Hello, Sortan, and
welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for
your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the
New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
- The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Editing tutorial
- Picture tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Naming conventions
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!-- Falphin 8 July 2005 02:01 (UTC)
Sortan, are you sure this isn't just a "BCE dispute" role account?
dab
(ᛏ) 8 July 2005 17:50 (UTC)
As you are probably aware, recently there has been a somewhat divisive campaign by supporters of BCE/CE notation to encourage it on Wikipedia - and to change our guidelines on date notation to support their views. The Wikipedia community voted down the first proposal, ArbCom neutralised an attempt to enforce the first proposal despite its failure to gain a majority, let alone consensus, which is what WP is effectively governed by. A new (slightly watered down) attempt to change the guidelines is also about to fail. What this means is that we are left with the guideline as it currently stands. In summary, this guideline, which applies globally, is that either BC/AD or BCE/CE is acceptable, consistency within an article is desirable, and no-one should go changing articles that are fully consistent in their style to the alternative style.
You will note that my recent edits, being edits to make articles consistent in notation, are recommended by the guideline (and also recently by ArbCom). Whereas your edits, which were to change articles that use fully consistent notation (post my editing) to your preferred notation were not.
It is far from being an ideal guideline, but if we are to progress and edit amicably on WP going forward, we all need to accept this guideline (at least until there is support for an alternative - which there isn't at the moment). Kind regards, jguk 07:20, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
Would it be too much to ask that you explain the rationale for your reverts, and why you're joining with User:Jguk to violate policy by changing date styles in articles which consistently use one? Sortan 17:09, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- You're trying to impose a rare alternative for the BC/AD terminology which has been rejected by community vote at Wikipedia. The rejection of your preferred terminology by the community is all the reason I need to revert you.-- Wiglaf 17:13, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- No, if you'd read the WP:MOS, it explicitly allows both styles as long as articles are internally consistent. What is not allowed is to change an article which consistently uses one style to another style, which is what you (and User:Jguk) have been doing. The community has rejected not only using BCE/CE as a standard but also BC/AD, instead preferring to allow both systems. Sortan 17:17, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- The majority vote was to reject the BCE/CE as a standard. Apparently, it is still not settled: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Eras. It is interesting to note that YOU have appointed yourself the arbiter of which one to use for consistency. Note that I am entitled to do the same and revert you. I do suggest that you consider only BC/AD for consistency as well, but I have not seen you opting for that version in a single article.-- Wiglaf 17:36, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- And the consensus was to reject BC/AD as a standard as well... your point being? Again- the MoS only states that articles should be consistent (with either style), and so anyone is free to make articles internally consistent. What is inappropriate is to change an article which is consistent to another style without a good reason. Sortan 17:41, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- I am going to watch your edits, and if I see a single rv petty vandalism where you have changed a consistent AD/BC article into a BCE/CE article, I WILL revert you. Have no doubt about that. And don't try any "original version inconsistency" argument, because according to the logic you have presented here, you have no reason to change articles that are presently BC/AD consistent.-- Wiglaf 17:48, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
this is pathetic, I suggest you find something more productive to do on Wikipedia :( dab (ᛏ) 18:04, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
I've suggested a cease-fire on eras, at the Village pump. Maurreen (talk) 09:44, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
Can you explain this massive deletion of content [1]?-- Wiglaf 17:10, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
Note that you can be blocked for vandalism.-- Wiglaf 17:11, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
Yuezhi is now where it was before the revert war over eras hit that page. Please do not keep reverting people on that. Our style manual says the date form in that article is fine. Jonathunder 03:05, 2005 August 24 (UTC)
You may be interested in this: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/jguk CDThieme 20:22, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
Hi Sortan: You should know that your name has come up in some discussion on my talk page (see "Accusations of 'troll'). Actually it began with a question to Jguk on his talk page, but it has expanded, so I copied the whole thing to my talk page. I just thought you should be aware of it if you're not already. No action necessary at this point. Sunray 18:42, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
I see that you are continuing to change articles that are quite happily sitting with BC notation to BCE, somewhat against WP policy - as is your approach to using invective rather than explaining your position. Only BC notation has worldwide recognition amongst our target audience, and good writing requires an author to use terms his reader will understand and be familiar with (as opposed to requiring the reader to put up with the writer's peccadilloes). I don't understand why you are so in favour of trying to make our articles more inaccessible - but then, of course, I can't, as you have consummately failed to discuss your position.
So far the majority of your edits to WP have been purely destructive, and those which have helped WP have been somewhat minor in nature. If this is all you can contribute, please consider whether your energies would be better served elsewhere - life is short and you are more trouble here than you are worth at present. Kind regards, jguk 18:23, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
- Are you going to comment on your actions - which only serve to make WP less accessible to its reader base, or just blindly revert in the hope that in time anyone who reads WP will go away? jguk 18:21, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
When are you going to do something other than revert to insert your POV, which is contrary to WP policy? It's not the done thing to revert blindly, but it's difficult to see a resolution to this when you are unwilling to discuss your behaviour, which to date has been entirely against the spirit of Wikipedia. Wikipedia needs good editors, it does not need editors who only disrupt it, which is what you have done so far, jguk 15:32, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
- I strongly believe that good writers should write with their readers in mind, and that this alone should dictate the style they adopt, with the writer's personal preferences having little or no bearing. Is this POV? Well, I don't think so - it's just what is at the heart of good writing.
- You seem to know quite a bit for a new user. Do you have another account and, if so, what is it?
- Also, what's your interest in all of this anyway? jguk 15:46, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
- Not sure about the previous account, but his next account was going to be James-R - David Gerard 10:01, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
You left an important incident off your list; while his Arbitration case was on-going, during a period when he claimed to have "left" Wikipedia, in about 3 hours jguk astoundingly made over 300 BCE/CE date style changes as an IP address. While, as usual, he claimed to be merely conforming to the MOS, he actually removed CE from some pages while leaving AD in, and in other cases simply replaced CE with AD, e.g. [2] [3] Jayjg (talk) 15:28, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
Sortan, please confirm what other WP accounts you edit under. Many thanks, jguk 16:44, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
- It's a question of openness (same reason as to why I've asked all the ArbCom candidates for the December election the same question), jguk 18:11, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm happy to: the accounts are User:Jongarrettuk, User:Jguk and User:SmokeDog. I trust you'll reciprocate, jguk 18:30, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
- I really don't know what ip addresses I have edited under - I try to always remember to log in, but that doesn't mean I don't make the odd mistake. I'm on dial-up and have always been on dial-up, so the ip changes. Plus, like most people, I started out as a logged-out editor. Perhaps you'd oblige me by letting me know which other usernames you have? jguk 18:54, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Please consider supporting Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Jguk and date notation. ← Humus sapiens ←ну? 23:37, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
- I just did a spot-check on one of the alleged "inappropriate" changes ( Maya calendar ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)), and user:Jguk's edit was appropriate in that article (before his edit the article contained one instance of BC and one of BCE; the BCE instance was more recently inserted, making BC the "appropriate" style under the terms of the prior ArbCom ruling). Your revert actually returned the article to a state prohibited by the MoS, because you reverted only Jguk's change, and not the other instance of BC in the article.
- I've not decided whether to recommend that we accept this case or not, but at this point if we do accept it be aware that your conduct in this matter will also be subject to our review. You appear to have have no history of editing Maya calendar prior to your ill-considered revert of Jguk; this certainly suggests that you're stalking him, a behavior which we have indicated is unacceptable. Kelly Martin 22:29, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up on the arbitration, but to be frank, I have spent far too much of my time on that jerk already -- not just in arbitration, but in endless edits and pointless talk page palaver.
I also have to say that my faith in the arbitration process was severely shaken in that first case, so that's another reason I'm not inclined to participate this time around.
HOWEVER... I still think this guy is a nut and is harming WP on a site-wide scale, so if you would go through my evidence (confusingly presented, I know) that I gave in the first case, and if you think it would substantially add to your case, then I would be happy to clean it up for reader-friendliness, and re-present it for this case.
But please don't ask me unless you've read the whole thing and clicked on most or all of the links. I hate to sound like a dick, but as you may have noticed in my original evidence, my first run-in with ol' Jon was nearly a year ago, and if I never have to fire another neuron on his behalf, it will be too soon. And as I said above, I and many others dealing with this guy were already burned once by the arbitration process.
But if -- after reading it through -- you really, truly think that my evidence would significantly help your case, let me know and I'll post it asap.
I apologize for being so cantankerous about this, but I do look forward to hearing from you. Best, dablaze 02:31, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/jguk 2 has been accepted. Please place evidence at /Evidence I changed your statement by removing Jguk's real name. He doesn't put it on his user page, so probably we should just use his user name. Fred Bauder 13:57, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
Okay, could you explain to me where the number 163 comes from then? I understand that the departments take in different amounts of money, which is why straight out subtracting the numbers doesn't say much. But I have no idea where 163 comes from. Ac e tic ' Acid 04:36, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks for your explanation. You're right about it's irrelevance. If Trump had mentioned how much money each department normally brought in, we could calculate an accurate difference. Since he didn't, those numbers mean very little. I'll remove the section. Ac e tic ' Acid 05:55, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
The arbitration committee has reached a final decision in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/jguk 2 case. →Raul654 03:30, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Please be advised that I have made a request for arbitration against you. You can read the particulars and, if you wish, make a statement not exceeding 500 words on the matter on WP:RfAr, jguk 20:00, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sortan has been accepted. Please place evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sortan/Evidence. Proposals and comments may be placed at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sortan/Workshop. Fred Bauder 19:32, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
What do you think of the movement? Reply here. Thanks. -- Kin Khan 02:54, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
This arbitration case has closed. Jguk is banned from editing with respect to era notation. This will be enforced by block, as per Jguk's prior arbitration case. You are also warned regarding stalking him. On behalf of the arbitration committee, Johnleemk | Talk 09:15, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
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) 13:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Sortan, and
welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for
your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the
New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
- The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Editing tutorial
- Picture tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Naming conventions
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!-- Falphin 8 July 2005 02:01 (UTC)
Sortan, are you sure this isn't just a "BCE dispute" role account?
dab
(ᛏ) 8 July 2005 17:50 (UTC)
As you are probably aware, recently there has been a somewhat divisive campaign by supporters of BCE/CE notation to encourage it on Wikipedia - and to change our guidelines on date notation to support their views. The Wikipedia community voted down the first proposal, ArbCom neutralised an attempt to enforce the first proposal despite its failure to gain a majority, let alone consensus, which is what WP is effectively governed by. A new (slightly watered down) attempt to change the guidelines is also about to fail. What this means is that we are left with the guideline as it currently stands. In summary, this guideline, which applies globally, is that either BC/AD or BCE/CE is acceptable, consistency within an article is desirable, and no-one should go changing articles that are fully consistent in their style to the alternative style.
You will note that my recent edits, being edits to make articles consistent in notation, are recommended by the guideline (and also recently by ArbCom). Whereas your edits, which were to change articles that use fully consistent notation (post my editing) to your preferred notation were not.
It is far from being an ideal guideline, but if we are to progress and edit amicably on WP going forward, we all need to accept this guideline (at least until there is support for an alternative - which there isn't at the moment). Kind regards, jguk 07:20, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
Would it be too much to ask that you explain the rationale for your reverts, and why you're joining with User:Jguk to violate policy by changing date styles in articles which consistently use one? Sortan 17:09, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- You're trying to impose a rare alternative for the BC/AD terminology which has been rejected by community vote at Wikipedia. The rejection of your preferred terminology by the community is all the reason I need to revert you.-- Wiglaf 17:13, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- No, if you'd read the WP:MOS, it explicitly allows both styles as long as articles are internally consistent. What is not allowed is to change an article which consistently uses one style to another style, which is what you (and User:Jguk) have been doing. The community has rejected not only using BCE/CE as a standard but also BC/AD, instead preferring to allow both systems. Sortan 17:17, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- The majority vote was to reject the BCE/CE as a standard. Apparently, it is still not settled: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Eras. It is interesting to note that YOU have appointed yourself the arbiter of which one to use for consistency. Note that I am entitled to do the same and revert you. I do suggest that you consider only BC/AD for consistency as well, but I have not seen you opting for that version in a single article.-- Wiglaf 17:36, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- And the consensus was to reject BC/AD as a standard as well... your point being? Again- the MoS only states that articles should be consistent (with either style), and so anyone is free to make articles internally consistent. What is inappropriate is to change an article which is consistent to another style without a good reason. Sortan 17:41, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- I am going to watch your edits, and if I see a single rv petty vandalism where you have changed a consistent AD/BC article into a BCE/CE article, I WILL revert you. Have no doubt about that. And don't try any "original version inconsistency" argument, because according to the logic you have presented here, you have no reason to change articles that are presently BC/AD consistent.-- Wiglaf 17:48, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
this is pathetic, I suggest you find something more productive to do on Wikipedia :( dab (ᛏ) 18:04, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
I've suggested a cease-fire on eras, at the Village pump. Maurreen (talk) 09:44, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
Can you explain this massive deletion of content [1]?-- Wiglaf 17:10, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
Note that you can be blocked for vandalism.-- Wiglaf 17:11, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
Yuezhi is now where it was before the revert war over eras hit that page. Please do not keep reverting people on that. Our style manual says the date form in that article is fine. Jonathunder 03:05, 2005 August 24 (UTC)
You may be interested in this: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/jguk CDThieme 20:22, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
Hi Sortan: You should know that your name has come up in some discussion on my talk page (see "Accusations of 'troll'). Actually it began with a question to Jguk on his talk page, but it has expanded, so I copied the whole thing to my talk page. I just thought you should be aware of it if you're not already. No action necessary at this point. Sunray 18:42, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
I see that you are continuing to change articles that are quite happily sitting with BC notation to BCE, somewhat against WP policy - as is your approach to using invective rather than explaining your position. Only BC notation has worldwide recognition amongst our target audience, and good writing requires an author to use terms his reader will understand and be familiar with (as opposed to requiring the reader to put up with the writer's peccadilloes). I don't understand why you are so in favour of trying to make our articles more inaccessible - but then, of course, I can't, as you have consummately failed to discuss your position.
So far the majority of your edits to WP have been purely destructive, and those which have helped WP have been somewhat minor in nature. If this is all you can contribute, please consider whether your energies would be better served elsewhere - life is short and you are more trouble here than you are worth at present. Kind regards, jguk 18:23, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
- Are you going to comment on your actions - which only serve to make WP less accessible to its reader base, or just blindly revert in the hope that in time anyone who reads WP will go away? jguk 18:21, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
When are you going to do something other than revert to insert your POV, which is contrary to WP policy? It's not the done thing to revert blindly, but it's difficult to see a resolution to this when you are unwilling to discuss your behaviour, which to date has been entirely against the spirit of Wikipedia. Wikipedia needs good editors, it does not need editors who only disrupt it, which is what you have done so far, jguk 15:32, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
- I strongly believe that good writers should write with their readers in mind, and that this alone should dictate the style they adopt, with the writer's personal preferences having little or no bearing. Is this POV? Well, I don't think so - it's just what is at the heart of good writing.
- You seem to know quite a bit for a new user. Do you have another account and, if so, what is it?
- Also, what's your interest in all of this anyway? jguk 15:46, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
- Not sure about the previous account, but his next account was going to be James-R - David Gerard 10:01, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
You left an important incident off your list; while his Arbitration case was on-going, during a period when he claimed to have "left" Wikipedia, in about 3 hours jguk astoundingly made over 300 BCE/CE date style changes as an IP address. While, as usual, he claimed to be merely conforming to the MOS, he actually removed CE from some pages while leaving AD in, and in other cases simply replaced CE with AD, e.g. [2] [3] Jayjg (talk) 15:28, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
Sortan, please confirm what other WP accounts you edit under. Many thanks, jguk 16:44, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
- It's a question of openness (same reason as to why I've asked all the ArbCom candidates for the December election the same question), jguk 18:11, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm happy to: the accounts are User:Jongarrettuk, User:Jguk and User:SmokeDog. I trust you'll reciprocate, jguk 18:30, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
- I really don't know what ip addresses I have edited under - I try to always remember to log in, but that doesn't mean I don't make the odd mistake. I'm on dial-up and have always been on dial-up, so the ip changes. Plus, like most people, I started out as a logged-out editor. Perhaps you'd oblige me by letting me know which other usernames you have? jguk 18:54, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Please consider supporting Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Jguk and date notation. ← Humus sapiens ←ну? 23:37, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
- I just did a spot-check on one of the alleged "inappropriate" changes ( Maya calendar ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)), and user:Jguk's edit was appropriate in that article (before his edit the article contained one instance of BC and one of BCE; the BCE instance was more recently inserted, making BC the "appropriate" style under the terms of the prior ArbCom ruling). Your revert actually returned the article to a state prohibited by the MoS, because you reverted only Jguk's change, and not the other instance of BC in the article.
- I've not decided whether to recommend that we accept this case or not, but at this point if we do accept it be aware that your conduct in this matter will also be subject to our review. You appear to have have no history of editing Maya calendar prior to your ill-considered revert of Jguk; this certainly suggests that you're stalking him, a behavior which we have indicated is unacceptable. Kelly Martin 22:29, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up on the arbitration, but to be frank, I have spent far too much of my time on that jerk already -- not just in arbitration, but in endless edits and pointless talk page palaver.
I also have to say that my faith in the arbitration process was severely shaken in that first case, so that's another reason I'm not inclined to participate this time around.
HOWEVER... I still think this guy is a nut and is harming WP on a site-wide scale, so if you would go through my evidence (confusingly presented, I know) that I gave in the first case, and if you think it would substantially add to your case, then I would be happy to clean it up for reader-friendliness, and re-present it for this case.
But please don't ask me unless you've read the whole thing and clicked on most or all of the links. I hate to sound like a dick, but as you may have noticed in my original evidence, my first run-in with ol' Jon was nearly a year ago, and if I never have to fire another neuron on his behalf, it will be too soon. And as I said above, I and many others dealing with this guy were already burned once by the arbitration process.
But if -- after reading it through -- you really, truly think that my evidence would significantly help your case, let me know and I'll post it asap.
I apologize for being so cantankerous about this, but I do look forward to hearing from you. Best, dablaze 02:31, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/jguk 2 has been accepted. Please place evidence at /Evidence I changed your statement by removing Jguk's real name. He doesn't put it on his user page, so probably we should just use his user name. Fred Bauder 13:57, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
Okay, could you explain to me where the number 163 comes from then? I understand that the departments take in different amounts of money, which is why straight out subtracting the numbers doesn't say much. But I have no idea where 163 comes from. Ac e tic ' Acid 04:36, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks for your explanation. You're right about it's irrelevance. If Trump had mentioned how much money each department normally brought in, we could calculate an accurate difference. Since he didn't, those numbers mean very little. I'll remove the section. Ac e tic ' Acid 05:55, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
The arbitration committee has reached a final decision in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/jguk 2 case. →Raul654 03:30, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Please be advised that I have made a request for arbitration against you. You can read the particulars and, if you wish, make a statement not exceeding 500 words on the matter on WP:RfAr, jguk 20:00, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sortan has been accepted. Please place evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sortan/Evidence. Proposals and comments may be placed at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sortan/Workshop. Fred Bauder 19:32, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
What do you think of the movement? Reply here. Thanks. -- Kin Khan 02:54, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
This arbitration case has closed. Jguk is banned from editing with respect to era notation. This will be enforced by block, as per Jguk's prior arbitration case. You are also warned regarding stalking him. On behalf of the arbitration committee, Johnleemk | Talk 09:15, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
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) 13:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC)