User talk:It's-is-not-a-genitive/Archive 1

Czech breakdown

"I totally agree with the old Spanish saying that to speak another language is to have another soul."

i thought this was a czech proverb? the mural at my language class building says that, and then -czech proverb.

Hello, Lockeownzj00: it may be a Czech proverb, but I read it in a book of Spanish poems some time back. I guess that both languages have the proverb; although I naturally cannot point out which one was said first.

Update: this phrase was apparently first made famous by Charlemagne.

its/it's

The simple rule I use for determining whether its/it's should be used is: use "it's" only if the sentence would make sense if "it is" were substituted .
For example:
It's cloudy outside. "It is cloudy outside" makes sense, so "it's" is correct.
The dog wagged its tail. "The dog wagged it is tail" is grammatically incorrect, and does not make sense, so "its" should be used.

I generally have an aversion to contractions anyway, as section 5.4 of the Wikipedia:Manual of Style says, "In general, formal writing is preferred. Therefore, avoid excessive use of contractions — such as don't, can't, won't, would've, they'd, and so on — unless they occur in a quotation." I therefore usually expand contractions when I find them. Also, there is an interesting essay on user:Ground Zero's userpage about the lack of commas in wikipedia. Graham 14:03, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I guess my ears were burning. I hope that you do not mind me intruding here, but I have been thinking for a while that Wikipedia should have a grammar discussion board where points of grammar could be discussed, and questions posted. I had a dispute with another editor recently who insisted on using the phrase "was a former" when referring to something that no longer exists. I resorted to posting a question on the Wikipedia:Reference desk, and obtained some reasonable replies. That board, however, is far too general. What I have in mind is something that could be included in Wikipedia:Ask a question. Would you be interested in assisting me in lobbying for this, setting it up, and monitoring it? Do you know of any other editors who might be interested in participating? It could be called "Wikipeida:Grammar desk", and have a FAQ page for points like its/it's and which/that. Regards, Ground Zero 17:51, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(crossposted to user talk:Ground Zero

wikipedia:WikiProject Grammar was designed for that purpose, but appears to have sadly gone unused. (That brings up another question: where should the adjective have gone in the previous sentence?) Anyway, I think it would be good to revive that project, and maybe set up a wikipedia:English style FAQ, where we highlight the most frequent spelling and grammar problems on wikipedia pages, and talk about why they are incorrect. For example, the commas, its/it's and which/that, and common spelling mistakes like noticable/noticeable and inital/initial (I've spent the last few days fixing those!) Graham 01:56, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was the split infinitive that made the sentence sound wrong to me. My formal education on grammar was limited, as has been the case for most Australians, (and probably the english-speaking world as a whole), these days. I was self-taught about grammar with the aid of what was basically a talking grammar guide, which talked about the ways in which parts of speech are used and sentence structure. I generally find grammatical mistakes by intuition. Anyway, here is a humourous page on how *not* to speak english properly: [1]. Regards, Graham 11:26, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

IINAG, I have taken the liberty of posting your comments on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Grammar desk, where I have begun a discussion on have a grammar page. I think we should discuss this in a broader forum, rather than just between the three of us. Regards, Ground Zero 15:44, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Genitive pronouns with apostrophes

When it is a genitive pronoun, there is Never an 's. There is no 's on my or your or theirs; why should there be one with its?

Careful there. The possessive forms of indefinite pronouns end in 's (such as one's, someone's, everybody's, and so forth). —Bkell 21:03, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, Bkell; I should make clear that my statement does not include indefinite pronouns. (It once did, though, with the use of the Germanic genitive, mans, being used in the place of 'one's,' 'someone's' and the like up until the 15th century.

Grammar desk

There hasn't be a groundswell of support, but then there hasn't really been any opposition, either. And no-one has told me that I can't do it. I plan to go ahead next week and start the page. Here's what I will do:

Create "Wikipedia/Grammar desk" with an introduction explaining the purpose of the page, similar to those on Wikipedia:Help desk and Wikipedia:Reference desk.
Post my "was a former" question to get the ball rolling.
Create links to the page from Wikipedia:Ask a question, Wikipedia:Manual of style, and anywhere else that seems logical.
Create "Wikipedia:Grammar desk/FAQs" that would start with my explanation of that/which and, with your permission, your explanation of its/it's.

Would you be willing to help me run it by helping to answer the questions? Do you have any suggestions?

I don't think there will be a lot of problems with UK spelling and grammar -- there are a lot of UK editors. Sometime I'll explain Canadian spelling, which is a hybrid of UK and US spelling that gives us phrases like "labour organization" and "tire centre", which would not be spelled that way in either the UK or the US. Cheers, Ground Zero 20:21, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Language desk is now open. I hope that you will help monitor it and answer questions. I have incorporated your comments about it's/its and Graham's on the FAQ page. See you there. Ground Zero 22:00, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! I've updated the link given by Ground Zero to the new location of the page. Enjoy! --HappyCamper 14:00, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Happy Camper! Thank you for updating the link; do you know why its location was moved? IINAG 14:02, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops! Sorry for the extremely belated response - it was moved because I felt it would be better to put all the related "reference desk" pages together. Take a look at WP:RD when you get a chance! --HappyCamper 01:01, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your user name

Welcome to Wikipedia. Love your user name! :) Zoe 23:30, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, Zoe! I really appreciate your welcome :D. My name was one of those things that I regretted a few minutes having made it. I am always terrible with names, but I am glad that you like it! IINAG 23:35, 24th August 2005 (UTC)

Classy name...OH WHEN WILL PEOPLE LEARN ABOUT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN IT'S AND ITS???? *sobs* Greatgavini 19:04, 8th November 2005 (UTC)

Its [sic] the best user name I've seen since Can't sleep, clown will eat me :-) chocolateboy 01:21, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I Don't Recall You Ever Getting Anyone 2.1 Million Dollars*

How can you say that this person doesn't mean anything? "Ye who is without sin may cast the first stone!" Larry H. Parker is a living legend! He fights for the rights of the innocent! Perhaps you do not like him because you yourself have been the perpitraitor of such malicious acts in which you may have got away scot-free had it not been for a crusader for the people such as Larry H. Parker! Do you have a law firm? Have you ever made a commercial? Have you ever fought for victim's rights? I don't think so! Look within yourself before you denegrate such a noble individual. --Parker for President 01:50, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

_{*over the course of a life time}

I am rarely this breviloquent, as anyone who has read my rambling stylings can tell to you, but: hahahahaha *laughs at sock puppet*. Fine, no, I do not like laughter without justification, so here goes a hopefully coherent discussion of why you are talking enough poppycock to drive the entirety of Belgium to shout at you.

Amazing as it may be, yes, I have recorded many commercials, for many different reasons. You do not see me wanting an encyclopædic entry just yet. I will wait for that until I do something notable, like getting my book published by Faber, or my music becoming non-obscure. Let us go through the advertisements that I have done. First of all, when I was younger, some offbeat friends and I started transmitting our own radio from a basement in Moseley, Birmingham. It was surprisingly well-received for amateur radio; possibly because of the awareness that our advertisements generated. Secondly, the people of my college elected me as Leading Counsel; it was a two-horse race between me and some random jock. I made advertisements about my plans post-election, but in the end, it was pointless anyhow, since only those as nerdish as I bothered to vote.

Then, thirdly, I went onto university. (I am British; over here, college is where one goes between the age of 16-18, and university thereafter.) I immediately got a job as a film critic, and also worked on building the radio station, so that it transmitted all year around, rather than just for two months per year. That was good fun, and, yep, yet again, I had to make plenty of advertisements. And, recently, I started acting with and supporting a theatre group over in Stratford-upon-Avon. Due to my experience in marketing, I do commercials for them also. So, yes, I have done a few commercials over my brief existence. So have another billion people or so. It does not make any of us notable, unless we were attached to some huge widely-known campaign. Even then, it would be the company who started the campaign about whom one would write, not the people who wrote the commercials. The Pepsi Generation crap is well-known, but I don't see much floated around about the individuals who thought it up.

Yes, of course, I murdered seven chickens away from their short lives. Now, I am on the run, spending eight hours a day on Wikipedia to try to help me forget this transgression. 'Is that a dagger that I see before me?!!!?!?' On a serious note, nope, I have never been tried for, or even committed, a criminal offence. Also, it may be noted that I do not drink, smoke, spit, hurl abuse (at anyone who does not deserve it, heheh,) whore around, drive dangerously, or watch more than an hour of television per week. I am also a committed Socialist (not a Communist; as a Catalan friend of mine would say, 'go learn something.') I am probably one of the least prejudiced people that you will meet; I have no patriotism in me, and I certainly am not ethnocentric, probably because my ancestry is one huge fruit salad. I think that everyone, no matter what age, appearance, financial status, race, colour, creed, gender, sexuality or likes, is equal, until they do things to diminish their character. Incidentally, I am also a strong adherent to Reconstructionist Judaism, being agnostic, but I have never consciously broken one of the 646 mizvot, other than using electricity on the Shabbat. I am sure that I am more moral than some slippery lawyer. That also does not qualify me as deserving an encyclopaedia article.

What is next? Ah yes, victims' rights? Well, nope, except for the fact that I have started many community initiatives, taught languages to young, schoolless people, helped immigrants cope with a new culture, worked soup kitchens, protected off-the-streeth youth schemes that the Labour government wanted to cull, and started up a centre for rape victims. Except for all that, I have been a complete sloth, compared to some rich guy who helps those who can afford it get rich, also, by manipulating juries' emotions.

So, there we go. It's is not a genitive: moral crusader, defender of the faith, non-notable the nuw, and sensible enough to admit it.

And you, my friend, as is said in the Chelmsley Wood patois, are blown out.IINAG 10:07, 25th August 2005 (UTC)

Classic Rock

Thanks for submitting your songs! Not all of your songs are going to appear on the list, because I only post the top 20, but they're there, and when you see the final, they'll be there. Thanks again. Rentastrawberry 17:23, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Is One Way Out the same song that the Allman Brothers Band did? Rentastrawberry 18:09, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

A story

Here 'tis:

The crazed scientist — for I now knew him to be utterly insane — led me to the far corner of the noisome laboratory. He shot me a conspiratorial glance. "Beneath this cover," he cackled, indicating a rounded steel sheet, "lie my newest pets." He continued, "I call them 'Fred', 'George', and," he paused, seemingly for effect, "the last one I call simply 'It'."

I shuddered, wondering what terrible monstrosities he was about to unveil before me. Before I could summon any nightmarish mental phantasms, however, he lifted the sheet with a flourish.

What I beheld then did not seem so bad: three puddles of gray goo. I noticed two small bumps on each puddle. I glanced at my companion. "Eyes," he said. As yet I still did not understand. But then Fred's eyes opened, George's eyes opened, and, most horrifyingly, It's eyes opened as well. I turned and fled.

Like it? :-) (Or am I the 2397th person to bring up this idea?) — Nowhither 11:04, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A song you'd like

Hi It's-is-not-a-genitive. I'm not a regular contributor of Wikipedia, but I stumbled across your name somehow. I have a similar one. Anyway, I'm a member at the Homestar Runner Wiki. If you've never heard of Homestar Runner, it's a little hard to explain what it is. So I'll sum up: The site is built on Micromedia Flash cartoons. There's a character named Strong Bad, who answers his email. When he gets an email, he makes fun of the spelling and grammar mistakes within. In the email called "local news," Strong Bad sings a song that's both hilarious and right up your alley. You can view it here if you'd like. (At the end of the toon, you can click on the little arm on the "S" and then on the CD case that pops up to hear more grammar songs.) I hope you enjoy it. — It's dot com 06:14, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Vou copiar a tua imagem de copyrights para a minha página. Está linda! Cheers, muriel@pt 12:31, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A fan club you'd like

Mmmm, I accidently created the It's-is-not-a-genitive fan club. Greatgavini 15:13, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the fan club was just an excuse to post this extreme example of kitschness on my user page, viz:

I.I.N.A.G

This user is chairperson of the It's-is-not-a-genitive fan club.

Mmmmmm a Great Gavini fan club? Methinks that there'd be more sense in creating a fan club honouring the brother-in-law of the pope of one of the lower castes of a long-extinct ancient race of Burmese cockroaches whose language had a total of 362.26 grammatical cases and consisted entirely of words which end in the suffix "-manganese". Greatgavini 19:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no. I've done it now. LINK Greatgavini 20:00, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

An old English phrase you'd like

What in Anglo-Saxon Britain does "se ðe gelíþ raðe hé hamacgaþ" mean? All two Anglo-Saxon dictionaries from which I have taken rede have given me sub-standard definitions.

Hello and belated welcome and all that

I stumbled across your user name in a history list and had to come read about you; I'm glad I did, you've a very interesting history.

Don't know whether you like or loathe them, but I've thought about adding the featured article Duran Duran to the spoken articles list, and it would be interesting to have it read by someone from Birmingham -- although it's hard to guess whether you'd still have the Brummie accent after learning all those languages! Anyway, consider this an invitation; if you're not interested in reading it aloud, it would still profit from a strict examination of grammar.

Best wishes and happy holidays! — Catherine\^talk 04:23, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the offer! I'd just love to hear it as a spoken article, whoever reads it; accent isn't important to me. Thanks very much, — Catherine\^talk 23:39, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gutslice and Cut Yourself

Per your message on my talk page: In my opinion, these pages don't meet Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. So rather than try to get the pages speedy-deleted, I'd recommend that you go through the normal deletion process. If you haven't done that before, there's a good overview of the process at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion (you don't need to be an admin to nominate a page for deletion.) --Arcadian 19:15, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sturmgrenadier]

hi, there is an organized campaign to save the above self-promotional vanity games-club page from deletion.... i'm wondering if you'd be willing to take a look and voice your opinion? normally i wouldnt care but (a) i hate organized campaigns from groups of users (especially when they have vested interests but dont declare them) and (b) when challenged about it, they suggested i try it myself! so here i am.... cheers! Zzzzz 20:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No Problem

No problem! I will keep an eye on both of these! :)

--Activision45 23:15, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Woulda coulda shoulda

I cannot, however, see the point of couldn't, didn't and the like, which do not lessen the number of syllables and sound rather... lisping.

Though the exact definition of a syllable is debated, most would agree that "couldn't" has only one (albeit a long one); "could not" has two. Double contractions like "couldn't've" are rarely if ever seen in print and not considered correct writing, but they are not uncommon in speech. The esthetic judgments on such speech patterns are another matter, of course, but "couldn't" and friends certainly do have a point. JRM · Talk 18:34, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"most would agree that "couldn't" has only one." No. --Macarion 10:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Legit

Those were legitimate edits I made to User:Bumpusmills1 userpage. plz2stop generalizing kthx. --GNAA Staos 23:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that makes sense I guess. I will let the edits stand, but I will not revert should he return it to his way. --GNAA Staos 23:32, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shinkolobwe

Thanks for translating Shinkolobwe. — Itai (talk) 23:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

one's

When it is a genitive pronoun (which relates to a specific person or thing), there is Never an 's. There is no 's on my or your or theirs; why should there be one with its?

Well, what about "one's"? Should one's use of an apostrophe in that word be condemned as well? Michael Hardy 22:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS: The sentence about pornography on your user page is incomplete. Michael Hardy 22:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Matthews and unilateralism

I noticed that yours is one of at least two votes opposing Charles Matthew's for the arbitration committee, in which "unilateralism" is cited as a reason to oppose him. What do you mean by "unilateralism"? Where on Wikipedia did he express support for it? Michael Hardy 22:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Michael; thank you for scouring my user page. I was aware that I had left that sentence hanging; sadly, I have the tendancy to, oftentimes, stop thinking of words in the middle of a monologue; a sort of super-linguistic music takes their place. Such was the reason why I paused my writing of my criticism of pornography; dozens of ideas entered my mind, and my words chimed together, to make a sort of campanic drone. I have written something there as a stopgap, although it expresses my glut of ideals badly.

When it comes to Wikipedia, I would define unilateralism as unreasonably acting on personal vindiction, when consensus-led discussion is what is desirable. An example of such a thing was the frankly logic-defying and sophmorically-justified deletion of people's self-identifying userboxes. Unilateralism is vigilante justice, where people do not get to voice opposition because someone higher up on this supposedly egalitarian realm felt it justified. (Naturally, it is fine to delete vandalism on sight, for the sake of this encyclopædia. Not many of us can argue against that. But, sadly, it seems that the goalposts of what constitutes sabotage have been moved wide and far, on the back of personal whimsies and half-baked ideals. For the main part, I liked your fellow; I thought that he was suave but rational when it came to the presentation of much of his case. On top of this, I have enjoyed leisurely reading his mathematical contributions to the encyclopædia, as sad as that may sound. (I am of the Erdös school of thought when it comes to the beauty of math.) However, there are, at the minute, far too many lacunæ in his appeal for me to support it. Although I have voted against those who do not have a considerable enough track record to compare their ideals with, experience should not make people beyond reproach. I found curious that, in his responses, M. Matthews both rejected centralism and communitarianism, but did not propose any intemediary between the two. The opposite of group review, naturally, is individual review. Also, M. Matthews essentially agreed with the broad and rather dangerous concept of 'Ignore All Rules;' he said that it was all well and good for one to 'stick [one's] neck out,' which is rather vague, giving little idea as to how unilateral he thinks is acceptable.

Do not mistake me, though; this was not my primary reason for posing opposition. I think that, if we can say that Wikipedia has any pretence of equality, there have to be checks and balances on those who, in quite a sense, 'rule;' otherwise, we are doing nothing but building a stagnant elected dictatorship. I also disliked the harsh deflection of a reasonable question; to me, how Charles reacted to that user was assuming bad faith, an ad hominem attack, and I don't believe in what appeared to be demeaning a fellow Wikipedian rather than discussing their concerns. I agree with his decision to keep stumm over his own ideologies; that is his own darnèd business. However, his opinion on checks and balances on arbiters is severely relevant. I don't appreciate ochlocracy; I cannot support slamming people down as a way to win an argument.

Now, onto more pleasurable things: amateur linguistics and the word, one's, and why that is grammatically correct, whereas 'it's' as a genitive is not. In a perfect world, perhaps we would all be speaking a totally analytical language with no quirks whatsoever. But, we have English, the hotel bedsheet that bears the musks and stains of those who have slept on it; and 'one's', like so many other bizarre counter-rules in English, can be blamed on French, which is not as illogical as mooted, but does pass off some weirdnesses as rules. You probably know many of the composites of this explanation, but I am a completist: in Anglo-Saxon, the word 'man' referred not only to a human being, but it served as the indefinite subject pronoun, a space, (sadly, in my own opinion,) you takes up to-day. (Those who say that words such as mankind are sexist should go learn something.) The use of 'man' as 'human' and as an indefinite lasted long into Middle English: if you look at Chaucer, where we would use one and no one, man and no man are used every time that I can recall it. For example, (excuse me if I misquote:)

The millere[...] nolde avalen neither hood ne hat, Ne abyde no man for his courtesy.

The genitive of man, since it is a defective pronoun and is actually a noun, is 'man's'. (The gen. in those days would have been mannes.) After Guillaume le Bâtard took the throne, French influence onto English increased considerably, and 'man' started to be replaced by 'on,' the corresponding French indefinite subject pronoun that was a clipping of the word 'homme'. 'On' soon enough became 'one.' So, when we say one's, we are still saying man's. The genitive is correct because, although we don't realise it, we're referring to a noun employed as a pronoun, not as a pure pronoun. Conversely, 'it' is rarely a noun, and follows pronoun apostrophe rules.

I apologise if my ruminations are the mental equivalent of asphyxiation. The combination of a hermit-like existence and my reddish temperament often make me 'get into' discussions like this, to use a horrible phrasal verb, with considerable animation. --It's-is-not-a-genitive 00:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

OK ... it becomes clear that there was some particular exchange of views in which you and Charles Matthews participated and you found his behavior objectionable. And it's probably impossible to say who's right or wrong without looking at that. Is that on some Wikipedia discussion page? If so, which one?

"Equality" can mean any of various things, which I'm not prepared to enumerate just now. Which of those, if any, Wikipedia purports to be, I don't know. I don't actually recall ever having heard that "equality" is one of Wikipedia's claims to virtue.

On this other matter, I didn't mean to suggest that there's anything wrong with saying "one's" should have an apostrophe (and so should "anyones's" and "someone's" and "everyone's" and "no one's") and "its" should not, but rather that it is an exaggeration to say possesive pronouns in English never have apostrophes.

BTW, some people object to calling the possessive in English a genitive, since we don't say, for example "John's and Mary's house", but "John and Mary's house". Notice also that "the blacksmith's shop" can mean "the shop of the blacksmith" or "the shop of a blacksmith" or "a shop of the blacksmith" or "a shop of a blacksmith", so we can't include a genitive "the" as part of the noun phrase with a possessive form of a noun (as is done in Greek, I think). So maybe that could also be a reason to consider the English possessive not to be a true genitive. Michael Hardy 02:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS: What do you mean by the word "userbox"? Michael Hardy 02:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the longer-than-usual delay in responding. I needed some time in the hills to deal with something in my 'real' life that was angering me. You make some good points about the possessive: my use of 'genitive' was general, but also, I have never, in quite some years of language learning, heard anyone English describing 's as not being the genitive, strangely. Also, I had stated that the no 's rule did not apply to one. I said: when there is a genitive pronoun which relates to a specific person or thing, there is Never an 's: one does not relate to a specific person or thing, as it has all but lost the connotation of 'they and I.'

A userbox is one of these:

}

It is a small way of expressing a personal belief or characteristic, such as 'I am Jewish', or 'I am for gay rights'. However, a few admins have wasps in the rectum and tried to remove these, without discussion, later citing 'NPOV'. They are on user-pages. Anyone who looks for a neutral point of view on a user page is as stupid as someone looking for a hedgehog in a kumquat. (And if NPOV is suddenly necessary on user pages, who's going to moderate all the comments that they contain? -- agh, hypocrisy tries!)

Í never said that equality were ever paraded around as one of the tenets of Wikipedia. By its nature, though, Wikipedia is egalitarian: a common font of knowledge to which anyone can add. I firmly believe that standards must be maintained, and vandalism quickly dealt with; however, admins should be there to serve the general volition; otherwise, we get ridiculously hierarchical and overly bureaucratic, with certain administrators acting unilaterally on petty personal things that have little to do with the encyclopædia or its original spirit.

There was no exchange between us; indeed, every exchange that I can remember with him, either under this name, before that, or in my IP contribution days, has been amiable and informed. I hold it as a personal policy to not slate anyone who has been personally against me in some respect, when I think that, otherwise, they would do a decent job. I respect Charles Matthews as a contributor, and, to the best of my knowledge, he seems like a nice fellow. A good administrator? Probably. However, my idea of a mediator is someone who will look at a situation carefully, in an unbiased fashion. The way that he automatically condemned a well-meaning user as a 'troll' rather worried me. It might have just been a slip, but I dislike the idea of trial by instinct. I would have liked to support him, certes. But I dissented due to considered evaluation. There is no right or wrong to that. Iinag 03:12, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]