User talk:Biohistorian15

April 2024
Hi Biohistorian15! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor&#32;at Murray Rothbard that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Thank you. BBQ boffingrill me 19:12, 1 April 2024 (UTC)


 * You're right, I've been using the feature erratically. I'll try to stop.  Biohistorian15 (talk) 19:49, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

wikihounding
I saw your comments about wikihounding and suffered similar behavior. . I think a case should be raised with WP:ANI. I noticed on that user's talk page they have a history of accusations of harassment. Tonymetz 💬  01:12, 2 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I agree. However, regardless of quality, since my edits are primarily political in their focus, I don't really think I should be the person to advance something like that. If you already made the complaint, I'd be happy to support you; just link it here. But I think it would be best, for now, to see if Fred understood my message and actually stops. Biohistorian15 (talk) 06:15, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Social construction of gender
I don't have access to the article you referenced, but does it actually mention Judith Butler in it and say that she is alluding to Nietzsche?  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 15:46, 7 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Sorry, just found your message here cleaning up... I corrected this somewhat contrived edit of mine just now. I hope this helps. Biohistorian15 (talk) 13:23, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Donald Trump&#32; on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 20:30, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Quick thank you
I am a new editor so I’m not sure if this is the appropriate place to send this, but I wanted to say I received your thank you notes this morning, and I greatly appreciated it! Great way to start the day and still getting my sea legs here.

Best, and thank you,

Bluetik Bluetik (talk) 14:29, 12 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Hey, no worries! While I'm relatively new too, I'm really beginning to figure it all out. If you have any expansive questions, you can always email me as well btw. Biohistorian15 (talk) 15:01, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Western conservatism
Greetings.

First off, thank you for your excellent work, although you sometimes fail to distinguish between mainstream conservatism and separate ideologies such as libertarianism and fascism.

Given your insistence on including a section on Western media in a global template for conservatism, I created a new one called Template:Conservatism in the Western world, into which I incorporated your Media section. I also moved some other sections from the old template into this new one. I see this as a strategic move in order to avoid Western-centrism in the standard template while also identifying Western conservatism as possessing certain historical characteristics such as Christian values, monarchism, imperialism, and a relatively positive view on liberty. Meanwhile, Asian conservatism—for example—is characterized by Asian values such as collectivism, filial piety, and ancestral worship. Trakking (talk) 14:33, 17 June 2024 (UTC)


 * While transferring large parts of the standard template into the Western template, I excluded Russian elements, since prominent Russian conservatives such as Konstantin Leontiev, Aleksandr Dugin, and Vladimir Putin have been anti-Western. Trakking (talk) 14:47, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok, sure. However, I did try to supplement certain Islamic theorists to counter-balance my euro-centrism before, e.g. Muhammad Asad, Ahmad Fardid, Ali Khamenei, Ruhollah Khomeini, Sayyid Qutb and Ali Shariati. I really don't see why we couldn't just include some of these theorists in the "Intellectuals" section, you supplement some respective journals from the Arabic context and we call it a day.
 * On top of that, we could, in fact, add some Russian theorists and publications too.
 * With the East Asian variety I am unconvinced. Including figures like Confucius may be problematic, and AFAIK the attached template only contains politicians under "people" anyway. However, we could include something from the media section!?Conservatism in South Korea Biohistorian15 (talk) 08:42, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Khamenei and Khomeini are already included in the Politician section, where they most belong. Shariati is too leftist; Fardid is too obscure. However, Asad and Qutb are notable and influential, so I'll add them to the template.
 * Yes, Confucius is wayyy too proto-conservative, if "conservatism" means a modern ideology that originated in the late 18th century as a reaction to the French Revolution and its children liberalism and socialism. I have added Yukio Mishima—a great, although eccentric, representative of Japanese ultraconservatism. Trakking (talk) 10:16, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I was actually looking at that template yesterday and wondered the same thing. But I clicked on a random name and it said "writer," so it's obviously a mix. I'm gonna go ahead and organise it. Would be great with another prominent intellectual representing the Far East. Trakking (talk) 10:23, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * On a closer look, I cannot find any proof that Muhammad Asad was a conservative. Although he had personal ties to the Saudi royalty and was a proponent of an Islamic state, there is also accusations of him being a Bolshevik and modernist. Trakking (talk) 10:33, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok, looks good after all. Two questions though:
 * Why not title the template along the precise lines of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_conservatism
 * Is Brazil ("Janismo") a sufficiently Western country?
 * Would likely imply Gomez Davila, Bukele etc. come back in as well...
 * Biohistorian15 (talk) 18:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I knew there was an article called ”Western conservatism,” but on a closer look it turned out to be about a form of conservatism in Western USA. Thanks for informing me about Janismo, which I had mistaken for Mellismo; it has been removed now. We could create another template for Latin conservatism and include it in the article Liberalism and conservatism in Latin America. What do you think? Trakking (talk) 18:39, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Sounds reasonable. I will be very busy ensuring NPOV over at the Eugenics article this and the next few weeks, but may personally get into creating more templates after that. On that note, might I ask for some elementary aesthetic/functional formatting help from a more experienced editor, such as yourself, over at my newest sidebar? Biohistorian15 (talk) 18:48, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Great initiative. The template looks good, but in accordance with Wiki norms I would diminish the image to about half its size. Trakking (talk) 21:38, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks, just did as you recommended (couldn't find precise wiki rules relating to it though). Biohistorian15 (talk) 07:54, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, I believe that it is more of an unwritten norm than an official rule to keep images in templates rather small. Trakking (talk) 08:23, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Nonidentity problem, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Robert Sparrow. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 28
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited History of eugenics, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pedigree.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:44, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

A friendly reminder
You have recently made edits related to the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour. This is a standard message to inform you that the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Contentious topics. Generalrelative (talk) 16:47, 29 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I am well aware. Though if you are referring to the "Dysgenics" article, it is/shouldn't be subsumed by that category either way. Biohistorian15 (talk) 16:48, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

You have recently made edits related to pseudoscience and fringe science. This is a standard message to inform you that pseudoscience and fringe science is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Contentious topics.

Your comment above –– that edit warring to add an opinion piece titled "Research on group differences in intelligence" to the article's "Further reading" section isn't subsumed under the race and intelligence topic area –– strains credulity. Here's another alert that appears to be necessary. You've been asked by an experienced editor to please slow your roll within contentious topic areas. I will second that request. Though I have no doubt you believe yourself to be correct (and are in that sense acting in good faith), your actions in topics related to eugenics amount to a Gish galop of POV-pushing which even dedicated editors will have a hard time keeping up with. For someone who has been editing the encyclopedia for less than six months, your pace of getting into contentious arguments is indeed concerning. I understand that you may have come to see me as an opponent, perhaps even an ideological opponent, but my goal in reverting you from time to time, and in posting here, has everything to do with protecting the encyclopedia's core policies, including especially in this case WP:NPOV. Generalrelative (talk) 17:28, 30 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I am in between degrees. Is it somehow illegal if I plan to overhaul the eugenics and dysgenics articles to more accurately reflect scholarship?
 * I think many of your edits are sensible, but I am personally very uncomfortable with contributors that are strongly on the deletionist side of matters. I hereby ask you to please perform manual reverts when it is clear that someone just spent 2h writing a paragraph and you just take issue with a single sentence. Biohistorian15 (talk) 17:33, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for giving me this insight into your motivation. I saw that elsewhere you state that you are writing a thesis on Wikipedia and have been reading all kinds of stuff about the project. How that squares with being in between degrees I'm not sure, but in any case you are welcome to contribute as much as you like, so long as it is in line with policy and community norms. But here's the thing: contentious topics are marked out for a very good reason. It is relatively easy to lose one's editing privileges if one refuses to behave collaboratively within them, or indeed disputes the ground rules over and over in a way that becomes onerous to deal with. I've seen it happen probably a hundred times. When experienced editors advise you to slow down –– way down –– it is vital that you at least hear us out. Complaining that it's just a small clique of power-users with good connections to some admins that's responsible, and I'd likely soon be banned if I raised the issue on any other noticeboard  gives me the sense that you may not have the requisite faith in the consensus process to last long here. But I hope that isn't so, since you clearly have strong research and writing skills that could be useful to the project, and I too think that many of your edits are sensible. I do, however, think that your sense of what constitutes mainstream scholarship with regard to eugenics is quite noticeably off-base, and I believe that in time a consensus will emerge to revert a great number of your additions. I simply don't have time to mount such an initiative at this time. Thanks for hearing me out. Generalrelative (talk) 17:57, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that thesis is already finished, and I still like it here for now... You are right, I do not trust the "consensus" on most articles but will try to abide by guidelines anyway.
 * I understand that the lede may have to be rewritten etc. etc., but trust that this time serious removals of content (as opposed to additions, that is...) will be briefly discussed on the talk page first. Biohistorian15 (talk) 18:04, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Only time for a brief reply now, but see WP:BRD and WP:ONUS. The latter is policy. Generally speaking we do try to hash things out on talk whenever possible, but the onus does ultimately lie on the shoulders of the party seeking to include disputed content. For this reason, large reversions may sometimes be necessary, until consensus for inclusion is determined. Generalrelative (talk) 18:09, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

June 2024
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

You are once again edit warring on the page Dysgenics, in what is very clearly a contentious topic area related to WP:FRINGE science. Believing that this area should not be considered fringe or contentious does not make it so. I will ask you to self-revert in the interest of collaboration. Generalrelative (talk) 17:33, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

July 2024
Please do not insert fringe or undue weight content into articles. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Please use the article's talk page to discuss the material and its appropriate weight within the article. Thank you.

Edits like this are the definition of WP:PROFRINGE. Please cut it out. It is onerous to have to patrol your many, many edits knowing that from time to time you will inevitably pull something like this. Here are some other examples: (my revert explanation: );  (my revert explanation: );  (my revert explanation: ). I could go on and on. These are just a few that I've taken the time to revert. Many more of your thousands of edits over the past 6 months deserve scrutiny, and I simply do not have the time. The fact that you often make sensible edits does not exempt you from taking due care when editing contentious topic areas. Generalrelative (talk) 15:15, 2 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Hello, sorry about the Gwern link, didn't know there was a decisive WP:NOBLOGS.
 * Secondly though, you will certainly not have to continue (specifically) "patrolling" my various edits personally as this is against WP policies.
 * If I look at some of your edit history I can surely find dozens of moves on your part.
 * Furthermore, you do not personally own "contentious topic areas", and thank god for that! Biohistorian15 (talk) 15:23, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Per WP:HOUND: Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles. I will unfortunately have to continue following your edit history until you either reform or are prevented from making this type of PROFRINGE edit by administrative action. That's one legitimate (if boring) way that ordinary editors like me do our part to maintain Wikipedia's core policies. If you disagree with my understanding you are of course welcome to raise the issue at a behavioral noticeboard yourself. But I think we both know that my understanding enjoys broad community consensus. Generalrelative (talk) 15:50, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, we both know that much. Biohistorian15 (talk) 15:52, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay! So please stop editing against what you know to be the consensus. We don't expect everyone here to agree, just to abide by our collaborative process. Generalrelative (talk) 15:59, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I hope I'm not piling-on here but I have a different criticism of that edit to human nature. It seems to me that ramsey's "life-history trait clusters" described in human nature are unrelated to life history theory, despite having a similar name. Thus, it isn't helpful to add a hatnote pointing to life history theory (or its section on humans), and even less helpful to point to another topic (r/K selection theory) connected via life history theory without explanation. Jruderman (talk) 17:14, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You're right in retrospective. It was a superficial reading, and GR reverted it already. Biohistorian15 (talk) 17:17, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:Dysgenics, you may be blocked from editing.

This comment by an IP editor, which you removed, was unambiguously aimed at improving the article. There was no room for misinterpretation here. Your edit was straightforwardly disruptive. Generalrelative (talk) 17:43, 9 July 2024 (UTC)


 * It was an edit by a highly disruptive IP-user that also had nothing to do with the thread. Biohistorian15 (talk) 17:46, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I mean, I think you're at least equally disruptive to the project, yet I have not reverted your talk page comments. You are creating a tremendous time-sink by WP:SEALIONING a pro-eugenics POV across the project which will take a lot of valuable editor time to undo. The only grounds for removing comments are if they're clearly WP:FORUM / WP:SOAPBOX or egregious WP:PA. Simply being mildly off-topic for a particular thread is not a valid reason to delete. In the future you can feel free to add a new header, per WP:SHOWN. Generalrelative (talk) 17:56, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Unironically thanks for the info, but I hope you're not serious. The IP has added unsourced allegations to lots of politically controversial articles. Biohistorian15 (talk) 18:09, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The comment you removed has a source attached, which makes it removal even less justified. Harryhenry1 (talk) 03:43, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Before adding a category to an article, as you did to Theodosius Dobzhansky, please make sure that the subject of the article really belongs in the category that you specified according to Wikipedia's categorization guidelines. The category being added must already exist, and must be supported by the article's verifiable content. Categories may be removed if they are deemed incorrect for the subject matter. ''Please slow down. You need to review how defining works. Because categoization requires that the feature be a defining feature of the page in question. I have removed several catergorizations that clearly don't meet this. I see no evidence that he was regularly described as a eugenist. Being on the board of the society for demography and social biology isn't enough by itself if reliable sources don't also regularly describe him as being one.'' Mason (talk) 14:24, 14 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Ok, I'll re-consider only when I have supplemented better sources for the claim. Biohistorian15 (talk) 14:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Little things on Eugenics
You removed some links from See Also on the basis that they were in the Discrimination sidebar. Later, I removed the sidebar. Please re-add the links you think are appropriate, if any. Jruderman (talk) 14:04, 3 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I already forgot. I'll add back Ableism. Biohistorian15 (talk) 14:06, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

In this edit, why did you underline part of a link? I don't think I've seen that done before, and it's discouraged by MOS:UNDERLINE. Jruderman (talk) 14:04, 3 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I probably shouldn't have. I'll highlight in-text that the man is related to Galton and Darwin. Biohistorian15 (talk) 14:06, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 8
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Philosophy of medicine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Biohacker.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:22, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Rufus Jones and eugenics
Hello, @Biohistorian15: I see you recently added the Quaker philosopher and peace-through-service activist Rufus Jones (writer) to "Category: Religious eugenicists". Unlike the three others included in this rather skimpy category, who seem to have written directly on the subject, there is nothing in Jones's article to support this assignment, nor is Jones known for advocacy of this idea. What basis do you have for this addition, and why is is a significant fact about him even if true? PDGPA (talk) 15:35, 9 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Just added it to the article. Biohistorian15 (talk) 16:16, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for providing the source (available here: https://digitalcommons.georgefox.edu/qrt/vol135/iss1/3/), which I read and found interesting. The author (a distinguished expert on Quaker history and theology) expressly concludes that while Jones permitted his name to be used as a supporter by the American Eugenics Society from late 1929 until some time in the mid-1930s, and appears to have personally held some opinions consistent with those of some eugenicists of the period, he was never active with AES, did not publish on the subject, and never publicly supported its views. I do not think this warrants his inclusion in the Category, nor does it rise to the level of importance relative to Jones's whole life and career to be included in the article about him. Do you really disagree? PDGPA (talk) 17:24, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You may remove it. Biohistorian15 (talk) 17:32, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your thoughtful engagement. I will remove Jones's name from the category, and the sentence from his article. PDGPA (talk) 21:05, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Scandinavian eugenicists


A tag has been placed on Category:Scandinavian eugenicists indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. ✗ plicit  14:28, 11 July 2024 (UTC)


 * No contest; was too hasty. Biohistorian15 (talk) 15:37, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Please slow down in your category creation. You should review Categorization before you make anymore. I've removed several categories you have added to people being eugenicists, when it's not supported by sources or seems to be based on an inference.  Mason (talk) 20:31, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Category:Religious eugenicists has been nominated for deletion
Category:Religious eugenicists has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mason (talk) 20:26, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Category:Postwar eugenicists has been nominated for deletion
Category:Postwar eugenicists has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mason (talk) 20:27, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Category:Liberal eugenicists has been nominated for deletion
Category:Liberal eugenicists has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mason (talk) 20:27, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Category:Latinx eugenicists has been nominated for merging
Category:Latinx eugenicists has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mason (talk) 20:29, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Category:Politicization of science has been nominated for merging
Category:Politicization of science has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mason (talk) 20:32, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Category:Human enhancement has been nominated for merging
Category:Human enhancement has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mason (talk) 14:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Why did you add Curtis Yarvin to the list of anarcho-capitalists
See title Photon2003 (talk) 12:39, 16 July 2024 (UTC)


 * See his "PATCHWORK: A POLITICAL SYSTEM FOR THE 21ST CENTURY" Biohistorian15 (talk) 13:14, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Please don't jsut say see source. Please explain it. Mason (talk) 20:07, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It's a set of posts later republished on kindle... and it's very clearly in this tradition. Biohistorian15 (talk) 10:08, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Categorization
Please stop overcategorizing people. For example, Charles Gabriel Seligman doesn't need to be in the race and intelligence controversy category. You've added a lot of people to this category that frankly don't seem to be defined by the category. Your edit does not explain your reasoning for the addition, and it is not obvious to me that sources commonly define in terms of that controversy specifically. Heck, the word intelligence isn't even used in the article. Charles Gabriel Seligman was already in Proponents of scientific racism, which is a much better bit. I've asked you before to slow down and raise your threshold for adding people to categories. Please review the guidelines for categorization. Mason (talk) 20:06, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Revert
Hi Biohistorian15,

I just saw your revert here. The edit summary "Appears to me like a valid and sourced criticism was unduly removed" suggests that there may have been a confusion with another revert, because my commit didn't intend to remove criticism, actually, I'm the one who introduced the paragraph in the first place and I wanted to reintroduced a reworked version of some removed content.

My intent is mostly to explain Torres's view first, with their own words, because I think people would otherwise have the impression that they just believe that existential risks are sci-fi, whereas their position is actually more radical than the one of most longtermists they criticize. The crux seems to be that Torres basically doesn't like technological solutions (and that Torres would be ok with human extinction because that would be less suffering, but I decided not to add that to the article).

thanks Alenoach (talk) 12:40, 21 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Ok, sorry. Don't worry, I won't revert again now that I get the context. Biohistorian15 (talk) 13:11, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
 * If you are ok with it, maybe you can undo your edit. It may be more transparent if you do it yourself, but if you prefer I can do it. Thanks. Alenoach (talk) 13:41, 21 July 2024 (UTC)