Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:04, 6 May 2007

Archives

1 2

RobotG and categories

I'm not entirely sure what, but it seemed to involve trying to handle category redlinks in some way. Discussion is here and here, and there seems to be a followup discussion with another user here. Hope that helps. Alai 17:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Hello Selket/Archive, thank you for supporting my RfA!
I was promoted with a final tally of 68/12/0.
Also, please wish a Happy Birthday to Her Majesty the Queen. Vivat Regina!

SVG and logos

Many logos are not copyrighted, since they consist only of text and a few geometrical forms. (It is questionable whether any logo at all is copyrighted, as they are utility articles without any parts that are separate and independent from their intrinsic utilitarian function.) Hence they may be converted to SVG. Trademark law itself places no restrictions on the use of a logo except on carrying it; it must not be confused with copyright. Hence, trademark law itself places no restriction on the resolution. --Rtc 22:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what specifically this is in reference to. Is this about the conversation at {{SVG}} or one of the images from which I removed it? Nonetheless, I will attempt to address your comment in general.

• Logos are copyrighted. Any artwork is copyrightable (at least in the U.S., I can't speak to elsewhere) even if it is as simple as a few words and some geometric forms such as Image:Wong logo.png.
• Most logos -- even those that appear simple -- are the product of a considerable amount of creative effort. Consider the "smiling 'e'" in the Heineken logo. If go to their corporate documents, the angle of the "e" and how it is is very precisely defined to get a particular look.
• For something to be given copyright protection (again, under U.S. law) it only needs to meet three requirements (See: 17 U.S.C. § 102):
  1. Fixation -- printed, drawn up, put into permanent form somehow. Any logo will clearly meet this.
  2. Originality -- Again, any logo will clearly meet this.
  3. Creativity -- This requirement is fairly minimal and virtually any logo will meet it.
• You state: "It is questionable whether any logo at all is copyrighted, as they are utility articles without any parts that are separate and independent from their intrinsic utilitarian function." I have no idea what this means. I am not aware of any exception to copyright law for "utility articles". If there is one, I would love to see a citation for it.
• You are right that there is nothing in trademark law restricting resolution, but the same is not true for copyright law. These logos are copyrighted and resolution affects "substantiality", see: 17 U.S.C. § 107.

Perhaps you are right that the guideline should be against uploading any copyrighted image in SVG. Logos are simply the most likely instances of this.

--Selket 00:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Typefaces as such are not copyrighted, see WP:PD#Fonts. Any use of them isn't, either, so "a few words" are not copyrighted, since they are such use of typefaces. As pure typeface design, the "smiling e" of Image:Heinekenlogo.png and the design of Image:Wong_logo.png are hence not copyrighted in any case. It is incorrect that "Any artwork is copyrightable". By far not. That might be true for the "sweat of the brow" countries such as UK, but not the US. "Most logos -- even those that appear simple -- are the product of a considerable amount of" skill and labour (or "creative effort", as you call it), which in contrast to objective creativity and originality of the result are not a sufficient criterion for copyrightability: The efforts to produce that result are not to be taken into account for determining the copyright status. "Similarly, it is not possible to copyright common geometric figures or shapes such as the hexagon or the ellipse, a standard symbol such as an arrow or a five-pointed star. Likewise, mere coloration cannot support a copyright even though it may enhance the aesthetic appeal or commercial value of a work. For example, it is not possible to copyright a new version of a textile design merely because the colors of red and blue appearing in the design have been replaced by green and yellow, respectively. The same is true of a simple combination of a few standard symbols such as a circle, a star, and a triangle, with minor linear or spatial variations." most logos are just that.

Concerning utility articles, see

The second part of the amendment states that “the design of a useful article * * * shall be considered a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work only if, and only to the extent that, such design incorporates pictorial, graphic, or sculptural features that can be identified separately from, and are capable of existing independ­ently of, the utilitarian aspects of the article.” A “useful article” is defined as “an article having an intrinsic utilitarian function that is not merely to portray the appearance of the article or to convey information.” This part of the amendment is an adaptation of language added to the Copyright Office Regulations in the mid-1950’s in an effort to implement the Supreme Court’s decision in the Mazer case.

In adopting this amendatory language, the Committee is seeking to draw as clear a line as possible between copyrightable works of applied art and non-copy­righted works of industrial design. A two-dimensional painting, drawing, or graphic work is still capable of being identified as such when it is printed on or applied to utilitarian articles such as textile fabrics, wallpaper, containers, and the like. The same is true when a statue or carving is used to embellish an industrial product or, as in the Mazer case, is incorporated into a product without losing its ability to exist independently as a work of art. On the other hand, although the shape of an industrial product may be aesthetically satisfying and valuable, the Committee’s intention is not to offer it copyright protection under the bill. Unless the shape of an automobile, airplane, ladies’ dress, food processor, television set, or any other industrial product contains some element that, physically or conceptually, can be identified as separable from the utilitarian aspects of that article, the design would not be copyrighted under the bill. The test of separability and independence from “the utilitarian aspects of the article” does not depend upon the nature of the design—that is, even if the appearance of an article is determined by aesthetic (as opposed to functional) considerations, only elements, if any, which can be identified separately from the useful article as such are copyrightable. And, even if the three-dimensional design contains some such element (for example, a carving on the back of a chair or a floral relief design on silver flatware), copyright protection would extend only to that element, and would not cover the over-all configuration of the utilitarian article as such. ()

The emphasis is by me.--rtc 01:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

That refers to industrial design (I've added some more emphasis to your quote above). It's saying that you can't copyright the flip-phone because the flip is utilitarian. A logo is a graphical work (17 USC 102(a)(5)) and is copyrightable as such. You are right that the circle is not copyrightable, and any given color is not, but five circles of particular colors arranged just so are. I would also like to argue, in the alternative that even if the logo is not copyrighted the reproduction of the trademark must still be minimal to comply with nominative use. --Selket 01:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

A logo is industrial design. It is an utility article just as jewelry or paperweight. These are excluded from copyright because you can register them as design patents. The Flag of the Olympic Movement is not copyrighted. Rather, the International Olympic Committee has made it a requirement for host countries to pass laws specially for the restriction of this very symbol (however, it's rather trademark like). So it enjoys a completely unique status and you cannot make a conclusion from it to other logos. --rtc 01:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

You are right, the IOC logo was a bad example. My point was simply that while geometic shapes are not copyrightable, their assembly into a graphical design is. By analogy, the musical notes are not copyrightable, but their creative assembly to a piece of music is. Logos are not subject to protection under a design patent since they don't satisfy usefulness. I think there is some confusion in our past postings because I was talking about works protected under chapter 1 and you seem to be talking about works protected under chapter 13. At any rate the definition of "useful article" from your source is "an article having an intrinsic utilitarian function that is not merely to portray the appearance of the article or to convey information." (emphasis added) The usefulness of a logo is precisely it's ability "to convey information". Do you have any source suggesting that a logo is a utilitarian article under chapter 1 or 13 of title 17? Again, I would like to argue in the alternative, that even if the logo is not copyrighted the reproduction of the trademark must still be minimal under trademark law. --Selket 02:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that a logo has an intrinsic utilitarian function. It does not merely portray the appearance of the article (such as a statue or a painting) and it also doesn't merely convey information (such as a text, or a drawing). It is hard to tell you the utiltarian function because I do not know whether there's a word for it. Perhaps you can call it "signalling function". The appearance of a logo (aesthetic shapes) and the information it conveys (mostly only a company or product name) is really secondary compared to that function. I only have one German court case that deemed logos as utility articles (BVerfG, January, 26, 2005, Az. 1 BvR 1571/02, see also GRUR 2005, 410 – „Laufendes Auge“), but I think the argument applies vis a vis to US law. I did not find any US case about logos and copyright. Concerning "assembly into a graphical design", please note the last sentence of the quotation above, "The same is true of a simple combination of a few standard symbols such as a circle, a star, and a triangle, with minor linear or spatial variations". That already covers a very wide range of logos; most of the logos on which you reverted the SVG tag. --rtc 02:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

In the chapter Congress is talking about the shape of ship hulls and such. As for the combination of shapes argument, would you say that the works of Piet Mondrian? Do you not consider them copyrightable because they are just a few shapes and colors? Consider this one. You still haven't addressed my minimal use for nominal use argument under trade mark law. --Selket 06:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The works you cite have no intrinsic utilitarian function. Hence, they are not relevant to this discussion. They are fine art, and for fine art, even something like Image:Black square.jpg can enjoy a (weak) copyright. Nominal use makes restrictions concerning the context, frequency etc. of the use:

First, the product or service in question must be one not readily identifiable without use of the trademark; second, only so much of the mark or marks may be used as is reasonably necessary to identify the product or service; and third, the user must do nothing that would, in conjunction with the mark, suggest sponsorship or endorsement by the trademark holder. (New Kids, cited at )

"only so much" refers to quantity, not quality, of the trademark use. (It wouldn't make much sense, anyway, since trademark law talks about trademarks as such, not about its artistic design and technical realisation) --rtc 16:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I have been really enjoying this discussion, and I think we still disagree over the legal question, but I think the disagreement over the Misplaced Pages relevant questions can be resolved. See my most recent post at Template talk:ShouldBeSVG. Bassicaly, I said that if we can put logos in a seperate category, I won't remove the {{SVG}} tag. There is still a guideline against SVG logos so other people might try pick up where I left off. I do think this is an interesting debate -- and still think I'm right much like you, I'm sure still think you are. For example, what happens if Bank of America buys the copyright to a Picasso and uses that as it's logo? After giving you the last word here, I would be happy to continue the discussion with you should we run into each other on IRC or something. At this point it should probably be taken off-wiki. --Selket 15:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Du battant des lames au sommet des montagnes

On 22 April, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Du battant des lames au sommet des montagnes, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--howcheng {chat} 05:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

In the interest of full disclosure, I just nominated it. But it's cool nonetheless. --Selket 07:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Adminship?

I told you that I would keep an eye on you on your Editor Review, so I'm wondering if you would like to be an administrator. I will create the page if you approve of the idea. Thank you. bibliomaniac15 00:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I would be honored to accept your nomination. --Selket 15:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

You may answer the questions (or choose not to answer them) whenever you're ready. When you are ready, place it on WP:RFA. If you see something in the intro that you'd like to change, feel free to tell me and I'll change it. Good luck! bibliomaniac15 22:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks. --Selket 22:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I changed the gender of the pronouns. ;) --Selket 04:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry. Thanks for teaching me a lesson: "Wikipedians named after Egyptian goddesses are not necessarily female." bibliomaniac15 04:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I never meant to mislead anyone. I added a "how I came to use the name Selket" section to my user page. --Selket 04:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry, I should be more civil. I'm not frustrated with you specifically, I'm frustrated that I see this issue popping up every once in a while from a wide range of people, and it just seems so obvious to me that it's wrong but I don't know how to explain it. Thanks for your comments about the edit counter. --Interiot 14:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem, I have posted what I think is a resolution, at least in your disagreement with me over this, at Template talk:ShouldBeSVG --Selket 14:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Userpage typo

G'day Selket. I just thought you might want to know that there's a typo in "gramatical mistakes" on your userpage. I'd fix it myself, but didn't want the edit to be misconstrued. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Yikes, thanks. --Selket 21:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Image tags

While I was thumbing through your contributions for your RFA, I found Image:Flexor-carpi-radialis.png. {{PD-self}} only applies on material you have created yourself, not material you copied from PD sources. The Gray's Anatomy tag suffices. Please fix this and keep it in mind for the future. Side note: I've left you some extra questions on your RFA page. - Mgm| 12:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that everything except the purple area is PD due to copyright expiration. My additions to the derivative work are not. Whether the changes are sufficient to merit copyright protection on their own is doubtful, but in that case the self-created changes are public domain and, I believe, tagged correctly. If we had a tag for Uncopyrightable-self, I probably would have used that. In any case, since we are trying to create compilations of media that can be freely reused, and companies are (justifiably) even more copyright paranoid than editors on Misplaced Pages are, I thought it better to over-release the image than to under-release it. --Selket 14:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

ISO 639 redirects

very nice to have the redirects better placed in the category page. :-) Thank you. If possible it would be even better to have the sortkeys all lowercase. see Misplaced Pages:Bot_requests#ISO_639_redirects Tobias Conradi (Talk) 22:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

will you fix the error or not? Pls tell, if you can. If not I would file a seperate BOTREQ. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 02:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

School tags

Remember to "subst" school tags when posting them. Rklawton 21:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

No, there is a consensus against substing school tags. This enables us to change all school tags at once if we decide to update the format of the template. Please see the instructions at Template:SharedIP and Template:SharedIPEDU and the discussion here. Selket 22:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up! Rklawton 23:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Awesome pictures by the way. --Selket 23:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Bot

I just saw SelketBot in action... nice work on that.--Isotope23 15:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! ;) --Selket 15:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Me too! I left a comment on a IP address talk page, and the bot perked up and left info! Thanks!--Larrybob 23:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Pikachu

Hey, Selket, since you're pretty knowledgeable about images, can you take a look at the dispute being discussed in the talk page right now? They're having a debate on whether the PNG or SVG format should be used for the infobox image of Pikachu. bibliomaniac15 03:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, for the heads up. I'll take a look at it. --Selket 23:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Join our project

Thank you for the invitation. I'm not sure which of my recent contributions you were referring to, but to be honest, I had not heard of Mercosur until just now. I don't think I can make any special contribution to Mercosur articles. While I am grateful for your invitation, I must humbly decline. --Selket 23:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Clopidogrel

Hi Selket. I just noticed a glitch in your SVG of clopidogrel—please check CID 60606 from PubChem for the correct structure. Best (and good luck with your RfA), Fvasconcellos (t·c) 20:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

You are indeed right. I had a brain spasm of some kind when I saw the COOCH3 (methylate?) group. I'll upload a new one. --Selket 23:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Congrats on your RFA!

Congrats! Real96 07:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed congratulations, I've given you access to your new tools, so have fun using them to keep the project improving. Spend time on the administrator's reading list and be conservative with the tools, but at the same time, dig in and help clear out the backlogs as you get comfortable. Of course, don't hesitate to ask for help if you're unsure. Again, congrats - Taxman 12:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

May the Force be with you....Congrats on your RfA..--Cometstyles 12:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

And mine. Congratulations, Selket. Wield the mighty buttons with care... Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations! I'm sure you'll do a fantastic job :) All the best, – Riana_ऋ 18:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome! :) I was glad to support you. Acalamari 18:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I was happy to support you. You have my full confidence. Cheers (and congrats), Black Falcon 18:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations for becoming admin today, as Riana said above, I think you will do great jobs as being an admin. Daniel 5127 04:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Well done you. bibliomaniac15 22:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal

Still looking for an additional mediator on Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-02-10 Castelseprio? If so I will see if I can help... - HammerHeadHuman  00:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Take a look. My understanding is that one of the parties gave up but was never quite satisfied. --Selket 00:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

THOSE "09..." pages

... well done on the deletions! One point - don't forget to change the deletion rationale or else the codes will appear in the deletion logs!! Seeya :) - Alison ☺ 05:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

What codes? I thought they were just nonsense. Does this have something to do with the DVD-HD labeled users all over the place? --Selket 05:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

You're kidding, right?? :) LOL!!! Look at the last 500 deletes here and tell me what you see? Then read this and this. Crazy, hm? - Alison ☺ 06:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow, and just when I stopped reading slashdot because I thought it was getting boring. Do they really think they can erase a number from the universe? Not that I want Wikimedia to be exposed to any liability unecesarrily. --Selket 06:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

It's going to get through in the end. Nothing we can do only make best effort. Re. slashdot - yeah, I haven't posted in two years now :) - Alison ☺ 07:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that, and I was like WTF? (sorry for butting in...see my talk page). Real96 07:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Heh - yeah. It's all-out war :) I had to fully-prot Lenin!! - Alison ☺ 07:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

How to determine if an IP address is shared and by whom

see Wikipedia_talk:Blocking_IP_addresses#How_to_determine_if_an_IP_address_is_shared_and_by_whom:

I would like to link a good description of How to determine if an IP address is shared and by whom from Template_talk:SharedIP#See_also. I feel such a section would do well in this article. I have used network-tools.com for trace and whois, but often end up with unclear results, ( 63.3.11.2 = uu.net = verizon ; but what to put with {{SharedIP}} ) Comments?

I'd love it if a similar description was at least linked from User:SelketBot, as that was one of the first places I looked for an answer. Thanks for your excellent bot! ∴ here…♠ 21:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not sure I understand your request. Can you formulate a set of instructions like what you want added to SelketBot's page? --Selket 14:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure about how to determine if an IP address is shared... and by whom, and can't find it in the wikipedia documentation for {{SharedIP}} or related subjects. I'm was hoping to find some tricks and techniques to determine who owns IP addresses, and if they are shared. You seemed like a good individual to ask. When I was initially trying to figure this out, I looked at the bot page hoping to find some instructions on how it figures out who owns the IP addresses. I've amended my request at Wikipedia_talk:Blocking_IP_addresses#How_to_determine_if_an_IP_address_is_shared_and_by_whom for clarity. Thanks for any tips, info, or pointers to existing instructions. I know how to use a traceroute, but not what to do with the resolved computer name. ∴ here…♠ 19:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Map_of_Logan_County_townships.PNG

Thanks for listing this in IfD. I'd thought this was listed two months ago, but for some reason the person who told me it was obsolete didn't list it as I thought (s)he would. So it has rested since then, forgotten even by its uploader and orphaned, as you've noted. Thanks for giving the image a proper burial. ;-) -- SwissCelt 01:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

No problem. --Selket 14:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Dmcdevit#Selket_is_Selket

Wrong talk page maybe? ;) -- lucasbfr 12:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Nope that was correct. I was speaking to Dmcdevit on IRC and was asked to demonstrate that Selket on IRC was the same as Selket on wikipedia. So I left a note to that effect on Dmcdevit's talk page. --Selket 14:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, it looked a lot like the IRC cloak message, my bad ;) -- lucasbfr 14:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Corcoran

I tried to resolve the matter by keeping his claim and mine but the other guy keeps deleting it even though he was wrong.Also he blanked the talk page and I had to revert it!And he will not answer my emails.He refuses to listen . And there are other users that agree with me about Corcoran.Odran Corcoran 20:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

63.3.20.2 has now been blocked for 24 hours. When that user come back, I suggest that the two of you try to resolve your differences amicably. That user deleting your edits is not a justification for actions like this. The 3RR rule applies even if you don't like the other person's version. You dodged a bullet I think because 63.3.20.2 was more badly behaved than you and got blocked first. --Selket 20:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

While 63.3.20.2 is gone, why don't you work on improving the article so that represents all points of view, satisfies WP:NPOV, and has references to reliable sources? --Selket 20:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Blanked the talk page

I f you look at the talk page for Corcoran you will see he blanked the page.In all fairness you cannot compare me to that,that was vandalism.I have never blanked a discussion page.Odran Corcoran 20:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

No doubt he/she was more badly behaved than you. But you still violated WP:3RR and WP:NPA. "The other editor started it" is not a justification for either. --Selket 20:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Selket : )

Its nice to know that there are good admins who listen.You have my respect.And don't worry I'll keep everything relating to the article until it has been verified which claim is correct.Odran Corcoran 20:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

User Talk

It was an accident, I was trying to cite the source but had trouble finding sources. Let it be known that I had no idea about the facebook policy and it won't happen again. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 165.134.168.151 (talk) 00:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

Ah, wrong bot. SelketBot tagged your user talk page as being associated with an IP from an educational institution. It was ShadowBot that reverted your facebook link. --Selket 00:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:AIV

Sorry about incorrectly reporting an IP. Thought I was following proper protocol. Thanks for the correction. Pnkrockr 03:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Corcoran

I'm sorry to bother you again but a user has vandalised the article Corcoran AGAIN.My guess is that thus guy is a sock puppet of the guy that got blocked yesterday.He removed my Claims and references etc.And kept the other claim.I have not touched the article so you can take a look at it.Odran Corcoran 16:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Might I suggest trying to expand the article by combining the two "claims" into a coherent discussion on the controversial nature of the history of the surname. I'm thinking something like "There is disagreement among scholars about where the name originates. Some sources say England while others say Ireland." It might also be useful to split the page off to something like Corcoran (surname) and leave Corcoran as a true disambiguation page. Right now it is half way in between. --Selket 18:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Undeletion request

Hello, I noticed that an article that I'd created quite some time ago, Raleigh Muns, was recently speedied. To my knowledge, the subject clearly passes WP:BIO, and the article was well-referenced and stable. Was it perhaps the victim of some type of vandalism? In any case, I would appreciate if you could please undelete it, thanks. Elonka 07:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. I don't think it would pass an AfD, but I'm going to err on the side of not speedying. --Selket 07:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.  :) --Elonka 07:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Logan High

In the Logan High School (Utah) issue you saw on my talk page, I'm not sure what else to do. I don't see the anonymous user agreeing with me, nor taking the roster off of the page. I'm not sure where to turn, or if to just "leave it alone" and stop. I'm not reverting the article again due to WP:3RR, but I am at a loss. Jmlk17 23:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I've got to catch a flight so I can't mediate right now. Post the issue along with this diff to AN/I. --Selket 00:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)