User talk:Significa liberdade

Hey, I'm reaching out to you since you also had interacted with this editor. Could you maybe also step in at User talk:Humanatlas57 § July 2026? I believe that a scammer may have reached out to an editor, who could probably do with some more well-worded advice about what may be going on. ‑‑gurkubondinn 23:48, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Sure, let me take a look. :) Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 00:12, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

So far, I think your response looks great! I'll keep an eye on the thread, though. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 00:13, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

I posted a draft but you rejected it MisinformationFreeUltimateTicTacToePage (talk) 00:14, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi there! I rejected your draft because the subject is not notable. I recommend checking out Wikipedia's guide to writing your first article. In short, you'll want to start by making sure you have multiple reliable, independent sources with significant coverage of the subject. In this case, Ictoat only has two episodes and is hosted by an internet creator with 34 followers. Thus, it is highly unlikely you would find sources to establish notability, which is how we determine which articles should be made on Wikipedia. I hope this helps! Let me know if you have any further questions. Take care, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 00:18, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Scaredy Squirrel, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A unsupported parameter error. References show this error when you use a parameter name that does not exist. Please replace the parameter with one that the template supports, or remove it if no such parameter exists. (Fix | Ask for help). Below are the references causing this error:

• • "ProgramDetails". www.corusent.com. Archived from the original on July 8, 2011. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 15:58, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Kelley Armstrong, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A unsupported parameter error. References show this error when you use a parameter name that does not exist. Please replace the parameter with one that the template supports, or remove it if no such parameter exists. (Fix | Ask for help). Below are the references causing this error:

• • "Wild Justice | Kelley Armstrong". www.kelleyarmstrong.com. Archived from the original on 8 March 2012. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 21:19, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Women in Red | August 2026, Vol 12, Issue 8, Nos 358, 359, 378, 379, 380 Events: New: Alphabet run: Countries starting with N and O | Indigenous women | Women born before 1900 Continuing (year-long initiatives): #1day1woman | Sports More ... Announcements: On 25 July, at Wikimania Paris, Women in Red was named the Coolest Project! Tip of the month: Read the essay Determining Native American and Indigenous Canadian identities to understand the criteria for a woman's status as Native American or Indigenous Canadian. Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events and add any general ideas on developing the project. Follow us on social media: Instagram & Pinterest

--Chocmilk03 (talk 21:45, 30 July 2026 (UTC) via MassMessaging

• DarioFFP (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Fernando Ferrari Pérez (EN) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This message of mine just to clarify to Significa Liberdade (reviewer) that I acknowledge the fact that there is already a page on the same subject and person (Fernando Ferrari-Pérez), and that, in fact, I (User DarioFFP) was the author of it in 2011. The new page is simply more complete (because now I have time to make it more complete), and in fact, I had asked (in the Talk section) what should I do, to two of the Wikipedia reviewers, but got no answers. The new page Fernando Ferrari Pérez (EN), in fact incorporates all the information contained in the old one (including the few contributions done to it since 2011), so it would be more logical to cancel that page, and keep only the new one. However, if I will not receive any reply from yourselves neither, I will edit the old page (even if the last name in that page is wrong, someone modified it to Ferrari-Pérez, with a hyphen, and that is formally wrong in that it 'means' something else than his father's and mother's last names). Anyhow, if you have suggestions now, I thank you in advance, otherwise, I'll edit the old page. DarioFFP

DarioFFP (talk) 16:13, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi, DarioFFP! Can you show me where you left comments for other reviewers/editors? I'm not seeing anything at Draft talk:Fernando Ferrari Pérez (EN) or Talk:Fernando Ferrari-Pérez, though I see your contested deletion at Draft talk:Fernando Ferrari Pérez (ES).

I understand this must be a confusing situation! On the English Wikipedia, all edits to a page need to preserved, so we cannot delete the Fernando Ferrari-Pérez to accept your new article. Instead, the new information would need to be merged into the existing article. Given your conflict of interest (COI), you would also want to use the edit request feature so editors without a COI can make the changes. Because this would be such a substantial change, I've reached out to a few other editors to see if there would be an easier way of doing this. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 16:41, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi Significa liberdade, thanks for reviewing Murrays Beach (disambiguation). I noticed you tagged this with one other topic. I just wanted to clarify, I created this DAB as I don't believe that Murrays Beach is actually the primary topic and I have opened a Requested Move discussion at Talk:Murrays Beach#Requested move 9 August 2026. This may provide a bit of additional context as to why I believe a DAB is necessary, depending on the outcome. If the RM fails, I am happy for it to be deleted and hatnotes place on the articles instead. Thanks! Dfadden (talk) 20:50, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Sounds good! Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 01:38, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2026).

Administrator changes

• MCE89
• Staraction

• Danaman5

CheckUser changes

• dbeef

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RfC, the 30-day requirement for extended-confirmed status now begins after an account's first edit instead of its registration (T431060).

Technical news

• Inactive editors can now be removed as mentors at Special:CommunityConfiguration/Mentorship automatically.
• The Suggested Edits' Revise Tone feature is now enabled. It encourages editors to identify and revise non-neutral language in articles.

Miscellaneous

• The Unreferenced articles August 2026 backlog drive is underway. Help to add references to 47,000 articles.
• The Articles for creation August 2026 backlog drive is under way. Help to review 4,500+ drafts.

Hello, I wanted to let you know you are currently the AfC reviewer with the second most number of failed reviews. I checked Trygve Ugland which I do not agree should have been accepted. Please re-familiarize yourself with WP:SNG. Also the page had copyright violations. Ensure you check every draft for copyright violations with tools like WP:earwig and User:DannyS712/copyvio-check.js Czarking0 (talk) 04:07, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello, Czarking0, and thank you for your feedback. I have paused my reviews to get a better understanding of the community's consensus regarding NAUTHOR. To my understanding, writers generally meet NAUTHOR if they have at least two works that have two reliable book reviews each (which is the case of Ugland). Further, I will add that I check every article for copyright and disagree that the draft I accepted contained significant copyright violations (though I am open to feedback). Nthep also declined the REVDEL as minimumal. The sentences you changed follow:

• Ugland was educated at the University of Oslo and Queen's University of Belfast, and he earned his Doctor of Philosophy in Political Science from the University of Oslo in 2002 under the supervision of Johan P. Olsen. This was changed to remove the first independent clause. Personally, I believe this changes the meaning. If you wanted to change "was educated at" to "attended", that would be fine. However, as a university instructor, I would not mark that for plagiarism.
• he has completed three terms as... was changed to he was. Again, I find this changes the meaning and would not count as plagiarism in US or Canadian higher education. It could be changed to "he served three terms", but I don't see that as significant enough for CV.
• Lastly, His recent books was changed to His works. Again, this is very minimal.

Otherwise, all Earwig shows is proper nouns. I hope this doesn't come across as confrontational in any way. I'm just a bit confused by the claim that this should have been declined as copyright violation. I'm happy to have someone who works with CV more regularly provide feedback, though. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 18:01, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Not confrontational at all, I appreciate the cooperation. My interpretation of NAUTHOR is not just any book review because nearly all book reviews are paid for. They need to be independent reviews. I disagree on the CV assessment and I think the content was directly lifted from the subjects curriculum vitae. Of course, there is a degree of taste on CV. Czarking0 (talk) 04:03, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Also, I have started a discussion about how to clarify NAUTHOR that you might be interested in: Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#Clarifying NAUTHOR. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 17:50, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Resubmitted with secondary sources at Draft:George Barbastathis (even though they weren't really needed I think) ~2026-40969-38 (talk) 14:48, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Another editor will review the new draft. Thank you for your continued work. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 16:55, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Think you forgot to link a couple words in your comment . LittlePuppers (talk) 19:49, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! Links added. :) Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 19:56, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Draft declined

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Your draft submission to Articles for creation has been reviewed but not accepted at this time.

Feedback

The reviewer, Sulfurboy, left the following feedback:

This draft lacks inline citations. Wikipedia's verifiability policy requires that all content be supported by reliable sources. We require inline citations (footnotes) to show which source supports which specific statement.

You must place an inline citation directly after:

• quotations;
• any material whose verifiability is likely to be challenged or is contentious;
• any material about living people.

Please edit your draft to support your statements with inline citations. Learn how to create inline citations in the:

• Source Editor: Introduction to referencing with Wiki Markup.
• VisualEditor: Introduction to referencing with VisualEditor.

Please actually address the issues before tediously resubmitting, it makes for a very easy decline when I can see citation needed templates all over the page.

Next steps

• Edit Draft:Kathleen Jennings to address the points above, making sure to publish any changes.
• When you are ready to resubmit your draft for review, click the Resubmit button.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it may be deleted.

Need help?

• For an overview of our policies and guidelines see Everything you need to know.
• You can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page.

Scam warning

• If anyone asks you for money or payment to publish, protect, or restore a Wikipedia article or draft, it is a scam. Learn about scams on Wikipedia.

Sulfurboy (talk) 05:06, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Sulfurboy: I hope this is not the way you respond to new editors. This draft has been significantly changed since your previous review. At the time of your previous review, the draft had a single source. Now, it has a whopping 71 sources. By my count, there are two citation needed tags, both in the same paragraph. This is not citation needed templates all over the page. There are tags stating that non-primary sources are needed, but this is separated from cn. This would be extremely bitey behaviour toward new editors who may have put hours (if not days) into making these changes. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 12:36, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Please also see WP:AFCSTANDARDS, which reads, Avoid declining an article because it correctly uses general references to support some or all of the material. The content and sourcing policies require inline citations for only four specific types of material, most commonly quotations and contentious material about living persons (emphasis mine). Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 13:06, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

How am I being bitey? You submitted the draft, the review was intended for you, the submitter. You're an admin not a newcomer. If 71 cites can be added, then so can 73 to fill it out. Assigning credit for two projects without sourcing is absolutely a potentially contentious topic. I've seen NPP bounce articles for less. Sulfurboy (talk) 19:26, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

I understand that your comment was intended for me as an experienced editor. However, using language such as Please actually address the issues before tediously resubmitting does not AGF about the effort that went into improving the draft. The draft was previously declined for N and V. Again, it had a single source, and much of it was was unreferenced. As stated, many citations were added to show that Jennings's work meets N, and all the additional information was referenced. This means that certainly at least one of the issues was addressed. Further, I would argue that the one paragraph is not contentious, though I won't fuss about that. Articles that pass through AFC do not need to meet GA standards. If you were specifically concerned with that one paragraph, a better response may have been a comment stating, "I notice that one paragraph is still missing citations. Could you find references to verify the claims?" This is much more collaborative.

I also want to address your comment regarding NPP. Could you clarify what you mean by stating that you've seen NPP bounce articles for less? Are you suggesting that if this draft were in mainspace, it would reasonably be draftified or nominated for AfD? Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 21:42, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello, Significa liberdade! Having a draft declined at Articles for creation can be disappointing, but don't be discouraged, it's common when creating your first article. Need help? For an overview of our policies and guidelines see Everything you need to know. To understand why your draft was declined, please read the reviewer's feedback and follow any links to help pages you've been given. If you're still confused, try asking for advice at the Articles for creation Help desk. For peer support regarding all other editing, sourcing, or policies, visit the Teahouse, a friendly question and answer hub for new editors. We'd love to see you there! Sulfurboy (talk) 05:06, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your creation of the Infobox on Kalman Magyar. Kindly note that, in the article, sourced reference to Brooklyn Law School (1998) as an additional place of education is indicated under the "Legal career" section on the biography. If you agree it should also appear on the Infobox, please feel free to amend the Infobox accordingly identifying Brooklyn Law School (1998). Thank you. Magyarkalman (talk) 22:31, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for mentioning this! Typically, all the educational information is included in one area of the article, so I hadn't seen the law school elsewhere in the article. Happy to add this to the infobox. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 22:34, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi! I wanted to quickly inform you that I moved the page Rogotinski Bridge back into the mainspace after adding sources.

Just to briefly clarify: for some odd reason, the sources I brought over from the Croatian Wikipedia disappeared once I clicked publish, so it made it seem like the article was unreferenced except for one external link. I fixed it now, and I added an expansion tag to let users know there's still stuff on the Croatian page that needs translating.

Not sure if this was improper per se, but I figured I would at least let you know in case you come across it again :) Losipov (talk) 20:29, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know! Very odd about the sources not copying over. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 20:33, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi Significa liberdade, thanks for participating in the Articles for Creation August Backlog Drive! We've done amazing work so far, dropping the backlog by more than 3000 drafts already. We have around 1300 drafts outstanding, and we need your help to get that down to zero in the next 10 days. We can do this, but we need all hands on deck to help make it happen – if everyone who signed up to the drive reviewed just 1–2 drafts a day for the next ten days, we'd be down to zero in no time! A list of the pending drafts can be found at WP:AFCSORT, where you can select submissions in your area of interest, or you can find a random submission here. Thank you so much for your work so far, and happy reviewing! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:20, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi, I was unaware until recently that you re-reviewed some of my actions during the May backlog drive. My attention was recently drawn to this when somebody linked to it at a discussion page.

Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog drives/May 2026/Re-reviews

You made some errors in your reviews, ironically I feel this may be because you were working too quickly.

1. Draft:Abstract Wikipedia (wiki) In your re-review you state draftified 36 minutes after previous constructive edit (and 45 minutes after creation), in violation of NPPHOUR. This is false, I tagged it after 35 minutes and draftified after 1 hour and 1 minute, documented on the page's history.

2. Draft:Pondu unclear why eight sources aren't enough. I draftified this because the page has no reliable secondary sources, it is sourced entirely to recipes (primary sources) in blogs/unreliable sources. Explained to the author here. Also, read the article and tell me it's not AI.

3. Yoo Yeongha This was draftified for grammar. Nearly every sentence started with the name of the subject and it read like a 5-year old had written it. To repeatedly use a name to begin a sentence is a grammatical error in English, this is why we have pronouns. The draftification worked perfectly, the author improved the prose and I approved it quickly, which is probably why it came up your worklist.

As this was months ago, I would normally just forget about it, but the list has been linked in a live discussion. I feel that having this incorrect information on that page is detrimental to my reputation as a wikipedian and may influence the discussion into thinking there are more problems with quick reviews than there are. I would therefore ask you to edit this page to reflect that your re-review of these actions is incorrect.

All the best Boynamedsue (talk) 04:56, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi there! Thank you for bringing this to my attention (seriously). I have re-reviewed my reviews and made relevant changes. I'll also take a look at the relevant live discussion. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 15:26, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, I really appreciate that.Boynamedsue (talk) 15:48, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Just had a look at the page and I think something might have gone a bit wrong with your edit there! From what you were beginning to write on Yoo Yeongha, I can understand that it's possible to disagree on that one, but I am more concerned about the other two which were pretty textbook draftifications.Boynamedsue (talk) 15:54, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Oh goodness. My apologies. It appears I was editing the page in two tabs, then published the wrong tab. (and yes, I recognize the irony, which should not be blamed on me looking at this while drinking my first cup of tea for the day). Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 16:08, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, most of my worse edits are before I get a chance to drink my tea! All the best. Boynamedsue (talk) 16:28, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited ALS Gold Medal, a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Telegraph was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi Significa liberdade. I am not satisfied with your resolution regarding voice banks.

First, your're claiming the article has no reliable sources, while I provided several books from reputable editors like the Oxford University Press, the Duke University Press, Taylor & Francis, the IEEE, etc., at the Literature section, all of them publicly available and some of them found at JSTOR, therefore, the article is not an original research. Since the References sections and the in-line citations provided poor references (Yamaha, Vocaloid, etc), this is why I've provided books about speech synthesis technology with mentions to Vocaloid and the concept of voice bank, at the Literature section rather than inline citations, complying the verifiability, which is a policy, while notability and reliable sources are content guidelines, and independient sources is an essay.

And second, you're claiming I could be used LLM for writing the article, wich offends me since I'm a longterm contributor since 2007 who edited mainly at the Spanish Wikipedia, and to a lesser extent, the English Wikipedia, Commons and Wikidata, who, despite I wrote few articles form begin (and several are translationns en → es using the automatic translation tool, altrough my english level is high), I write articles as thoroughly as possible, avoiding the use of chatbots for write for me (althrough I've used Gemini to find factual data and literatute faster, books I read before adding to the Literature section, and I determined that thoise books comply with the verifiability policy).

And finally, I believe the subject of the article is notable, since it explains a technology used in music production, and explains what is exactly Hatsune Miku or Kasane Teto in the context of software library. Regards. Amitie 10g (talk) 02:13, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi there, Amitie 10g! Thank you for your contributions, particularly to the Spanish Wikipedia. Both policies and content guidelines should be followed unless extenuating circumstances exist. In this case, notability is one of the strongest content guidelines we have, as is our reliance on reliable sourcing, which ties into independent sourcing. That said, I have searched the sources in the literature section for "voice bank". Thinking with an Accent appears to have coverage, but I do not have access to the source. Zaborowski sources appear to have some writing with the term "voice bank", though I do not have access. Neither Whiteley, Saitou et al., nor Anderson appear to use the term. In each of these cases, other terms may be used. If you have reliable sources that verify claims in the article, I suggest using them in the article rather than listed in a bibliography, especially since the sources cited in the article are unreliable and many sections of the article are unsourced.

As for LLM-generation, I tagged it as such due to the formatting (WP:AILIST). LLMs often create articles with many bullet points where the beginning of the list item is bolded, as is the case for Draft:Voice bank (music production).

If you feel my decline was inappropriate, feel free to resubmit for review by another experienced editor. That said, I recommend citing reliable sources in the body of the article. Please let me know if you have any further questions, comments, and/or concerns. Take care, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 15:56, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Significa liberdade, as I insisted, the term "voice bank" is not an invention of me. It is documented in many sources, starting with the Vocaloid official website.

Regarding the sources:

• Thinking with an Accent and The Race of Sound are available at JSTOR as open acces, properly linked. Both books widely document what "Vocaloid" and "voice bank" are.
• Music Generations in the Digital Age, while is not freely available, Google Books allows to see a preview, and allows to find the terms. "Vocaloid" returns several results, and "voice bank" returns one result, but it clearly mentions it as a technology and its relationship with Vocaloid. Also available at JSTOR and several libraries, but with restricted access.
• Speech-to-singing synthesis is a paper about speech syntesys technology, and one of its references is Vocaloid, as "New Singing Synthesis Technology" according to Yamaha (its developer).
• Hatsune Miku, Virtual Idols, and Transforming the Popular Music Experience, as the title suggest, is about "Hatsune Miku and virtual idols" in the context of music production. The leading section says "Vocal synthesisers like Vocaloid"; althrough the term is not mentioned in the paper, "voice bank" is the denomination the "library of audio samples and parametric data used by speech synthesis software and a scorewriter", being Vocaloid speech engine, voice bank editor and scorewriter software, and Hatsune Miku being not just a popular character, but a software library that allowed the composition of many songs, aka., a "voice bank".

Say that, althrough I believe the article in its current status complies with the verifiability policy, I'll move some of those books to inline-citations, following the strict policies and conventions of the English Wikipedia. Regards. Amitie 10g (talk) 18:26, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello again, Amitie 10g! This sounds like a good start. If you have any additional questions as you continue improving the article, feel free to reach out to me or the Teahouse. Take care, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 23:42, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

September 2026 Backlog Drive | New pages patrol
On 1 September 2026, a one-month backlog drive for new pages patrol will begin at a particularly important time for NPP. The backlog has now passed 30,000 unreviewed articles, a level that has been described in current NPP discussions as exceptionally high and potentially difficult to overcome through normal reviewing alone. Backlog drives are one of the few measures that have historically produced a noticeable reduction in the backlog, so the participation of as many active patrollers as possible will matter this month. If you can review during September, please make articles your priority. Every article that is reviewed is a meaningful reduction in the backlog. With the queue at its current size, even a relatively small increase in the number of articles each patroller reviews can add up to a substantial difference over the course of the month. This is a hybrid drive, so redirect reviewing is still included. Redirects can be a useful way for newer patrollers to get comfortable with NPP and can help people build up to reviewing articles. However, the main goal of this drive is to tackle the article backlog, and experienced patrollers are particularly encouraged to spend as much of their available reviewing time on articles as they can. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Each article review will earn 1 point, while each redirect review will earn 0.2 points. Streak awards will be given out based on consistently hitting point thresholds for each week of the drive. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. If you have been thinking about doing more NPP, this is an especially good month to jump in. Whether you can review a few pages or hundreds, every review helps. And if you are already an active patroller, please consider whether you can put in some additional time during September to help bring the backlog back under control. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:49, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Women in Red | September 2026, Vol 12, Issue 9, Nos 358, 359, 381, 382, 383 Events: New: Labour activists | Writers & their works | Alphabet run: Countries starting with P, Q & R Continuing (year-long initiatives): #1day1woman | Sports More ... Tip of the month: Try her pen name when searching for sources, and remember to add her to any of these that apply: List of pen names, List of literary initials, and Category:Pseudonymous women writers. Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events and add any general ideas on developing the project Follow us on social media: Instagram & Pinterest

--Rosiestep (talk) 15:47, 26 August 2026 (UTC) via MassMessaging