User talk:Erik

Hanna image

Hi Erik,

I was on the Hanna wiki page for the film and saw that you added the poster image to the page. However, I also noticed that the image is only visible when you're logged in to Wikipedia, and not to anyone who just visits the page. I'm still learning about adding images to pages, etc and was wondering if there was a setting that you could choose to make it visible for anyone who visits the page without being logged in?

Thanks! Stacey123 22:53, 4 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SOM123Wiki (talk • contribs)

Stacey, I viewed the Wikipedia article through another browser where I am not logged in, and I was able to see the poster image. Maybe try to bypass your cache? Erik (talk | contribs) 22:56, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Silverado pics

I'll ask you to please reconsider and revert that edit, because I have a compelling reason for those image additions. I noted that they were all low resolution, no free equivalent exists, copyrights are owned by Columbia Pictures, and were used to illustrate the relationship between characters in the film. As an example, this screenshot from Avatar's page displays a similar usage/rationale, and was not deleted: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Avatarjakeneytiri.jpg DeWaine (talk) 02:51, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

The screenshots at Silverado just showed the people from the film decoratively. There is nothing unusual about their appearances, where science fiction films like Avatar would warrant images when there is context for them. The Avatar screenshot has a full paragraph related to what they look like. Some movies, especially the most straightforward contemporary drama films, are not going to warrant screenshots because there is nothing that cannot be covered with descriptive text. For a Western film to have screenshots in its article, it would have more to do with cinematography (think The Searchers) or motifs (like colors in one of The Man With No Name's films). In addition, it is discouraged to use soundtrack cover images, especially when they are pretty much duplicates of the poster. And lastly, home media covers are unnecessary to explain that a film was released on DVD or Blu-ray, unless there was something worth physically describing about the DVD set, like the Alien four-film set looking like an Alien's head. It may be worth looking into themes for Silverado to see if any of them would be aided by visuals. Here are a couple of sources I found: 1 and 2, essays about the film. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:45, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Point taken. Although I would like to comment that actors in "Cowboy Costumes" look visually different from say a contemporary film with an actor wearing a t-shirt and jeans. It helps to illustrate the setting of a different time period (in this case, the 1800s). As far as the home media covers are concerned, sometimes artwork from a film is presented in a different fashion from the theatrical release poster. I thought it was necessary to display the difference. And although it is true that in this particular case, the film poster is nearly identical to the soundtrack cover, many times the album cover might be visually different. I believe the rationales present were sufficient in describing its fair usage. DeWaine (talk) 16:34, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I think your non-contemporary criteria is too open-ended because it means that most screenshots qualify on the basis of being different. Like the cowboys, the towns will be iconic of the period, as well as the action (to an extent). There are a lot of screenshots that can reflect the film's so-called uniqueness, but there needs to be contextual significance. As the article talks about the cowboy characters, there's not a compelling need to illustrate what they look like. The key is to provide a non-free image (if it is irreplaceable) when there is focus on that visual element. WP:FILMNFI says, "Examples include, but are not limited to: production design, makeup, costume design, camera technique, visual effects, lighting, and iconic shots." These are the kinds of topics that can be discussed and can be aided by images. I do not think the cowboy appearance in this film is worth illustrating when it is treated as for-granted. There is no discussion about their appearances. In contrast, films that win awards for costume design will very likely have coverage which would then warrant having an image of the character's costume.

As for additional covers, one cover image is sufficient for the topic. Additional cover images need to have greater purpose than just identification. Most films will have several different posters, and we should not be displaying more than we need to on what should be a free encyclopedia. For example, while a horror film can have a poster for the infobox, a second poster can be shown based on controversy surrounding it and leading it to be pulled. MOS:FILM#Home media covers this a little. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:59, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Well Erik, I suppose we can go back and forth the same way politicians accuse each other of right and wrong, but as I said in the past, I still think you hold a double standard. Perhaps as you say, my non-contemporary criteria is too open-ended or not many screenshots qualify on the basis of being different, but I can prove your double standard when it comes to editing. Here are a few quick examples from some Featured Article status pages that break the rule of: screenshots that can reflect the film's so-called uniqueness, or those which lack contextual significance. And why there's not a compelling need to illustrate what they look like.

• The Revolution Will Not Be Televised

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hugo_Chavez_in_Brazil-1861.jpeg - In this particular photo, we have Hugo Chavez waving. Now I ask, why is it inserted in the article? Most people know who Hugo Chavez is, and what he looks like. But just in case if you didn't, I believe the article adequately and thoroughly describes who he is, and how his influence relates to the film. There is absolutely no reason to insert this pic. The picture shows a middle age Hispanic male waving his hand. What is unique or contextually significant about this particular photograph? We don't need a photo to show us what Hugo Chavez looks like, nor do we need a photo to show what a middle aged Hispanic male looks like. This screenshot appears to fall in the category of being 'too open-ended non-contemporary criteria' .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Theateroutsidepub_cropped_.jpg - Here we have a photo of a film theater where the movie was screened at. Same story as the previous pic. The paragraph adequately and thoroughly describes the situation with the film being screened at this particular theater with protests and theater reception. Now I ask again, why do we have this pic for? Although the average reader might not know exactly what the exterior of this particular theater looks like; it has a brick facade and looks like any other average theater. There are tens of thousands of theaters that look just like it. So basically, we don't need a pic of this forum because the paragraph describes the situation, and we don't need a photograph of any film theater because we know what a film theater looks like. You can toss this image in the category of 'too open-ended non-contemporary criteria' as well.

• Little Miss Sunshine

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Abigail_Breslin.jpg - Here we have a photograph of a young actress in the film. Please tell me, what is unique or contextually significant about a portrait shot of a 14-year old girl smiling? The actress is mentioned throughout the article, and we know how she relates to the film. Is there any compelling reason to show us what she looks like? Although we might not have known what this particular actress looked like, we understand her story by reading the article. And we also know what a 14-year old girl looks like. This pic can be inserted in the 'too open-ended non-contemporary criteria' bin too.

• Changeling

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ClintEastwoodCannesMay08.jpg - This is a photo of Clint Eastwood. The reasoning is the same as the above portrait shot. Some people might not know who Clint Eastwood is, but the article thorougly details who he is and what his involvement is in the film. And again, we also know what an older male looks like. There's no compelling reason to add a shot of an old man with white hair looking straight ahead.

Erik, if you can come up with some ridiculous outlandish argument to contradict what I'm saying, I really don't think I'm going to believe you. However, if you tell me all those pics are subject to deletion, I won't hold you to a double standard. Please keep in mind, these pages are all Featured Article status. They represent the best of Wikipedia. DeWaine (talk) 23:48, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I think I should jump in here, seeing that I'm involved with the Little Miss Sunshine and Changeling images. All of the above examples provided above are free images (whether they be released in the public domain or under a free license by their authors). Those images are not copyrighted like a film poster, DVD cover, book cover, magazine ad, etc. The free licenses entitle them to be used for any purpose (if under an attribution license, the requirement is that the author be credited). If you are looking for free images to improve Silverado, consider looking for Wikimedia Common's available images on the actors, setting, genre, etc. There may not be a specific one for the film, but you can pursue free images by contacting people who have images of the film (such as on a film set) and asking them to release it under a free license. To get a better idea on the difference between free and non-free images, see Wikipedia:Non-free content. Wikipedia's goal is to use free content, and one of the most challenging tasks here is to shift away from copyrighted works and pursue free images whether through already free content or by asking permission. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:15, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello Nehrams2020. Thank you for the input. However, I don't believe the discussion refers to that particular technicality or not. I have a bad feeling that even if all those images were free, they would have been deleted for the content reasons above which Erik mentioned. I'd like to get Erik's viewpoint on it. I don't believe this issue has to do with free images. It has to do with Rationale. DeWaine (talk) 00:27, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Sure thing, Erik should join in on the above. I just want to point out that the benefit of free images is that there is no need for a fair use rationale (as fair use isn't needed for non-copyrighted works). It's the same equivalent of you photographing a picture of the actor and saying it's okay to be used by Wikipedia. What we're not trying to do is copy and paste a screenshot from a website and use it unless there is a compelling reason to do so based on the text included within the article. So, it's not really a technicality when dealing with the non-free vs. free content. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:38, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Nehrams said it best for me. We use freely licensed images more liberally. For example, at Season of the Witch (2011 film), I displayed free images of the main actors and a free image of the Austrian Alps, which is pretty reflective of the film's setting. When we use non-free content, we have to have a very, very good reason for it. WP:NFCC#Rationale lists the rationales for this approach. Your sample pictures are fine because they are free. To see another article that uses quite a few free images, see Barton Fink. There's no need to call my argument ridiculous and outlandish, and I would encourage you to review the guidelines for images free and non-free to understand how to best use them. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:07, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

To expand, the licensing of the image does matter. An image not freely licensed is typically copyrighted, which means that it belongs to someone and that we are restricted in how we use it. If we can provide a rationale for fair use of this image that belongs to someone else, based on the policies and guidelines and the topical context, then we can use the image on Wikipedia without requesting permission. In contrast, an image that is freely licensed means that we do not have to come up with a rationale for fair use. If the images at Silverado were freely licensed, then I would not have taken issue with them. The Featured Articles' freely licensed images are also fine to me. I was actually looking for freely licensed images of cowboys to use at Silverado, but there are not really any images that could fit in the article. That was why I provided a couple of resources that cover the film; if there are any visual elements discussed in these resources, that discussion could serve as rationale to show a screenshot from the film. Changeling (film)#Closing sequence is an example of this; the non-free image there is contextually significant, illustrating the details that are covered in that section. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:05, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm not that technical Erik, and I'm not quite sure how to retrieve those free images if they exist from those library sources for the article. I understand and see what you mean when you say: We use freely licensed images more liberally. Although it should be noted, you did also say: If we can provide a rationale for fair use of this image that belongs to someone else, based on the policies and guidelines and the topical context, then we can use the image on Wikipedia without requesting permission. DeWaine (talk) 17:11, 9 February 2011 (UTC

When I say that we use freely licensed images more liberally, it is because we do not face any restrictions like we would with non-free images. For example, we try to avoid giving readers a so-called "wall" of text, so we can use a quote box or a freely licensed image of someone who is mentioned in a given section. We human beings are visual creatures, so images are nice to have among text. Sometimes the liberal use is over-the-top for freely licensed images. For example, I remember disliking Barton Fink#Fascism having an image of Hitler because it is not very pertinent to the text just because someone said "Hitlerian", but I did not contest it too much because it is more about discretion than trying to determine an exception to copyright restrictions through fair use. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:15, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 7 February 2011

• News and notes: New General Counsel hired; reuse of Google Art Project debated; GLAM newsletter started; news in brief

• In the news: Wikipedia controversies about Mormon topics examined; brief news

• Gender gap: Widespread discussions about the low participation of women in Wikipedia

• WikiProject report: Stargazing aboard WikiProject Spaceflight

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: Open cases: Shakespeare authorship – Longevity; Motions on Date delinking, Eastern European mailing list

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:14, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Maria Hill in The Avengers

Please come to the discussion at Talk:The Avengers (film project)#Maria Hill. I would like to hear your opinion.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:50, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your input.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:41, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

You were right about Maria Hill; I had searched Marie Hill by accident, whoops. Erik (talk | contribs) 22:34, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Come back to the discussion an editor might have found a valid source.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:06, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Out of Sight

When you have a chance, can you take a look at this image? Johnandmitchy has added it to the above film article, twice, and I have removed it both times, arguing its use is not justified. Looking at the image page, though, I see that he is claiming to be the image's author, stating that it is an "on set photo from extra." But, looking here, we see the same image, and it is clearly a screen grab from the movie. This makes his claim verifiably false. Is the image then eligible for deletion? I would like to know what you think about this, please. Thanks. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 04:56, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I messaged him and removed the image. It helps to message the other editor to at least establish a line of communication. I do agree with you about the licensing issue, though. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:55, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

You're right, I should have messaged him directly. Though, I see that your attempt to communicate with him did not come to much. Still, point taken. Thanks. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 17:50, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

inre Godzilla (2012 film project)

I see my using "ref name=" and having moved the actual references to the ref section made it easier to excize the ones you did not use... though your striping down to what you feel "really matters" might cause an eventual reinsertion of some of the sourced content if other editors and readers themselves feel it "really matters" (chuckle). Appreciate your efforts. Nice rewrite. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:27, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that the article read like a stream of consciousness. Is he the director??? Oh no, nevermind. Is this script for the film??? Oh no, nevermind. Et cetera. I know there is a desire to figure out what is happening, but we need to stick to truly reliable sources and pass on the concrete reports of what is actually happening. If this film ever gets made, then so much more will be written that will actually matter, most especially how this new Godzilla will be designed and how it will be received. We need to avoid guessing beforehand about whether or not a certain design is going to be used. Erik (talk | contribs) 22:33, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps re-insert the confirmed producers, as verified in THR ? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:36, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Mr. or Ms. CPea

I added that review, but I couldn't quite make out the name either. It appears to be initials from some author. It is displayed exactly as it appears in the article. Was it necessary though to delete the piece? I believe this particular film critic has some sort of credibility. Here are a list of other reviews with his name tag:

• http://www.timeout.com/film/reviews/79576/to-our-loves.html
• http://www.timeout.com/film/reviews/79425/tightrope.html
• http://www.timeout.com/film/reviews/71161/places_in_the_heart.html
• http://www.timeout.com/film/reviews/66229/othello.html
• http://www.timeout.com/film/reviews/74602/sid-and-nancy.html
• http://www.timeout.com/film/reviews/68844/caravaggio.html
• http://www.timeout.com/film/reviews/64518/white-nights.html
• http://www.timeout.com/film/reviews/76053/insignificance.html
• http://www.timeout.com/film/reviews/71276/the-pope-of-greenwich-village.html

DeWaine (talk) 00:40, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Let's talk about it on the film article's talk page. Erik (talk | contribs) 01:56, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Good catch

I was just about to revert that reversion myself. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:42, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Re: Johnandmitchy

I can't figure out him, or what he's up to, and it is becoming difficult to assume good faith. Before finding that image he added to Out of Sight, I had never encountered him before. Nor did I look far into his edit history. But, now that you have found these other borderline images, one has to wonder how many more there might be. I hope that he responds to your message and we can get some answers. Thanks for your efforts. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 23:56, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, here's something interesting: the summary for File:Altmanpressconference.jpg is tagged with the year 1998. But, as you can see from this picture, which clearly comes from the same press conference, this is the Toronto International Film Festival in 2000. Now, the image he uploaded is not included in the series on this webpage, so I cannot say with certainty that it is not his work, but it is interesting that the year is off. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 00:15, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Good catch! What did you use to find similar images? I tried using TinEye but it did not procure any results for me. I do agree that this is strange inconsistency, especially factored with his other image-related actions. Erik (talk | contribs) 00:19, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, here we have it! The exact image, credited to Christine Chew of UPI. I simply searched Google for Shelley Long and Toronto International Film Festival, and it was not sweat. Searching for Robert Altman, originally, I got a lot of hits, but many were not relevant. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 00:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! How did you find it? Just Googled for it? I feel like I may need to review the editor's text contributions to the various film articles now. I'm concerned they may not be genuine. Erik (talk | contribs) 00:49, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I think our suspicion is now well-founded. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 03:12, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

You may want to keep your eye on User:ScooterWeintraub77. He shares Johnny's singular fixation with actress Nancy Allen. Could be coincidence, but maybe not. The timing seems peculiar. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 05:34, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

The Amazing Spider-Man

Hello, Erik. You have new messages at Jhenderson777's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Although check this and this out. I am not sure I recommend it. Does seem kind of redundant. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 22:09, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 February 2011

• News and notes: Foundation report; gender statistics; DMCA takedowns; brief news

• In the news: Wikipedia wrongly blamed for Super Bowl gaffe; "digital natives" naive about Wikipedia; brief news

• Accreditation: Gaining accreditation as Wikimedia photographers at sports events

• WikiProject report: Articles for Creation

• Features and admins: RFAs and active admins—concerns expressed over the continuing drought

• Arbitration report: Proposed decisions in Shakespeare and Longevity; two new cases; motions passed, and more

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:16, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Superman: Man of Steel

Where do you think this should be redirected to. Notice that where it's redirected to it's called Superman:THE Man of Steel and the future film is supposedly reported to be named precisely after this redirect. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 16:58, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I think the current redirect is fine, though we could clean up the hatnote at that comic book series article. We could have a hatnote that points to the planned film section and put the video game links on a disambiguation page. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:00, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

In that case. Superman:Man of Steel should be redirected there too. No? There's more than one reason why I brought it up! Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 19:02, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Godzilla project

I know that you've debated this article after the verdict went to 'keep'. This is the second AfD that was declined on the article. (Which is a surprise to me as I usually lose arguments of this nature) I ask that you please hold off another AfD for a month or more. I respect all of your points, and am happy that you've cleaned out the fanboy junk. I will keep an eye on the text with an eye to not allowing the crap back in. Your links to various MOS essays and points have enhanced my knowledge of Wikipedia greatly and I hope I can do as good a job. Of course, it's not -mine- and you may want to watch it yourself. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 17:45, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I do not plan to start another AFD; it would be gaming the system. I just don't think that this project in development is a particular exception to the notability guidelines for future films. The bar has been set pretty low for so-called "rare" project articles. However, if events change, such as production truly stumbling, there may be a discussion to merge. Don't get me wrong, I like to report discussion on future films, whether planned or in production, but plans should not be regarded so highly. Anyway, there's always something else to worry about (just fleshed out Soul Surfer (film) last night), so hopefully we will cross paths on more agreeable terms. :) Erik (talk | contribs) 18:53, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Soul Surfer (film)

Materialscientist (talk) 06:02, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Sources show the sItuation has indeed changed...

Hello, Erik. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Happy New Year (2011 film) (2nd nomination).
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

It's now an appropriate time for this article.. even needing the work it does. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:44, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up! Erik (talk | contribs) 23:50, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

List of Paramount Pictures films

I noticed you rvd a suspected sock edit. There are lots of edits that are too numerous/hard to check, especially recent IPs. Sources are rarely given. Thoughts? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:30, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Anna. Let me get back to you later today. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:02, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I will have to make this short. There was an editor named Pricer1980 (talk · contribs) who was banned for adding indiscriminate and false company information. Here are some ANI discussions in chronological order: 1, 2, and 3. The editor now uses IP sockpuppets, and it is a different IP address every other day or so. I started a sub-page here that listed the various articles by the different IPs. You can see that some studio articles are on that list (though not Paramount). It's usually suspect when an IP starts adding company information, and if the additions are same as before, it's likely a sockpuppet. I'm monitoring the studio articles currently, and one can follow up on the IP contributions once identified. Here are some other SSPs at Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Pricer1980. There are also 2-3 discussions at WT:FILM about IP socks of the editor, seen here. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:42, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll take a look. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:38, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Having fun at Mankurt

Seems under its Russian spelling "Манкурт" book and news sources are available by adding the release year or writer into searches. The term Mankurt appears to be a rough translation only... as it also translates as "Manwolf" and "bird-minded". I'm finding enough in books that it seems this director's final film had made it into the enduring record. Of course, I've trimmed all the extraneous commentary about the novel and the neologism from the article as I've been sourcing. Interesting. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Wow, your Google fu is stronger than mine. :) I'll revisit the AFD later today. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:03, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. My latest thought, in comparing the original version of the article to its current version, is that if kept, the now article-about-a-film can be moved to Mankurt (film) as a dis-ambig, and the "word" mankurt can be set as a clean redirect to the novel as suggested at the AFD... specially as Wikipedia's coverage of Soviet film is somewhat lacking. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:18, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we need to disambiguate. We can have the film article at Mankurt with a hatnote pointing to the novel (with a brief explanation as to why). After all, if we only have one stand-alone topic on Wikipedia that uses a certain title, it is the primary topic. Erik (talk | contribs) 23:24, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Only thought of the disambig because the term Mankurt is so well covered at the novel article... but I do like the hatnote idea. [1] :) Also, got lucky and found numerous Turkish articles covering the filming... and archived the pages with webcite. :) Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:49, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Frontier Boys

The Frontier Boys is now looking better... enough independent secondary sources to push at WP:GNG and not too bad for an indie film that only just had its premiere. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:27, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Yep, figured it retained notability. Just wanted to make a nudge at first. :) Erik (talk | contribs) 12:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

NOTFILM

Hi, Erik; I hope you are not too busy to look into this. Front of the Class (film), a Hallmark Hall of Fame film, was created. To my knowledge, it does not meet WP:NOTFILM. Could you look at the sources in Brad Cohen#Hallmark Hall of Fame movie and let me know if I'm wrong? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:38, 22 February 2011 (UTC)