 | This is the talk page of the group notice for
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship and all its subpages. Template:Editnotices/Group/Wikipedia:Requests for adminship can only be edited by administrators, page movers, and template editors. All editnotices (except those in userspace) are protected via MediaWiki:Titleblacklist, so the "protection" status as set by the protection tab is mostly irrelevant. |
{{
editprotected}}
Add a background color to make it stand out.
Replace the following:
{{editnotice|id=whatever the id is|editnotice content}}
with
<div id="whatever the id is" style="border:2px solid black; background-color: #e8e8e8; background-image: linear-gradient(to bottom, #e8e8e8, #ffffff);">editnotice content</div>
Access Denied – talk to me 21:20, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
- Just a note to people implementing this: the page in question has title blacklist protection, thus needs an administrator or account creator to make the change despite technically not being protected. -- ais523 10:31, 8 November 2010 ( U T C)
{{ editprotected}} Could you replace the jargon "RFA" with "Requests for adminship", so as not to be needlessly confusing for newer editors. Thanks, Skomorokh 21:25, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This contains code for the changes I propose. Not every creation of a RfA is a self-nomination, so I've added some stuff that tells the page creator that it's polite to consult the nominee before creating the subpage. -- Σ talk contribs 02:27, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
- Has this change been discussed anywhere? I don't think you should tell people not to nominate themselves, because it is perfectly valid to do so. — Martin (
MSGJ ·
talk) 08:52, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
- Oh, my sandbox is filled only with placeholder text so I can read the code easily, where the "Do not nominate yourself box" is the following box with the animated stop sign. It would obviously need rewording. As another note, the alt text reads "Edward Elgar in 1917", so could someone change that? -- Σ talk contribs 23:42, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure that your request is ready and I'm not even sure what you are proposing to change. Please discuss any substantial changes on Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship and reactivate the request only when there is consensus for change. Regards — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 14:45, 2 September 2011 (UTC
- It looks like Sigma is trying to put in a third option for situations where people are nominating someone else. I think that the code should work, but I'm not sure it's the best wording. Probably worth discussing further before putting in.
WormTT · (
talk) 15:03, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
- I see - I've just achieved half of this by hiding the current message if it's not a self-nomination. Sigma: is your code ready to go? — Martin (
MSGJ ·
talk) 10:28, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
- Just checking, will that work if it's a second (or nth) nomination?
WormTT · (
talk) 10:59, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
- No, it doesn't. Could we not make the assumption that if an editor is nominating themself for the nth time, that they know what they are letting themself in for? — Martin (
MSGJ ·
talk) 16:34, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
- Not really. At the moment, there are too many editors who will make 2-3 nominations before they've even hit 200 edits. In fact, I would suggest that it's more important that they see it than people who are nominating (with more knowledge & experience) to not.
WormTT · (
talk) 16:51, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think I can change the code to work with an editor's 2nd+ RfA. I've replaced the placeholder text with content, though (thanks to the marvels of copy and paste). → Σ talk contribs 06:16, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- Should I link this at
WT:RFA? →
Σ
talk
contribs 06:19, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- If you feel it needs more eyes, then feel free - I'm happy just discussing the changes to see if we can find something we all agree on. Speaking of which, rather than having different messages for creating a page if you are a revision user not - how about we change the wording of the note so that it says something like "Admins are yada yada, and yada yada. If you are considering nominating yourself, make sure you read yada yada. If, however, you are consider nominating someone else, please ensure you have talked to them about it first."? WormTT · ( talk) 08:31, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- Not really. At the moment, there are too many editors who will make 2-3 nominations before they've even hit 200 edits. In fact, I would suggest that it's more important that they see it than people who are nominating (with more knowledge & experience) to not.
WormTT · (
talk) 16:51, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
- No, it doesn't. Could we not make the assumption that if an editor is nominating themself for the nth time, that they know what they are letting themself in for? — Martin (
MSGJ ·
talk) 16:34, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
- Just checking, will that work if it's a second (or nth) nomination?
WormTT · (
talk) 10:59, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
- I see - I've just achieved half of this by hiding the current message if it's not a self-nomination. Sigma: is your code ready to go? — Martin (
MSGJ ·
talk) 10:28, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
WP:BOLD change
[1]. As the traffic to this talk page is low, I've been bold. However I'm happy to be BRD'd :) Pedro : Chat 21:24, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
| This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Can someone please change "To ask the candidate a question, please use {{subst:Rfa-question|number of question|question}}, which will format your question and add your username" to "To ask the candidate a question, please use {{subst:Rfa-question|number of question|2=question}}, which will format your question and add your username." Notice the change is in adding 2= in the question parameter. Ryan Vesey 14:50, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
| This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hi. The use of File:AnimatedStop.gif is really a bit much. Please remove this. (I wouldn't object to the notice also being toned down generally, but my primary focus is this blinking monster.) -- MZMcBride ( talk) 01:05, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
- I could go for that as well. Just a note: I was a little confused because I didn't see the notice when I looked at the template page, but if you go and
try to edit WP:RFA you can see it. ~
Adjwilley (
talk) 01:22, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Done I tried
amending it but that had no effect. Then I found that I'd been misdirected, and that
this was the correct edit: a different editnotice. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 16:48, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
- That amendment that "didn't work" actually affected the editnotice for RFA subpages that don't exist (caught that when I out of curiosity looked at the deletion log of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Astronut123456). I put the non-animated image there as well. Fun Pika 22:47, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
| This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please delete the "!" word which in front of the "vote" word. 333 -blue 07:06, 8 November 2015 (UTC) 333 -blue 07:06, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Not done: Well, in reality, it is mostly a vote. However, we customarily use !vote here (meaning "not vote", since "!" is computer notation for "not") since it is claimed that RfA is a discussion and not a vote. I would get community consensus for this change, if you really want it done.
Biblio
worm 17:40, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
| This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add {{#switch: {{FULLPAGENAME}}|Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll =|Wikipedia:Requests for adminship=| to the top of the notice and }} to the bottom.
Kharkiv07 (
T) 01:46, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
| This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
{{REVISIONUSER}} does not return the user looking at the page when the variable is used in edit notices. Thus, the bit that
Technical 13 added about self-noms is useless, could somebody remove that please.
Kharkiv07 (
T) 14:25, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
| This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Perhaps since use of automated tools has gone up (either that or RfA criteria for many voters) then you should perhaps change it to the following: at least several thousand edits. Dat Guy Talk Contribs 14:56, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- Not done: I think you're making this request in the wrong place, the text you're quoting is at
Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. Even there some consensus would be needed - even though we all know that several thousand is probably an understatement too.
Cabayi (
talk) 15:23, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- Agreed with cabayi. You should establish consensus first per the template-edit instructions, because that change is not obviously uncontroversial. I might suggest the appropriate place for that request is WT:RFA. --- Izno ( talk) 15:29, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
| This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
For the last bullet point, replace the construct "and/or" with simply "or", per MOS:ANDOR. Thanks! – void xor 02:04, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
| This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
{{
subst:Rfa-question|number of question|2=question}} -> {{
subst:Rfa-question|question number|your question}} Just easier to comprehend this way. Also, I've cleaned up {{
subst:Rfan}}, so maybe add that for clerking, it's already used for moving dicussions.
QEDK (
愛 •
海) 17:54, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Partly done: I've done the first part. I'll leave this open for thoughts on {{rfan}}. —
JJMC89 (
T·
C) 18:03, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
- Note that {{
subst:Rfa-question|question number|your question}} will fail confusingly if the question contains an equals sign anywhere. The "2=" prevents this. --
John of Reading (
talk) 18:20, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
- While I doubt people would put "=" in their question, the possibility exists. The RfA questions section includes the template again jic and I've brought the RfA template in line with John of Reading's suggestion, {{subst:Rfa-question|question number|2=your question}}. Think we need a module that sanitizes template parameter inputs. -- QEDK ( 愛 • 海) 19:15, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
- Note that {{
subst:Rfa-question|question number|your question}} will fail confusingly if the question contains an equals sign anywhere. The "2=" prevents this. --
John of Reading (
talk) 18:20, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Already done I concur with JJMC89 that the 2= needs to be there on the off chance that an = is used by a question-asker. Everything else requested has been done.
Primefac (
talk) 02:17, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
- No, JJMC89 left it open to elicit more opinions on including
{{ subst:Rfan}}which I also proposed adding since it's used to clerk. It's not controversial, so I wouldn't say there's consensus to be gathered, but more of an assessment for its need. Reopened it again. -- QEDK ( 愛 • 海) 03:12, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
- No, JJMC89 left it open to elicit more opinions on including
Include instructions for using Template:Rfan in the RfA Editnotice
I moved this question out of
QEDK's edit request to a new section to since it was getting lost in the discussion of {{
Rfa-question}}, and an edit template-protected request can be opened here if consensus is achieved.
QEDK has cleaned up {{
subst:Rfan}} and was proposing adding a mention of it to
Template:Editnotices/Group/Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. Should clerking instructions be added to the edit notice shown to all editors on RfA pages? --
Ahecht (
TALK
PAGE) 13:42, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
- Hmm, the only reason I put in an edit request for this too was because it seemed fairly uncontroversial. Probably better to take it to WT:RFA to garner any consensus, probably won't solicit much opinions here. -- QEDK ( 愛 • 海) 06:54, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
- Makes sense to include it. We don't need to move the discussion yet again, and WT:RFA has already been pointed to this discussion. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 10:04, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
| This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add:
* While clerking RfA, please exercise discretion and read the [[WP:CIVILITY|civility]] guidelines. You are encouraged to use the {{Tlsp|Rfan}} template to signify discussion moves, striking votes and refactoring comments.
Per previous thread. QEDK ( 愛 • 海) 16:47, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
| This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change proceeeding to proceeding. Thanks, —
J947
[cont] 04:44, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Is there a way to exclude the above page from the editnotice to be displayed? Toadette ( Happy Thanksgiving!) 09:26, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
|
| This is the talk page of the group notice for
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship and all its subpages. Template:Editnotices/Group/Wikipedia:Requests for adminship can only be edited by administrators, page movers, and template editors. All editnotices (except those in userspace) are protected via MediaWiki:Titleblacklist, so the "protection" status as set by the protection tab is mostly irrelevant. |
{{
editprotected}}
Add a background color to make it stand out.
Replace the following:
{{editnotice|id=whatever the id is|editnotice content}}
with
<div id="whatever the id is" style="border:2px solid black; background-color: #e8e8e8; background-image: linear-gradient(to bottom, #e8e8e8, #ffffff);">editnotice content</div>
Access Denied – talk to me 21:20, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
- Just a note to people implementing this: the page in question has title blacklist protection, thus needs an administrator or account creator to make the change despite technically not being protected. -- ais523 10:31, 8 November 2010 ( U T C)
{{ editprotected}} Could you replace the jargon "RFA" with "Requests for adminship", so as not to be needlessly confusing for newer editors. Thanks, Skomorokh 21:25, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
| This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This contains code for the changes I propose. Not every creation of a RfA is a self-nomination, so I've added some stuff that tells the page creator that it's polite to consult the nominee before creating the subpage. -- Σ talk contribs 02:27, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
- Has this change been discussed anywhere? I don't think you should tell people not to nominate themselves, because it is perfectly valid to do so. — Martin (
MSGJ ·
talk) 08:52, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
- Oh, my sandbox is filled only with placeholder text so I can read the code easily, where the "Do not nominate yourself box" is the following box with the animated stop sign. It would obviously need rewording. As another note, the alt text reads "Edward Elgar in 1917", so could someone change that? -- Σ talk contribs 23:42, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure that your request is ready and I'm not even sure what you are proposing to change. Please discuss any substantial changes on Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship and reactivate the request only when there is consensus for change. Regards — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 14:45, 2 September 2011 (UTC
- It looks like Sigma is trying to put in a third option for situations where people are nominating someone else. I think that the code should work, but I'm not sure it's the best wording. Probably worth discussing further before putting in.
WormTT · (
talk) 15:03, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
- I see - I've just achieved half of this by hiding the current message if it's not a self-nomination. Sigma: is your code ready to go? — Martin (
MSGJ ·
talk) 10:28, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
- Just checking, will that work if it's a second (or nth) nomination?
WormTT · (
talk) 10:59, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
- No, it doesn't. Could we not make the assumption that if an editor is nominating themself for the nth time, that they know what they are letting themself in for? — Martin (
MSGJ ·
talk) 16:34, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
- Not really. At the moment, there are too many editors who will make 2-3 nominations before they've even hit 200 edits. In fact, I would suggest that it's more important that they see it than people who are nominating (with more knowledge & experience) to not.
WormTT · (
talk) 16:51, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think I can change the code to work with an editor's 2nd+ RfA. I've replaced the placeholder text with content, though (thanks to the marvels of copy and paste). → Σ talk contribs 06:16, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- Should I link this at
WT:RFA? →
Σ
talk
contribs 06:19, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- If you feel it needs more eyes, then feel free - I'm happy just discussing the changes to see if we can find something we all agree on. Speaking of which, rather than having different messages for creating a page if you are a revision user not - how about we change the wording of the note so that it says something like "Admins are yada yada, and yada yada. If you are considering nominating yourself, make sure you read yada yada. If, however, you are consider nominating someone else, please ensure you have talked to them about it first."? WormTT · ( talk) 08:31, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- Not really. At the moment, there are too many editors who will make 2-3 nominations before they've even hit 200 edits. In fact, I would suggest that it's more important that they see it than people who are nominating (with more knowledge & experience) to not.
WormTT · (
talk) 16:51, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
- No, it doesn't. Could we not make the assumption that if an editor is nominating themself for the nth time, that they know what they are letting themself in for? — Martin (
MSGJ ·
talk) 16:34, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
- Just checking, will that work if it's a second (or nth) nomination?
WormTT · (
talk) 10:59, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
- I see - I've just achieved half of this by hiding the current message if it's not a self-nomination. Sigma: is your code ready to go? — Martin (
MSGJ ·
talk) 10:28, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
WP:BOLD change
[1]. As the traffic to this talk page is low, I've been bold. However I'm happy to be BRD'd :) Pedro : Chat 21:24, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
| This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Can someone please change "To ask the candidate a question, please use {{subst:Rfa-question|number of question|question}}, which will format your question and add your username" to "To ask the candidate a question, please use {{subst:Rfa-question|number of question|2=question}}, which will format your question and add your username." Notice the change is in adding 2= in the question parameter. Ryan Vesey 14:50, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
| This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hi. The use of File:AnimatedStop.gif is really a bit much. Please remove this. (I wouldn't object to the notice also being toned down generally, but my primary focus is this blinking monster.) -- MZMcBride ( talk) 01:05, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
- I could go for that as well. Just a note: I was a little confused because I didn't see the notice when I looked at the template page, but if you go and
try to edit WP:RFA you can see it. ~
Adjwilley (
talk) 01:22, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
- Done I tried
amending it but that had no effect. Then I found that I'd been misdirected, and that
this was the correct edit: a different editnotice. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 16:48, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
- That amendment that "didn't work" actually affected the editnotice for RFA subpages that don't exist (caught that when I out of curiosity looked at the deletion log of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Astronut123456). I put the non-animated image there as well. Fun Pika 22:47, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
| This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please delete the "!" word which in front of the "vote" word. 333 -blue 07:06, 8 November 2015 (UTC) 333 -blue 07:06, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
- Not done: Well, in reality, it is mostly a vote. However, we customarily use !vote here (meaning "not vote", since "!" is computer notation for "not") since it is claimed that RfA is a discussion and not a vote. I would get community consensus for this change, if you really want it done.
Biblio
worm 17:40, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
| This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add {{#switch: {{FULLPAGENAME}}|Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll =|Wikipedia:Requests for adminship=| to the top of the notice and }} to the bottom.
Kharkiv07 (
T) 01:46, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
| This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
{{REVISIONUSER}} does not return the user looking at the page when the variable is used in edit notices. Thus, the bit that
Technical 13 added about self-noms is useless, could somebody remove that please.
Kharkiv07 (
T) 14:25, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
| This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Perhaps since use of automated tools has gone up (either that or RfA criteria for many voters) then you should perhaps change it to the following: at least several thousand edits. Dat Guy Talk Contribs 14:56, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- Not done: I think you're making this request in the wrong place, the text you're quoting is at
Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. Even there some consensus would be needed - even though we all know that several thousand is probably an understatement too.
Cabayi (
talk) 15:23, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- Agreed with cabayi. You should establish consensus first per the template-edit instructions, because that change is not obviously uncontroversial. I might suggest the appropriate place for that request is WT:RFA. --- Izno ( talk) 15:29, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
| This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
For the last bullet point, replace the construct "and/or" with simply "or", per MOS:ANDOR. Thanks! – void xor 02:04, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
| This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
{{
subst:Rfa-question|number of question|2=question}} -> {{
subst:Rfa-question|question number|your question}} Just easier to comprehend this way. Also, I've cleaned up {{
subst:Rfan}}, so maybe add that for clerking, it's already used for moving dicussions.
QEDK (
愛 •
海) 17:54, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
- Partly done: I've done the first part. I'll leave this open for thoughts on {{rfan}}. —
JJMC89 (
T·
C) 18:03, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
- Note that {{
subst:Rfa-question|question number|your question}} will fail confusingly if the question contains an equals sign anywhere. The "2=" prevents this. --
John of Reading (
talk) 18:20, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
- While I doubt people would put "=" in their question, the possibility exists. The RfA questions section includes the template again jic and I've brought the RfA template in line with John of Reading's suggestion, {{subst:Rfa-question|question number|2=your question}}. Think we need a module that sanitizes template parameter inputs. -- QEDK ( 愛 • 海) 19:15, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
- Note that {{
subst:Rfa-question|question number|your question}} will fail confusingly if the question contains an equals sign anywhere. The "2=" prevents this. --
John of Reading (
talk) 18:20, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
- Already done I concur with JJMC89 that the 2= needs to be there on the off chance that an = is used by a question-asker. Everything else requested has been done.
Primefac (
talk) 02:17, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
- No, JJMC89 left it open to elicit more opinions on including
{{ subst:Rfan}}which I also proposed adding since it's used to clerk. It's not controversial, so I wouldn't say there's consensus to be gathered, but more of an assessment for its need. Reopened it again. -- QEDK ( 愛 • 海) 03:12, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
- No, JJMC89 left it open to elicit more opinions on including
Include instructions for using Template:Rfan in the RfA Editnotice
I moved this question out of
QEDK's edit request to a new section to since it was getting lost in the discussion of {{
Rfa-question}}, and an edit template-protected request can be opened here if consensus is achieved.
QEDK has cleaned up {{
subst:Rfan}} and was proposing adding a mention of it to
Template:Editnotices/Group/Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. Should clerking instructions be added to the edit notice shown to all editors on RfA pages? --
Ahecht (
TALK
PAGE) 13:42, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
- Hmm, the only reason I put in an edit request for this too was because it seemed fairly uncontroversial. Probably better to take it to WT:RFA to garner any consensus, probably won't solicit much opinions here. -- QEDK ( 愛 • 海) 06:54, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
- Makes sense to include it. We don't need to move the discussion yet again, and WT:RFA has already been pointed to this discussion. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 10:04, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
| This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add:
* While clerking RfA, please exercise discretion and read the [[WP:CIVILITY|civility]] guidelines. You are encouraged to use the {{Tlsp|Rfan}} template to signify discussion moves, striking votes and refactoring comments.
Per previous thread. QEDK ( 愛 • 海) 16:47, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
| This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change proceeeding to proceeding. Thanks, —
J947
[cont] 04:44, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Is there a way to exclude the above page from the editnotice to be displayed? Toadette ( Happy Thanksgiving!) 09:26, 24 November 2023 (UTC)