| Revision as of 12:43, 25 August 2016 editTravelmite (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,510 edits →Beacon Reader← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:40, 28 August 2016 edit undoTravelmite (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,510 edits →Beacon ReaderNext edit → | ||
| Line 124: | Line 124: | ||
| ==]== | ==]== | ||
| Could you review and remove the speedy deletion for a ] I wrote. I am not affiliated in any way with the company, just surprised Misplaced Pages didn't have an article in the first place for it. Thanks! ] (]) 12:42, 25 August 2016 (UTC) | Could you review and remove the speedy deletion for a ] I wrote. I am not affiliated in any way with the company, just surprised Misplaced Pages didn't have an article in the first place for it. Thanks! ] (]) 12:42, 25 August 2016 (UTC) | ||
| :] More drama! User Pete/Skring has made some ridiculous but serious accusations against me at ]. He is rehashing what happened at the Head of State dispute page, plus my request he respect COI rules as a membership of another organisation. ] (]) 16:33, 28 August 2016 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 16:40, 28 August 2016
|
|
![[REDACTED]](https://u3vuiephb.global.ssl.fastly.net/File:Misplaced Pages-logo-v2-en.svg){kind=link}
![[REDACTED]](https://u3vuiephb.global.ssl.fastly.net/File:WikiProject_Ice_Hockey_logo.svg){kind=link}
Hello to all fellow Wikipedians. GoodDay 22:40, 17 November 2005 (UTC).
 | This user has been on Misplaced Pages for 19 years, 2 months and 5 days. |
You may be wondering why my archives only start at August 2007. The reason: I didn't archive my pages before that date, I merely deleted them (as I didn't know how to archive). Therefore, if anyone wishes to see material before August 2007? check out this talkpage's 'history'.
Awards
I've an Awards page, where I keep a list of Misplaced Pages awards bestowed upon me.
Edit count & Pie chart
My Arbcom Case
Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GoodDay
 Archives |
|
Aug-Sept 2007 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Pence
I'm about to go out, but why? They don't seem to serve any purpose other than your own style. Therequiembellishere (talk) 01:01, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- Therequiembellishere, they keep the words Governor of Indiana entirely in one line & Vice President of the United States entirely in one line. GoodDay (talk) 01:35, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- To what end? It's already on one line preceded by only three words otherwise; if it's breaking for some reason on your screen/browser, why not just "nowrap" them? It seems like a needless break that unnecessarily interrupts the flow of continuous information and fattens the succession box. It's also not the generic standard that most nominee successions have been done over the past several years until that past couple of months. Therequiembellishere (talk) 14:32, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- It's easier to read, the way I set it up. That's how all the prez & vice presz nominee navboxes are setup. GoodDay (talk) 04:57, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- I don't think it's easier to read. And aren't they that way because you made them that way... Therequiembellishere (talk) 06:21, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- Some were & some weren't. I brought them all into consistency. GoodDay (talk) 12:09, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- Considering that this "consistency" is very recent, and all gubernatorial and senate nominees for American politicians, as well as all other nominee navboxes for politicians outside of the U.S. don't do this, and haven't in the 10+ years of the project until the past few months, surely the rational thing is to keep them all in line? With the separate line break, what stands out most is the hyperlink, making it falsely look like a navbox on the office, rather than on the nominees, which evening out the full relevant title of what succession we’re actually tracking (nominees for X office) all on in one line makes immediately clear for a casual reader. Therequiembellishere (talk) 16:34, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- I'm in disagreement with you concerning this matter. You're free to open a discussion at the appropriate talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 16:38, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- You're the only one advancing the line break. What's more appropriate than talking to you? Therequiembellishere (talk) 16:44, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- Take the dispute to a Navbox talkpage, see what others have to say on the matter. Try WP:Third opinion. -- GoodDay (talk) 16:48, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- I mean sure, but you've not even given any reason for your style beyond "consistency" and then said "I disagree". Do you have any reasons why? Therequiembellishere (talk) 18:08, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- Take the dispute to a Navbox talkpage, see what others have to say on the matter. Try WP:Third opinion. -- GoodDay (talk) 16:48, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- You're the only one advancing the line break. What's more appropriate than talking to you? Therequiembellishere (talk) 16:44, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- I'm in disagreement with you concerning this matter. You're free to open a discussion at the appropriate talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 16:38, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- Considering that this "consistency" is very recent, and all gubernatorial and senate nominees for American politicians, as well as all other nominee navboxes for politicians outside of the U.S. don't do this, and haven't in the 10+ years of the project until the past few months, surely the rational thing is to keep them all in line? With the separate line break, what stands out most is the hyperlink, making it falsely look like a navbox on the office, rather than on the nominees, which evening out the full relevant title of what succession we’re actually tracking (nominees for X office) all on in one line makes immediately clear for a casual reader. Therequiembellishere (talk) 16:34, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- Some were & some weren't. I brought them all into consistency. GoodDay (talk) 12:09, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- I don't think it's easier to read. And aren't they that way because you made them that way... Therequiembellishere (talk) 06:21, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- It's easier to read, the way I set it up. That's how all the prez & vice presz nominee navboxes are setup. GoodDay (talk) 04:57, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- To what end? It's already on one line preceded by only three words otherwise; if it's breaking for some reason on your screen/browser, why not just "nowrap" them? It seems like a needless break that unnecessarily interrupts the flow of continuous information and fattens the succession box. It's also not the generic standard that most nominee successions have been done over the past several years until that past couple of months. Therequiembellishere (talk) 14:32, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Again, the style I implemented places Governor entirely in one line & Vice President entirely in one line. GoodDay (talk) 18:31, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- I mean, yes, I can see that, what I'm wondering is why. Therequiembellishere (talk) 18:47, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- It looks better. GoodDay (talk) 18:51, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- Forgive me, I don't really see how one, mild, recent personal aesthetic style trumps clarity of information and standard practice over ten years that's never been complained about as looking bad before. Therequiembellishere (talk) 21:46, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- It looks better. GoodDay (talk) 18:51, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- I certainly think "–present" looks better on the navboxes of incoming officeholders, but I condeded that "Taking office " is the more appropriate form, despite looking odd. Therequiembellishere (talk) 21:49, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- I don't understand why you're protesting so much over 'break' additions. Perhaps 'again' you should seek a WP:Third opinion. -- GoodDay (talk) 22:27, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- Because I think they're unnecessary and unhelpful to the flow of information and I was hoping that you could try and show me a reason for them to be there while you keep going around claiming "consistency" as you make all the edits yourself. Therequiembellishere (talk) 22:37, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- I've already twice explained my addition of 'breakers'. You're trying my patients, now. Again, seek a third opinion on the matter. GoodDay (talk) 22:43, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- How about thrice and a thrupence? Sorry for intruding. Juan Riley (talk) 22:46, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- I was hoping for some explanation, all hope of that is lost after false "consistency" and "it looks good" ended up being your only reasons. So you can imagine my frustration in pulling teeth here. Therequiembellishere (talk) 22:54, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- Will you please seek a third opinion or open up a discussion about this matter, at an appropriate talkpage? So others may get involved? GoodDay (talk) 23:16, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- I was hoping for some explanation, all hope of that is lost after false "consistency" and "it looks good" ended up being your only reasons. So you can imagine my frustration in pulling teeth here. Therequiembellishere (talk) 22:54, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- How about thrice and a thrupence? Sorry for intruding. Juan Riley (talk) 22:46, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- I've already twice explained my addition of 'breakers'. You're trying my patients, now. Again, seek a third opinion on the matter. GoodDay (talk) 22:43, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- Because I think they're unnecessary and unhelpful to the flow of information and I was hoping that you could try and show me a reason for them to be there while you keep going around claiming "consistency" as you make all the edits yourself. Therequiembellishere (talk) 22:37, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- I don't understand why you're protesting so much over 'break' additions. Perhaps 'again' you should seek a WP:Third opinion. -- GoodDay (talk) 22:27, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- I certainly think "–present" looks better on the navboxes of incoming officeholders, but I condeded that "Taking office " is the more appropriate form, despite looking odd. Therequiembellishere (talk) 21:49, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm not giving a third opinion on this, but I saw it on WP:3O and it's not clear which article(s) you're discussing here. —151.132.206.26 (talk) 23:19, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- Mike Pence, Paul Ryan, Sarah Palin etc etc. GoodDay (talk) 23:22, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- Any relevant diffs that show the point of disagreement? Those pages are all highly active. —151.132.206.26 (talk) 23:34, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- here -- GoodDay (talk) 23:51, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- All right, thanks. I don't see the benefit, myself. I think "Party nominee for office of region" looks better on one line, as the previous revision appears in my browser. My opinion is that the one desiring a change from the status quo, i.e., you, should seek broad discussion of it rather than insisting that someone else do so. Especially when you are the sole proponent, and when the only argument for it appears to be that you think your way looks better. I think that'll be all I have to say on the matter; take it as you will. —151.132.206.26 (talk) 00:20, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
- here -- GoodDay (talk) 23:51, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- Any relevant diffs that show the point of disagreement? Those pages are all highly active. —151.132.206.26 (talk) 23:34, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Resolution Procedure Comment
I see a request for a Third Opinion. I also see the signatures of three registered editors (this editor and two others) and the IP address of an unregistered editor. I am deleting the Third Opinion as not applicable. If there is an issue about the formatting of infoboxes or navboxes, a Request for Comments may be used. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:52, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
- @Robert McClenon: It's not totally clear to me when to use 3O and RFC. I will, however, point out that one of those editors, JuanRiley, only made a rather puerile comment and was not participating in the discussion at all. The IP participated on seeing the 3O request and it was entirely between myself and GoodDay before then. If you still think RFC is the better place to go, we can explore that next. Therequiembellishere (talk) 03:10, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
- In general, Third Opinion is only used when there are only two editors. In this case, the unregistered editor was a major participant in the discussion. If the Third Opinion volunteer was one of the two of you, then the unregistered editor should have either logged in or admitted at some point that they had failed to log in. We can't just discount unregistered editors as if they weren't there. (I and some editors would like to restrict their editing privileges, but that isn't happening.) You can also request moderated dispute resolution. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:45, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
- @Robert McClenon: Originally I only wanted to get the actual issue clarified for whoever wound up responding. But if you want to consider my eventual response as the Third Opinion, okay. —151.132.206.26 (talk) 14:18, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
- @Robert McClenon:, I feel like you didn't read the discussion at all and are basing this solely on just seeing an IP address... They were not a participant before 3O, nor was I discounting their participation, which is, frankly, incredibly insulting. If you care to actually read the discussion, you'll see that it's immediately clear there were only two editors involved, myself and GoodDay, and that the IP came in after the 3O request to ask for clarification on the pages, stated they were not after providing the 3O themselves, though did chip in some input. I don't know if that counts as 3O, with a stated desire to not be involved but still offering a few words, but to be honest, I've certainly lost faith in your own capacity to act as 3O if you won't bother to make even a cursory attempt to read the discussion... Therequiembellishere (talk) 17:17, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
- Like, for the love of God, "I'm not giving a third opinion on this, but I saw it on WP:3O and it's not clear which article(s) you're discussing here." Therequiembellishere (talk) 17:22, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
- I did read the discourse, and it was not self-explanatory. As is too often the case with 3O, what I saw was a long back-and-forth, and it was difficult to know what the issue was. Unlike most Third Opinion requests, I couldn't even hit the Article tab to see the article that was being discussed, because this is a user talk page that is discussing a box, not on a template talk page but on a user talk page. Very often, on a Third Opinion, I have to ask the parties if they will state concisely what the question is. If you want to be insulted, go ahead and be insulted; if you want to complain about the other editors, go ahead and complain about them or insult them. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:22, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- @Robert McClenon: If you had read it, I should imagine you saw the requested diff illustrating the disagreement. Not sure what would have been unclear after seeing that. To be fair, from your initial (and second) comment here, it did sound like you only looked at the signatures without taking anything else into consideration. I hope that makes it more understandable for there to then be an assumption of same. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 04:55, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- I did read the discourse, and it was not self-explanatory. As is too often the case with 3O, what I saw was a long back-and-forth, and it was difficult to know what the issue was. Unlike most Third Opinion requests, I couldn't even hit the Article tab to see the article that was being discussed, because this is a user talk page that is discussing a box, not on a template talk page but on a user talk page. Very often, on a Third Opinion, I have to ask the parties if they will state concisely what the question is. If you want to be insulted, go ahead and be insulted; if you want to complain about the other editors, go ahead and complain about them or insult them. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:22, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- @Robert McClenon: Originally I only wanted to get the actual issue clarified for whoever wound up responding. But if you want to consider my eventual response as the Third Opinion, okay. —151.132.206.26 (talk) 14:18, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
- In general, Third Opinion is only used when there are only two editors. In this case, the unregistered editor was a major participant in the discussion. If the Third Opinion volunteer was one of the two of you, then the unregistered editor should have either logged in or admitted at some point that they had failed to log in. We can't just discount unregistered editors as if they weren't there. (I and some editors would like to restrict their editing privileges, but that isn't happening.) You can also request moderated dispute resolution. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:45, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
RfC
@GoodDay:, so am I going to have to be the one seeking a resolution here, or are you going to try for this one? Therequiembellishere (talk) 23:18, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
- I'd suggest you start an Rfc at the Mike Pence article & note it relates to all such navbox nomination info. I can't remember how to set one up. GoodDay (talk) 23:25, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
- But, as the IP noted above you are the one wanting a change. I don't really see why I have to do all of the legwork on this. I had to look into making a 3O request, which only didn't proceed based on it being incorrectly removed by the above mis-(or failure to)read of the discussion prior. If you can be bothered to seek a resolution, then why are we here? Therequiembellishere (talk) 23:32, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
- If and when you make the RfC, or decide to leave it to me, do make sure to include this full conversation section at the new discussion area so we don't have to re-tread. Therequiembellishere (talk) 23:34, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
- HAVE IT YOUR WAY. You've been driving me up the 'bleeping' wall over my additions of tiny little 'breakers', for these last few days. Why you've only started complaining when Trump picked Pence? is beyond me. Jeez. GoodDay (talk) 23:40, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
- Because you won't bother to give a real reason. I've (and IIRC others) have been removing them as you went across your minor crusade these past several months so I figured you'd eventually stop or leave it up to a contrary editing style. You came to my page first and told me to stop. If you made any real attempt to communicate or seriously participate in the process, it wouldn't have taken quite as long, so I don't really see how I'm to blame for your frustration. Therequiembellishere (talk) 23:48, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
- Do what ever you want. GoodDay (talk) 23:52, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
- Meaning you're fine if I go through and remove the line breaks? Therequiembellishere (talk) 23:55, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
- Do as you wish on all of them. Republican, Democratic, Reform, American Independent, Progressive etc etc. GoodDay (talk) 00:03, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Fine, I will do. It's not lost on me that you've again left this task entirely on me, but I think you and I both appreciate an end to this. I thank you for agreeing and hope our next discussion evolves less tortuously. Therequiembellishere (talk) 00:12, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not in agreement with you on this matter. Merely tired of discussing it. GoodDay (talk) 00:15, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- I'm aware. Therequiembellishere (talk) 00:20, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Hi, I’m the same IP editor, now on my home computer (151.132.206.26 is a public library system). As you’ve made no response to my last post, I’ll assume you’ve read it and, in an (frankly rather strenuous) effort to assume good faith, also assume you agree that you went about it the wrong way even if it was a Good Thing. I wish you’d seek consensus rather than give up when urged to do so, but that’s your prerogative. I’ll just ask you to follow the spirit of WP:BRD in the future, and to keep in mind that “discuss” does not mean “tell others to stop disagreeing.” Take care. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 04:43, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not in agreement with you on this matter. Merely tired of discussing it. GoodDay (talk) 00:15, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Fine, I will do. It's not lost on me that you've again left this task entirely on me, but I think you and I both appreciate an end to this. I thank you for agreeing and hope our next discussion evolves less tortuously. Therequiembellishere (talk) 00:12, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Do as you wish on all of them. Republican, Democratic, Reform, American Independent, Progressive etc etc. GoodDay (talk) 00:03, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Meaning you're fine if I go through and remove the line breaks? Therequiembellishere (talk) 23:55, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
- Do what ever you want. GoodDay (talk) 23:52, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
- Because you won't bother to give a real reason. I've (and IIRC others) have been removing them as you went across your minor crusade these past several months so I figured you'd eventually stop or leave it up to a contrary editing style. You came to my page first and told me to stop. If you made any real attempt to communicate or seriously participate in the process, it wouldn't have taken quite as long, so I don't really see how I'm to blame for your frustration. Therequiembellishere (talk) 23:48, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
- HAVE IT YOUR WAY. You've been driving me up the 'bleeping' wall over my additions of tiny little 'breakers', for these last few days. Why you've only started complaining when Trump picked Pence? is beyond me. Jeez. GoodDay (talk) 23:40, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
- If and when you make the RfC, or decide to leave it to me, do make sure to include this full conversation section at the new discussion area so we don't have to re-tread. Therequiembellishere (talk) 23:34, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
- But, as the IP noted above you are the one wanting a change. I don't really see why I have to do all of the legwork on this. I had to look into making a 3O request, which only didn't proceed based on it being incorrectly removed by the above mis-(or failure to)read of the discussion prior. If you can be bothered to seek a resolution, then why are we here? Therequiembellishere (talk) 23:32, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Request for clarification or amendment motion
Hi GoodDay
A motion has been proposed with regards to your recent request logged at ARCA. The motion can be viewed at the request page. Amortias (T)(C) 11:43, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
- Noted & watching. GoodDay (talk) 15:24, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
- The motion has been enacted, and is archived at Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GoodDay#Amendment request: GoodDay (August 2016). For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 17:10, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you :) GoodDay (talk) 17:10, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- A good day! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:59, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- It's been over 4 years, but now I can finally mention them on my talkpage. Diacritics ;) GoodDay (talk) 21:00, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- Compare Gustav Holst and Albert Ketèlbey ;) - I know the feeling: For two years I couldn't add an infobox to an article when I expanded a two line stub to something substantial, because I had not "created" it. Never made sense. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:05, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- Yeah. GoodDay (talk) 21:07, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- Compare Gustav Holst and Albert Ketèlbey ;) - I know the feeling: For two years I couldn't add an infobox to an article when I expanded a two line stub to something substantial, because I had not "created" it. Never made sense. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:05, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- It's been over 4 years, but now I can finally mention them on my talkpage. Diacritics ;) GoodDay (talk) 21:00, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- A good day! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:59, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you :) GoodDay (talk) 17:10, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- The motion has been enacted, and is archived at Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GoodDay#Amendment request: GoodDay (August 2016). For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 17:10, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
POTUS
Hi there! I noticed you gave me a thanks for my fixing of the butchering to the President's list. If a talk page war erupts, I hope you'd be willing to back me up. You've sent me thanks for this and other edits in the past, so I'm just assuming that means we have similar goals here. Thanks! Good Day ;) Spartan7W § 15:00, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
- I'm a stickler for consistency & stability, to be sure. GoodDay (talk) 15:02, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
- Good to know. If you need help with anything, just ping me I'm happy to do so. Spartan7W § 15:26, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks :) GoodDay (talk) 15:38, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
- Good to know. If you need help with anything, just ping me I'm happy to do so. Spartan7W § 15:26, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Horace White
I noticed you changed the end date of the term of office for Horace White, and a number of other politicians. You left no edit summary for any of them, so I'm not sure why you did this. Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:30, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- New York State officials, like governors & lieutenant governors, leave office at mid-night New Year's Day. GoodDay (talk) 20:34, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- With so many vandals changing numbers and statistics, it would be great if you could leave a brief edit summary. Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:39, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Republic of Canada
Hello GoodDay,
What are some of the benefits of a republic over the current regime of Canada? 4nn1l2 (talk) 17:58, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
- We get to choose our own head of state. GoodDay (talk) 18:03, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
- But then you have no one to blame on said choice but yourselves? Laughing. Look south and think Nixon, W, oh god don't even go there.....Juan Riley (talk) 23:50, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
- I'd take my chances. GoodDay (talk) 01:04, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
- But then you have no one to blame on said choice but yourselves? Laughing. Look south and think Nixon, W, oh god don't even go there.....Juan Riley (talk) 23:50, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Beacon Reader
Could you review and remove the speedy deletion for a page I wrote. I am not affiliated in any way with the company, just surprised Misplaced Pages didn't have an article in the first place for it. Thanks! Travelmite (talk) 12:42, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
More drama! User Pete/Skring has made some ridiculous but serious accusations against me at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. He is rehashing what happened at the Head of State dispute page, plus my request he respect COI rules as a membership of another organisation. Travelmite (talk) 16:33, 28 August 2016 (UTC)