User talk:Christopher Thomas/Archive08

Here's to you!

Thanks for the hard work. Chrisrus (talk) 05:42, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Bot for redirecting asteroid articles

You closed that discussion (on WT:AST) as 'no consensus', when it had 2 support, 2 weak support, and no opposes. Your argument that this is insufficient for a task which affects 10k articles is a reasonable one, but I think that assessment should be left up to BAG. It seems odd to abandon the attempt by saying 'BAG won't approve this', without actually trying. I've certainly seen bots approved with far less support. Modest Genius ^talk 13:44, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

If you want to re-open it, or to submit an application to BAG, go ahead; I just don't intend to do it myself (or write the bot myself) without at least a dozen people saying they endorse the idea. The guidelines at WP:BOT seem to be very aggressive about bots making _no_ mistakes. For a bot like this, where that's nearly impossible to guarantee without putting in more work than manual redirecting, I'd expect them to want a very strong endorsement before agreeing that "redirect tens of thousands of articles knowing that hundreds will have to be manually un-redirected" is a good idea.

If you want to make that pitch on your own behalf, then by all means do so. I feel it's unlikely enough to pass as-is that I'm not going to try it, and I was the one offering to write the bot. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 18:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

<shrug> fair enough. Modest Genius ^talk 20:44, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

dark matter etc.

Can you please help with the dark matter and cold dark matter articles? I'm getting tired. Please see the talk pages for details... Thanks! Waleswatcher (talk) 02:43, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Please note that Waleswatcher suggested that I might be Paul Frampton when I asked him (twice) whether he had a financial conflict of interest in the question of WIMP dark matter searches, but did not deny the possibility. The primary question is being discussed at WP:FTN#Black holes as cold dark matter. 67.6.175.184 (talk) 03:08, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

IP editor, I've replied to the content issues you raised the last few times you came around, so I'm not going to get into an argument about it this time. Long story short, you've been aggressively pushing a view that does not carry significant weight in the larger scientific community, and have been basing your claims primarily on the work of one (1) researcher. This violates WP:UNDUE, and your current editing spree probably falls into the category of "tendentious editing", which is frowned upon.

You might have a conflict of interest; you might not. It doesn't actually matter to me either way, as it is your actions that are the problem, not your reasons for them.

If you want to resolve this amicably, then do two things: 1) Register a username and get an account. There is no loss of privacy involved - in fact, you gain privacy, because people can see WHOIS information for your IP address, and not for a username. Right now, your IP address is changing every few days, which makes talking to you on your userpages impractical. An account provides a central point for contact. 2) Declare outright if you have a conflict of interest involving the work of Frampton. You don't have to say the nature of the COI - for all I know, you could be a past or present grad student of his, rather than Frampton himself, or even someone totally unrelated. Making a formal statement one way or the other will clarify the intent behind your actions, and is encouraged by WP:COI.

Lastly, I have no idea why either of you are approaching me directly. Per the banner on my userpage, I'm semi-retired (and this sort of edit war is exactly why I've been less active lately). Places to ask for more eyes on the article would be WT:PHYS, WT:AST, and WT:ASTRO. If you have at least half a dozen editors with knowledge of the field weighing in on the article talk page, that should be enough to establish what consensus is with regards to the article's content. Edits against that consensus can be reverted without further discussion, once it's established. A semi-formal approach for this is a straw poll on an article talk page; look at the one I started at WT:ASTRO to see how those work out (I closed mine early; they're usually left open for at least a couple of weeks, or as long as productive discussion is happening). Ask one of the regulars for help setting one up if you're hazy on the details. A fully-formal approach for this is to set up a Request for Comment. These can concern article content, or can concern the behaviour of a specific user (as a step in the dispute resolution process). Carefully read the WP:RFC page to see when, and how, to set one of these up.

I hope that this points you both in useful directions. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 04:35, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

After a little detective work, it appears that 67.6.175.184 is a sock of the blocked user Dualus. As for why I approached you, it's because of this comment of yours - I thought you might be interested. Waleswatcher (talk) 05:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

The SPI is the place to take up such connections; I'm neither an administrator nor involved in SPI processing, so I'm not in a position to do anything with that information. Might be worth mentioning at the WT:PHYS thread, though.

With regards to starting that thread, per my statement in your diff, part of the reason I brought it to WT:PHYS immediately rather than opening dialogue myself, is that I'm semi-retired due to wiki-burnout. Thanks for bringing it to my attention, but it really should be flagged at WT:PHYS/WT:AST instead. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 05:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Re:RFC comments

Dear User:Christopher Thomas, thanks for your comments on my talk page. Any user can start an RfC if a question needs addressed as a recent case at ANI pointed out. I would have started an RfC with my question if you had not started an RfC already. I thought placing my alternate wording underneath your question would have been the best option rather than running two RfCs concurrently on the same talk page (although this is allowed). Regardless, the responses in the current RfC seem to be addressing my wording of the question at hand, rather than yours. Removing my wording at this point would leave the reader in confusion (due to the "keep" and "delete" responses, which directly answer my question). As such, I am going to leave the alternate wording as is. I hope this helps. Have a pleasant day. With regards, Anupam^Talk 17:36, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Plasma cosmology

Hi Christopher, you say on your page "Things that are fringe won't be published in respected journals, and usually also are the work of one group of researchers or one or two individuals". In the next section "Fringe science does often belong on Wikipedia" you specifically mention plasma cosmology as an example, implying that it is fringe science. But it's had contributions from many scientists, most notably Hannes Alfvén, a physics Nobel prize winner, and Oskar Klein, one of the authors of Kaluza–Klein theory. It has also had a lot of papers published, for example in the IEEE journal Transactions on Plasma Science, which is a top peer-reviewed journal. Going back to your page, I find the definition "Things that are non-mainstream but respected will only have one or two groups working on them, with correspondingly more within-group citation, but will at least be published in respected journals" to best fit plasma cosmology. I think these arguments alone are enough to demonstrate it is not fringe science (but I agree it is non-mainstream)?

That's why I put the wikilink on the Quasar page in the "see also" section rather than in the main text. I think the wikilink that I put on Quasar was justified and at the appropriate level. What do you think? Aarghdvaark (talk) 08:58, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I am on semi-sabbatical, and so have little desire to debate about this. To outline my reasoning: Plasma cosmology is indeed fringe, as it is widely considered debunked within the astronomy community, and I question the degree to which it ever had significant following. It made enough of a splash in the popular press that the topic _itself_ is notable, which is why there's a plasma cosmology article. It is not considered a viable explanation for the phenomena you linked it from by any significant fraction of the astronomy or astrophysics communities. Mentioning it in those articles violates WP:UNDUE (the "undue weight" section of the notability policy).

I removed it from the one article that was on my watchlist. I noticed that you'd added it to several other articles, so I raised awareness of this editing at the Astronomy and Physics wikiprojects (both of which deal with cosmology), so that editors there could make their own judgements. Another editor chose to remove your other links to it, concurring with my assessment regarding WP:UNDUE.

If you think it's important enough to have more references, the best place to debate that is probably at the astronomy wikiproject talk page, rather than here. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 17:18, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I think it is unscientific of you to have a theory about the difference between fringe and respected non-mainstream science, then ignore your own criteria. WP:UNDUE stresses reliable sources, and plasma cosmology articles have been published in top peer reviewed journals which are certainly reliable sources. You may think this is unfortunate? Anyway, enjoy your sabbatical. Aarghdvaark (talk) 01:17, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Debate the quality of the journals in question at WT:AST, not here. Suffice it to say that I strongly disagree with your assessment. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 03:29, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Email to Warren Astronomical Society

Christopher, thanks for the heads up. I don't understand why you couldn't link to the pages in question instead of making me hunt them down, and I don't understand why you insist on this medium instead of email, but, hey, whatever floats your boat. --Jonathan.kade (talk) 06:42, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. In my initial message I'd provided you a link to the discussion thread on Wikipedia (WT:AST, section WT:AST#Strange Venus Transit image.). Regarding communicating here rather than email, partly that's to minimize exposure of my real email address, and partly that's so that there's an on-wiki paper trail of matters relating to the transit image.

If you'd be willing to comment at the WT:AST thread, I'm sure the other members of that project would greatly appreciate it. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 06:58, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Offered in a spirit of continuous improvement, which I'd assume you would appreciate: I personally find it rude to use a medium without providing a means to contact you back via the same medium. Beyond etiquette to simple pragmatism, your URL-free and email-free message left the less internet-savvy/wikipedia-savvy members of the board unable to act on your email in any way. To paraphrase Feynman, "Would you agree that the purpose of the internet is communication?" If you're so concerned about your real email address, create a disposable webmail account. It's an easy problem to solve.

I'm glad I could be of service in resolving the photo issue in a satisfying way. --jonathan.kade (talk) 20:04, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

And if I seem a bit piqued, it's just that I don't think your methods of dealing with well-meaning if excessively passionate 13-year-olds are grounded in common sense. --jonathan.kade (talk) 20:08, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Although the subject is behind us, Jon Blum, our current president, asked me to post this.

Christopher,

This is in response to your inquiry to the Warren Astronomical Society, about the Venus transit photo apparently posted by a young member of our club. I am the president of that society.

In your initial email, there were no links, so I was not able to see the photo. I tried to reply to your email, but it bounced back because you did not supply an email address. I do not know, nor do I have the time to learn, how to find or how to use your "talk page" on Wikipedia. I have asked our club webmaster to post my response to you, since he is the only person I know who knows how to do this.

As the president of the Warren Astronomical Society, I can assure you that our society has NOT endorsed that photo, or any other photo, of the Venus transit.

Jon Blum

--jonathan.kade (talk) 22:11, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

My sole concern was with the threads about the image's use on Wikipedia and Wikipedia Commons. Having you contact me by private email rather than on-wiki would have accomplished nothing, as off-wiki evidence generally isn't admissible in disputes like this (unless quite a few more hoops are jumped through). Having you contact me at all was a secondary concern; comments were needed at the WT:AST thread, and I gave you a direct pointer to that thread in my original message, so I'm puzzled as to how you feel I could have been more direct with that.

Regarding dealing with younger users, the normal response to the actions User:Bugattijoe was taking would have been to block him for ongoing disruption. There is an endless stream of people making unconstructive edits in this project (some deliberate vandalism, some partisan skewing, and some well-intentioned mistakes, as this is now claimed to have been). The first response is to talk to the editors in question; this was done, by several people. If they dig in their heels _and_ continue disruptive activities (as was done here with repeated attempts to re-insert the image, and on the Commons with an attempt to forcibly close the deletion discussion), blocks are applied so that volunteer time does not continue to be wasted repairing the damage. My message to you was a long-shot attempt to avoid that (I'm happy to see that it worked). If anything, the community was more patient than usual with User:Bugattijoe.

Thank you for your time, and I hope that this sheds some light on how the wikipedia editing community works. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 00:07, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Concerns

If you have concerns about my editing behavior or the veracity of the sources I rely on, would you please raise them with me instead of third parties? 71.212.249.178 (talk) 22:39, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia talk:Reference desk#Black holes as dark matter. Resolved. 71.212.249.178 (talk) 04:29, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I have done so repeatedly, over several months. I am tired of arguing with you, and so are most of the other editors on that page. I am re-archiving the thread. If you feel there is new material worth stating, then per the banner at the top of the archive box, make a new thread for it. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 02:34, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

You did not participate with a single comment in the sections which you removed from view. I have studiously addressed the secondary sources and cited several in opposition to them. I hope in the future you will feel more confident of your ability to discuss the topic without having to delete parts which you can not answer with reliable sources. As a practical matter, there are dozens of peer reviewed authors writing recently in agreement with Frampton: as a proportion of the number of writers on dark matter it is substantial and not fringe, because black holes have always been dark matter candidates and the so-called constraints said to rule them out are weak and often misrepresented even in peer-reviewed sources (e.g., microlensing.) Omitting the point of view that black holes remain viable dark matter candidates violates WP:NPOV. 71.212.249.178 (talk) 02:49, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Your discussion was not deleted; the very-visible "show" button un-collapses any given section for reading.

You have shown up with at least 3 IPs and at least two usernames to discuss the issue. I see no reason to rehash what I've already said to you over the course of many months. I've been following the present discussion, and endorse User:Amble's comments. My own objection is that your material appears to violate WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE, and so does not belong at dark matter.

If you want to make a case for including material, the place to do so is at Talk:Dark matter. You did so. Your arguments were rejected, repeatedly. What you are doing now is called "tendentious editing", and is not considered acceptable behaviour on Wikipedia. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 02:56, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Amble answered essentially none of my questions there, and was unable to articulate how I had supposedly misrepresented a single paper, which was the basis of his complaint. Is that what you are endorsing? What of all the other papers? Almost all of those papers have been printed or accepted in peer reviewed journals.

I get that you don't want to discuss this. Will you take action against me if I create a new section thread to try to get more editor engagement as you suggested above? 71.212.249.178 (talk) 03:01, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll do exactly what I said I'd do at WT:PHYS: Start a straw poll to see what other editors think should be included of Frampton's work (if anything). If there are enough positive responses to demonstrate a consensus for it (and on what should be included), then it'll get added (preferably by someone other than you, to avoid implications of bias). If, as I consider more likely, there are enough negative responses to demonstrate a consensus against it, then all future threads about it will be archived on sight rather than wasting any more time arguing about it (as most of the rest of us got tired of debating with you a long time ago). Either way, consensus on the issue will have been made clear by the poll. Heck, I could even jump through the extra hoops to make it a proper RFC if you want all of the rubber stamps and seals on it. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 03:14, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll save you the trouble and wait until the NuSTAR background granularity results are published, and then I'll do my best for such a poll. I'm in correspondence with Dr. Stern and other senior subject matter experts on the topic. 71.212.249.178 (talk) 04:20, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

SPI suspicions

I suspect the SPI suspicions you mentioned on my user talk may be correct. Not sure whether it's worth pursuing. --Amble (talk) 04:44, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

It would take at least a couple of hours for me to comb through all of the relevant accounts and account contributions in order to build a good case, and at this point, I'd rather do something that's actually pleasant. Thanks for the heads-up, though. If you notice anything more blatant than I did, by all means reopen the SPI. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 04:49, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Reopened. I'm staggered by the number of IP addresses and talk pages that are clearly involved. Have tried to cut it down to minimum for the SPI report. --Amble (talk) 07:56, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

You've done an excellent job of compiling evidence; thank you very much for your efforts. I've added what I can in the "comments by other users" section. If you suspect other IP addresses, and have observational evidence to back it up, then it might be worth adding a subheading for "suspected IPs with weaker evidence" and let the closing admin make the call on those. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 13:12, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I could list dozens of IPs, and the evidence isn't necessarily weaker; it's just that I doubt anyone would be willing to read it, and there's no point in blocking the old IPs. The person will continue to edit under various new IPs whatever blocks or bans might be in place. If we can just establish the facts, perhaps we can get agreement that the person behind the accounts and IPs is permanently banned and new IPs can be simply reverted when they show up at article talk pages. They're usually pretty obvious once you see the patterns.

I think it's also very likely that there are banned accounts predating Dualus (see the hint from Tiptoety here: SPI page).

I actually wouldn't mind if we let the person keep one account and edit the ref desks. As far as I have seen, the contributions there have been fine. --Amble (talk) 15:04, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

If an indeffed user wants to come back, there's a standard method offered to them for doing that. Socking is the exact opposite of what they should be doing, and is heavily frowned upon from what I've seen of similar cases in the past.

If they've been bona-fide banned by ArbCom, only ArbCom can undo that. There are processes in place for appealing bans (which usually result in the same "standard offer" as linked above if the appeal seems sincere). Socking is again pretty much the opposite of what they should be doing for that case.

Long story short, policy and convention are mostly against letting people who sock but who have constructive edits back in, because that tends to be interpreted as rewarding socking. Anyone who really does want to act in good faith has ways to come back that don't require it.

With regards to very-old IPs, the main reason for tabulating that information would be to establish a "pattern of behavior", which influences the degree of future sanctions and the extent to which claims of willingness to act in good faith will be accepted. If you feel enough is already listed, that's fine; you've already put in quite a lot of work, which I greatly appreciate. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 15:52, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I didn't focus on the possibility of an arbcom ban because I didn't have information other than the hint from Tiptoety, and it could easily have been unrelated to Dualus and Npmay. However, I have worked it out now. The arbcom-banned account is User:Nrcprm2026, and I can say with 100% certainty that this is the same person as our IP editor. That makes Dualus and Npmay also socks of Nrcprm2026. --Amble (talk) 16:15, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Bans (site- or topic-) don't have to come from arbcom; they'll often be imposed after discussion at WP:AN or other noticeboards. The key in all cases, though, is that they're only applied if an editor has a well-documented history of disruptive behaviour despite multiple attempts at discussion and reform. Well-constructed SPIs are one form such documentation can take.

If you can prove that the IP editor is Nrcprm2026, that is indeed troubling; I remember the mess they were involved with at depleted uranium (we lost a couple of good editors as a result of that). Per my reply on the SPI page, revealing RL information - even if they posted it - is a big no-no; the right way to handle this sort of thing, if I understand correctly, is to go through arbcom (I've given more detail at the SPI page). --Christopher Thomas (talk) 21:40, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I will contact arbcom. Although all the information that I have is in public view, I do want guidance on some points. I had thought the SPI admins would be the ones to provide that guidance, but it seems that they are backlogged and focused on checkuser in particular. So arbcom is likely the best bet. Thanks. --Amble (talk) 22:00, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

RL identity information is a really, really sensitive issue on-wiki. Even when a person has revealed it in the past, and has posted it elsewhere online, people have gotten in serious trouble for pointing to it. The relevant policies are at WP:OUTING. Generally it results in an immediate block followed by "oversight" (blanking of the edits in question from edit history). Given that admins have historically chosen to block even in borderline cases, it's really best to go through the proper channels even for situations like this (ArbCom, I think, though they'll be able to point you in the right direction even if I'm mistaken about that). --Christopher Thomas (talk) 22:07, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Those were my thoughts as well. Thank you for pointing me in the right direction. I have contacted arbcom and will follow their lead from . --Amble (talk) 22:29, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I sent a message to an arb, and one to en-arbcom-l. No response. And the SPI report seems to have gone into the circular file. Looking through a few other SPI reports I can't say I'm terribly impressed with the way they are handled, and reporting this was probably a waste of time. --Amble (talk) 18:28, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

There was a huge backlog recently, so I can see triage happening. In the grand scheme of things, this one wasn't terribly disruptive and was being adequately handled by normal processes. It doesn't make it right, but it does explain things without malice being involved.

I think I've figured out who the person in question is based on off-wiki data, but I'm not going to bother pursuing it barring another campaign of disruption. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 22:03, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, doublechecking, the SPI is still open (it'll be moved to /Archive when closed). It may just have fallen off the list, due to the aforementioned backlog. It'll get sorted out when enough people with mops step in to process things. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 22:05, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I can see why this would be a low priority. That's understandable and fine, really. I'll admit to being a bit frustrated, though, and I suppose I was letting that out. Anyway, thanks for your help in this and for responding. --Amble (talk) 22:19, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

On the other hand, in looking through other cases, I have seen some disappointing outcomes. The SPI reports page used to be requests for checkuser, and the only cases that were accepted were those that could be dealt with using a straightforward checkuser + block. In watching the current cases, my impression is that those cases continue to be handled quickly and well. When a report doesn't really fit that pattern, though, I don't see the system working as well. I'm afraid my report is in that category, so perhaps I shouldn't expect much. --Amble (talk) 02:31, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

The people who are active there are probably taking a "shortest job next" scheduling approach, to maximize the number of cases dealt with using limited resources. I don't really blame them. I've seen suggestions elsewhere that Long-Term Abuse is where things like this get posted, but checking LTA suggests that that is not the case (it looks like administrators declare what goes there).

If you feel that your proof of a Nrcprm2026's involvement is iron-clad, a place to go might be the arbitration enforcement board. Fill out the form given, link to the arbitration action being broken (in this case, the indefinite ban for socking given at the bottom of WP:Requests for arbitration/Depleted uranium#Log of blocks and bans), present what evidence you can, explain that you have additional evidence that involves quoting that editor's real name (and whatever else it was you searched on) and that you want arbcom to say "yes, go ahead" before posting it (it's used in the proceedings, so they'll probably tell you to go ahead but check anyways), and then link to the SPIs (and probably this thread as well for completeness), explaining that the SPI has been sitting idle for quite a while, presumably due to complexity and backlog. They'll want to see a rationale for bringing it to AE rather than SPI (or requesting help at WP:AN); the rationale is that a) it relates to an arbcom case, and b) you aren't sure what to do about real-name information and were told that they were the people to ask. Maybe also ask them if starting a LTA entry for this editor is a good idea (they've been socking for many years now; the indef ban was applied after two shorter bans for that).

The other option is to take a break from it for a while, and only start up again once they start socking again. When chasing long-term offenders, there's always the risk of getting too tied up in it. The end result of that tends to be either burnout or crossing the line into wiki-stalking or other harrassing behaviour (that's part of what Hillman got in hot water for back in the day). We've lost enough good editors as it is, so use your best judgment and don't be afraid to take time away to do things that are actually fun as well. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 03:00, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your wise advice. I do appreciate it, and I can certainly see the danger (and the attraction) of getting too involved. In this case, the IP editing is ongoing, but you are probably right that it's best to leave it alone unless (until?) something really disruptive comes up. I started looking for additional sources for quaestor, since it's something I've come across a number of times in reading about ancient Rome without ever quite knowing what the office was about. --Amble (talk) 05:15, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

---

On a truly unfortunate note, some bad news allows us to confirm that the IP editor was telling the truth when he said he's not Paul Frampton. [1] --Amble (talk) 16:26, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Ouch. I'd say that I hope that that gets sorted out soon, but I have a nasty suspicion that it won't. Regarding the anon's identity, per my previous comments I really don't care much either way, as it's their actions that concern me. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 21:40, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I just happened across the news story and thought it gave a surreal twist to the situation. Not actually important here, of course. --Amble (talk) 22:00, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Astrology

I am sorry, sorry, I copied and pasted and forgot to delete some edits, my purpose was a redirect theory thank you-— Preceding unsigned comment added by GoShow (talk • contribs) on 01:25, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Redirects should usually also be discussed on the talk page of the article being redirected. In general, most changes that involve moving substantial amounts of content should be discussed first.

Also, regarding editing your own comments, it's considered polite to use the "strikeout" markup (<s></s>, which does this), rather than removing part of a comment that someone else has already replied to (such as the request for administrator action). This avoids confusion about what the people responding were responding to.

Thank you for taking the initiative with maintaining these pages! I'm just trying to steer you towards the approach that will address your goals with minimum backlash. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 02:20, 2 September 2012 (UTC)