User talk:Dbachmann

Headline text

archive1: 19:40, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC) – 18:26, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC) / 2: – 04:10, 25 Nov 04 / 3: – 08:23, 19 Dec 04 /

4: – 09:31, 11 Jan 05 / 5: – 2:05, 8 Mar 05 / 6: – 09:17, 6 May 05 / 7: – 09:15, 1 Jul 05 / 8: – 08:17, 12 Aug 05 / 9: – 09:27, 7 Nov 05 / A: – 19:40, 13 Dec 05 /

B: – 02:04, 16 Jan 06 C: – 20:47, 22 Feb 06 / D: – 22:26, 21 March 06 / E: – 05:54, 19 May 06 / F: – 06:07, 5 Jul 06 / 10 – 13:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Arabic pronunciation

Hi Dab. Thanks for your note at my page, regarding pronunciation of "Hezbollah". First, let me say that I'm not sure how to post this message here, since I've never seen a page structured this way! Second, I am not an authority on Arabic pronunciation. I simply observed that the word "Hezbollah" was pronounced with three different stressings in English-language media (yes, Bush and many others often stress it on the first syllable). I checked the SOED, and the BBC's recommendations, which supported a stress on the final. But I noted that Lebanese consistently stressed the word on the second syllable; I therefore consulted an expert in Arabic, who confirmed for me that this was standard. Apparently some Farsi pronunciation influences typical pronunciations heard in the English-speaking and Israeli media (yes, they also go for the third syllable). As for the first-syllable option, that's just wilful ignorance. But don't get me started on the pervasive modern nonchalance about such matters. I will note, finally, that before I addressed the question there was nothing at the Hezbollah article about stressing, only a great deal of very detailed information about transliterations and the like. This is a common sort of omission, and one that interests and occupies me a great deal. Noetica 23:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your subsequent note, also. I agree with you that we should be circumspect about this. I really wish that someone with direct and full knowledge had taken this up in the first place, but I'm glad that you and I are addressing the topic now. I have edited the note to read this way: "...in the Arabic of the region in question it is most commonly placed on the second syllable." How's that? The situation with High Arabic need not trouble us much, though of course it would be satisfying to have a clear ruling there too. As for English, there is simply no way to determine a "correct" pronunciation for the word. Noetica 23:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

---

Please have a look

Hi I noticed you did some work on the Scythian article. Can you look at here please[1]. Thanks --Ali doostzadeh 05:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Runology

Hello, thanks for working on Runology some - what would be really great would be if you can find any references to support the unsourced claims within the article. Thanks! LinaMishima 22:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply! My personal wikipedia hobby is getting things referenced - now I know where to look, I'll work in the references :) LinaMishima 00:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

So . . ... we meet again!

Hello DaB: First of all, thanks for your more or less Keep vote at Connor Barrett. I was trying to figure out where we have met before and it turned out that you were the only person to comment on the [for me] odd and untypical photo that i posted on sacrifice. I just re-read your comments and they were very much called for. Carptrash 06:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

as much as I do not like flaunting my ignorance, can you point me at working definition of "OR territory?" I am not very good with the inner workings of wikipedia but am not afraid to ask. Carptrash 15:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I do understand the danger - especially around here - of taking someone's word for anything, and in any case I don't really know what this scene was about, but besides the issues that you raised about it notice that the chest has been opened, the heart and perhaps a few other things removed and there appears to be no signs that this was done by any of the local wild animals such as coyotes and mountain lions. Of course many of the local wild animals are human, but . . . . I guess that that is the point. I will check out those links, than-you very much. Carptrash 16:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

List of Kayasthas

Hi Dab

I am writing to seek your advice.I have been repeatedly trying to impress upon an anonymous user 128.104.190.25 that Amartya Sen is niether a Kayastha nor a scientist.He keeps on inserting his name and I keep on deleting it in the List of Kayasthas.To me it appears to be a case of vanadalism as it has happened over 7 times despite repeated warningg.I think this may be a case of instituting a block and would like to report it to yourself in your capacity asn an administrator.Regards(Vr 06:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC))

proto-Elamite

Hi Dab Please do not change the article proto-Elamite randomly. Make suggestions first. Jacob L. Dahl, Berlin, 20060811

symmetry

Hello dab. The symbol for your initials on your user page is magnificent. I am a big fan of palindromes and bilateral symmetry. Might I suggest changing your signature from dab to dAb? All the best. Rohirok 02:54, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

criticism on atheism

First let me start off by saying I would like the utilitarian cristicism on the page, however I found it to be a bit shakey. Please do not think that I am opposed to this position simply because I reverted, just that I would like to make it encyclopedic. I saved the paragraph in the talk section for discussion, please see here. Thank you. Again, I welcome your edits, please do not feel I'm picking on you for being bold. Somerset219 04:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Edit counter

Thanks to your userpage addition, I noted that we have another edit counter that works . :) It is difficult to believe that I am over 2000 now. Seems like a lot, honestly, but at least it is far from boring! Ich spreche mit Ihnen später, mein Freund.

→ P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 12:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Franconian languages

Just to let you know, I formalized the Franconian languages page per the Dutch and German versions, instead of having them split up on nationalist grounds (Im afraid). This has sparked fierce resistance on behalf of user:Rex Germanus, who is defending his purged version, probably as a protest against the mention of German in the title, which I have avoided. Ulritz 13:11, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

barnstar

Gosh, thank you, I'm touched! Paul B

Franconian languages/ Franconian German

A certain User:Ulritz recently created an article called Franconian languages. He did this by copying the article on Franconian German and adding a little sentence mentioning Dutch and Afrikaans. I nominated this article for deletion as it added nothing and would probably only result in confusion. After reverting many times, I turned the article into something worth keeping (ironic that the person who request the article to be deleted makes it acceptable instead of the articles creator). However, when this user copied the information on Franconian German to "create" a new article, he turned Franconian German into a redirect. Which (according to me) is totall nonsense, also because the way I rewrote the article that information isn't mentioned directly. If you agree with me, please revert "Franconian German" to the version before it was a redirect as I already did this 3 times and do not wish to break the 3RR. Rex 22:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Hail Rex Germanus, deleting others' work and then claiming self-opinionated salvation. I tried a compromise [2] though user seems to have had too much freedom editing these articles, simply overruling anybody who disagreed with him. I think DBachmann has more self-respect than that. Ulritz 22:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I did mention your work User:Ulritz: "He did this by copying the article on Franconian German and adding a little sentence mentioning Dutch and Afrikaans". Rex 22:44, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Scythians again

Hi I thank you very much for your contribution to the issue. I am wondering when a resolution on this issue will be reached: [3] Also would you please look at this:[4] and this:[5]. This user is claiming Ossetian is not an Iranic language (against every source and he even misquoted Abaev) and that is really frustrating for me and also time-consuming to respond to such nonsense. He now has created another scytho-Nakh theory.. All of his material is taken from [www.turkicworld.org]. Now he is claiming the caucasian Nakhs are the Alans.. This sort of historical revisionism in my opinion should not have a place in wikipedia. --Ali doostzadeh 17:11, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Roman > Germanic; Germanic > Roman

[6] Not completely. Thor is either equivalent to Jupiter or Hercules depending on which way you're going. Haukur 21:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, yes, I see where you're going. Haukur 22:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the message

Thanks for the message. Life is good now, I think. Montanabw 20:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Arvanites

Sigh. Our old favourite POV-warring article. Not under terrible fire right now, but possibly trouble brewing. Could you give it a quick look? See last section of talk page: [7] Thanks! Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Antipodeans

Hello dAb,

You recently commented in an edit note on Flat Earth that "no such terms [as antipodeans]. the hypothetical inhabitants of the antipodes were known as .. antipodes." I'm afraid I started that issue by a discussion on Talk:Flat Earth#Antipodes or Antipodeans? where I noted that in English antipodes (referring to people) was an obsolete nineteenth-century usage as antipodes came to be a geographical term for the opposite side of the earth and antipodeans became the accepted modern term for people on the opposite side of the earth. It seems that Leinad-Z took me up on my suggestion

I privately suspect that White may have been playing with that linguistic change from an anthropological to geographic sense to use medieval arguments against antipodeans to support his argument that they believed in the flat earth. The fact that he places his discussion of the "antipodes" in a chapter on Geography organized:

1. THE FORM OF THE EARTH.
2. THE DELINEATION OF THE EARTH.
3. THE INHABITANTS OF THE EARTH.
4. THE SIZE OF THE EARTH.

suggests that he saw these arguments as aspects of the same flat earth argument. But of course, to say that in the article rather than on talk space would violate both NOR and NPOV. Here, I feel free to speculate. --SteveMcCluskey 19:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi,

Replying to your note on my talk page, I won't get into the origins of the Latin word as referring to place or people -- I'll only comment that, for the English, the OED has this as the earliest citation:

1398 TREVISA Barth. De P.R. XV. lii. (1495) 506 Yonde in Ethiopia ben the Antipodes, men that haue theyr fete ayenst our fete.

The first citations in the sense of place are about 150 years later.

1549 Compl. Scotl. vi. 50 The place that is direct contrar til our zenyth is callit antipodes. Ibid. 51 Lactantius firmien..scornis the mathematiciens that effermis antipodos.

I'd say the meaning of people comes first (although one could argue whether 150 years is a significant difference given the sparseness of texts); at the other end of the time scale the meaning of people is now marked as obsolete and the geographic place sense has become dominant.

It's much more fun to talk about ideas than about bureaucratic rules, isn't it. --SteveMcCluskey 01:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

List of Kayasthas

Hi Dieter

Thanks for intervening with the above article.I am afraid though the vandalism is still on.The anonymous user is up to his trcks again.(05:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC))

well, if it's vandalism, revert it, you may do that as well as I. dab (ᛏ) 08:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Reuqest some help

Dear Dab, I believe you are an administrator. Would you please look at: [8] [9] [10] [11]. This user barefact does not seem to understand that he can't just cut & paste from this site: [www.turkicworld.org] and present it as scholarly different point of view whereas almost every line and quote I did a double reference check from his material turned out to be false. --Ali doostzadeh 16:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Image question

Hi Dab, I would like to know from where the source of this image (especially of the dates, boundaries and locations in the image) is. (name, date of the publication) [12] Thanks. --RF 19:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The 2000 BC date is Sintashta-Petrovka. What location is the 1800 BCE date? On which source(s) are the boundaries for the different dates drawn? The image also mixes archaeological data and data derived from ancient texts (China, India). Thanks for clarifying things. --RF 19:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The image suggests that all chariots (including egyptian etc) ultimately originated from Sintashta-Petrovka. This is well possible, but far from certain. (Other sources say that the earliest findings do not prove that all chariots ultimately originated from Sintashta-Petrovka or that they were also invented there). Also, not all chariots are the same, the chinese and egyptian ones were surely different, and the image specifies not if chariots were harnessed by horses or oxens, or used in warfare or not. I can find no 1800 BC date in the chariot article. What does it represent? And I've read that in Central Asia (south of Andronovo), the earliest known chariots (at the Oxus) date to the Achaemenid period, apart from chariots that were harnessed by oxen. This contradicts with the picture? Maybe there should be a better description in the image page and in the image caption. Regards. --RF 21:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you don't know all the answers right now. But I think a better image description should be included and maybe it would be better if such an image would be based on a publication, and be more detailed. Regards. --RF 21:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Old Dutch / Old Low Franconian

dab, are you watching that (pair of) article(s)? We might need some admin intervention at some point, I think. User:Reg Germanus, who wants the article at "Old Dutch", first rewrote it on its old location at "Old Low Franconian" but then tried to move it per cut-and-paste. The resulting redirect chaos seems to be drawn into the ongoing reverting feud between Reg Germanus and User:Ulritz, who've been clashing over various articles. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:20, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I first tried a regular move, but for some reason (probably because Old Dutch already existed as a redirect) it didn't work, so I did a cut and paste move (my first) and moved the article and talk pages

Rex 14:52, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I hope I solved the problem, I've made Old Low Franconian into a disambiguation page explaining that it comprised of Old Dutch (Old East Low Franconian) and Old East Low Franconian. Rex 14:52, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Ge'ez

You said on Talk:Proto-Semitic language that adding {{lang|gez|XXX}} around Ge'ez characters (replacing "XXX") would make them show up for those without the Ge'ez font, but that doesn't seem to be the case. I tried it and someone without the font (User:Abdullah Geelah) still couldn't see it (though he was logged in from an internet café in who knows where). Are you sure that it works? Also, we sort of ended the discussion about including Ge'ez and ESA where cognates exist for Proto-Canaanite. You said you would accept some (11?) as obvious, but needed sources for others. I don't have access right now to any work that would establish connections like these, do you? By the way, an IP (203.217.13.143) has been removing external links to www.crystalinks.com. The links seem to be informative, however, so it may be better to reinstate them, but I don't know the quality of the website. Plus, being an admin, you could just rollback those edits (all of them today have just been a removal of a crystalink external link) more easily than I could. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 06:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Fandorin / smuggling ring

As I have not read those novels yet (I only have them in Russian), I just added what was already present in the original article. I thought you had deleted the part about the smuggling ring by mistake. Sorry. Errabee 10:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the backstop!

Thanks for your comments regarding Comanche_cph (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Much appreciated. I've extended to a month for that last comment of his. No reply necessary but here is fine if you choose. ++Lar: t/c 15:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

(refactored from my talk, I'm a threaded convo guy...) Well, the extension to a month seems a bit over the top to me. I tend to allow for outbursts of profanity on user's own talkpage as the result of a block as a 'simply human' reaction of the more short tempered among us. He would have been on a short leash after your week's block anyway. But I agree that the extension is within reason, and I suppose there wasn't much hope of improvement for this particular user. regards, dab (ᛏ) 15:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, it was the next larger size in the dropdown. :) OK, more seriously, I had thought perhaps 2 weeks but I had just told him that his next outburst would get him a month, and if you review his block log, he has had a fair number of chances... I do appreciate the feedback, becoming a better admin is a journey. PS: if you want a good read, take a look at Valentian's essay in reply (next topic on Comanche cph's talk page) to charges of bias in Denmark-Norway articles... ++Lar: t/c 16:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your watch

Hi please keep a watch over Scythians for POV pushers (barefact mainly and the guy that just likes to revert his material). I have asked barefact to discuss any insertion in the talk page before he does so. He made some claims which were unsupported in numerous different article and yet he still insists. --Ali doostzadeh 18:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Taming of the shrew wedding petruchio cleese.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Taming of the shrew wedding petruchio cleese.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 23:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Outside view?

Hi Dieter, sorry for this long post. May I ask for an outside opinion on the recent developments over at Template talk:PD-USSR? Even if you're not a copyright expert, I'd appreciate some reality-check on the Wiki-issues involved.

The situation in a nutshell (as I see it, of course): The Template:PD-USSR is completely unsourced. I once tried to verify it, but found out that it seems to be wrong. I have presented the reasons multiple times (a good summary is at commons:Template talk:PD-Soviet). A bunch of editors believes the tag was correct, but has been unable to provide evidence for this belief. After a failed attemt to put the template through WP:TFD in February 2006 (a mistake anyway), I continued arguing and eventually tried to deprecate the tag, which was reverted and resulted in a nasty discussion (or rather, mud-slinging orgy), and an RFC being filed. Since May 2006, the tag has had a dispute notice (see e.g. this version). My conclusion from that RFC is that there a many editors who think that such a dispute notice should be included, and that the foundation's lawyer should take on the issue and settle the issue. There are also quite a few people who think the tag was just fine, and should be used as long as we can get away with it, because it was convenient. (I admit that my reading of that RFC may be biased. I'd be interested to know how you interprete that RFC.) The dispute notice was changed by an anon to a mild deprecation notice (see this version), and such it has been since June 2006. Following the RFC, I have tried to get the foundation's lawyers to review the case, but apparently neither Soufron, nor the juriwiki mailing list, nor Brad Patrick are inclined to do so. Soufron, BTW, had helped me along via e-mail on some details in my analysis presented at commons:Template talk:PD-Soviet.

A few days ago, the same bunch of editors has begun edit-warring to remove the dispute notice, although clearly the dispute has picked up again on the talk page. The template is still unsourced, and its claim still is completely unverified. My analysis of the legal issues, indicating that the template was grossly wrong since at least 1995/1996 still stands.

I do think removing the dispute notice in such circumstances is actively misleading. Furthermore, some of the opposing editors are again personalizing this dispute (see Template talk:PD-USSR#Third circle).

Now I see several options:

1. Engage in a nasty edit war, re-adding the dispute notice, adding {{unsourced}}, etc. That's unlikely to be productive. It'll only escalate the edit war, but not help further our understanding, and not help determining whether the tag were right or wrong.
2. Do the same as these editors did twice (the second one originally was here): advertise the whole thing more widely again and try to get more editors involved. The risk is, of course, that we'll just get an even larger and even more confused edit war.
3. File another RFC on the question whether the tag should bear a notice like it did since June, and on the interpretation of the first RFC. That's somewhat Kafkaesk: an RFC on the interpretation of another RFC...
4. Go to arbitration, version 1. A novelty: dump the question of whether the tag should bear a notice like it did since June into the ArbCom's lap. I wouldn't ask them to decide on the legal issue, but maybe the ArbCom could be requested to make the foundation's lawyers move. Don't know whether the case would be accepted, the ArbCom isn't there to decide content issues (whether a dispute notice should be present), nor to decide legal issues (whether the tag was right or wrong).
5. Go to arbitration, version 2. Take the editors removing the dispute warning from the tag to ArbCom to have their behavior reviewed. That's more within the purpose of the ArbCom, but I'm not particularly interested in getting any ArbCom ruling against these people personally. It's more important to make clear that the tag is dubious (or IMO, plain wrong).
6. Try again to get Soufron or Brad involved directly. My previous experience with dealing with them is that the chances are slim that they indeed would intervene with a professional legal opinion on the matter (or at least with a clear statement what Wikipedia should do with the tag).
7. Ask Jimbo. Also unlikely to produce any visible results either way. Jimbo has spoken out (in other contexts) against unsourced critical statements. Maybe he might insist that a dispute warning be there, and maybe he might even make the foundation's lawyers tackle the legal issues involved, but I doubt it.
8. Other...?

So much for the situation. What do you think about this mess? Am I off the track insisting on sources and that dispute warning? If not, can you see any other possible ways to move on? I'd be grateful for any advice you could offer. Lupo 07:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I tend to lean towards a wo kein Kläger, da kein Richter attitude. I would most definitely insist that the claim in the template is tagged as unsourced, but apart from that, I wouldn't invest too much effort in this. If people want to get rid of the unsourced tag, let them do the paperwork. Otherwise, let the template hang about, saying "we believe{{fact}} this is PD" until it is legally challenged. (ᛎ) qɐp 08:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Hm. It's about having a correct tag and not claiming images were PD if in fact they aren't. It's not about deleting images (most of them could probably be kept with appropriate "fair use" rationales anyway, at least here on the English Wikipedia). What's the "paperwork" if a source in Russian is given, but that source is not translated and doesn't even—to my understanding, at least—support the claim? Lupo 08:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Wendy Doniger

Hi: this is a little belated, but better late than never I suppose. I plead fatigue with this particular article; I had followed an RfA, and spent a long time trying to argue the case for a more balanced reading of the scholar in question while being accused by the article's 'owner' of being a crypto-POV pusher. The recent introduction of the Living People Standard or whatever together with the discussion at the Witzel page reminded me, and it seems that you are one of the people who is an obvious source of opinion on whether this is balanced. Please note the extraordinary discussion on the talk page, in particular the justification of non-academic viewpoints being exalted in religious studies. Hornplease 21:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

By the way, waas browsing through the archives of your talk page, which has been, like everyone else's recently, occasionally occupied by the righteously angry busy de-colonising their minds. In this context I came across the lengthy discussion of the 'shithole' quote, which I had no idea, when I first heard of it being tossed around here and there, was uttered with reference to the intractable mess over at Rajput. The funny thing is that while your justification for it - a geographical assumption - is perfectly satisfactory as far as I am concerned, I remember noticing in amusement combined with horror that some of the names chosen by the participants and sockpuppets in that debate as well as a bit of DNS checking indicated that a decent proportion of the more difficult participants had an association with what is, according to a WP article that I myself have edited from time to time, India's premier liberal arts college. Enough to make one weep, I swear. Hornplease 02:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protection?

Look at Hinduism's history. It has been vandalised by anonymous editors a lot of times lately. I suggest you semi-protect it. ^Babub→Talk 11:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Sanskrit Help

Hello Dbachmann! Sundar suggested that you might be able to help in deciphering the correct translation of the Sanskrit word Go Shree. A comment would be much appreciated. Thank you!-- thunderboltz^{a.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK}05:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! :) -- thunderboltz^{a.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK}14:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Indo-Aryan Migration

Why not find a balanced source to suggest that? Not FOSA or counter currents, a balanced source.Bakaman _Bakatalk 19:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

suggest what and what is FOSA? (ᛎ) qɐp 20:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

A communist organization that "represents Indians". Suggest (by supporters of Indian patriotic sentimentality). Its OR until its sourced. Bakaman _Bakatalk 20:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

yes, but what is OR? I never even cited your FOSA. (ᛎ) qɐp 20:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Well they are sources cited by users that are supposedly "Secular" and fight the "hate monster of Hindutva". WP:ORBakaman _Bakatalk 20:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

sock accusation

are you kidding me? you are starting sound like the WikiStalkers that made this Sock charge [13] and this RfC [14]. I have almost 2200 edits meaning its impossible for me to be a sock of subhash. In fact, he has only 5 more contribs than me and none on Template or Categories. I thought admins were the best of wikipedians, looks like I was dead wrong.Bakaman _Bakatalk 21:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

well, you could be his ideologically identical twin. I'm not serious about the 'accusation' (hence the smiley), I am just saying we wouldn't experience much of a difference if you were. Now don't get all bureaucratic with me. You stated absolute ludicrous nonsense on a talkpage, and you know you did. Sarcasm is the best way I know to react to something like that. (ᛎ) qɐp 21:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)