User talk:Heartsees2
|
Autobiography
[edit]
You should wait for others to write an article about subjects in which you are personally involved, as you did at Cheryl Lindsey Seelhoff. This applies to articles about you, your achievements, your band, your business, your publications, your website, your relatives, and any other possible conflict of interest.
Creating an article about yourself is strongly discouraged. If you create such an article, it might be listed on articles for deletion. Deletion is not certain, but many feel strongly that you should not start articles about yourself. This is because independent creation encourages independent validation of both significance and verifiability. All edits to articles must conform to Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and Wikipedia:Verifiability.
If you are not "notable" under Wikipedia guidelines, creating an article about yourself may violate the policy that Wikipedia is not a personal webspace provider and would thus qualify for speedy deletion. If your achievements, etc., are verifiable and genuinely notable, and thus suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, someone else will probably create an article about you sooner or later. (See Wikipedia:Wikipedians with articles.) Thank you. Iamcuriousblue 00:26, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
AfD Nomination: Cheryl Lindsey Seelhoff
[edit]Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, but all Wikipedia articles must meet our criteria for inclusion (see What Wikipedia is not and Deletion policy). Since it does not seem that Cheryl Lindsey Seelhoff meets these criteria, an editor has started a discussion about whether this article should be kept or deleted.
Your opinion on whether this article meets the inclusion criteria is welcome. Please contribute to the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cheryl Lindsey Seelhoff. Don't forget to add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of each of your comments to sign them.
Discussions such as these usually last five days. In the meantime, you are free to edit the content of the article. Please do not remove the "articles for deletion" template (the box at the top). When the discussion has concluded, a neutral third party will consider all comments and decide whether or not to delete the article. Iamcuriousblue 00:58, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Your comments
[edit]I have responded to your comments on Talk:Cheryl Lindsey Seelhoff. Iamcuriousblue 02:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Yer User Page
[edit]You blanked your userpage. Do you want it deleted? the_undertow talk 04:33, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
You do realize, don't you, that the AfD for this article is leaning toward a very strong consensus for deletion. Not to mention, pretty much anything you contribute is considered in violation of WP:Autobiography anyway, and subject to deletion even if the article itself were kept. You might keep that in mind before you go putting too much effort into building the article. My own advice would be to focus your efforts on writing a biography on your own website, where such content is more appropriate. (I realize that's more than a little difficult at the moment.) Iamcuriousblue 22:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and on a side note, you probably will be interested in this link pretty much telling the story of who went after your site. Only fair that you see it. Iamcuriousblue 00:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Also on the subject, can you use the preview button when you make edits? It's not major but it's something you might want to consider in the future.Ninja337 17:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- yes yes shameless self-promotion will get you nowhere on wikipedia. unless, of course, you want to be an admin. 75.72.23.141 20:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
_________________
Policy
[edit]Wikipedia is not an advertising service. Promotional articles about yourself, your friends, your company or products, or articles created as part of a marketing or promotional campaign, will be deleted in accordance with our deletion policies. For more information, see Wikipedia:Spam. 216.80.14.59 18:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
AFD - show or blank
[edit]Well, the AFD has ended. Please let me, or any other administrator know if you would like the AFD courtesy blanked. I'll probably do so next week unless you request otherwise in fact, that was far too toxic to keep visible. GRBerry 16:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- I've courtesy blanked it. If, for some reason, you actually wish to see the content, you can go to the AFD and use the history tab at the top of the page to view older versions. GRBerry 12:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh this is getting ridiculous. Who does this woman think she is? It's completely obvious that the article would have been deleted anyway, there was only one, maybe two editors who wanted to keep it. This looks like a petty attempt at revenge, because her little attempt at self promotion didn't work. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.104.139.249 (talk) 23:06:33, August 19, 2007 (UTC)
Deletion of Article Cheryl Lindsey Seelhoff
[edit]I have sent the following to Admins D. Fuchs, GR Berry and am cc'ing imcuriousblue as a courtesy. I am providing this according to Wikipedia's request that we attempt to resolve things individually first, before taking any other action, in the event of disputes.
I recently created a Wikipedia page for myself, Cheryl Lindsey Seelhoff. I knew Wikipedia opposes autobiographical pages, and I thought about asking others to submit a page for me in their own names, knowing they would gladly have done so, but that seemed not quite honest to me, so I submitted my own page in my own name. I was new to Wikipedia, learning everything from scratch, I made mistakes, but they were honest mistakes, and I ultimately included substantial citations to credible outside references which supported what was included in my article. In response to the concerns about the article being autobiographical, I offered to ask others to rewrite the article and add to it, a compromise several editors seemed to view as satisfactory.
Shortly after submitting my article, my websites, boards, and blog were targeted for attacks by "not420/chan", "Anon," "Legion", the "Internet Hate Machine," aggressive internet hackers, in other words. My boards were hacked and spammed with racist, misogynist rhetoric and pornography, e-mail accounts of board members were hacked and violated, and my sites were subjected to "gigaloader" attacks over many days which ultimately forced them off the internet. My life has now been threatened many times in e-mails and via comments to my blog, and I have also received many rape threats, as have my commenters, colleagues and supporters. I am still receiving murder and rape threats.
My personal information, address, telephone number, and other information was published on "Encyclopedia Dramatica" alongside ongoing strategizing as to how to destroy my websites and web presence, harrass me and my family in an ongoing way, and cause me real life harm. The reason for this targeting and harrassment is that I am an outspoken radical feminist.
As part of these attacks, persons were urged to come to Wikipedia and to vote that my Wikipedia article be deleted. Iamcuriousblue, who has evidently written for Wikipedia at some point, was the first and primary advocate for deletion and continued to press for deletion for days and probably weeks. During the discussion of deletion, my article was repeatedly being vandalized, filled with links to racist, misogynist pornograpy, my interracial children were called "mud children," and the most vile speech imaginable was included as "edits", in part by those sent to vandalize the site by Encyclopedia Dramatica.
Iamcuriousblue, who again spearheaded the drive to delete my article, has a long history of attacking my writings and political activism on the internet because he is opposed to radical feminism and is a pro-pornography activist.
I followed some of the discussion of deletion and noted that fair-minded, intelligent, credible and, most importantly, objective, Wikipedia editors voted not to delete. One editor noted that among certain populations, my name is a household world. He's right, it is. I am cited as a credible outside reference in at least one Wikipedia article. The discussion, however, continued to be spammed with anonymous deletion votes which in fact were part of the internet attacks against me. My sense is that the vote to delete may have resulted more from a desire to end the ongoiing, very toxic and hateful vandalism of my page and ongoing flaming and conflicts than because any sort of consensus had been reached that my article should be deleted on its merits. I ultimately cited to many independent, outside references which are, in fact, thoroughly credible.
I do not see how what happened to me here can be consistent with the community ethos or values of Wikipedia. I think what happened to me here was wrong. The deletion of the article is now being touted as a "victory" by internet thugs at Encyclopedia Dramatica and elsewhere, as well as by those who oppose my long history of anti-pornography, radical feminist politics. And it is a victory for them, but I think it compromises the credibility of Wikipedia's editorial policies and processes.
I would ask that you give what I have written here your serious consideration. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Cheryl Lindsey Seelhoff
"Heart", "Heartsees2"
Heartsees2 08:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
--- Note, I have deleted references to going to authorities, having read the Wikipedia legal issues guidelines, which make sense to me. Heartsees2 18:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- This response is so completely unbelievable, I don't know where to begin. First, here is the AfD page (pre-courtesy blanking). The article (about the above individual and initially authored by her) in question was found by an overwhelming majority of users (even when disregarding SPAs) to be about a non-notable subject and was deleted following normal Wikipedia procedures. This user is now treating this as a personal attack, and not only that, is now using this as a pretext to threaten me with legal action. I'll note that I have absolutely nothing to do with the attacks on this individual by 4chan, "Anonymous", Encyclopedia Dramatica, etc. This user is basically taking offense at my starting the AfD, and on comments I've made about her (non-threatening and having nothing to do with the AfD) on various blogs where her politics and actions were being discussed. I'll note that the threat of legal action on this forum is in direct violation of Wikipedia:No legal threats, an action that can result in a block of one's Wikipedia account. I am hereby asking User:Heartsees2 to withdraw this ludicrous threat immediately, or barring that, asking any Wikipedia admins who may be following this to block this user's account. Iamcuriousblue 17:57, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
I removed the reference to iamcuriousblue from my sentence about the legal remedies I'm pursuing, since iamcuriousblue read this as a threat to sue him, which was not my intent. Remember, I have received murder and rape threats and my personal information -- address, phone number, etc. -- has been publicly posted to the internet. Of course I have to go to authorities and lawyers-- anybody would.
iamcuriousblue, you have made it your business to post all over the internet, during the time I and my family have been under attack, and in your posts you have made references to the ED site which displays my and other women's personal information. You have a long history of vocal opposition to my politics. In the discussion of deletion, you repeatedly made erroneous and misleading statements about me, about the article, about many things, and you did not correct those statements when it became evident they were untrue. While I am completely willing to accept the decision of the editors, I still think what happened here was wrong and harmful. In good faith I wrote an article that was contra to Wiki's rules. Someone who has long opposed my politics, and me, personally, who happens to be an editor -- you, iamcuriousblue -- immediately moved that the article be deleted, ignoring any and all efforts I made, and I did make these efforts, to address the problems with the article and the way it was contra to Wiki's policies, and refusing to acknowledge when your own statements were incorrect (which they often were.) Meanwhile, my article is being deluged with pornographic, misogynist, and racist links and rhetoric and votes for deletion which, even if they were acknowledged as part of the attacks, would still likely sway editors. I know that several Wiki editors familiar with me and the subject did disagree with the decision to delete. Where there is disagreement, there is not consensus.
I am not really pushing for my article to be reinstated at this point. I am saying that what happened here, to me, was wrong. I think it was also wrong for you, iamcuriousblue to make reference to the Wiki procedure in blogs and venues where you were participating in attacks on me or on my politics. Heartsees2 18:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
iamcuriousblue, you say in your response:
I'll note that I have absolutely nothing to do with the attacks on this individual by 4chan, "Anonymous", Encyclopedia Dramatica, etc. This user is basically taking offense at my starting the AfD, and on comments I've made about her (non-threatening and having nothing to do with the AfD) on various blogs where her politics and actions were being discussed.
In fact, you posted as follows on August 7, (link removed to comply with Wiki policies re external linking):
Iamcuriousblue said...
Here's a link to the Encyclopedia Dramatica Cheryl Lindsey Seelhoff entry.
And, yeah, I agree the DoS attacks, publication of peoples emails and personal info, all that's going way too far.
A vicious parody of Heart's self-aggrandizing Wikipedia article (soon-to-be former Wikipedia article, I should say), I'd be all for, but generally the humor on ED doesn't rise to the level of parody.
7:01 PM August 7
In other words, as apparently an editor at Wiki, you referred readers reading your comment to the ED article, providing a link, and you made reference to my "soon-to-be former Wikipedia article", so in fact, your comments to the internet *did* make reference to the AFD which you instigated, and, if they were not directly threatening, did send people reading to a link which was, in fact, directly threatening.
Heartsees2 18:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
This would appear to be in violation of Wiki's No Personal Attacks policy:
Off-wiki personal attacks Wikipedia cannot regulate behavior in media not under the control of the Wikimedia Foundation, but personal attacks made elsewhere create doubt as to whether an editor's on-wiki actions are conducted in good faith. Posting personal attacks or defamation off-Wikipedia is harmful to the community and to an editor's relationship with it, especially when such attacks take the form of violating an editor's privacy. Such attacks can be regarded as aggravating factors by administrators and are admissible evidence in the dispute-resolution process, including Arbitration cases.
- I don't think you're saying anything about me that really dignifies a response. Wikipedia procedure was followed in the AfD of your article. Your idea that if a small minority opposes deletion (particularly, a small minority with very weak arguments), the article should be kept is fundamentally ignorant of the way Wikipedia AfDs operate. If you have a problem with the way the AfD was conducted, your next step should be to take it to Deletion review. If you have a problem with me personally, there is a Dispute resolution procedure. As I've said, there are rules and procedures to Wikipedia, and if you are at all serious about editing here and being part of the Wikipedia community, then I suggest you actually take the time to learn them. It strikes me, however, that you have no interest at all in doing so, and that your only interest is in getting an article posted here that's all about you, preferably with as laudatory of a slant as possible. Well, sorry, that's not what Wikipedia is for. Iamcuriousblue 19:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, and I have no idea where you get the idea that there's a prohibition on external links, especially to those that are relevant to a dispute in question. Anyway, here's the link in question: [1] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Iamcuriousblue (talk • contribs) 21:06:37, August 19, 2007 (UTC).
I think what you've done violates Wikipedia's policies, as I've demonstrated (and in other ways as well), iamcuriousblue. I also have already stated that at this point, I am not asking that the article be posted. As with your earlier arguments for deletion, you consistently fail to read what I write, or respond to issues and claims I have not once raised or made. I am saying that what happened to me here is wrong.
In fact, my comments to you and to others *are* the first step of Wiki's prescribed Dispute Resolution process, which asks that editors go directly to the person with whom they have the dispute first. Only when this is not productive -- as it doesn't seem to be, which is unfortunate -- are we to take the next steps, which I plan to do. I'm surprised that this is something I would need to say to you, given your dedication and commitment to the rules and procedures of Wikipedia Heartsees2 19:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- And so far you've stated absolutely nothing that is an actual issue that can be resolved through dispute resolution. You have a problem with the AfD, like I was solely responsible for that. Over 80 editors (and I'm leaving out the possible SPAs) voted to delete! You have a problem with that, go to deletion review. Is there any other article that's in dispute between us? Whatever – try taking this non-issue through arbitration – I welcome it! Iamcuriousblue 19:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
The dispute here is a user conduct dispute involving what I believe to be your violations of Wikipedia's user conduct policies and guidelines. I've already referred you to portions of these guidelines. As to the "80 editors" who voted to delete, there is a context and there are circumstances to consider there, as I've already described. There were also a number of courageous souls who voted against deletion. I don't think there was consensus here.
You seem to think the only possible disputes which are eligible for dispute resolution are over articles. Not so. It's your conduct here that is at issue for me. I've come to you directly. If you've got nothing more to say, I'll take the next step. But I think you might want to check out Wiki's user conduct guidelines because you don't seem to be very familiar with them. Heartsees2 20:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
_______
- As I said, bring it on. There's much that can be called into question about your conduct as well, starting with your posting an autobiography in direct disregard to Wikipedia guidelines. I think much of your conduct toward me amounts to a personal attack, and some of your statements about me (eg, insinuating that I was somehow behind attacks on you and your family) are outright libelous. (That's not a threat of legal action on my part, just a statement of fact.) You don't have a leg to stand on. My guess is that a Wikipedia mediation case base on this will go absolutely nowhere, but you can give it a try. Iamcuriousblue 20:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Autobiographies, as I think you know, given your expertise as to Wiki rules, are "strongly discouraged," not prohibited.
As to these insinuations about your part in the attacks on me, did you or did you not post the link to the Encylopedia Dramatica article about me, which provided those targeting me with my personal information, all over the internet? No question, you did. I've pasted some of the evidence right here. I've got the links, the screen shots, it's all saved off, along with your long history of attacks on me because I oppose pornography. If someone sends people to an ED link which provides the personal information of someone whose life is being repeatedly threatened, and something happens to that person, does the referrer bear responsibility for that? I think so. And that's just what you've been doing.Heartsees2
- Get over yourself, Ms. Seelhoff. Iamcuriousblue 21:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
And I think that violates the rules of civility and good faith dealings, Mr. Werner.
Here's a refresher course of excerpts from Wiki's conduct guidelines which you might find helpful:
Off-wiki personal attacks
Wikipedia cannot regulate behavior in media not under the control of the Wikimedia Foundation, but personal attacks made elsewhere create doubt as to whether an editor's on-wiki actions are conducted in good faith. Posting personal attacks or defamation off-Wikipedia is harmful to the community and to an editor's relationship with it, especially when such attacks take the form of violating an editor's privacy. Such attacks can be regarded as aggravating factors by administrators and are admissible evidence in the dispute-resolution process, including Arbitration cases.
External links
Links or references to off-site harassment, attacks, or privacy violations against Wikipedians are not permitted, and should be removed. Such removals are not subject to the three-revert rule. Attacking, harassing, or violating the privacy of any Wikipedian through the posting of external links is not permitted, and those who do so deliberately or repeatedly may be blocked.[2][3] As with personal attacks, extreme cases of harassment by way of external links can be grounds for banning.
Bolds mine. I think you should remove that link, because it is to a thread which attacks, harasses and violates my privacy (by directing persons to Encyclopedia Dramatica, which you, personally, did). This might be grounds for banning. Heartsees2 21:28, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Further, as you well know, not only have I not at any time attacked you off-Wiki (or on-Wiki), I've never interacted with you anywhere until you spearheaded the campaign to delete my article. On the other hand, you have devoted substantial amounts of time and energy over the past months to attacking me all over the internet.
I've observed, having poked around a bit, that you have engaged in similar editorial conduct with respect to radical feminists whose Wiki biographies were being negotiated. From my perspective, you do not deal with anti-pornography feminists in good faith or in any way consistent with Wikipedia guidelines and policies. Perhaps it's only porn stars whose articles and biographies you believe ought to be featured in Wikipedia. Heartsees2 21:36, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- Listen Seelhoff, I'm not going to lie and say I am not an /i/nsurgent from the infamous internet hate machine, but I'm also a Wikipedian, and I can't say I condone how you are acting. There is no honour in trolling iamcuriousblue to try to evoke a negative response from him while acting without any good faith at all, and then trashing Anonymous for trolling you. Your article was deleted for good reasons by an overwhelming majority of users, it's not the end of the world. You don't need a Wikipedia article to be considered successful in life, it's not even that cool. Try waiting another few decades until after you are dead, and then your notability can be accurately estimated. Trust me, I'm not saying this to be mean, but there is a pattern in important people being old/dead.Ninja337 03:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Dear Heartsees2, I am utterly shocked and disheartened at your situation. But I must say this in a short and sweet fashion. This hacking is a result of people who obviously disagree with your views and political stance, and therefore believe hacking and "gigaraping" your site is the only effective option. And so, I am afraid there is nothing relative in your notice to my powers. I am unfortunately unable to attend to your needs and I am sorry for that. I believe I commented on your AFD and chose to delete your article, and from what I can remember it did seem a little autobiograhpical and was missing vital sources etc. The only option I can suggest would be to notify admin on WP:ANI & WP:AIV. And this is the problem, I am faced with. Although I am thoroughly engaged in your situation, my hands are tied as I, unlike administators, have any effect on vandals and other rogue editors, e.g blocking and banning them. I hope you'll be able to understand my feelings and appreciate my little help. Regards, Onnaghar tl | co 16:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Onnaghar, for the links, much appreciated. I will follow up. Heartsees2 16:54, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Pointing people in the direction of a huge drama isn't exactly "harassing," unless you're seriously trying to say that this editor had a part in the attacks himself. The editor is strongly denying any such participation. That's a nasty allegation. Do you have any proof, or are you just angry because your article got deleted and this person doesn't like you, and you don't know where else to hit out at? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.104.139.249 (talk) 23:11:09, August 19, 2007 (UTC) NOTE: This user has contributed exclusively to this discussion. Onnaghar tl | co 11:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, that sums up the situation exactly. I pointed out in a blog discussion that the attacks by "Anonymous" on Seelhoff were being co-ordinated from ED and pointed out the page – this was well after the attack had started. Big deal. I pointed the same thing out here on Wikipedia in the AfD discussion for her article. And how this now makes me guilty of perpetrating the attack is beyond me, but apparently Seelhoff/User:Heartsees2 is trying to milk it for as much mileage as she can add to this personal vendetta against me. Iamcuriousblue 23:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- I don't understand. Heartsees2 wants the editor to not mention her anywhere in public ever again? How exactly are the editors of Wikipedia supposed to reinforce that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.104.139.249 (talk • contribs) 23:27, 19 August 2007
Here's the concrete matter and the "real point of dispute that needs resolution". Stop harrassing me, another editor, here on Wikipedia, or anywhere off Wikipedia. Stop linking and directing people, here or off Wikipedia, to my personal information posted by the thugs at Encyclopedia Dramatica,particularly in this current context of threats of rape and threats against my life, by persons who have my personal information. Stop distorting and mischaracterizing what I've written and done here or anywhere. If you can't do that, then do not mention me at all, anywhere. I have never once had any interest in talking to you or engaging you or reading you or knowing you, ever, and I still don't. You forced this by your conduct here on Wikipedia. You, on the other hand, have chosen, for months, to attack me, here and elsewhere despite my singular lack of interest in ever having anything to do with you. You know this is true and have admitted it. I am telling you to stop. That will bring this "point of dispute" to resolution.Heartsees2 22:49, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- I've never "harassed" you, so there's no harassment to "stop". Just because I've done things here on Wikipedia you don't happen to like does not constitute harassment. Just because I started an AfD on your pet article doesn't constitute harassment. And what I've said about you off-Wikipedia is an exercise in my free speech, and is not harassment. On Wikipedia, I will continue to edit according to my best interpretation of WP:NPOV and other Wikipedia guidelines and continue to challenge people who I see violating that, whether they call themselves "radical feminists" or otherwise. Off Wikipedia, I will continue to exercise my right of free speech in any open forum that I participate in. And I will not let the likes of you silence me.
- You don't like that? You don't consider that adequate resolution? That's tough, lady.
- Bring on your worst, on Wikipedia, the blogosphere, or in real life. You don't have a leg to stand on and you know it. Iamcuriousblue 23:36, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Who are you, 71.104.139.249? Are you an editor here at Wiki? What is your name? Giving you the benefit of the doubt, I have already pasted one instance of imcuriousblue's participation, a blog comment in which he provided readers with a link to the page the thugs at Encyclopedia Dramatica created for me, and talked about the article deletion he was spearheading here off Wiki. His comment is up there a ways, I'm not going to repost it, it's easily found. Wiki does, in fact, say, that pointing people in the direction of a "large drama," where the "drama" includes attacks on editors, by way of posting external links, is prohibited and is cause for banning. Wiki also says that if an editor engages in certain kinds of attacks off-Wiki, it impairs his credibility as a Wiki editor.
I don't really care what imcuriousblue does, if you want to know the truth. Whatever blows his skirt up. If he wants to exhaust himself writing about me all over the internet, okay, whatever. But if he is going to dedicate himself to ongoing attacks on me all over the internet, he ought to expect that I (and others) will view his critiques of my articles here, or his demands for deletion, with a fair amount of skepticism. He also might consider that his credibility as an editor so far as my (and other radical feminists he's attacked here, a couple of them) articles might be eroded substantially. I also ask that he kindly refrain from attempting to comment to my blog, his latest harrassment.
Having said all of that, I will not be responding further to anonymous commentary here. If you are a Wiki editor and can help, I am very interested. If you're just a friend of imcuriuosblue, then no. I could call in all sorts of friends, too, and this would quickly become a melee. I am not interested in that. I have been interested in directly calling imcuriousblue to account for his conduct as a first step in a Dispute Resolution process in the hopes of achieving early resolution, and in saying that what happened to me here was wrong. It looks like this first step has not been productive, so I will take the next step. In the meantime, I won't be engaging anonymous commenters here. That's not what my talk page is for. Heartsees2 23:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC)