en User talk:Weegeerunner

Archives

If you want to call me out on something, go to Callouts.

Message

Thanks for the advising, but that edit was intentional an not vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardparker207 (talk • contribs) 17:04, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But why? Weegeerunner (talk) 17:06, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, can I edit the Greg Di Gesu page? Wasn't it up earlier today? Moonfilm (talk) 19:09, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The page was deleted for lack of notability. Weegeerunner (talk) 19:15, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Weegeerunner I would like to add more contributions and edit Greg Di Gesu page. I hope to convince you it is noteworthy and merits an article on Wikipedia. Here are pre-existing mentions of Greg Di Gesu on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=greg+di+gesu&title=Special%3ASearch&fulltext=1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mer smith13 (talk • contribs) 20:00, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pre exsting meantions on wiki aren't enough to equal notability. Weegeerunner (talk) 23:32, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi weegeerunner..thanks for your advice..but that was my edit..so I'm really not understanding how to edit.. Can u plz hlp me. 🙏 AfiaRifa (talk) 17:41, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My first edit..sry I missed the word 'first' AfiaRifa (talk) 17:42, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The best place to start learning is here.

Message 2

Hi Weegeerunner, my edit on Gerard Fitzgibbon was neutral. I removed an already biased opinion of Gerard's supposed bitterness and anger in the In Re Westby case. I have read this case, in the Irish Reports and Justice Fitzgibbon wasn't the bitter party. Chief Justice Kennedy attempted to stop a ward of court receiving a bequest from his grandfather to go to a public school in the UK, on the grounds that the school was in the UK and not, in his view, a bitter view, suitable for an Irish person purely because of that. Unless Wikipedia is going to be a fan page for Hugh Kennedy apologist the edit should stay. I also left a previous reference to anger/bitterness earlier in the paragraph alone, so that readers could see that opinions on this differ instead of the one-sided POV entry before my edit. Please undo your undo. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.17.51.143 (talk) 18:28, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talking about someone's ignore is not neutral. I never said the previous edit was neutral either. I deleted the sentence about bitterness because of POV. That whole sentence was filled with bias. Weegeerunner (talk) 18:32, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think describing Fitzgibbon's reasons (and let's remember, Kennedy lost the case/appeal) as being motivated by anger/bitterness is biased and just plain wrong, factually. He simply did not want a young boy to be deprived of a once in a lifetime opportunity to get a first class education. The article read as if Fitzgibbon was the small minded party, but it was Kennedy who was motivated/overcome by his narrow nationalist views. Wikipedia should not be a 'nationalist' only POV vehicle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.17.51.143 (talk) 18:39, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, what you removed from my edit was my statement that "he attacked Kennedy's ignorance" of both schools. I meant that literally, ignorance not in the sense of a generic slagging someone off but literally as in lack of knowledge. Fitzgibbon was a Governor of St. Columba's School for 20+ years, so knew exactly how good it was and he had personally been to Clifton College, as had many of his close relatives, one of the old public schools that Kennedy was insisting weren't any better and were in fact worse than St. Columba's. I would characterize Fitzgibbon as sardonic on occasion rather than hostile, angry or bitter. Such as when Fianna Fail in government were defending in his court emergency anti-terrorist legislation that they had made speeches in opposition decrying in the most severe way. Kennedy had had a relatively humble schooling — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.17.51.143 (talk) 18:48, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Go over my edits, I removed that entire sentence. The sentence about bitterness is not there. Please leave my talk page alone. If we need to discuss this more and reach consensus, let's go to the article's talk page.Weegeerunner (talk) 01:52, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Message 3

Wouldn't it have been simpler just to copy it into the proper place, I confess that it took me a minute to figure out how it had disappeared. Ah, well, no real harm done.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:12, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I should have done that, that would have been simpler. Weegeerunner (talk) 16:13, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Message 4

Thanks for the disambiguation on West Ham Bombers. Simple and effective, and I should have thought of it myself. LenF54 (talk) 17:33, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Weegeerunner (talk) 17:35, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Message 5

Hey sorry to bother you but I am knew to wiki and was just wondering why you are so determined to get rid of my page Mair TV — Preceding unsigned comment added by MTV772 (talk • contribs) 18:08, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because you have not given any evidence of notability. Read my points on the article's talk page and you will get an explination. Weegeerunner (talk) 18:10, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But what is it your so bothered about its just a wiki page — Preceding unsigned comment added by MTV772 (talk • contribs) 18:12, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't change the subject, this is about the article, not me, & you have not given any evidence of notability. Weegeerunner (talk) 18:14, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whats notability when its at home anyhow — Preceding unsigned comment added by MTV772 (talk • contribs) 18:17, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please check out WP:NOTABILITY. Weegeerunner (talk) 18:18, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, look there is now sockpupetry I do know these people though if you want to delete my page then delete it go ahead but just remove the board of directors thing please — Preceding unsigned comment added by MTV772 (talk • contribs) 18:22, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you are trying to say, but sockpupperty and meatpuppetry are against the rules. I don't see any reason to delete the Administrators Noticeboard discussion. But nothing is stopping you from joining the discussion. Weegeerunner (talk) 18:27, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Dan Vs. episodes‎

The user in question is a sockpuppet of Gabucho181. His style is basically to write rubbish about TV programmes they don't like, and promote programmes they do (particularly Rick and Morty). Their other style is to randomly attack people, so just to warn you that might happen now. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:57, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Being attacked is my bread and butter, I eat insults for breakfast don't worry about me. Weegeerunner (talk) 21:01, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Feminism & music

Very, very few musicians are primarily known for being feminists. Either Miley Cyrus and Jessie J should be added to the feminist categories, or every single who doesn't directly sing about feminist topics like Cortney Love should be deleted from the feminist categories.

Maybe we should delete them from the feminist categorie. But right now, let's focus on the articles at hand. Weegeerunner (talk) 16:56, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

87Stone is the one edit warring read the comments

87Stone is the one edit warring read the comments — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.233.85.123 (talk) 18:15, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

87Stone has been trying to make all the American Idol pages fit their concept, no one cares that much except for the current year. I was again rejecting their changes as have many others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.233.85.123 (talk) 08:57, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Circumcision controversies

The original version was what I reverted to. If you look, all the edits are from the same IP over the last couple of days. Both myself and a second person agreed on the talk page that the edits were doing more harm than good to the article, since many of them introduced bias, crystal ball gazing, unreferenced non-WP:MEDRS assertions, and inappropriate language. I followed WP:BRD in that the IP boldly inserted new information, I disagreed and reverted, and then pointed to a discussion. – Robin Hood ^(talk) 21:02, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry about that, all the ip's edits confused me. Weegeerunner (talk) 21:03, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NP. I'll re-revert, if you haven't already. – Robin Hood ^(talk) 21:04, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. Weegeerunner (talk) 21:08, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain?

Weegeerunner, what did you mean by this: "Never mind, I'm not going to ignore common sense because of things I was told"? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:51, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's nothing, really. Weegeerunner (talk) 00:53, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If it means what I think it means, you really need to be upfront and forthright about it. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:54, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think it means? Weegeerunner (talk) 00:57, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What you wrote says (to me) that someone approached you off-Wiki in an attempt to prejudice you against me. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:59, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It has nothing to do with you, don't worry. Weegeerunner (talk) 01:00, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Then please disregard. Thanks,-- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:01, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No Problem. Weegeerunner (talk) 01:03, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Miraclexix

I stumbled upon your new section of the user's talk page through your contributions. Upon reading just reading three sentences of the user's 3RR report (?), I was disgusted by the uncivility. Please know that I am there for you based on this situation. If you decide to bring the user to ANI, I will be there to support you. If I find myself more displeased and horrified by the personal attacks, I will report the ANI report myself if it's what it takes for this user to stop their personal attacks and uncivility. Callmemirela (Talk) 05:18, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just going to ignore him, as his reply to me on his talk page feels condescending and passive aggressive to me, and he still ignores WP:ATONED. There's no way I could go to ANI about him again without getting blocked. Weegeerunner (talk) 22:28, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confused

I'm not exactly sure what happened here. Had an edit conflict and I think things just got generally screwy. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 23:54, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to add back a comment of yours that was removed by Citadel48, but the edit conflict happened and I don't even know anymore. Weegeerunner (talk) 23:58, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic. Closing the conversation, removing other's comments. I do think this guy has good intentions, I'm just not sure he knows how to play nice with others. (Also he is serial misuser of "too". As in, "I went too the store". This alone made me punch a kitten yesterday. And it was a cute kitten too.)Timothyjosephwood (talk) 00:03, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. Weegeerunner (talk) 00:20, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weegee, you might have good intentions, but the claim that Skyrim is a spiritual successor to fallout 3 is absolute bullshit, and if the author of that section had any idea as to anything related to either the Fallout series or the Elder Scrolls overall they would know that ALL of the Elder Scrolls games have the same general disconnect from the previous game--they are all independent from each other, but they all share the same lore and over all universe story-arch. Fallout is a completely different universe entirely, taking place in an alternate reality of real-world histories and future. If you're going to delete my edit, go and fix the damn misinformation that is there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.246.27.235 (talk) 17:03, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Give me some sources to back up what you are saying, and you can't just give commentary in an encyclopedic article, it goes against the Manuel of style. Weegeerunner (talk) 17:07, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

←== 2015 FIFA U-20 World Cup == My dear @Weegeerunner the "realiable source" is the own match report, already in the article. It's pretty clear that FIFA is giving the goal to Rubio Rubin and FIFA is the only "realiable source" of informations for a FIFA tournament.--SirEdimon (talk) 20:46, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you cite that source? Weegeerunner (talk) 20:50, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sure.This is match report: http://www.fifa.com/u20worldcup/matches/round=271602/match=300269524/index.html And this the tournament statistic: www.fifa.com/u20worldcup/statistics/players/goal-scored.html You can see in both that according to FIFA, Rubin scored the goal.--SirEdimon (talk) 20:54, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is that referenced in the article? Weegeerunner (talk) 20:55, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is, I just had a look. The official FIFA match report supports their changes. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:57, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alrighty then, I guess we are done here. My mistake. Weegeerunner (talk) 21:01, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This why I changed it. Because when you read the article it says Jamieson scored, but when you look at the match report, indicated in the own article, it says Rubin scored. It takes the credibility from the article.--SirEdimon (talk) 21:08, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Weegeerunner (talk) 21:10, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RFA

Remember that RFA isn't a judgement on your overall contributions, but just about whether the community feels your ready to be an admin. You have made plenty of good contributions to the encyclopedia, and that can sometimes be lost at RFA. Don't look at the comments in your RFA as a rejection of you as an editor, but as some pointers on how you can improve going forward. We definitely need recent change patrollers to help keep the vandalism in check, and when we aren't in an RFA discussion, its understood that everyone makes mistakes, and there isn't a problem with that as long as you learn from them. I think you have made valuable contributions, and your heart is definitely in the right place, which is whats most important. Try not to let the RFA get you down. Monty ₈₄₅ 03:03, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Monty, you are a fine editor and we all value your contributions to Wikipedia. You just are not experienced enough yet to handle the baggage that comes with the mop. Just keep going and I will support your next RfA when you have the experience. Winner 42 Talk to me! 03:16, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now that, I've calmed down, I think I should explain why I had that reaction. When a dispute happens, I try to forget about them while still taking what I learned from them into consideration. When I am reminded of disputes that I forgot about. I began to see myself as a Seeping pile of disruptive editing and uncivilly (probably because of my depression). This carries over into real life too, as I have a long pattern of making a mistake, and that mistake (and hatred of myself for making it) staying with me for a long time. So something told to me a while ago, like say battleground mentality, will stick with my and I see myself a horrible person and a horrible editor. Weegeerunner ^{chat it up} 03:33, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TL;DR version, My depression makes me feel extreme guilt and shame for even the smallest mistakes, on wiki and off wiki. Weegeerunner ^{chat it up} 03:31, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well again, nothing to feel bad about. We all make mistakes. But one thing you will want to consider for yourself, is that being an admin is definitely a magnet for criticism if you do anything but the most mundane of maintenance tasks. From random trolls whose paths you have crossed, to experienced editors who feel you have wronged them or their friends, and have an axe to grind, people will dig up any mistakes you have made as an admin and attack you with them. (You can get a taste of that with RC patrolling, but its mostly the vandals who are rarely as good at really getting under your skin) I'm not saying you shouldn't try another RFA once you have a bit more experience under your belt in a few months; and I wouldn't hold this discussion against you in deciding my !vote; but you should definitely consider whether you want the target on your back that comes with adminship. Monty ₈₄₅ 04:00, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I will take that into consideration next time. Weegeerunner ^{chat it up} 04:06, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks in dispute resolution

Thank you for your clear mind and view, and for not letting others manipulate you (even if you proposed to block my account together with the others).--EconomicsEconomics (talk) 14:22, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your welcome, my clear mind and boldness are one of the few things I like about myself, even if it does drive me to make dumb decisions sometimes. Weegeerunner ^{chat it up} 16:45, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User Schaengel

Hi Weegeerunner,

first of all thank you for warning Schaengel who reverts my notoriously and refuses a better article illustration because of he wants to "save" his images. I already tried unsuccessfully to bring him to talk page. But because he takes it very personal and emotional a objective argumentation is not possible. He even make a revenge-contra at the now running featured pictures candidates at commons. Very strange this user. You already reverted him at article Koblenz. But he also reverted me in three other articels where I replaced the images. What is your advise in this situation? Best regards --– Wladyslaw (talk) 18:35, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IP reverting warnings

Hello, Weegeerunner. You have new messages at NekoKatsun's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hey, thanks - you were totally right about that, and I was completely in the wrong. Thank you so much for pointing it out to me! NekoKatsun (talk) 22:04, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Riya British singer

Hi there. I'm Riya and started creating the page about myself earlier entitled Riya (British Singer) on the back of advice from another member via talk because there's another Riya (Japanese singer) and people keep getting us both confused AND Google keeps pulling her info when searching.

Anyway...I pressed publish earlier when I meant to just save the entry as a draft because it's not complete (hence the deletion I assume). Is there any chance you can reinstate it as a draft please? Or do I need to recreate it? Sorry for the mistake...

Also if you have any pointers on what I need to do to ensure its correct and the article contains everything you need them let me know as the guides are very confusing.

Many thanks. Riya. Riya 19:25, 13 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Riyamusic (talk • contribs)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Trouted

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

You have been trouted for: being a trout.

Oh my. Weegeerunner ^{chat it up} 17:10, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

my post

I was wondering are you the manager of the Wikipedia or something far as I know I wrote everything that was perfectly fine it says that you're supposed to post things that are factual and that's exactly what I did so if you are blocking me from making my post please unblock me thank you I would like further explanation to why it's been removed. NPSCYOUTH (talk) 18:22, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Bill - Your note to me from March 2015

Hi there Weegeerunner.

Many thanks for your note (19 March 2015) and my apologies for not getting back to you sooner.

One of the TV channels in the UK is showing the entire running of The Bill - it was a favourite show of mine back in the 90-00's, so I've taken the opportunity to re-watch... And it's from this exercise that I've been providing missing / additional information into The Bill pages. Now I don't kniow how to add an appropriate citation for this - what would you suggest?

Likewise (and you may think me very sad!,) another UK TV channel is showing the entire running of the X-Files... Just today I spotted an inaccuracy in the Wikipedia page for Series 1, Episode 19 ('Shapes'), so I'd like to correct that too - but again, how would I provide an appropriate citation?

Best wishes - Richard

Thought I'd try to re-post this as it seems my signature may have been defective...

roddr (talk) 13:26, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

I am new to Wiki But I wanted to send you a kitten because I noticed all the work you do. :) Learning about what goes into Wiki it is eye opening for me to see the amount of work that goes into it. Thanks! :)

Allaboutjane8181 (talk) 01:43, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No problem man, editing wikipedia can be a lot of fun. Weegeerunner ^{chat it up} 16:59, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Weegeerunner. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RC Patrol-related Proposals in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey

Greetings Recent Changes Patrollers!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about technical proposals related to Recent Changes Patrol in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

Further, there are more than 20 proposals related to Watchlists in general that you may be interested in reviewing. (and over 260 proposals in all, across many aspects of wikis)

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Note: You received this message because you have transcluded {{User wikipedia/RC Patrol}} (user box) on your user page. Since this message is "one-time-only" there is no opt out for future mailings.

Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 01:11, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Media files about Busan Metro

See descriptions about those media files on commons. --175.214.22.14 (talk) 07:35, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am the one — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.185.130.115 (talk) 23:31, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

Just because it is cute!

Foxesarebae (talk) 17:13, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Weegeerunner. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trouted

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

You have been trouted for: YOUR REASON HERE Gummysnake (talk) 20:44, 15 December 2017 (UTC) For being a huge retard and for crappy fishing skills[reply]

Last time I was super active, I was 15, so I can't really say I disagree. I was pretty stupid.Weegeerunner ^{chat it up} 09:56, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Weegeerunner. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]