User talk:TurokSwe

April 2013

Hello, I'm Faizan Al-Badri. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Ceratopsia, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks, Faizan Al-Badri -Let's talk! 13:50, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm HCA. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Perentie because it didn't appear constructive. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! HCA (talk) 17:36, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Perentie, you may be blocked from editing. HCA (talk) 17:39, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Ceratopsia, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. HCA (talk) 17:39, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have not been vandalizing, I just corrected false information. On Perentie, it should be mentioned that Megalania is the world's largest lizard, how is that vandalizing? On Ceratopsia, it should be acknowledged that the claim of extinction is nothing more than a claim. The extinction myth doesn't even have any supporting evidence, and therefore we should make clear that it's just a controversial claim. There are no evidence for extinction and everyone does not believe in extinction and there are often evidence which contradicts the extinction claims. How is my corrections vandalizing? You're overreacting.

And you're using sophistry to conceal your obvious cryptozoological agenda. By your logic, we should erase all the death dates from historical biography pages, since just because Lincoln hasn't been seen lately doesn't mean he's not alive. When you lose your car keys, do you spend all day searching just one room for them, no matter how many times you come up empty, because no number of failures is ever enough to prove they're not in the room and therefore you should search a different room? If something hasn't been seen in thousands or millions of years, it's probably dead or non-existent. Yes, rare exceptions occur, but the vast majority of extinct species really are extinct. And I notice you aren't flogging this position for conodonts or Bothriolepis, just the "cool" animals - selective reasoning in the extreme. Science isn't philosophy; that's why it's much more successful and useful. We don't endlessly look for absolute proof; we test a hypothesis and if the odds of our results being inaccurate are miniscule, we accept it and move on until and unless evidence prompts re-examinating. If you're going to argue for the survival of something after a very long gap in evidence, you need to actually provide evidence (good evidence, not drunken eyewitness accounts). HCA (talk) 18:07, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Lincoln example was very bad. Lincoln was one man (not an entire species) and he lived and died in recent times. We don't even know how long all organisms or even our world has been around, that topic is a matter of opinion/belief and controversy. We don't know if any animal or plant or a planet have been around for tousands or millions of years. But using your logic, since Coelocanths werent seen alive until about the 1930s or something, then they would probably be dead or non-existing right now? Yet we know they are alive and well. Personally, I tend to believe more in reality and possibilities than what you believe in, I don't just swallow someone's claim that a species is extinct without tasting the claim first. I question everything. And I certainly question extinction claims, especially since there really arent any evidence for extinction (although I know that extinction doesn't leave evidence), anyway, I never see any reasons to assume that a species is extinct. Just because I havent seen a specific species alive in the flesh that does certainly not give me any reason to believe that this species would be extinct. Extinction is possible, but many times unlikely, especially when there are (cryptozoological) evidence against the extinction claim. I don't have a paradigma like you, I don't hold on to traditions of simply believing everything that you're told that has the word "science" in it. I'm living in reality and treats reality as it should be treated, I never expect that I know more about reality than reality itself does. Science is truly philosophy, even I can't ignore that, practically anything is philosophy. Eyewitness accounts are also evidence, it's also thanks to eyewitnesses that we even know anything about our world, it's thanks to eyewitnesses that even have science. Eyewitnesses can be wrong, but they can also be very right. And even when I do provide anything more thats close to conrete evidence it is just ignored and removed, I would guess mostly because of people with biased and ignorant minds, don't take it as an insult. And your attitude and behaviour about all this shows evidently a very bad and biased way of thinking, my friend. Don't play God. TurokSwe 20:28, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Perentie, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. HCA (talk) 18:44, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I added the word "known", how is that even vandalizing??? You're clearly overreacting and/or ignoring me and the obvious. There's no need to warn me just because of that word, my silly friend. Shall I maybe give you a warning too? Is that what you want? TurokSwe 20:48, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Settle your conflict at Talk:Megalania. Don't edit the article until you have formed consensus. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 19:28, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 19:34, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) When i posted my comment on WP:AIAV you were already far past the WP:3RR mark on the Megalania. As Mufka already warned above - don't edit (revert) the article unless you have consensus which is clearly not the case here - hence the 24 hour block for 3RR and edit warring. If you are in an edit war you discuss the issue, rather then reverting over and over. In cases where there are multiple editors disagreeing with you, at times the only thing you can do is drop the issue and move on. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 19:48, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How come I've been blocked but not HCA (talk)? TurokSwe 21:36, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

HCA has not steppe over the 3RR line. Several other editors - including you - did pass that line though. Par 3RR that is a valid reason for issuing a block thought i initially opted against that measure since i hoped that everyone could leave the article's alone and head to the talk page instead. Yet even after my and Mufka's warning to leave the article alone you made another partial revert continuing the edit war. Since you were already far past 3RR that resulted in the current block. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 19:48, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

American Godzilla 3 and Final

I have given you explanations why I keep reverting your bias: because it's pure, blatant bias. I tried to reason with you but you want things done only your way. 108.214.32.91 (talk) 22:23, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring, as you did at American Godzilla. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Floquenbeam (talk) 22:23, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

TurokSwe (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I understand that I don't need to cause edit warring, I understand that when evident vandalizing is in progress I can just warn the user and/or in the end report the user. I wish to be unblocked in order to help saving the page American Godzilla from further vandalism by users who are and are more than willing to be vandalizing but who are not blocked. TurokSwe 00:35, April 13 2013 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Despite what you say below it seems clea rthat you do not understand the difference between vandalism and edits you just don't happen to agree with. If you had in fact simply been reverting vandalism, you would not be blocked right now, so arguing to be unblocked to continue what you were doing is pretty much a dead end. Ubless and until you can understand and abide by the edit warring policy you can expect to keep getting blocked, with each block longer than the last, so it would be in your best interest to make an effort to demonstrate you truly do understand it instead of just saying "I get it now, unblock me." Actions speak louder than words. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:11, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

First, I don't think the other version of the article is "vandalism"; you're both defending your own favorite versions (both of which look fairly horrible, by the way). I don't believe you when you say you "understand" about edit warring. You were blocked for edit warring yesterday, and immediately started up again as soon as the block expired. Any admin is free to overturn this if they think it's best, without getting my approval first, but if they'd like my opinion, I think the propensity for edit warring (and pretty obvious disruption on Megalania) needs to stop, and the best way to show we're serious that it has to stop is to let the 1 week block remain in place. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:39, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't paying attention to the idea of edit warring before, it was still new to me until very recently. I now understand it, I can promise you that. I'm a fast learner but I must notice, learn and understand what I've done wrong first, and I can assure you that I have learned that. I will avoid edit warring now that I understand it. I once again asks to be unblocked. TurokSwe 01:01, April 13 2013 (UTC)

Do you also understand Wikipedia's definition of vandalism? I'm not willing to unblock you if you've got the mentality that anyone who disagrees with you is editing with malicious intent. m.o.p 13:40, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just went through the page and I'm sure I understand it. TurokSwe 18:58, April 13 2013 (UTC)

Blocked again

OK, enough wasting others' time. I;ve blocked you indefinitely; when you can convince another admin that you understand what "no edit warring" means, and that you won't do it anymore, they might unblock you. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:45, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

TurokSwe (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was blocked because I didn't understand what edit warring meant, but I am sure I do now. In the future, I will not cause an edit war, but I will discuss with the other users about changes to an article and wait with editing the article until we've come to an agreement. I now ask to have the block removed. TurokSwe (talk) 10:13, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Thsi does not demonstrate the knowledge, as requested. You claimed to understand in April - yet here we are again. You need to word-for-word explain a) what constitutes edit-warring, b) how you'll personally avoid it in the future, and c) where to go to get help instead of edit-warring. These will need to be in your own words, not a close paraphrase of the related policies/guidelines (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:54, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Thank you for explaining that more in detail! TurokSwe (talk) 22:30, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

TurokSwe (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have understood that if I make an excessive amount of reverts (over three reverts) in an article that might be considered edit-warring. I understand that edit-warring is unnecessary and not a good way of contributing. I don't want to cause any trouble or vandalism here on Wikipedia, and I learn from my mistakes, and I always try to understand what I did wrong. I hope that I will be allowed to once again be a part of this community and help Wikipedia grow. In the future, to prevent an edit-war I will first of all discuss the reason why I would want to revert an edit with other users who has a conflicting opinion, and as said earlier I will not revert any edits until I and the other users has come to an agreement. Or I'll just leave it alone. Secondly, if I would eventually need any help I will turn to the administrators for help and advice. TurokSwe (talk) 17:33, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Given the admission of socking from a month ago, there is not sufficient reason to believe the user intends to follow our rules. WP:OFFER still applies. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:26, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This seems to me to be a somewhat reasonable explanation of edit warring and it does seem that you understand what was previously wrong. You've in fact offered to hold yourself to an extra high standard (no reverts), which is a good indication. Since it is customary to check-in with the blocking admin before unblocking, I'm going to talk to Floquenbeam. Please note that even one single further instance of edit warring will result in your account being blocked without warning--you've stated you understand the policy, so no more warnings should be necessary. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:37, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If they're not going to revert anymore, that's a good sign, and it addresses the reason for the original block. If we're being misled, it will be easily fixed. However, I would recommend that they also address their semi-recent sock puppetry as well (will dig up a link in a little while, can't recall offhand how long ago, maybe a month? Maybe two?). That said, I'm happy to accept your judgement, Qwyrxian, on when and if unblocking is appropriate. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:34, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, more recent than that, late October: User talk:Floquenbeam/Archive 6#TurokSwe..._back?. I'm sorry, I should probably have put a link to this somewhere on this page or his block log for a reviewing admin. I'll still defer to you, Qwyrixian. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:39, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also have a question, in case my unblock request is approved, I would want to know where I can find the administrators on Wikipedia. I'm still rather new to this site and don't know everything about it, so it would be appreciated to get some answers. TurokSwe (talk) 14:48, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TurokSwe, can you please respond to the concerns Floquenbeam has raised above--that you were editing as an IP address during your block? Qwyrxian (talk) 14:53, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I honestly have been editing under an IP address earlier, but I can assure you that I've learned my lesson since then and I will absolutely not attempt to repeat my previous behaviours. TurokSwe (talk) 15:23, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I am declining your unblock. Part of proving that you're serious about following Wikipedia's rules is, well, following the rules. By your own admission now, you broke those rules as recently as about a month ago. I don't see why we should trust that you've suddenly realized the error of your ways and are going to comply with our policies. Please stay away from Wikipedia entirely (no new accounts, no edits as an IP) for at least 6 months, then come back and try again. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:24, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I always try to do my best, afterall, I ain't more than human, and It's easy to make mistakes, but at least I'm being honest. I will do so then, 6 months it is, and thank you for considering my case. Have a nice day, my friend! TurokSwe (talk) 07:40, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding your edits. The thread is TurokSwe is continuing on with the same behaviour on Alien, Predator and AvP pages. The discussion is about the topic Alien vs. Predator (franchise). ★Trekker (talk) 03:05, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have delivered a response (though this is getting ridiculous). - TurokSwe (talk) 03:21, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

October 2019

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for conduct outlined in this ANI discussion.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bishonen | talk 17:31, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Reasonable men adapt to the world around them; unreasonable men make the world adapt to them. The world is changed by unreasonable men. We are chained, but you just don't realise it... Time makes us pointless." - TurokSwe (talk) 18:19, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Actions have consequences. Ignorance about the nature of those actions does not free a person from responsibility for the consequences". ― Stephen Dobyns

"Violating Wikipedia's rules on edit warring and getting kicked off of Wikipedia for doing that is a piss-poor way of changing the world" ― Guy Macon

I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:34, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I understand I hit a nerve, but those are some wise words, and I agree with them. Just saying. - TurokSwe (talk) 20:49, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And, now you've been confirmed to be using sock puppet IP addresses to violate your site ban and continue edit-warring - you even had the audacity to accuse other editors of vandalism. DÅRTHBØTTØ_(T•C) 06:28, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Buddy, who doesn't use sock puppets? Lets not be hypocrites here. It is a little funny though that on the investigation page it said that someone called "Shadow jumpi" also got banned and claimed to belong to me even though I have never even heard of that one, so I guess that further goes to show just how careless people are about how they treat other people on here. I also never engaged in any edit-warring whatsoever with any sock-puppets, and I only accuse other people of vandalism when it is warranted, don't try to play innocent. Honestly, it's very sad and disheartening to see you taking every chance you can get to mistreat another human being and drag their name through the mud as much as possible (while also having the audacity to claim to be a Christian). - TurokSwe (talk) 06:56, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The vast majority of people don't use sockpupets, claiming other people are just like you is a real cartoon villain move honestly.★Trekker (talk) 15:10, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@DarthBotto:, @Guy Macon:, @Bishonen:, @Berean Hunter: should TurokSwe be allowed to keep his talkpage editing privilege considering he seems to be taking pleasure in making antagonistic comments here?★Trekker (talk) 15:15, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am fine either way. I wouldn't object to removing talk page access, and I wouldn't object to waiting to see if he continues the behavior. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:48, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have considerable tolerance for blocked users venting. It's not like they're posting a lot; they're more responding to what others say. If it irritates people, they can always unwatch this page, and stop posting here. Bishonen | talk 21:54, 23 January 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Being angry is one thing, I understand that but he's borderline personally attacking DarthBotto here (poking at another person's faith is rather unacceptable in my mind "oh you're not a good Christian/Jew/Muslim etc...."). Maybe I'm overreacting but he's getting pretty low in my mind.★Trekker (talk) 22:07, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. If TurokSwe had attacked DarthBotto out of the blue I would advise removing talk page access. But DarthBotto came here in what might be considered an example of WP:GRAVEDANCING and criticized TurokSwe. Responding -- even responding with a personal attack -- to someone who criticizes you is a lot easier to understand. When posting on the talk page of a blocked user, "he started it" really is a reasonable argument.

I personally don't think "he started it" is really ever a good argument in verbal spats.★Trekker (talk) 14:41, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My advice is for all of us to stop posting here, let TurokSwe have the last word if he wants to, and then do nothing unless he starts attacking editors who didn't post to his talk page. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:14, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All I can say is I've never been out to insult, disrespect, or mistreat anyone in any way, but you treat others the way you wish to be treated, so treat me poorly and unjustly (on my own talk page even) and I will be sure to return the favor, if only to highlight how badly I'm being treated in my experience, despite that I'm only interested in building a welcoming and civilized environment and community. I don't attack others, unlike some people, and I don't see why I'm being treated this way. I might analyze and criticize certain actions or thoughts (without any intention whatsoever of hurting someone emotionally) but I don't attack people. Btw, I'm a Christian with Aspergers as well, just like him, and another reason why I addressed his professed faith was to make him aware of what he's doing and how he's continually antagonizing another member in God's family (although you should treat people well and fair regardless), and noting that this behavior is definitely not exclusive to him. I've kept hoping and wishing for respectful and honest conversation and cooperation, only to be met with mindless never-ending attacks, insults, hostility, and persecution, and that over a matter of mere entertainment might I add, and none of them seem to be judged for their actions, but it's always me that gets all the blame and shame regardless, and rather than building bridges their only interest seem to be tearing them down as much as possible. If anything, as much as it saddens me to say, I guess I should say thank you all for reminding me what I ought to expect from my fellow human beings. I might as well give each of you a baseball bat and let you do as you please with me. - TurokSwe (talk) 10:22, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TurokSwe. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 13:21, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was already blocked. What was the point? BTW, you blocked someone who had no affiliations with me and who I never heard of, called Shadow jumpi, so good job on that one. - TurokSwe (talk) 06:58, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure people will take to heart what TurokSwe claims. /s★Trekker (talk) 15:09, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not helpful. Please let other editors evaluate any claims for themselves. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:17, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a waste of time.★Trekker (talk) 14:35, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A waste of time? Like you're doing right now? Alright, well, I'm not a fan of hypocrisy myself but to each their own I suppose. But seriously, first, I think someone else being accidentally blocked like this is unjust and needs to be corrected, and second, why do you keep antagonizing me and painting me black like this? What justifies this sort of treatment of another person? What good do you think it will bring about? I don't wish to treat you like this, so why would you persist in doing that to me? It boggles my mind. - TurokSwe (talk) 10:37, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

TurokSwe (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I understand that I was blocked for two reasons, namely (1) that I had at some point crossed the line for edit warring and engaged in a series of "three-revert" instances and (2) that I had been active on Wikipedia under my second account, Zoombah, while my main account was still under an active block. This was done under my personal understanding of what was allowed, and apparently I was wrong, and reviewing the rules much more thoroughly as well as my own actions, I can see where I might have gone wrong, but regardless of my mistakes I only wish to try my best in contributing to a better environment and better articles and I will definitely do my best in continually improving myself further, and I'm not one to disregard advice as long as I'm aware of it. Now I would kindly ask that my block could be lifted as I agree to be cautious to engage in any similar disruptive behavior going forward, noting that in the future I will instead rely on the BRD [1] method rather than the 3RR [2] method in cases of dispute, unless alternative suggestions are presented, and I will promise to do my very best to refrain from using my second account or any other accounts for any illegitimate reasons. TurokSwe (talk) 18:04, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Arguably, you are banned under WP:CBAN. If so, you'd need to follow WP:UNBAN. However, whether you are blocked or banned, you were socking in December, if not more recently. There's zero chance of you being unblocked until you go at least six months with zero edits. Then, you can apply under WP:SO (but note, you'll need to appeal to the community, as described in WP:UNBAN). Until you've gone at least six months with zero edits, though, nobody's going to unblock you. Yamla (talk) 19:51, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Understood. - TurokSwe (talk) 19:58, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]