at the appropriate place as suggested. Most such categories seem to use 'Works' rather than 'Books', 'Novels', 'Tales', or other synonyms. Thanks again! You've been enormously helpful! Kathyrncelestewright (talk) 10:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The Tale of Squirrel Nutkin
Thanks for the restoration of the image! It looks great! I'm glad you approve of the work on these articles! Thanks again! Kathyrncelestewright (talk) 22:22, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Cold Y Generation
An editor has nominated Cold Y Generation, an article which you have created or worked on, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. --Law Lord (talk) 02:02, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Resident Evil: Afterlife
Hey there. What do you mean about a copyright violation? That's the official synopsis being reported on many websites. My understanding is that it's legal to report what the official synopsis is? I'm confused? Thanks. -- Mike   Allen   06:12, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I absolutely did not know that. Copyright can be so confusing.  Thanks for letting me know.  Happy edits. --  Mike   Allen   06:24, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Re:Dolls
I see. I was unaware that dolls were copyrighted such as they were, but then the US laws governing this sort of thing are very...odd. Yeah Lets go with that :) I concede a point that you are the better person to leave the issue to, so if you deem both tags as being necessary go ahead and re-add the tag I removed. Thanks for the message as well - I learned something today, and that is always good feeling. Have a Happy New Year! TomStar81 (Talk) 08:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Brexx
Thanks for the heads up. I will keep a lookout and revert any edits. I remember about User:Brexx and his shenanigans. --Legolas ( talk 2 me ) 03:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Conflicted licensing on image File:Unoabjd.jpg
The above noted image or media file appears to have conflicted licensing. As an image cannot be both 'free' and 'unfree', a check of the exact status of this media/image concerned is advised.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:40, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * If it's an image of mainly non-free content, it can't have a free license tag at all, despite what previous answers have said.

I suggest you talk to User:J Milburn for how to resolve this. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:13, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Without reading through those threads (I'm sorry, I really haven't got the time right now) I would be inclined to say that the conclusion was wrong, for a number of reasons. The tags exist to show the license of the image as far as Wikipedia is concerned- CC-by-SA is a free license, and so is clearly incompatible with the image being non-free. I would suggest tagging the image with the appropriate non-free tag, and simply mentioning the provenance and licensing of the image elsewhere on the image page. J Milburn (talk) 12:04, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Buddhist mummies
There are news reports about mummies of people died of starvation, but there is no news about many mummies of people died in famine. Are u sure? Nature following and the Tao (talk) 16:08, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Honking?
Re: this comment. I think you have your species of fowl confused: geese honk, ducks quack. But that's irrelevant: the voice my brain has assigned to Brexx is an interminable irritating whine.&mdash;Kww(talk) 17:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand your suspicion, but that's an old account. It would have had to survive twenty or thirty sweeps undetected, and Brexx isn't that smart.&mdash;Kww(talk) 17:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Brexx
Thanks so much for that, I wish I new that before that ridiculously long discussion lol. I know for the future and I will do my best to spot him out. Thanks again! Jayy008 (talk) 18:11, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

A good policy, I'll try warn people aswell, save them wasting time. To me, I don't understand why a user makes loads of different account just to vandalise. Seems so pointless! Jayy008 (talk) 19:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello, somebody has made the exact same edits on Up Out My Face (Remix) and Angels Cry (Remix) as the user Brexx, could it be him again? This time it's an IP. Jayy008 (talk) 16:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Good idea, if I see him do it again, I'll report it. Jayy008 (talk) 01:50, 11 February 2010 (UTC) Strike that, I just looked at the IP page and it's been blocked for a month. Jayy008 (talk) 01:51, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Bisque doll photo
I've made a suggestion at T:TDYK that might interest you. Nyttend (talk) 02:31, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

China doll page editing
Thank you for the tips. I was shocked at the misinformation displayed on the china doll page I stumbled across, and dove in =head first to make some immediate corrections without really learning the ropes. The entire Dresden doll reference is total bollocks and needs to be entirely removed from both china and parian doll mention. Many other errors as well. I will try to find the time to figure out how to cite my references to document the facts but time is my enemy.Bellsonherfingers (talk) 14:41, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Still learning the ropes, but did a little more tidying, added references and another photo, if you'd like to check it out Bellsonherfingers (talk) 03:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Saw your changes. All good. Thanks for the tidying.Bellsonherfingers (talk) 20:36, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Ryan White
I think your research into the news stories referenced in the Ryan White article would be a useful contribution to the talk page. Would you be willing to post it there? Thank you! 67.100.222.184 (talk) 09:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Lindsay Lohan
Hey, I thinks she's ready, so I've nominated her for GA. I hope you don't mind, but I added your sig as well as mine to the GAN. It could be a while before we get a review, but with it being quite a high profile article, it may be sooner than normal. We'll see. Best, HJ Mitchell  |  Penny for your thoughts?   17:02, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for adding me. I haven't had a lot of time for Wikipedia lately, but I'll try to help out once the review is underway. I would have preferred to have more time to work on the article, but since I don't have the time and work slow anyway, it's just as well that you nominated it. Her siblings are still unsourced, as is her high school. She also briefly went to a high school in Merick if I recall correctly. I think the TalkTalk reference should have the info on her siblings and high schools. Good job though! Especially on finally getting refs added to the segments on her albums. Cheers, Siawase (talk) 18:26, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * They took me ages to dig up, but I found them in the end. I'll have a look at that- I think I can reference her high school quite easily and I'll have a look at her siblings. I had a bit of time on my hands so I thought I'd make a go of it. It's much easier to add to it now it's chronologically ordered- that was a great idea! Best, HJ Mitchell  |  Penny for your thoughts?   18:39, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Hey, the review's underway. There are quite a few technical things, especially filling out references, that need doing, but nothing show-stopping. It'll be tedious though, so your help would be appreciated! HJ Mitchell  |  Penny for your thoughts?   22:06, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Here:Let's have a chat on the talk page about what to do with that personal life section. Great work, though! HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   21:52, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up! So great to see that it passed. Thanks for all your hard work in cleaning up the references and whatnot. Unfortunately I still don't have the time to delve into and work on the article further, but I wanted to make my opinion known at least. Cheers, Siawase (talk) 17:06, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No worries. I need a break from the article so I'm polishing up her discography atm with a view to a possible FLC. When I'm done there, I'm going to have a look at the personal life section and at least break some of the non-personal life stuff out (maybe spin some out into a new section if need be) and move some of the stuff that doesn't fit well in the main body into there. Nothing's set in stone, though, so when you have the time we can have a chat about how to improve it some more. It would be nice (eventually) to get it back up to FA, though I didn't realise how low FA standards were back then! Best, HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   20:27, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Executive toy
An article that you have been involved in editing, Executive toy, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. m o ɳ o 18:43, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Dollfie doll.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Dollfie doll.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:09, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey!
Just wanted to say it's nice to see you back. I've tried to keep an eye on Lohan over the last few weeks, but I've not really got back into finishing the overhaul, so if you have the time, it'd be great to work with you again. :) All the best, HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   20:01, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, you too! I've purposely been avoiding the Lohan article for a while since it can be such a timesink. (I think you know how it goes... searching for one reference can suddenly eat up an hour or two...) But it's also one of the most interesting articles I've found to work on. Maybe once the current updating frenzy has calmed down a bit we could try to continue the improvement of the older material. (And some of the new... argh too much TMZ!) Cheers, Siawase (talk) 20:13, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * TMZ's not the only crappy source, but it's one of the most annoying! I love that people feel the need to write a whole essay about a prison sentence of which she'll probably serve only a few weeks at most! I would be nice to get the article looking properly presentable, though (and in order!) so I'm definitely up for mucking in when the tabloids have found some other "celebrity" to defame! ;) HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   20:18, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * People seem to love to lay anything related to legal issues out in great detail. When I first came across the Lohan article in mid-2008 it had detailed blow-by-blow accounts of both of her arrests: Kind of amusing really. *shaking head* Siawase (talk) 21:01, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Undue weight much? Four paragraphs detailing one arrest? If we gave that much weight to everything in her bio, it'd be longer than our entire coverage of World War 2! Not to mention the exact street she was born on! Talk about WP:Fancruft! Dear oh dear, the crap some people will add to Wikipedia. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   21:40, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Violation?
Hi, Siawase, I wanted to ask your opinion about a possible violation of WP:COPYLINKS. In the article That '70s Show, I added some material and cited sources. All of the sources link to this very strange website, Twiz TV, which has TV scripts. After I added the material, I started brooding as to whether the links violate policy.

Assuming you think they do violate policy, what do you suggest? One possibility is just to remove the sources and leave the text as is, quotation marks and all. Another possibility is to remove the sources and the quotation marks. You might feel there are other options.

The article in general cites to very few sources. It mostly relies on the editors knowing the show and the content of the show. Not that atypical for things like plots of movies, plays, books, etc. but arguably a violation of WP:OR.

What are your thoughts? Thanks much.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:25, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I've responded to your response on my talk page. Let's keep it there rather than bouncing back and forth. Thanks again for your help.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:58, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

That '70s Show - Section Blanking
Hi, Siawase, I'm afraid I need your help again. An anonymous editor has removed large sections of the article because he (or she) believes it violates WP:NOR. I reverted his changes and explained why on the Talk page (see Talk:That_%2770s_Show)), but he's insisting. A lot of the subsections have been in the article for quite some time (in some form as early as 2006, then expanded over the years). Honestly, I don't completely disagree with him, but I think he's being WAY too aggressive and unilateral in this. Many articles about fiction (TV shows, movies, books, etc.) have a lot if commentary by users. I'm not sure if it's kosher, but as long as it's simply trying to explain things in a relatively neutral way, I personally don't find it inappropriate. Anyway, I'm not sure what to do. To add sources for all of the explanations as to the show's elements would be a massive amount of work, and not something I personally want to tackle. Hey, I have a real job and a real life outside of Wikipedia. :-) But his removing so much content without specifying what in particular is controversial is harmful. Your thoughts would be appreciated, as always.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:49, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Since I posted the initial message here, you'll see that two other editors have since reverted the anonymous editor's changes, but the AE keeps doing it again (with nasty comments to boot). I'm just watching the battle. I'm still interested in your views on the merits when you have a moment.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:20, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Things have improved some more. In particular, Skysmurf started - and I've continued - a useful discussion on improving the article. So, although I always welcome your views, at this point I no longer feel they are as necessary as they were a mere 24 hours ago. Besides, I'd prefer to keep my requests of your time restricted to when they're really needed as I know how much work it is to look at everything, think about the pros and cons, etc. Smart of you to stay away to allow things to percolate on their own - consider yourself sprung. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 15:15, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Howdy, yeah as my talk page header says, sometimes I get a bit busy so no time for Wikipedia. I wasn't staying away on purpose, though sometimes that is a smart strategy. ;) (and sometimes not so good... all depends.) I'm glad you're getting it all sorted out though, and even if I had been around I'm afraid I wouldn't have been much help. I mostly avoid TV articles since I don't have access to relevant sources and policy interpretation isn't quite stable even. (ever look at the talk archives of WP:FICT?) Anyway, good luck with your editing and all that. Cheers, Siawase (talk) 18:34, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I should stay away from Wikipedia more often - it consumes too much time. I've been working on cutting out blatant unsourced interpretation from the That '70s Show article. I took a glance at the talk page of WP:FICT (thanks for the pointer). Some day, when I have hours to spare, I might read it. :-)--Bbb23 (talk) 18:42, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Flavas dolls.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Flavas dolls.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 12:06, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Lohan latest
Hi, Siawase, I just wanted to let you know more about why I reworded your addition, a little more significantly than usual. I tried to put as much in the edit summary as I could, but I'm limited by its length. I think it was important to communicate that her probation was revoked. I think the AP article was being loose with legal language when it said that the bench warrant issued. To me, issued means the judge sent it out, and if that were true, the police would arrest her. By contrast, the CNN article said the judge signed it and held onto it until the hearing. The implication is - although I didn't add the implication because it wasn't sourced - that if she doesn't appear, the judge will issue the warrant. I left in the AP source, although I really don't think it's needed, because I know you have like AP. :-) Anyway, I hope you're okay with the rewording and my explanation.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:16, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hiya, thank you very much for rewording and clarifying that. Not being American makes it difficult at times to grasp the finer details of the justice system. The BBC article on the matter was even more vague. ("Judges"? plural? *shakes head*) Thanks also for leaving AP in there. I like to use more than one source when possible in cases like this, for NPOV and WP:V in case one of the links dies. Cheers, Siawase (talk) 00:44, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Stuffed toy
On the article, Stuffed toy, I noticed you removed my *one* image. (I wasn't the spammer, I just added the snowman.) Would it be okay if I added it back? Thanks! (Oh yeah, please do send me a talkback when you reply.) Endofskull (talk) 22:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * This is what I've decided. I'm going to add the picture, and you can send me a message on my talk page if you want to remove it. Endofskull (talk) 20:35, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Categories named after toy companies of the United States
This just happens to be the valid category. It is not correct to change these to Category:Toy companies since articles like hot wheels are not companies. Parent categories should be reflective of all or at least almost all of the contents in the category. The whole categories named after is there for a reason. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:09, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Brexx proxies
FYI: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Amalthea&oldid=391287188#Brexx.2FBellsouth_ADSL_modems

&mdash;Kww(talk) 05:49, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Ryan Seacrest
Hi, Siawase, you're my go-to editor for perspective - I hope you don't mind. Take a look at the Ryan Seacrest article and, in particular, the edit history on the "fourth grade" sentence. I got into a tussle with another editor on the sentence. Then, she accused me of violating the 3RR rule (I now have this lovely template on my Talk page). I'd like you to focus on the substance itself, both the phrasing of the sentence and the source (and not just whether the source is reliable but where in the source the statement comes from, i.e.., "fun facts"). Personally, I'd prefer that the sentence not be there at all, but the other editor has decided that the only way she can prevail is to quote the source (in italics yet). That way I can't quibble that the phrasing doesn't conform to the source. What do you think about all this?

As an aside, I wasn't even thinking about the 3RR rule during the changes to the article. I was aware that our exchange wasn't completely friendly, but I didn't think it was downright hostile, either, and, honestly, I was just trying to work out the wording of the sentence. I guess I need to pay more attention in the future so I don't get blindsided. In any event, I would escape a violation on a technicality (that I assure you I didn't plan) - my fourth edit occurred just after the end of the 24-hour period. :-)

I kind of feel sorry for the editor, though. It wasn't my intention to offend her, and she clearly was upset by what I did. Oh, well.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:39, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Hiya, I don't mind, but as before I'm not sure how much help I can be. I don't have time to delve into the content issues with this one specifically, but in general for myself, I try to stick to the bold, revert, discuss method to avoid getting anywhere near 3RR. When I revert someone, or someone reverts me over a content issue, I immediately start a topic on the article talk page. It also helps to just wait a while before reverting, to allow heads to cool, a conversation to start and again to avoid 3RR. Anyway, I hope this get sorted out alright. Feel free to alert me if you need further assistance, and I'll try to help. Happy editing, Siawase (talk) 18:31, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * And what do you do if no one responds to your comments on the Talk page?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:55, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Apologies, it's late here so this turned out a bit incoherent and ranty. Basically, it depends on the editor and where you are in the the BRD cycle.
 * When I start out doing a really bold edit I often start a talk page topic explaining the edit at the same time as I do the edit, and leave a "see talk" in the edit summary. This is particularly useful on highly active articles or where the edit is highly likely to be challenged. When dealing with less less experienced editors (who may not be familiar with the talk page system) it can help to link to the talk page topic in the edit summary, and/or leave a friendly note on their talkpage with a link to the article talk page topic. I avoid getting into content discussions on user talk pages, as keeping it on the article talk page hopefully encourages other editors to give a third (or more) opinion, and also keeps the conversation on neutral ground so to speak.
 * In case where the cycle didn't begin as above, where I did a bold edit without starting the talk page topic at the same time, and then was reverted, I usually don't do any further edits to the article, but start an article talk page topic stating my reasons for the bold edit, possibly including my preferred wording, sources etc, and encourage other editors to comment. If the other editor seems inexperienced enough I may then leave a notice on their talk page per above, but I'd be wary of doing so for a more experienced editor who should be familiar with talk pages already. If there is no response whatsoever to this, I wait a few days, sometimes up to a week, to avoid 3RR and leave other editors ample time to respond on the talk page. And only after this do I then redo my edit (if appropriate with a compromise of the other editors preferred wording) and make sure to include a pointer to the talk page in the edit summary, and also note on the talk page that I awaited talk page feedback before redoing my edit, and once again urge other editors to chime in.
 * This has always been enough to get them to discuss on the talk page for me, but if they still just revert without comment, I guess I'd leave a note on their user talk page (if not done before) and if they still just revert I'd probably seek a third opinion from a noticeboard or through dispute resolution. Hope this all was of some help. Cheers, Siawase (talk) 23:22, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks much for the detailed explanation.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:44, 22 October 2010 (UTC)