User talk:Steven J. Anderson/Archive 1

History of the Eastern Orthodox Church
Why did you decide not to Wikilink Assyrian Church of the East? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Richardshusr (talk • contribs) 04:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC).

Your message
That image was licensed GFDL, highly unlikely. I've listed it as nosource. ←Humus sapiens ну? 11:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Jewish-American organized crime
Mr. Anderson,
 * I've left this message on your user talk page instead of this continuing on Talk:Jewish-American organized crime. While I can respect your opinions weither I agree with them or not, I believe your comments were unwarrented. Furthermore, they went beyond being offending and which I personally considered hurtful. This may not have been your intention and I can disregard personal insults and even value criticism of my work regardless of Wikipedia edequtte.
 * I've provided a timeline regarding the edit history of the specific article. I apologize if this seems excessive, however I would like there to be so that there is no misunderstanding and that this issue is resolved instead of resurfacing on another discussion.


 * User:Jackie24 creates Jewish mafia on 02:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * User:Jackie24 continues editing article until 02:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * User:Thirteenthirtyseven places a "clean up" message on article 02:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * User:71.241.145.33 vandalizes article between 05:45 and 05:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC). It is subsequently reverted by User:Jklin and a clean up template replaces the old "clean up" message between 05:46 and 05:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC).
 * User:71.241.145.33 again vandalizes page on 05:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC) It is once again removed by User:Jklin on 05:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Various editors contribute grammar, formatting, stub sorting, etc. between 23:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC) and 19:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * User:24.83.203.198 first nominates the article for speedy deletion on 12:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC) (please note at this time the present state of the article).
 * User:Luigi30 opposes the nomination on 12:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC) A discussion on weither the article consitues anti-semitism is first discussed on the talk page.
 * User:Mangojuice, an administrator, removes the speedy delete tag citing "-speedy: not an attack page or vandalism; take it to WP:AFD" on 18:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * It is during this time I and several other users notice the article. Prior to this time a number of ethnic related organized crime articles had been created under African-American organized crime, Greek-American organized crime, etc. in which I was heavily involved (Mafia had been having various issues during this time while Irish mob (previously Irish Mafia) had been under heavy construction). In its previous version, Jewish Mafia needed a major overhaul and I began working on it extensivly until it resembled this version.


 * Please also note in keeping with the then general naming convention used by editors on the unofficial WikiProject Organized crime, I had moved the title not only because the misleading "Mafia" label often applied to other ethnic organized crime groups implying their organizations were structured along similar lines as the Mafia (or the Cosa Nostra as it is refered in in the United States). Secondly, aside from crime families and related crime syndicates, there was no general name refered to any other ethnic organized crime groups except through the references I used in writing the article (most notably Carl Sifakis' The Mafia Encyclopedia among other sources which specifically refered to as Jewish Mafia(pg. 236-237) however other sources including the Handbook of Organized Crime by Robert J. Kelly and other books refered to it and other ethnic groups as Irish-American organized crime, African-American organized crime, etc.
 * I provided a number books and other sources supporting information added to the article itself. It was during this time I began searching for online sources and happened across HRP: The Jewish Mob in America by Dr. William Pierce and So You Thought The Mob Was Run By Italians... by Willie Martin (please note I am providing these links to illustrate my point). Admittedly, as had already valid sources, I only browsed the first article titled "Jewish Studies" and noticed statements by Federal agents and cited a news article from the The Daily Telegraph (please note I checked for relable references along with minor websites on geocites and such). The second article, if you'll notice, the first two paragraphs deal with Bugsy Siegel's death and skipping down the page continues describing prominant Jewish-American gangsters during Prohibition (again, at the time, I saw nothing which characterized "hate speach" or anti-semitism in the article).


 * I and other users continued editing the article including continued formatting and other minor edits between 20:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC) and 08:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC). Also the first incident of blanking external links by an anonymous user] occured without explanation on 06:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC). Although leaving a message on the [[Talk:Jewish-American organized crime#External links|talk page, I informed him that I had edited the article considerably from its former version however he did not respond when I had informed him I had restored the links so the issue could be discussed. I should also note, no one in the above conversation discussing anti-semitism responed to the validity of these links or to the recently moved title as well. During this time, I added a messege politly requesting removal of external links and other major changes to be discussed on the article's talk page. A message which has been disregarded reopetedly since then, yet in every instance I made an attempt to discuss the issue.
 * User:24.107.204.182 deleted the external link from William Pierce's article (although not from the second article) citing "I have deleted a link to a page that is home to remarks of a bigot and pathetic individual. The highly offensive remarks by Dr. Pierce should not be associated with Wikipedia, a website of integrity." at 02:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC) Assuming good faith, I notified the editor though the edit summery that I had reverted his edit and requested he discuss the issue on the talk page (again, please note, at the time the possibility that the William Turner credited as author of the article and the William Turner on Wikipedia could have been two completly different people). The editor did respond, however he only repeated his argument which he stated on the edit summery. He stopped responding after this point, and I myself looked at the article (not the website itself) which at the time I noted it did claim the "Russian Mafia" was predomnianly Jewish however it did not contain sufficient information on orgnized crime in the United States which is what the article focused on. I did however suggest that the authors might be mentioned (assuming "Dr. William Pearce" was a scholer of note). User:Unwound finally responded  pointing out the objections on the talk page on 03:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC). As it was still not confirmed, I immediatly responded by placing a disclaimer and notifying WikiProject Organized crime in an attempt to resolve the issue. User:Millosh would confirm the websites affiliation and was removed at 20:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * More general editing followed among various editors between 03:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC and 17:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * User:70.24.6.142, the third anonymous user to do so, removed the William Pearce article (yet not the second article) citing "Removed racist link" on 23:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC) Again, the editor did not respond to my request to discuss the issue.


 * While this may seem tedius, all instances of controveral links discuss beforehand were removed following valid evidence prodived by a user. Those which remained, such as "Jewish Crime" article, were never discussed and I personally had no knowlege of its seperatist affiliations. I certainly admit to making an error in not checking the actual website, it fact never occured to me to do so, however to imply I had purposly provided those specific links is quite uncalled for (especialy discounting the fact that I had also included New Voices: Left Off the Ark - A Bestiary of Gangs, Jewish Gangsters at the Jewish Virtual Library, Seize The Night: The Jewish Mafia andOrganized Crime Syndicates: Tough Jews). While I can understand that you and other editors may deal with anti-semitism on Wikipedia, its quite hypocritical to presume all editors whould even be familiar with the topic let alone make insinuations suggesting such an attitute. Neither I nor any other editors in the recent discussion have commented on anyone's lack of knowlege on crime and basic criminalogy and I would respectfully ask you to have the same respect. MadMax 22:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

War Governor's Conference
Hi Steven. Thanks for your help and suggestions on my article. You mentioned about the photo I'm using might be deleted. Please tell me how I can fix that. This is my first article. Am I asking you this question in the right forum? Please let me know if I'm doing anything wrong. Also, why isn't the article coming up when I search it? Thanks. Chamberlain63 14:55, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi again. I've finally found a loophole how I can show the photo. It was published before 1923, so it can be public domain. I tried categorizing it like that when I got started, but it wouldn't let me for some reason. Oh well, problem solved. Thanks for your editing contributions. I'll keep in touch if I need any more help.

Jewish-American organized crime
Mr. Anderson,
 * I appreciate your respence as well as your recenrt work on the article. Perhaps a section on how the phrase "Jewish Mafia" is related to anti-semistism would be relevent to the article. As I'm only vaguely aware of it being used on a global scale, itself wildly innaccurate given not even the Mafia or the Triads control over their respecive regions (southern Europe/southeast Asia) at best, to promote anti-semitism. If such a section is written, I'm hesitant to include such articles to reference such claims as I'm sure other editors would especially in regards to hate sites such as those previously removed. MadMax 16:34, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

The Move

 * Regarding your recent edit on The Move. UK --> United Kingdom please, as it avoids re-direct. Thank you,


 * Derek R Bullamore 09:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Great Britain vs UK
Hi, regarding this edit, just wanted to make sure you were aware that UK and Great Britain were different things - mainly as the UK includes Northern Ireland. When I (sloppily) put in Britain I'd actually meant Great Britain. Anyway, not knocking the excellent work you're doing, and apologies if I've just told you something you already knew. Cheers, J.W inklethorpe talk 23:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah right, that's cool. You may want to be the tiniest bit careful with that, though, as there are some political occasions when Northern Ireland isn't involved. That said, people ought to watch what they're wikilinking to anyway! Thanks J.W inklethorpe talk 06:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Aric Gilinsky
The article on Aric Gilinsky is up for deletion. Help preserve this important British Jewish figure by posting your support for the article on its deletion page. Please help protect this page. CicDog 10:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Weird post misattribution on ANI
Sorry; I did it, not the signing bot. I manually put in unsigned and must have copied the wrong name out of the page history. It's fixed now, for posterity. --Dynaflow  babble  21:48, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Halakha
Both words can be used as nouns or adjectives. I think convention is to always capitalize "Jew" and only capitalize the noun form of Halakha, but I am not 100% certain. -- Avi 22:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * As you may know, there are no capital letters in Hebrew, so the convention is purely English (of which I am not a native speaker). I think Avi is correct. Cheers. ←Humus sapiens ну? 23:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

So it would be halakhic rule, but the rule of Halakha. (except for Halakhic Man which is the title of a book by Rav Yoshe Ber . -- Avi 01:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for this ->(downcased halakhic throughout article). We need more consistency and an abandonment of the mistaken notion that all Hebrew words should be capitalized in English.--Redaktor 06:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your love of HALAKHA in the Rav Schachter article. Maybe for R Bleich it needs to be halakha but for Yated Ne'eman or R Elyashiv its Halacha, for R Chatzkel Roth its Halucha and for Rav Shlomo Aviner its הלכה.  josh  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.30.16 (talk) 00:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your diligence which is motivated by a love of Halakha. Personally I would not go around changing all of them but I certainly appreciate the diligence involved.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.30.16 (talk) 00:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikifying
Thanks for your note. During preview I try to remove all links to DAB pages, must have missed that one. Avalon 04:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Hei there
you did such a good job correcting and adding stuff to my latest addition to the Culture of Israel article that I wanted to invite you to check out my latest article which I added - Cuisine of Israel. Acidburn24m 05:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Britain
I like the new expanded Britain dab page. Thanks! -- SteinbDJ · talk · contributions 19:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Response regarding AD/BC vs. CE/BCE corrections to Spatha article
Mr. Anderson, thank you for your recent message to me regarding my recent edit of the above. I agree that changes of this sort can engender strong responses due to the frankly political nature of CE/BCE usage. For purposes of clarity, I will explain why I considered by edit back to the AD/BC time references both appropriate and minor: 1)  The original usage in the article was AD/BC; 2)  The article deals with a distinctly Roman concept; and, 3) AD/BC usage is culturally appropriate being based on Latin derivatives.  Since you have taken issue with the edit, I have now posted an entry on the Discussion board opening the issue up for discussion.  I hope that this response to you is appropriate for purposes of clarifying my edit.  (Since I am a casual user and not knowing a better way to respond, I responded on your Talk page. I ask your pardon if there were a better way to respond and if there is a more appropriate way of contacting in the future, please advise.) Jpetersen46321 16:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Other AD/BC vs. CE/BCE issues
I posted a note on User talk:Jpetersen46321. If the user is willing to use discussion as indicated, I woudl consider this resolved. If the problem persists we can deal with it then. Best, --Shirahadasha 00:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

SatyrBot's edits
Please see my response on the bot's talk page. Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 03:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Already saw it. --Steven J. Anderson 03:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

metzizah bi peh
A google search of the term has almost 500 hits for this variation. I think the article should be inclusive so that people familiar with this spelling are able to find the article here more easily. Please discuss this with me her, on my talk page, or the talk page there before it is removed again. I look forward to some good faith editing on that article, and hope that you will be a part of that process. Shalom! Die4Dixie 10:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Date warrior Carnun
Hi Steven. I wouldn't worry about it, to me your actions in this matter seem perfectly reasonable. I see that this particular tendentious editor has now been blocked (for the fourth time) after your alert to ANI, appropriately IMO. Time will tell if they are able to take the hint this time; personally if they resume the behaviour again I'd have no qualms about imposing a very lengthy, if not indefinite, block. We've all got better things to do with our time. Cheers, --cjllw ʘ  TALK 00:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Greetings, Steven. Carnun is active again today in changing dating styles, just as Nownownow was until two days ago. It is hard keeping up with them, much as I try, and I very much agree with editor Wright that we all have better things to do with our time.  I too believe we are probably dealing with the same person, as the behavior pattern is remarkably similar.  I am unsure of how to apply for blocks or other sanctions to shut down this/these nuisance(s), but will gladly back you if you need any support, such as corroboration. Thanks for your efforts. Hertz1888 (talk) 22:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Megaliths
Dear Mr Anderson, please contribute to the discussion page before making changes to the Megaliths article. I am a bit puzzled why you would describe me as a "persistent date warrior", as I have absolutely no background of such activity. To be honest, being accused of edit warring is offensive and shows that you do not assume Good Faith on the part of other editors. The Megaliths article, and two of its three parent articles, was started using BC/AD. I cannot see any good reason, without discussion and consensus, why you should change it, it is certainly bad form and against wikipedia policy. athinaios (talk) 12:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Dear Steven. I apologise, likewise, for my harsh tone. You probably know as well as I do how annoying these things can get. I have reverted your changes in a number of other articles I was watching, all of them previously stable, and all of them unobjectionable in terms of religious issues (I understand that's were normal wiki convention lapses in favour of a more topic-rwlated approach?). I don't doubt that your intentions were of the best kind. Good editing and happy end-of-sun-year festivities :-). athinaios (talk) 14:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

BCE/CE at Cybele
Each Wikipedia article continues with whatever convention it had when dates were first put into its text. That way our own feelings of what's most appropriate don't enter into it. --Wetman (talk) 11:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Antisemitism: Early Christianity
Regarding your revert of my small edit, I don't agree with your conclusion. The way some sections are written, they present a rather ugly anti-Christian feel to the article. While some Jewish editors like this approach, other Jews (in the West Indies or South America, for example) have no problems with having been invited to leave Spain. There's room for both PsOV. Jews who became Christians are known to enjoy the further evolution of Judaism into Christianity (which is the original intention of the Jews who started the Christian movement). I'd like to do some work on this rather bitter article to show the positive side of the evolution of the Jewish faith. Not all Jews support the unfinished aspect of Judaism, nor do they support the blanket blaming of Christians for Jewish problems.

BTW, on another topic: I have no problem with your fondness for the CE/BCE notation since it's now commonly expanded as "Christian Era" and "Before Christian Era". Hoserjoe (talk) 05:02, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I hardly know where to begin my response, there's so much here that is either incomprehensible or incorrect.
 * To begin with, the edit you made was to a summary of a cited source, unless you examined the source cited and have good reason to believe that the summary was unfair or inaccurate, edits like that are erroneous.
 * Second, it makes not the slightest difference whether an editor who prefers a particular version of an article is Jewish, Christian, Muslim or atheist. What matters is the quality of his edits and the arguments that support them.
 * Third, while I'm sure there are Jews in the West Indies and South America who are happy in their homes, it seems to me a trifle unlikely that any of them were "invited" to leave Spain. Perhaps their ancestors were. If so, that has no bearing on the edit you made, which is in a section that refers to events occurring in 681 CE. Obviously, it was impossible for any Jew who was "invited" to leave Spain at that time to have found his way to the West Indies or South America.
 * Next, what "Jews who became Christians" "enjoy" is not pertinent to any discussion of how to edit Wikipedia. What is pertinent are notability, verifiability, NPOV and Wikipedia's other guidelines and policies.
 * Also, the antisemitism article has nothing whatever to say about any "evolution of the Jewish faith," either positive or negative, and I can't imagine how any material of that sort could find a proper place in the article. The article doesn't concern that. It concerns antisemitism. Further, your statement about the "unfinished aspect of Judaism" beggars the imagination. What can you be referring to? Moreover, there is not "blanket blaming of Christians for Jewish problems" in the article. There have been certain antisemitic acts by certain Christians at certain times, which the article recounts.
 * Next, while you may find the article "bitter," I don't. I think if you'll compare it to the articles on cancer, racism, child abuse and rape, you'll quickly conclude that it is no more or less bitter than any other article that deals with a distasteful subject. If you intend making further edits to the article that begin with the notion that it's bitter in its current state, I think you'll have trouble achieving a consensus in support of them.
 * And finally, let me assure you that I have no particular fondness for the BC/BCE notation. I watch a number of articles related to Judaism and Jewish history. Occasionally, I find that one of them has been disrupted by a tendentious editor making a hamfisted attempt to change every instance of era style notation he can find to match his personal preference, usually with deceptive edit summaries and edits that are erroneously marked "minor." When I do, I revert and usually check the editor's edit history. If that check shows numerous edits of the same character, I frequently go down the list of edits, checking each one for conformance to WP:SEASON and correcting where necessary. I always do so in the open, leaving detailed edit summaries and talk page comments where warranted. I find your statement that you have no problem with the notation because it is "commonly expanded as 'Christian Era' and 'Before Christian Era'" somewhat troubling. If it is only acceptable to you to the extent that you can read your own religious preference into it, I'm afraid this speaks against your ability to edit from a neutral point of view where articles relating to religion are concerned.
 * To move on to another subject, may I suggest that it would be a better idea to archive outdated sections of your talk page, rather than simply deleting them as you did here and here? actually that last deletion was made by and IP whom I presume is you Particularly when one is deleting warnings and criticisms, it runs the risk of creating the impression that one is trying to cover one's tracks. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 11:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the fixes to the Chomsky entry
Thanks for correcting those typos in the "Politics of Noam Chomsky" entry!

Technetium25 December 18, 2007

Thanks for all those edits to the entry! You did a wonderful job cleaning things up.

Best wishes, --Technetium25 (talk) 15:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Chamberlain
Hi Steven, thanks for your response. I wrote something back on my talk page. Best, Eliezg (talk) 12:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * absolutely contact me. thanks so much.  i've already put water on to boil (really!) and am about to switch out...  till then,  Eliezg (talk) 12:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, i've had my tea and tossed my hat back into the ring. Eliezg (talk) 20:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Steven, thanks so much for your input, mediation and contributions. In the end everything worked out pretty well, and my rapidly withering faith in the Wikipedia process is Reborn.  Hallelujah!  - Eliezg (talk) 09:35, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Steven
I wanted to let you know that I changed back "Britain" from "United Kingdom" on the David Reed page because that was the title of the article that Reed wrote for Reader's Digest. Thanks for your help, though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wkwriter4 (talk • contribs) 00:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Stanley Zietz
Zietz is very notable. Give us busy academics time to clean up the article. pls do not speedily delete. Alfred Legrand (talk) 23:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Date warriors
"If you don't mind a friendly word of advice, it's probably not worth the trouble."
 * I not only don't mind, I appreciate it very much - and your entire message.

"If there's any way I can help further, holler."
 * Great! And that works both ways. Teamwork is a wonderful thing. All the best, Hertz1888 (talk) 05:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome
←Humus sapiens ну? 12:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Timeline of World War II
Hi Steven, You have chanced date 26.06.1941 "The Russians bomb Helsinki. Finland pronounces a state of war between Finland and Soviet Union." to old version "Finland declares war on Soviet Union. The Russians bomb Helsinki." There is a lot of this kind of false information in timeline, but still Finland never declared the war and the order of events is wrong in your version. waiting yor comment, with best wishes -JarTa (talk) 11:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Steven
We academics live in a different universe. We think differently. Yet we know who is notable and who is not. Zietz and his adviser are indeed notable, yet we need help to clean up articles. Another notable academic is R. S. Wenocur, who keeps getting wiped off Wikipedia, although well known, along with R. M. Dudley, for Special VC classes, widely cited (see Google Scholar, e.g.), that have been used widely in many applications, and who is pres of NCV. Alfred Legrand (talk) 05:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you about Zietz -- and more
Thank you very much for your support and help on the article about Stanley Zietz, Ph.D., who contributed so much. In March, we shall explain more about his work and applications.

Also: is there anything you can do about R. S. Wenocur, who is well known and considered renowned as a researcher, yet seems to be misunderstood on Wikipedia? Wenocur is world renowned for Special VC-classes, with R. M. Dudley, but because of no books, only academic papers, keeps gettings wiped from Wikipedia. It is a shame that this person is being ignored. Do you need letters of recommendation? Alfred Legrand (talk) 04:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi again
Actually, you have me and my colleagues totally confused.

I do thank you for your trials.

In the academic world, publications in journals outweigh books on Amazon.com.

Hence, R. S. Wenocur is notable in the world of mathematics and statistics, yet not for Wikipedia, alas.

So are others, and their contributions are eclipsed by Brittany Spears and Fergie and such.

I am at a loss as what to do here. We have top-class, deep thinkers, great minds, being ignored, and I am baffled by the instructions.

Sorry, but I guess Wikipedia is not the place for great researchers. Is that the case? It is so involved and confusing.

Alfred Legrand (talk) 06:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Indent and the Toledo War
I did not reply on the discussion page of the Toledo War, You suggested that I should indent to reply. Good suggestion, but I don't know how. A quick tip would be appreciated. Thanks.

7&amp;6=thirteen (talk) 13:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)Stan

Dear Mr. Anderson

Thanks for the etiquette lesson. I had noticed the form, but didn't know the method. 7&amp;6=thirteen (talk) 14:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)Stan


 * I understand. I'm not particularly sensitive about editing. Especially when it turns out the editor got it right, and I got it wrong.


 * In my work I am like the supreme court. As Justice Henry Jackson once said: "We are not final because we are infallible; we are infallible because we are final."


 * Of course, in Wiki one is never final. And I was mistaken, as BKConrad graciously pointed out. So keep up the good work, as this was not taken as a personal attack. BTW, apparently you've been working hard on the Toledo War. You (and whomever) have done a very nice job!


 * Happy new year to you. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 17:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)Stan

What about War! What is it good for?? Absolutely nothing!!!
Just kidding. Best. 7&amp;6=thirteen (talk) 19:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)Stan

help
Please respond to Bikinibomb's comments about figs and Judaism here, thanks Slrubenstein  |  Talk 00:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello again
I added article for R. S. Wenocur, again. Hope you can help keep it there. It has been wiped unfairly four time. Needs cleanup, pls help. thanks. Alfred Legrand (talk) 23:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Accidentally labeled you as a vandal.
I'm sorry I reverted some of your edits on antisemitism as vandalism. Immediately after this happened, I reverted my reversion. It seems that the TW script does things without confirmation. Frotz (talk) 08:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem. Happy editing. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 08:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

R. S. Wenocur
The R. S. Wenocur article has been deleted (numerous PRODs, and one AfD) more than once, the earliest being in 2006. If notability has not already been established in the amount of time between deletions then there's a good chance that she is not notable. Please note that being summa cum laude is not enough to make her notable, also please look over the no original research policies; anything that is added to an article has to have been published by a reputable source. Her work, theories and whatnot, might be notable within the mathematics community, but there's nothing to establish notability for her under the notability guidelines for academics that can be sourced. If you can find reliable and verifiable references for the article, that have not already been found, please insert them. However given the amount of research that I've done already, and the amount of time that has been available to find these sources I highly doubt that she is notable enough to merit a wikipedia article. The information I deleted throughout my editing was given deep consideration and a lot of research. The information that ended up being removed was information that couldn't be sourced, lent no credence to notability, and didn't enhance or improve the article in my opinion. You are free to disagree and re-add the information as long as it can be sourced as per Biography of Living persons guidelines. Given all of this information if within a weeks (1/12/08) time no additional references have been found to establish her notability I will nominate the article for deletion. If you feel you need more time let me know, but as it stands right now the article does not establish her notability. --ImmortalGoddezz 23:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Immortal Goddezz
This immortal Goddezz seems to have a lot of time on her hands, and a great interest in Wenocur, with 100's of edits. I added sources this morning. Can you help get the no-notability prod off? And I am not good at making the sources look wikipedia-good. Now I must go to work (on other than Wikipedia. Keeping watch on Zietz, too. Alfred Legrand (talk) 12:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the advice. I did not mean to say anything wrong to anyone. I am not good at doing Wikipedia, and maybe I should leave it to others. If the people don't want Wenocur on Wikipedia, I think it is a shame, since many of us use her work and she seems notable. But I think David Eppstein does not seen very notable and an ordinary academic; I do not have the time to learn how to put this article up for deletion, but if you agree, might you look into this? Thanks. Alfred Legrand (talk) 05:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppet: not true
Why am I labeled sockpuppet of editor I do not even know? This is not true. Can anyone do this to me? OK, please take me off Wikipedia altogether -- no page, no discussion, no more identity. I'll go away, but I do not want this untrue label. I will not edit anymore if that is what wikipedia people want, but please do not ruin my reputation unfairly. I do not know any mathstatwoman. Please help. Thank you. Alfred Legrand (talk) 07:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Britain
I answered your question. I hope you can help. :) Raamin (talk) 17:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Alfred_Legrand/Wenocur
Hi, I wanted to ask about the reason for the above-linked page being created, since there wasn't a reason given in the edit log. It's apparently a copy of an article that was subsequently deleted via AfD, and the user whose userpage it is a subpage of has been indef blocked, so I was going to MfD it if there's no other reason to keep it. -- Dachannien TalkContrib 23:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Somebody beat me to it on the MfD. You might consider stopping by there and leaving your feedback since you were involved in the earlier AfD and created the subpage in question.  Thanks!  -- Dachannien TalkContrib 02:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You might want to look at Requests for checkuser/Case/Alfred Legrand. CM (talk) 18:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Indian coinage
Hello Steven. I note your reversion of Indian coinage to remove the AD/BC notation in favour of BCE/CE. I haven't (can't be) bothered to count up the instances of the alternatives in former versions of the article, but you should be aware that the article orginally used BC and continued to do so for some time. Gradually, and against policy, instances of BCE crept in, until (perhaps) they became the majority. This appears to be a common stealth approach in Wikipedia used by those with an anti-christian agenda - at least where it's possible to do so. Could you revert your edit and ensure that the BC notation is used throughout the article, in line with the preference of the original editors. 86.27.228.214 (talk) 21:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The CE/BCE moonbats haven't yet noticed that CE/BCE can be expressed as "Christian Era" and "Before Christian Era". They'll now be searching for some other notation to deny the history of our calendar :-)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.129.40 (talk) 06:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Halal slaughter, etc.
Hi there. I'd like you to think of something that is worthy of making you smile :) today before and during reading the rest. I do not want you to feel offended or upset.

You said, "Halal slaughter is not relevant here" and removed it from the subsection title; Goodonya, in hindsight it was a bad idea. I added some parts because I felt that the xenophobic part of the 21st century bans on Kosher slaughter were, along with bans on displaying religious affiliation in schools, designed mainly with anti-Muslim intent in mind and a gross lack of regard to Jewish & antisemitic history in those places and I felt the citations already in the subsections already lend credence to those feelings, but my change of title was still wrong.

You also asked, "What has capital punishment to do with kosher slaughter?". It's a good question and removing that part was the right thing to do. Not having read any definitive scientific statements on the matter, I cannot state whether shechita is ethical or not, as PETA does. Although given that the practice has so much tradition behind it, the question is begged, "Why isn't it used in capital punishment, where ethical human slaughter has been sought for centuries?". Saying that the bans were wholly antisemitic or not including one of the major reasons would be to selectively interpret the citations. That seems wrong. To claim that shechita is unethical without citing a single study also seems unjustified. So, without ORing, the best I could come up with was to compare ethics of shechita with capital punishment's. If you feel your change makes a good interpretation of the sources and doesn't baselessly question shechita's ethics, I defer to you.

You used, "style", as a reason to change, "the PETA", to, "PETA". I just scanned the article, "PETA", and its official website and I really have to agree with you. Thanks for the lesson.

Lastly you said, ""If you'll check the references, you'll see that "continuing" is the right word here, as it references accusations that have persisted until contemporary times.)"" I find it hardest to agree with this point. I read and re-read each reference in full. They both say that accusations of deicide lasted 1900+ years, but were refuted in Roman Catholic dogma >45 years ago. This part comes from second reference in section 8 on Page 8 and the first reference echoes its Catholic parts. In 1962, the Second Vatican Council was convened in Rome under the leadership of Pope John XXIII. Vatican II, as the council is more popularly known, took formal steps to correct the centuries-old interpretation of the Passion. In the historic document Nostra Aetate [In Our Times], the Roman Catholic Church officially repudiated the charge of deicide against the Jews, as well as all forms of anti-Semitism. Quoting Nostra Aetate, “Christ in his boundless love freely underwent his Passion and death because of the sins of all, so that all might attain salvation.” Most Protestant churches followed the Vatican’s position, and since 1965 many Christian organizations have worked closely with Jewish groups to address anti- Semitic interpretations within Christian theology. " Using these citations alone, I would have to say something like the charge of deicide is discontinued but I know that not to be universally true. In fact while reading the references for kashrut bans, I saw a part in the World Net Daily [article] about a heckling in Germany in November, or possibly October, 2002, that included, "The Jews crucified Jesus,". Unfortunately, my scan on that article for "deicide", "Jesus", & "Christ" turned up [these] [articles], with Dana Jacobson and Kathy Griffin basically insulting Jesus. I don't know if the heckling in Germany 5 years ago at the renaming of the street, "Juedenstrasse", is enough to say the charge of deicide is alive, well, mainspread, and meritorious of inclusion, but the if it is, I would feel compelled to balance it out with additions to some page on Jesus-hatred & I'm just too tired right now. Please, consider changing "Continuing" to "Medieval" in order to keep it in the chronological structure, or to make it a subsubsection under Antisemitism, or to include a sufficient citation that shows it going on today. On second thought, I might do the re-structuring but leave the name change/citation up to you. Also, despite how hard it is with this heavy content, pls remember at least 1 reason to smile.:) --Thecurran (talk) 21:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Now that it's been subsectioned, I think it's still misleading but understandable. Please don't feel pressured to change the title or add citations. Feel free to move my last addition to the right place. :) --Thecurran (talk) 22:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

John Brandon-Jones
Hi. You have twice changed this subject's nationality from 'British' to 'Briton'. 'Briton' is not a nationality. Please do not revert this again, as it's a pointless change. The important point is that Mr Brandon-Jones was a British citizen.Be best (talk) 06:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry - I didn't realise 'Britain' wasn't a page! I just used the link that the 'Deaths in 200X' page use. My apologies. But 'Briton' is awkward. 'United Kingdom' would probably be the best disambiguation as his place of birth and place of activity is the key thing here. Would you be happy with that?Be best (talk) 09:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 'Deaths in 200X' - I just meant the recent deaths page for the current year. Any time I've added a British person, then I've linked to Britain and never had it altered. But I'll now be aware of the issue, and I'm sorry I didn't investigate more closely.Be best (talk) 10:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration
Greetings. Just wanted to invite and encourage you to join this new WikiProject as a member. I think the page explains what we're trying to do, i.e., quiet the battleground in this topic area. Feel free to contact me if you have questions or would like more info. Take care, HG | Talk 06:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Typo redirect 167BCE
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on 167BCE, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because 167BCE is a redirect page resulting from an implausible typo (CSD R3). To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting 167BCE, 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) 20:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

North Friesland Railway
Hi, I notice you've done a lot of work on the History of Rail Transport in the Netherlands and wondered if you'd like to take a look at the article on the North Friesland Railway which I created? Mjroots (talk) 09:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Ark of the Covenant
It was a half-finished thought - thanks for zapping it. • Freechild   'sup?   06:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

toaff talk.
fine.

Shlishke (talk) 08:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject tags
I note that you correctly removed WikiProject Judaism tags from certain article talk pages where it had been left by a bot, e.g. here. If there are no other WikiProject tags, please consider adding another, e.g. . Best wishes, - Fayenatic (talk) 20:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Bhutan
Hi Steven, I've reverted your BC --> BCE change at Bhutan for a couple of reasons; so far as I can tell the article originally used BC/AD notation. Also, the edit left an instance of AD, meaning the article used both notations. I've removed an instance of CE and not replaced it with AD becuase I don't generally see a need for years in the common era to be annotated (except when they are part of a timespan across BC and AD). 82.20.28.142 (talk) 22:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Steven, thanks for your response to the above point. I am rapidly learning just how big an issue era notation is at Wikipedia. It's almost as big as Am-E versus Br-E. I suppose because there's no definitive guidance one way or the other, the issue is always going to be a problem. For my part, I favour BC/AD but wouldn't change an article to that notation if it started out as BCE/CE. I tkae your point about the fine line between original preferences and a long-standing stable position regarding a particular notation. Maybe the long term solution is to have something like the user preferences for dates, but applied to eras. Surely it could be done, technically speaking. Thanks for the invitation to sign up to Wikipedia. I just haven't got around to it yet. I'm usually reading an article and just carry out an "impulse edit", and sometimes I get carried away with comments on talk pages. 82.20.28.142 (talk) 19:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Hasmos
Hi Steven, I read your reply at the talk page there about the Perea family. I agree with you, and I think I was a little exuberant in my initial reaction to Chris's proposal. Just be careful not to be too "bitey," keep in mind his primary language is not English and I think the garage band ref might be a little much. Carioca band, maybe? Regards, Kaisershatner (talk) 15:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

VandalProof
Thanks for the message. I have reported this type of error to VP. It is very frustrating for a tool that has so many good points, it occaissionaly makes these frustrating errors. Cheers. --Storm Rider (talk) 17:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Template:Antisemitism topics
Thanks for fixing and for your message, which was really useful (not snarky!) as I hadn't realized I'd made this mistake. Ironically, it's a mistake I've found myself ironing out (sorry, pun intended) elsewhere, especially with templates like barnstars. Dammit, looks like I'm human after all. Sardanaphalus (talk) 19:21, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok
Whatever, I won't take it off again myself. But come on, give me a damn break. That's very rude, in any case, people should ask the creator what's going on before (I don't mean for permission, but to figure out what's the original idea). The tag was placed nanoseconds after I created the category. I believe the guy that placed it recogniced it's importance already. That's what I hate about wikipedia everybody believes he knows it all and forget about basic manners. In any case, it doesn't make sense that if we both agree the category is worth developing, someboy else put it back. However we both agree the name suck, we are just trying to figure out a better name. Any ideas there?

I'm sorry if I sound a little rude, I apologise, its late, and as you could comprehend the situation is very obnoxious ant it is really late and I should go to sleep. I'm trying to work here. Apologies again.--20-dude (talk) 09:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, what on earth makes you have a strong destructive opinion about a topic you are just learning about. --20-dude (talk) 10:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't explain myself better before, my thesis is a research thesis, that means same rules as wikipedia: all sources and no original research. It was probbably a bad idea to mention it on the first place. No original researches, every example has been published and studied over and over, I'm taking them straight from the sources, none is especulation or personal developement, I swear. Please, find architects and talk to them. Get somebody to explain you these matters if youre truly that interested. Think about the destruction and delaying of human knowledge (again, sourced and verifiable) you are making. you won't get the numers that easy. The ratio was used way before it was defined as .618 or Phy. Besides there is phy, phy squared, phy cubic, etc. all of them different fractions. There is de Fibonacci series. May variables. It's too much to ask to have already an opinion just ours after you first learned about the issue. Ask, ask, ask, then talk.--20-dude (talk) 10:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I won't doubt your good faith, just try to bring the experts and give me a little break, all is sourced. --20-dude (talk) 10:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm extremely sorry about what can be perceived as my bad vibe, I believe you're a good guy and I must apologize for my crankyness. You had good valid reasons for what you did.--20-dude (talk) 23:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, another possibility, is building the proportion analysis (complete with verifiable sources, of cource) of each item and moving each one to the restective item article as sections, so that when a new category is eventually created (with a better name) editors wont wonder why the articles are linked.--20-dude (talk) 03:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Removal of the pointless request and the subsequent responses...
The whole exchange on Jews in porn and whether it belongs in the article being a closed affair, could it be removed now? The whole notion was a mockery in the first place, and as it serves no purpose for the article, it seems reasonable to remove it -- except the gy who is using Malcolm X's Muslim name for a Wiki-handle keeps re-reverting it when I try to remove it... and I don't really think (based on his scope of edits and interests) that his claims for keeping it up there is for positive reasons. Thoughts on this? Ryecatcher773 (talk) 06:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation
Thanks for clearing that up =D Ğavin  Ťing  05:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

english only on the talk page
I am interested in understanding your reason for removing a Hebrew comment on Talk:Hanukkah. To the best of my knowledge there is no rule prohibiting someone from commenting in any language, and I don't see any reason to make such a rule. I would certainly hope that if I had something to say on another wikipedia language that I understand enough to read but not to write that my comments in English would not be deleted. Why did you removed the comment instead of leaving it for someone else to translate? Jon513 (talk) 14:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

British vs. US Spelling
Sorry about that, wasn't aware that artefact was a british spelling --67.40.253.169 (talk) 03:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

singular they
I saw an edit you made today to delete a use of the singular they, with the comment that "singular they is ungrammatical". I don't want to start a holy war, but it seems worth pointing out that the singular they isn't ungrammatical. As (honored professional linguist) Mark Liberman points out here,

"The argument was settled long ago: singular they has routinely been used throughout the history of English, by all the best writers, until certain subcases were artificially turned into 'errors' by self-appointed experts. Successively less discriminating pseudo-authorities then generalized the proscription in successively sillier ways, although they have largely been ignored by the users of the language."

That is to say, it's a sort of "hypercorrection" with no basis in actual English grammar. That link has a decent summary of other Language Log coverage on the subject as well. Another good reference on this topic is Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage, which has an extended discussion and several dozen examples from those 'best writers' Liberman mentions. So, anyway, no need to edit pages on that account alone. Zarvok | Talk 03:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, I didn't realize you were just reverting someone else's edit, I figure maybe you had been going around on a pedantic anti-singular-they crusade (though I was too lazy to actually look into it, and was itching for an argument, so I just poked your talk page). As for how I noticed, backgammon is on my watched pages because I edited it at some point (probably some minor thing), and your "singular they is not grammatical" edit message caught my eye, prescriptivism being a pet-peeve of mine.  You've spoiled my fun, though, by being so reasonable :).  Zarvok | Talk 04:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that
I should not have used to word 'narrowly'; you were right to remove it 128.205.56.237 (talk)SAB —Preceding comment was added at 19:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Might you have a look at this?
I've posted a topic here [] and was wondering what you thought?Smatprt (talk) 03:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Your comment in my talk page about your talk page
Yes, I am aware about this rule. The key point in your remark is "usually considered unnecessary". I decided that bringing a broad attention to my newly written article (it the area where my expertise is limited) is more important for wikipedia than formal issues. I was doing google search in wikipedia and adding wikilinks wherever they were missing and I didn't really pay attention to the page namespace. Frankly, I am a bit surprized that you considered adding a wikilink disruptive enough to reprimand me. Mukadderat (talk) 16:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The Protocols of Zion
Good to see you keeping a watchful eye over the above. I'm a known editor on the subject for quite some time. I've just added about two (2) substantial sentences to the opening of the article. I thought it might be good to let you know about this (you seem to be the only good editor (not what is called a "Troll(Internet)") who goes there at this time. So please drop by. Best regards, --Ludvikus (talk) 22:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC) -
 * That User (User:74.93.6.213) has again arbitrarily posted the Lack of Neutrality Tag - after at least 3 warnings. --Ludvikus (talk) 16:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Velikoe v malom i antikhrist
Much thanks for your support & advice regarding the above.
 * Could you do the restoration, or commence the process, in my name? I'll sign and support it subsequently. I do not have the time now to familiarize myself with the Wikipedia mechanics of the process. By the way, another administrator supports our position on this (I think) - it's that Alex, who also is an administrator. I mention that title because I've had some bad experiences previously with others & so I will not bother unless I get proper & strong Wiki support. Thanks either way. --Ludvikus (talk) 16:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Protocols of the Elders of Zion
Hi. What do we do with un-signed comments? I personally do not want to wast my time reponding. Is it OK to just wipe it out? A name, in the "history" tab above shows a[n] Use:A Parrot. I have a response, but first I need you're view regarding the lack of time, date, & signature. --Ludvikus (talk) 22:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Correction. The unsigned commentator is as follows:


 * "(cur) (last) 20:08, 18 April 2008 Gifttimes (Talk | contribs) (82,371 bytes) (→Reasons for POV tag: new section) (undo)"
 * --Ludvikus (talk) 23:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify. This is the dangling Talk page - notice the missing "The" above. --Ludvikus (talk) 03:55, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" is "REDIRECTED." But not its Talk page. --Ludvikus (talk) 04:00, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Talk:The Protocols of the Elders of Zion
I've just (inadvertently) discovered this apparently dangling Talk page. Do you think it needs fixing? --Ludvikus (talk) 23:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC) - -
 * That "213" editor has reverted now for the 3rd time. I think now strong administrative action is called for.
 * By the way, it also appears that he or she is editing under 2 different mames. --Ludvikus (talk) 23:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

"The manuscript...".

 * You write/copyedit very well, by the way. My English writing requires re-writing several times in part because I spoke two other language (and no English) until the age of 10 - Polish is my 1st language, Hebrew was my 2nd language, and English is my 3rd.
 * I have to disagree with you regarding your following remark:

"Well, there had to be one. It couldn't have appeared out of thin air."


 * That's speculation - even if it's true. It does not belong in encyclopedic space such as a Wikipedia Article. But also what you've written there now (the PSM art.) is simply false: "The manuscript ...". That way of expressing the matter means that there was one and only one manuscript. In fact, Cesare G. De Michelis published in 2004 the most important scholarly work on the subject of the PSM which he title The Nonexistent Manuscript. In it he writes about the plurality of "originals" precisely because scholars know nothing conclusive about the original, what ever the original means. Remember that in one version the story (by Nilus) the "manuscript" is a transcription of a writing in the possession of some secret Jewish organization. So the transcription itself becomes a non-original. There's also the story that it was in French, not Russian - allegedly these "Jews" wrote in French. --Ludvikus (talk) 12:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Judaic Publishing Co.
Can you put in your view as to the speedy deletion of the above (in opposition I hope)?
 * There's no better way - in my opinion - of fighting antisemitism then by exposing them to the facts of their activities. --Ludvikus (talk) 17:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * For example, who would think that such a name as the above would be a mere "cover" for the work of Henry Hamilton Beamish! --Ludvikus (talk) 17:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Michael Hagemeister, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion: Between History and Fiction, New German Critique (Spring 2008)
I'm wuite curious - why did you object to the use of " Small Text " and revert it? I thought that it's a useful syntactical tool of WP. That Tilte is so Long! But it's not important enough for me dispute. I'm just curious why you removed it? Otherwise, by the way, I appreciate your positive contributions to WP very much. Keep it up, and the best to you. --Ludvikus (talk) 12:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

"Historical revisionism" and "Holocaust denial"
Historical revisionism (negationism) is best known as a field engaged in the anti-Semitic practice of holocaust denial. --Ludvikus (talk) 15:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Jewish Bolshevism
You might be interested in checking out this Article. --Ludvikus (talk) 00:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

John S. Curtiss
He's one debunker of the Protocols of Zion. My stub on him is Tagged for deletion. You may be interested in that. Ludvikus (talk) 16:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Jewish Question (disambiguation)
Check that out. You might be interested. --Ludvikus (talk) 01:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Jewish Question → Jewish question
There is no need for the Capital "Q." As you know the 2nd word should not be a capital in Wikipedia unless it is a proper name. But not everyone knows that. It is OK in On the Jewish Question since that's at least the Internet published title of that text, and it's the title used by most Marxist. --Ludvikus (talk) 04:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)