Talk:Western Chalukya Empire

Marathi

कल्याणी चालुक्य राजा सोमेश्वर यांच्या 'मानसोल्लास' (११२९) या ग्रंथातील मराठी गीते म्हणजे मराठी वाड़्मयाच्या आरंभकालीन पाऊलखूणाच म्हटल्य पाहिजेत.

Marathi songs in Kalyani chalukya king Someshwar's Manasollas (1129) should be termed as stepping stone of Marathi literature. 59.95.28.231 10:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

citatons and decency

This is an English language wikipedia and citations should be in English for all to read. This article is not meant just for people proficient in Marathi to read. Please bear this basic decency and learn to live by the rules of wikipedia.Thanks.Dineshkannambadi 23:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Marathi citation

Based on advice by admin:utcursch, I have removed marathi citation as English citation exists.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 05:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

addition of both citations will not 'destroy' the article. Any ill-comments or actions about Marathi will be taken very seriously. Vishu123 07:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

morever the 'stepping stone' thing has not mentioned in the Eng citationVishu123

Remove POV text as well as use of superlatives

It is stated in the article that it was during the times of Vikramaditya VI that the Western Chalukyas completely eclipsed the Cholas. Can anything be farther from the truth? Considering that the Western Chalukyas as per known sources never occupied any part of Chola territory especially in Tamizhagam, no doubt the victory at Vengi would be regarded as important in Chalukya annals. But this victory lasted only 6 years and the Cholas under Vikrama Chola re-occupied Vengi in 1127-28 and right from the times of Vikrama chola till Kulothunga III 1176-1218, the Cholas never gave up control of both Vengi and Kalinga. In fact Kulothunga III is credited with the conquests of Karuvur (Karur) in Kongu nadu, Madurai, Ilam (Sri Lanka) and Kalinga and it is in commemoration of re-enforcing Chola control of Kalinga by him along with the Vengi king that he built the Kampahareswarar temple near Kumbakonam. You have (in your list of photographs), displayed the Srirangapatnam Temple showing its inscriptions and history of it having been initially built by Tirumalaraya and with later additions to the temple having been made by the Hoysalas and Vijayanagara kings. Similar evidence is displayed outside the Kampahareswarar temple.

what I mean is that a victory for just 6 years never meant convincing eclipsing of the Chola empires and it amounts to propagation of POV, is posting of texts detrimental to the rivals of the Chalukyas and to empires and people of non-Kannada country origin. Hence this portion of text should be removed immediately.

The fact of history is that within two decades of Vikramaditya VI's death there was complete instability in the Chalukya territories with the capital itself being occupied for close to three decades from around 1155 onwards by the Kalachuri kings, with other feudatories like the Nolambas and the Hoysalas rapidly gaining strength at the cost of the Chalukyas in Kannada country.

Another objectionable portion is the mention of events around the end of the 12th century where is mentioned very wrongly and inaccurately, perhaps with malicious intent that the concerned period saw the demise of both the Chalukyas and the Cholas with a further deliberate and maliciously intended insertion "with the parts of the Chola territories being occupied by the Pandiyans".

I want to ask that indeed the Chalukyas ceased to exist having existed for namesake from about 1175 onwards and finally being routed by the Hoysalas, Seunas and the Kalachuris with probably the Kalachuris emerging the strongest in this tripartite struggle for supremacy. Later of course Hoysalas created a separate domain for themselves mainly in the southwestern parts of Kannada country.

So if the Chalukyas ceased to exist in 1189 and were defeated by three other kingdoms viz. Hoysalas, Seunas and Kalachuris, where is the need or what is the justifiable context for mentioning the Cholas. For the Cholas continued to exist well into the last quarter of the 13th century, though they had been weakened very much by the growing power of the Pandiyans in Tamizhagam with their alliance with the Hoysalas itself eventually succumbing to Maravarman, Jatavarman Pandiyan by 1250-1260 AD. So one empire ceases to exist (which is the Chalukyas, the main subject of this topic) in 1189 with the Cholas collapsing only in 1279, what is the need, justification or context of mentioning that the Cholas and Chalukyas collapsed with Chola territories being occupied by Pandiyans?

When considering that this article is an FA, the insertion of derisive, malicious deliberate content with a penchant for always seeking the Chalukyas or Hoysalas to compare with the Cholas on the presumption that mentioning Chalukyas only on adversarial terms but not contemporaneous terms will only enhance their glory, seems very erroneous.

The above two objectionable POV texts should immediately be reviewed by the FAR panel/committee and determine as to whether those portions being objected to by me, deserve retention in this article.

Srirangam99 (talk) 07:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

You have been warring for a month without one single reputable book source. Why is it so hard understand?Dineshkannambadi (talk) 15:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

---

Changes made with reasons

Forget about edit wars.... is there a single historian who denies that the Chalukya empire weakened after Vikramaditya with them losing both Vengi to Vikrama Chola and their capital itself being occupied for over 30 years from 1140-45 AD? So who gets convincingly eclipsed? Not the Cholas but the Chalukyas themselves... Kindly read books by Roychowdhury (Ancient India, 1956) where these facts have been given in detail.

Srirangam99 (talk) 06:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

---

= What proof that the Kakatiyas were subordinates of the Chalukyas

Here is the link to the Kakatiya dynasty on wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kakatiya_dynasty. Where is the proof in the article or otherwise that the Kakatiyas were subordinates to the Chalukyas and gained their independence only when the Chalukya power waned.

Both the above claims are absolute lies. So I have deleted the term Kakatiyas (in fact there is no proof either that the Kalachuris too were subordinates of the Chalukyas, the Hoysalas certainly were) from the list of imaginary "subordinates" of the Chalukyas.

Srirangam99 (talk) 07:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

---

One more correction

As is accepted by any historian or student of history, the Chalukyas demised in 1189-90 with the Cholas continuing for another 90 years to be exact. The last great Chola king Kulothunga III is supposed to have conquered Karuvur, Pandiyan Kingdom (along with Veera Ballala II) and Ilangai (Sri Lanka) and ruled upto 1218 when he was defeated by the Pandiyans. He too had several successors but they were all weak except perhaps for Rajadhiraja-II (or Rajadhiraja III), who is supposed to have defeated a confederation of five Pandiyan princes. It is also undeniable that the Pandiyans repeatedly routed the Cholas several times over as well as the Hoysalas between 1220-1260 AD and ultimately caused not just the extinction of the Cholas but also the removal of the Hoysalas from Tamizhagam and even occupying Konkana Rajya where inscriptions of Jatavarman Vira Pandiyan are found even today.

So mentioning of the Pandiyans in the page on the Western Chalukyas, (who first of all had nothing to do with the Chalukyas), but who might indeed have caused the demise of the Cholas, but even that had nothing to do with the demise of the Western Chalukyas almost 100 years ago is completely misplaced and I have deleted the same. The article should basically confine itself only to the establishing and growth of the Chalukya dynasty, its achievements in various fields and ultimately its demise. There is no need of mentioning the demise of the Cholas in this page at least for the Chalukya chapter ends in and around 1189-90.

We may like it or not (but truth must be faced, not jingoism in the name of building a 'history' page, by somehow seeking to 'justify' the demise of the Chalukyas by equating the same with the demise of the Cholas which occurred much later. Though the demise of the Chalukyas can indeed be mentioned in the Chola pages for they lasted up to 1279-1285, mentioning of the demise of the Cholas which occurs (to repeat in case facts are not being registered and there is hesitancy in facing up to the absolute truth) many, many years i.e. it is a full 9 decades after the Chalukyas is throughly and absolutely misplaced and therefore, has been removed by me.

If interested, anyone can discuss the issue with me on this page.

Srirangam99 (talk) 07:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

---

• There is nothing to discuss without your sources. Bring sources, not your opinions or be prepared to face admins.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 11:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

---

If you want to see the sources, kindly read Ancient India by K.A.N.Sastri as well as the book of the same name by Roychowdhury. It is available at any good library book. I do have a good library in my town, what about yours... hence the reversion.

Srirangam99 (talk) 14:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

---

• Once again, I suggest you refrain from changes without discussion. Open a discussion thread, call arbiters, bring sources with page numbers, publication info etc. You cannot remove cited info just because your author (if any) gives a different version. This is how wiki works.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 14:32, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

---

Does it mean that the info that you 'cite' is the only source of correct information. If as you say the author read by me gives a different version, then certainly even that version should be given space.... or is it just a one way ticket? I have always welcomed arbitration... in case, you feel that what I say needs arbitration, please call them at once..... I will also counter with all available sources with me including page numbers etc. etc.

Srirangam99 (talk) 07:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

If two authors give different versions, as long as there not wacky one they should both be included. But what information are you specifically talking about. I have read the revisions but here you are vague. The sources shoulld also be clear. Will comment more later. Enlil Ninlil (talk) 08:19, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Ninhil, user Srirangam99 has no sources. He has never had sources. He has been blocked on multiple occassions for vandalising FA's. Untill Srirangam99 learns wiki rules, brings sources, starts a discussion, his edits are to be considered his personal opinions and reverted. I have informed some admins and they will take action if he continues to remove/tamper cited information. If you look closely at his edits you will see that they are all his own opinions. In the past, he has even questioned the need to source from reputed history related books, which suggests this user has no interest in following wiki rules. Multiple wikipedians in good standing, including admins, have adviced Srirangam99 to commit to a reasonable discussion, but this user has refused to follow rules and has continued edit warring. Let us hope we can put this to rest this time.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 11:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Srirangam99, Here is how a discussion works.

• First and foremost, Stop edit warring.
• List all the points in the article (here, in an orderly and concise manner) which you think your sources contradict.
• Keep to the point. Type out what your souces say (exactly) regarding those points which are under dispute. Dont write your Phd thesis or your personal opinons, just what your sources say.
• Remember, wiki is an encyclopaedia. Only majority opinons can be used. Meaning, If I produce 5 reputable sources that concur with what is in the article, and you produce one source which contradicts it, the minority info can be neglected per WP:UNDUE or moved to a footnote at best. Minority sources can't be given equal footing with majority reputable sources.
• Remember, your sources have to "contradict" the existing info in the article. Just because your sources do not mention a particular event, like a war (victory or defeat), it does not mean my sources are wrong.
• Provide the name of the book, its page number, name of author and ISBN number for verification. Most books are available on google books search and can be verified easily.
• In case a book is not available on google search, be prepared to fax/scan pages from the sources along with the book title page, to a neutral party. I will do the same.
• Avoid trying to confuse other interested parties with lengthy discussions that go in circles. The dispute needs to be resolved One point at a time.
• Do not leave lengthy messages like the ones you have left on my talk page, Archive 18. It's a put off. Also, avoid personal attacks. I see multiple avoidable comments by you on that archive page. Remember, you have served blocks for both your language and lack of sources.

Dineshkannambadi (talk) 11:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

sincere reply to Ninlil

Dear Ninhil, I thank you very much for intervening... at least this much is accepted by a neutral arbitrator that in case two authors differ in their versions, both versions must be allowed to be retained. Since you wanted specific instances, in the book named Ancient India (1956) by K.A.N.Sastri, he has stated clearly while describing Rajendra Chola I that among the list of conquests (at one point he stated clearly thus:) 'next was the turn Satyasraya who was defeated and banished out of his capital'. This can be contrasted with the statement in this Article that Satyasraya was able to control Chola aggression basing his contention on material from author Suryanath Kamath, without commenting on the accuracy of Suryanath Kamath's version, I accept your verdict that both versions should be allowed to be retained. Dinesh is also erring badly when he writes subsequently in this article about Jayasimha also fighting hard with the Cholas (in fact Rajendra Chola ruled during the time of Satyasraya as well as Jayasimha and has claimed to defeat both) and also goes on to add that both sides lost and won but both K.A.N.Sastri and Rajendra's inscriptions at the Tanjore temple (courtesy the summary of Prof. Huntzsch, noted epigraphist appointed by the Archaelogical Survey of India, a body of the Ministry of Human Resource Development, Govt. of India, whose finds are given in detail at inscriptions.whatsindia.com/ - a site despised unnecessarily by Dinesh Kannambadi as a POV site because its findings go against 'historical events and their conclusions' of his liking) state that he emulated his father in winning the 'seven and a half lakshas of Rattapadi' and where Prof. Huntzsch has clearly arrived at the conclusion (after reading Chola inscriptions from the times of Raja Raja Chola because it was from his time onwards that there were several wars between the Cholas and Chalukyas) that winning seven and a half lakshas of Rattapadi meant winning the war and levying tribute on the losing Chalukya king. Satyasraya lost twice, once to Raja Raja Chola when the Chola army was led by his son Rajendra and once to Rajendra, who also went on to defeat Satyasraya's successor Jayasimha II and Prof. Huntzsch once again attests the expression by Rajendra Chola I in the inscription at the Tanjore temple, a World Heritage site ': "the seven and a half lakshas of Iratta-padi, (which was) strong by nature, (through the conquest of which) immeasurable fame arose,[7] (and which he took from) Jayasimha, who, out of fear (and) full of vengeance, turned his back at Muyangi and hid himself", as the Chola once again winning the war (this time it was over Vengi with the Chola army first routing the Chalukyas near Rajahmundry and subsequently at Masangi (called Muyangi in the Chola inscriptions in Tamil langauge), causing their king Jayasimha to banish and then levying tribute on the defeated Chalukya.' These have been attested by both K.A.N.Sastri and R.C.Roychowdhuri in their two books of the same name i.e. Ancient India.

To repeat the above, the author R.C.Roychowdhuri in his book Ancient India borrows heavily by quoting extensively from K.A.N.Sastri - this unfortunately, goes against the thinking of user Kannambadi who is repeating blindly that I have no sources - I can assure you certainly I can read and write. It is very poor in taste, the expression of Dinesh Kannambadi who has gone on to justify my previous blocking, as is evident on my talk page dear Ninhil, this was done by user Blinguen an admin probably, who barged into my talk page and blocked me without giving any reason the second time i.e. he violated two rules of Wikipedia which are being advocated by Dinesh Kannambadi and another clique at work in wikipedia, first they ask people like us, who draw from sources and post at times historical events which are not palatable to them, that we should first post on the discussion page, but in my case I was straight away blocked on the first occasion by user Blinguen who certainly did not discuss with me on the article discussion page nor did he discuss the topic itself with me. The second time Blinguen entered my talk page, left a comment that he did not like what I wrote for he thought what I wrote was a personal commentary (when in actuality, it was a summary of Chola historty from which I drew from Prof. Huntzsch's summary from inscriptions.whatsindia.com/ but had made the mistake (I am not shy of admitting I make mistakes) of not posting the source, but before I realized and re-entered the Chola page, I found first that I was not able to edit and found to my horror that Blinguen has arrived at a certain conclusion and blocked me without giving me a chance to explain, discuss or argue with me on the concerned topic and its contents, just as Dinesh Kannambadi is trying to do now by painting anyone whose findings he doesn't like, in black.

Mr.Kannambadi has repeatedly contested two points unnecessarily in my view: First in the page on the Western Chalukya dynasty he has himself contributed as agreed by everyone that this dynasty came to an end by 1189/95. When one reads the article on Chola dynasty, it emerges that the last king of the Cholas Rajendra IV was defeated and we do not hear of any successor after his defeat by Pandiyans in 1279 AD which means that even though the Chola dynasty ended by 1279 (maximum 1284 as has been stated by most historians - here we are not talking about minor rulers using the title Chola in both Tamil and Telugu countries up to 1480 AD - that is the year probably 1489 when a 'Chola' king is supposed to have repaired and renovated the Jambukeswarar temple on the outskirts of Tiruchirappalli as per inscriptions found inside this temple... but we accept that the Cholas were no more after 1279/80. Sir, the basic question rises is that first Kannambadi says that both dynasties fighting each other drained themselves out, but that may be or may not, but we can see clearly that while Cholas continued (more apt to say limped after 1220 AD because by that time the Pandiyans were most powerful and had sent out the Hoysalas out of Kannanur Kuppam by 1260/68) up to 1279, the last valiant king of the Chalukyas was Someshwara IV who regained his empire somewhat from the Kalachuris in 1183 but he too was not heard off atleast after 1190 (maximum 1195) so 1195 and 1279 are years separated by nearly eight and a half decades. Then why should the demise of the Cholas be mentioned in the page of a dynasty that went into oblivion 84 years earlier? You may judge for yourself. When I mention this point he talks about sources as if no one has any proof on this. Sir, to make the point straight, no historian disagrees that the Chalukyas were no more after 1190 or 1195 and the Cholas were not heard of after 1279/84. Yet Mr.Kannambadi wants proof. If he cannot believe that the Chalukyas did not demise by 1195 then in which year did this dynasty end... if at all he found this contention unacceptable why did he not challenge it? I too have never claimed that Chola dynasty lasted beyond 1279 or 1284, but only that because it demised LATER, the same never merited mention in the Chalukya page that too the expression that the territories of the Cholas were taken over by the Pandyas. Sir, they were, but why mention it in the page of a dynasty that demised 84 years earlier? Comic, it seems, doesn't? That too, in a page which has been (I don't know by which enlightened brain) graded as FA category article.

Second, Mr.Kannambadi has interfered with actual history in the Chola dynasty page, by repeatedly seeking to retain the expression that the Chola power waned and finally demised due to the Pandiyans and Hoysalas. Sir the Chola power waned and it was consumed finally by the Pandiyans, but not the Hoysalas. Because the said expression (that the Chola dynasty demised due to growing power of Hoysalas and Pandiyans) is completely wrong and misplaced, because in the first place, histrory is witness to the fact, that the Hoysalas and the Cholas DIRECTLY fought only one war, i.e. the war for Gangavadi. Subsequently, during the times of Veera Ballala II, while surely the Chola kings were not as powerful as kings like Aditya, Raja Raja, Rajendra, Veera Rajendra or even Vikrama, still Veera Ballala II, who along with his son Narasimha was defeated by the Kalachuris under Bijjana II were themselves facing strong adversaries in Kannada country and to strengthen themselves in Kannada country they simply allied through marital relations with Kulothunga III's Cholas. This helped the Cholas, though only for a limited period, to counter the growing power of the Pandiyans of Madurai. The Cholas and Hoysalas under Narasimha defeated Maravarman Sundara Pandiyan after which the Cholas also invaded and occupied Ilangai (Sri Lanka). This as again attested by Prof. Huntzsch, was the reason the king Kulothunga III of the Cholas bore the epithet or title 'the one who took the crowned head of the Pandiya (an expression used by Raja raja and Rajendra Chola I also), who took Karuvur (modern Karuvur from probably the remnants of the Adigaimans) and one who took Ilangai (he also occupied Cheranadu). This is attested by Prof. Huntzsch as well as by R.C.Roychowdhuri in his book Ancient India where it is mentioned that Kulothunga III also fought successfully against Veera Ballala II (probably this was prior to their friendship and their marital alliance). Veera Ballala II's son Narasimha was also allied to Raja Raja III (a weak Chola king) by marriage and helped him escape the clutches of the later Pallavas under Kopperinchunga.

Sir, I mentioned the above historical incidents to prove that while indeed the Hoysalas were power, probably more powerful than the Cholas, there still was no threat from them to the Cholas simply because they were related by marriage. Also, to give further justification to my contention, both the Chola and Hoysala armies fought together against common enemies, but NEVER AGAINST EACH OTHER till the end of the Chola dynasty. In fact, the Pandiyan King Jatavarman Sundara Pandiyan is supposed to have defeated a combined army of Hoysala Someshwara, his son Ramanatha both of whom were based at Kannanur Kuppam and their allies the Cholas in a war outside Tiruchy in Kannanur Kuppam itself, in which Hoysala Someshwara was killed. This is attested by the Pandiyan king's inscription at the Ranganatha Temple at Srirangam and the summary of Prof. Huntzsch and his successor epigraphist Dr. Vijay Reddy (appointed subsequent to Prof. Huntzsch), with the Pandiyan king anointing his son Jatavarman Vira Pandiya as lord of the Konkana rajya ceded by the Hoysalas to the Pandiyas. (Yet, Dinesh Kannambadi mentions in the page on Veera Ballala II that because he was related maritally to Kulothunga III he was (somehow) an overlord of the Cholas (when he had formidable adversaries in Kalachuris and Seunas in the Kannada country itself, to make him desist from venturing in wars outside of his territories) and is resisting my reasoning as above and not removing the said portion of text from that page).

Sir, ALL THE ABOVE EPISODES prove that it was the Pandiyans who were the supreme power in Tamizhagam and not the Hoysalas (who were only allies of the Cholas) and thus, the Hoysalas could not have caused the demise of the Chola dynasty.

You can judge for yourself and match the same with the mentioning and contentions of Dinesh Kannambadi.

Not just this, Mr.Kannambadi has also been guilty of misconduct to other contributors in different fields in wikipedia earlier also for which he has been warned, it is he who has been warned while because he felt like retaliating on some unsuspecting, people like him, user Earth, KNM etc. complain to willing admins who block people like me without assigning any reason. Here is the example of what happened between Dinesh Kannambadi and another contributor in the music section and here are the exchanges from dinesh kannambadi's on talk page archives (No.16):

You may judge for yourself from what is sourced below to draw your own conclusion:

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors. The templates are valid, and you are welcome to ask an administrator if you feel otherwise. Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I have been contacted by the editor above, who expressed concerns over your recent conduct. The tags on the Vijayanagara musicological nonet page can reasonably be seen as being appropriate, as neither of the online sources provided is necessarily demonstrably a reliable source as per WP:RS. I personally am not sure exactly what the Sangeet Natak Journal is, which is the place of publication of the first source. It may or may not qualify as a reliable source. The second source demonstrates absolutely no credability whatsoever, as it was never seemingly published anywhere except online. Sources which have never been published within a peer-reviewed journal are currently very dubious sources. Also, unfortunately, your placement of banners on User:Ncmvocalist's talk page in retaliation for his valid complaints to you about removing the templates without prior discussion to establish that they were not appropriate could reasonably be seen as being potentially a violation of WP:HARASS. Violation of that behavioral guideline, as per that page, can be seen as being just cause for blocking in and of itself. If you honestly believe that the templates are not appropriate, then it is incumbent upon you to demonstrate that the sources are sufficient as per WP:RS, preferably on the talk page. As per that editor's request, I have examined the cause of this current situation and find that your warnings to him are, basically, completely unjustified. As per that editor's request, I am removing them from his talk page. This is not necessarily an endorsement of his behavior in general, simply an indication that he has done nothing in this matter which even remotely indicates that he should be issued any sort of warning whatsoever. If you honestly believe that this behavior is somehow related to some earlier or other misconduct of the editor in question, then I very sincerely urge you to report that misconduct in the appropriate place. However, based on the actions of the both of you as I have reviewed them, that editor has done nothing whatsoever which would indicate that he requires any warning for misconduct. John Carter (talk) 01:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC) Your concerns regarding the earlier dispute may be justified. For what it is worth, simply saying that a website does not have a bad reputation is not sufficient cause for saying that it is a reliable source, as he seems to have done in that discussion. However, that does not necessarily justify your own more recent actions, although it may well cast them in a more sympathetic light. Unfortunately, we really can't use "he started it" as an excuse around here, although, as someone who has been in more than a few fights himself, I wish we could. ;)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dineshkannambadi/Archive16"

Sir, this excerpt also proves that Dinesh Kannambadi and certain friends of his on the wikipedia leave no stone unturned to harass other contributors sometimes directly, and many a times indirectly.

It is with this reason that I am restoring my changes on the Western Chalukya page, you are free to take a decision by judging yourself, in the meantime.

Thank you.

Mr.Kannambadi I have never made personal attacks. Personal attacks are ones where it is complained to others about me behind my back and and getting me blocked, your conscience will tell you who did that. When that happened I did question the integrity of the person who did that reminding him that he is fortunate that I am not in his position. If that is called a personal attack, then it is.

I have nothing more to add... please do not call Ninlil to neutrally arbitrate as well as give me advice and guidance. I will take it when it is required.

Thanks for your effort.

Srirangam99 (talk) 12:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)