User talk:Collegebookworm

	Please tell me where you want me to respond or else: If I left you a message: please answer on your talk page then place {{Talkback}} on my talk page. If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page then place {{Talkback}} on your talk page. Please click here to leave me a new message. Remember to sign your post, ~~~~
	My talk page was last refreshed on Monday, December 23, 2024, at 15:25 (UTC/GMT). There were 6,928,774 articles then. Refresh the talk page.
	In an emergency, this user may be slapped with a trout.
	This user hates it when people vandalize this page, his user page, and his children.

Hello, Collegebookworm! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already loving Wikipedia you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Happy editing! – Zedla (talk) 01:00, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply] Getting Started Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Hey, maybe you know who came up with the so-called Wyoming Rule... I can find the author of the idea anywhere. Foofighter20x (talk) 23:21, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I found this Congressional report which could help supplement the various apportionment method stubs in the giant list. The earliest online mention I could find of they Wyoming Rule (all mentions were on blogs, forums, or wikipedia-clones) was back on Nov. 30 2005 by Fruits and Votes username "Lewis Baston."

I've found earlier sources: DailyKos had it in Jan '05, and George Will wrote an article about the House being too small in Jan '01. Will mentioned Bob Novak in his article, but I'm not sure if Novak was the idea's originator. 131.252.231.55 (talk) 17:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, I always verify that an action I take in Huggle was the primary action, and didn't affect any other users trying to help out, but this one slipped by. I apologize. As for "you seem to have a lot of these requests for explanation", well, it's part of the job :) tj9991 (talk | contribs) 08:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re your message: Thanks for alerting me to that and reverting the other vandalism. I've dealt with the account. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. Thank you. Parishan (talk) 08:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 09:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On 28 July, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Fifty Dead Men Walking, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Gatoclass (talk) 08:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On 29 July, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Surat Huseynov, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Gatoclass (talk) 07:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I deleted the article you sent to AfD as WP:CSD#A7. The AfD wasn't transcluded onto the main page, so I have deleted that also, rather then add it to the main page and then close it anyway. If you are listing for deletion, remember to follow steps 2 and 3 in the deletion box on the article. Cheers Kevin (talk) 10:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks mate for your help with WP:DYK hook...

Cheers! Λua∫Wise ^{(Operibus anteire)} 20:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On 2 August, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Khitan (Circumcision), which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Rudget 19:34, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting, and unbeknownst to me, fact! Thanks for nominating. Rudget 19:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much! :) It was a surprise when I went to find the authors and credit the articles - they'd already been done! It took me a while to figure out how! Thanks again for the barnstar and your prompt alert. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 00:05, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for you help, Collegebookworm, but next time, before giving out the DYK credits, please check if the hooks have reached MainPage yet. What's on Template:Did you know/Next update is a close-to-final draft. Occasionally, some hooks have to be returned to T:TDYK because problems were discovered late, or because too many hooks related to the same country/topic got chosen, or whatever special requests people make at the last minute. Now we are stuck.... Not a big deal, really. But next time please don't go ahead of time. It's better to give out DYK credit templates for hooks actually on MainPage. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 04:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Duly noted; I'll be less mouse-happy next time. CB (ö) 20:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Collegebookworm, I noticed that you revert vandalism occasionally. Would you like me to grant your account rollback rights to make vandal-fighting easier for you? Just remember that rollback should only be used to revert vandalism, and that using rollback to revert good-faith edits or to revert war can lead to its removal. Tell me what you think. Thanks. Acalamari 16:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Sure, I'll try it out (if I don't like it, I'm still free to just revert it the traditional way, right?). CB (ö) 20:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rollback granted. :) You are free to revert using regular methods if you'd rather not use rollback, plus, if you feel the need to revert a non-vandalism edit, then using rollback would be a bad idea anyway. For practicing using the tool before using it in the mainspace, you may wish to see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback, which is an incredibly useful page. Good luck. Acalamari 20:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you - yes she's done very well, was a pleasure to write. XLerate (talk) 07:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On 6 August, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Princes Pier, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Gatoclass (talk) 07:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On 6 August, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Cinimod Studio, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Gatoclass (talk) 14:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CollegeBookworm; thanks for your message. I hope to be able to start listening tonight, so look out for my comments here at some point tomorrow or Saturday. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 07:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again! Right, I have listened to the first draft twice, and have made some notes. These are my observations, comments and pieces of advice:

• • Unfortunately the sound quality as a whole is, for various reasons, not quite good enough. Combined with a few other things I've noticed, it means that the recording is probably not usable in its current form. I say that because I can see (well, hear) plenty of encouraging things and a good basis for making another attempt. Essentially: sound and technical problems, not voice-related problems, affect the recording.
  • The audio has been recorded in stereo at 44,100 Hertz. The bit rate of 44,100 is fine for speech, and is the level recommended in the Spoken Wikipedia project guidelines, but a stereo file (as opposed to mono) is not required—the difference in sound quality is minimal, whereas the size of the file is considerably increased. Luckily it is easy to convert a stereo recording into a mono one using Audacity or a similar utility. I used to have bit rate or encoding mishaps all the time when I started at WP:SPOKEN!
  • I can tell that different sections (and sometimes paragraphs) have been recorded separately and edited together. There are quite big differences in the audio level and background noise on several occasions, making the voice sound slightly different from section to section. This can attract the listener's attention away from the content of the narration.
  • Some sections have significant background fuzz or white noise, while others have none (allowing the voice to come through very clearly). Perhaps some parts have been subjected to noise reduction before being pasted into the main file? The Table of Contents and the text in subsection 1.3 have the most background noise.
  • Excessive noise reduction could also explain the occasional "echoing" effects on some vocals. Generally speaking, the voice comes through very clearly, but I noticed some echoing and loss of clarity at "Multiple sources are suggested for the idea that a wiki might allow members of the public to contribute material" and "...contributing knowledge as you see fit in a collaborative way..." in particular.
  • There are occasionally other extraneous sounds: possibly a page turning in the "Visitors do not need specialized qualifications..." paragraph, and a (?) keyboard noise (keys being pressed) in "...in principle, anybody can contribute".
  • Your pace of narration is generally very good—the listener does not have to work hard to keep up, and does not get distracted by big pauses. The only uneven pacing I noticed was right at the start, where "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopaedia" is read very fast, while the website address is very slow. Also, slightly longer gaps between paragraphs and also between section headings would be beneficial. I generally go for 2 seconds before and after main section headings, 1½ seconds for subsection headings, and 1 second for paragraphs in the main body of the text. This can be measured accurately when editing the sound file in Audacity or another program.
  • Editing is generally good: only a couple of phrases have been cut off a bit sharply ("See also: Wikipedia:Statistics" and the "Trademarks and copyrights" heading).
  • Something very odd happened in the phrase "...a tremendous amount of content.". The last word is garbled, and cannot be understood. This would not be correctable without re-recording.
  • Enunciation and inflection is excellent; the use of the voice to stress appropriate words to convey meaning accurately is achieved well, with one small exception: I feel that "...associating Nupedia with a Web site in the wiki format" should highlight, by the use of stress, the last two words (the wiki format is the crucial aspect of that clause). Also, "Frequently asked questions, advice for parents" should be read as two distinct phrases, as they are separate wikilinks.
  • Your voice is pleasant to listen to and well suited to narration.
  • No ad-libs, missing words, mispronunciations or anything. I only spotted one "has" instead of a "had". Very little hesitation and no stumbling over words. All of this is very encouraging.

My advice to you in respect of improving the sound quality would be to try to record the whole article in one go, and be prepared to spend some time editing the result. That way, the whole audio file will flow much more smoothly and will have a more even sound quality. You also won't have to worry about making slip-ups, coughing, misreading something etc.: any flubs can just be edited out before you do the amplification, noise reduction, compression and normalisation procedure (incidentally that's the order in which I enhance the sound file after editing it). This may appear quite daunting—this is quite a long article, with lots of headings and wikilinks to deal with—and the editing process will certainly take several times longer than the narration actually lasts: I edited my latest one, Subarachnoid hemorrhage, today and it took most of the day (on and off) to get to the finished 32-minute recording.

You may want to try recording a short article first, in full, making all the necessary edits and sound enhancements, and then upload it. I'll listen, analyse it in my copy of Audacity, and give some advice and comments—hopefully to include "go ahead and upload and link to the article!". I would also then do a formal review. Once you've attempted a shorter article and done the whole process, from narrating to adding it to the Spoken Articles list, you'll have a better idea of how long the end-to-end process takes and what it requires, and how long the process for WP:ABOUT would take. I'd say it could certainly be done in a day—perhaps a few hours if worked at steadily. Please do let me know if you want any help, advice, editing assistance or anything else; I hope I haven't discouraged you too much! I will say that the process of doing a spoken article is something you can feel yourself getting better at every time you do it, and it is a very satisfying project to be part of. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 00:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't wish to step on anyone's toes, nor negate the amount of effort that was placed into this page's spoken version thus far, but I was hoping to give this a try, myself. If it's been a year since anything's been done, would you mind if I start from scratch with my own recording? Thanks in advance! David Beroff (talk) 05:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine with me; my current recording equipment gave WAY too much static, and was not reliably stable enough. CB...(ö) 19:51, 14 August 2009 (UTC) (Response copied from here by David Beroff (talk) 21:40, 15 August 2009 (UTC) .)[reply]

Thank you. David Beroff (talk) 21:40, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On 7 August, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Elm Park, Winnipeg, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Gatoclass (talk) 14:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On 8 August, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Tobacco Institute, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Gatoclass (talk) 14:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On 10 August, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Zebra chip, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Gatoclass (talk) 06:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On 10 August, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article L'Année philologique, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Gatoclass (talk) 06:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind defining "encyclopedic"? 204.52.215.14 (talk) 03:50, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Normally I don't respond to many-time warned IPs, but I made an exception here when I responded on its talk page... (CB (ö) 01:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Yeah, it's Adam from Acadectalk/ADSIC. So..... no, I don't think I plagiarized anything. Well, I did take your wording about the small and medium school stuff. Sorry about that. >< Hope you don't mind. I plan on rewording it anyway (just have been too lazy to do that). I'm working on making USAD a WP:FA (I'm almost there I think, just need to break off the Past Topics and National Champions into their own articles; I'll then nominate them for WP:FL). Btw, the heading of this comment is pure sarcasm. Good to see you again CB! - Yohhans ^talk 00:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I've put a lot of effort into the article. It looked pretty bad back in June before I started the rewrite. If you want to give it a copyedit for grammar and flow, that would be great. However, I'd prefer that to be done after I rewrite the Topics and National winners sections. - Yohhans ^talk 04:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CB. I submitted the list of USAD national champs to FLC. I was wondering if you could head over there and give a review and let me know if anything needs fixing. If you're too unsure about the FLC process and don't want to comment, that's fine. It's just not generating many comments, so I was hoping to get more input. So, I figured who better to ask than you, right? :) - Yohhans ^talk 19:03, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about sending it through PR first (I've done that with the AD article twice now), but I'm pretty certain that it's ready for FL status. I lurk around FLC and FAC a lot, so I know how the system works. Not many concerns have been raised so far, and those that have, I have addressed. Basically, I was just hoping that you would either throw in a support or oppose so that Matthewedwards or The Rambling Man can more easily determine whether to pass or fail the nomination. - Yohhans ^talk 19:29, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, I know exactly what you mean. But since we're talking about only a few hours until the new chart is published, how bout we just remove "currently"? If the source itself was from someplace other than Billboard I would agree and wait, but since the story is from the magazine that compiles and issues the chart (and it is splashed all over their front webpage) I think changing it back to GaGa is kinda pointless by now. You're gonna be looking at a zillion edit wars going on until tomorrow morning otherwise. - eo (talk) 22:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On February 17, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Permanent University Fund, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Dravecky (talk) 19:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mhm, and how is adding 'by the occupying US forces' a violation of a neutral point of view? Because it conflicts with your biases? I can add a citation, just stop vandalizing every contribution I make. Add a 'citation needed' if you wish, but stop accusing me of violating the NPOV. I am fixing the article's current NPOV violation, thank you very much. You could bother to be objective rather than jumping in to protect your friend. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.50.66.62 (talk) 22:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On 3 May you added the following text to 2009 swine flu outbreak in the United States: "Of the 43 cases confirmed so far in Texas, 5 have been Mexican citizens, including the only death.<ref name="TDSHS" />". Could you please add the details of this reference? Debresser (talk) 11:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I saw it there in remark tags. Didn't look whether that was you, but it's fixed now. Debresser (talk) 01:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The Swine Flu Barnstar
		For your extraordinary efforts in keeping 2009 swine flu outbreak and Template:2009 US swine flu outbreak table up to date, I hereby award you this special barnstar. Congratulations and keep up the good work! ThaddeusB (talk) 20:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Drat, I was about to infect Bookworm with that. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 21:05, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since you are a major contributor to the Swine flu US template, I'd like to invite you to a conversation on the talkpage. CDC changes numbers from confirmed to confrimed and probable and what we should to do about it. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 21:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw that you change the numbers of the colors, but i was wondering if you used the same numbers of the CDC, because the numbers you put there dont match the color of the states, that's why i changed it to the origiginal numbers (1+, 5+. 50+ 500+). I was going to upload the map yesterday but i saw that you already uploaded so i just update some minors changes, and i used those numbers to colored each state map. Anyway, i think that it way easier to read those numbers than the one u put. Let me know if you agre or nor, and maybe we can decide in whether we put another estimate for those states since the numbers are increasing each day.--Vrysxy ¡Californication! 20:25, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Your Sandbox page was included in several categories. I made some small edits (inserting : inside the category links) to solve this. --Piz d'Es-Cha (talk) 13:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On December 6, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Baylor University football, 1899–1914, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 05:56, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Wizards in Winter.ogg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:52, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Friendly heads-up {{Imagemap}} is deprecated and nominated for deletion. It has been superceded by changes to the File namespace and I wanted to let you know, since you have a transclusion on your userpage or user talk. If you need to respond to this message, please do so on my talk. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this is just a reminder that you have put yourself down as working on a audio version of the following WikiPedia article: Wikipedia:About. If you do not wish to continue working on the article or have completed recording of the article, please remove your submission here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spoken_Wikipedia#Recordings The article will be deleted from the page in 7 days if there is no response

Thank you --Fumitol (talk) 08:19, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For all your contributions to NCAA women's basketball articles, you earned this.   Maple Leaf (talk) 19:40, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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) 16:22, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Collegebookworm. 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]

Hello, Collegebookworm. 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]

Thanks for uploading File:BrotherCanYouSpareADime.ogg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:45, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed 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 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:12, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do you remember how you generated the reported cases graph for Eradication of dracunculiasis? I like the appearance of your graph, and it would be nice to replicate it, updated with more current data. (I'm happy to look up the recent figures to save you some time). --ABehrens (talk) 03:57, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]