User talk:Abujahangir

On your user page, you state that you are "a close relation (family member) to Abu Hasan Muhammed Jahangir", but since your username is the same, I think you need to be clearer what that relation is. Assadzadeh (talk) 16:08, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello Assadzadeh,

Thank you for raising this point. I realize my user page statement was confusing.

I am Abu Hasan Muhammed Jahangir myself. I was simply trying to state that I am the subject of some recent media coverage and have a personal interest in ensuring the information on the Port Alberni page, which mentions my community work, is accurate.

I understand that having a username matching a real person's name may imply that I am the subject of the article itself, but I am not intending to edit my own biography (WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY). I have only edited articles related to my local community (Port Alberni and Alberni Valley).

I will update my user page immediately to clarify that I am **Abu Hasan Muhammed Jahangir** and that I am aware of the strict rules regarding editing with a conflict of interest (WP:COI). I will stick to editing articles where my local knowledge is helpful, as advised by the community.

Please let me know if you have any further concerns. Abujahangir (talk) 17:15, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

I note that your addition of the 'Sports' section to Port Alberni was not reverted, unlike your edits to Alberni Valley, Vancouver Island, Vancouver, and British Columbia. Also, your edit to Port Alberni seems to comply with WP:NPOV, especially the last paragraph. So, I would suggest that you not attempt to add additional information to the latter four pages, as you have proposed on their talk pages.

In addition, although I did not object to your addition of Alberni Valley as a potential pre-tournament training base camp to 2026 FIFA World Cup, now that I know you are personally involved with the local organizing group, I will ensure that the article maintains its NPOV. Finally, unless a national team eventually accepts the invitation to train there, I will suggest removing the section altogether, as it would then become irrelevant. So, please ensure that you include a reference should the invitation be accepted. Assadzadeh (talk) 19:16, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

@Assadzadeh Thank you very much for this detailed and helpful analysis.

I am glad the 'Sports' section for Port Alberni complies with WP:NPOV. I fully accept your suggestion and will not make any further attempts to edit the Alberni Valley, Vancouver Island, or British Columbia articles regarding the World Cup bid.

Regarding the 2026 FIFA World Cup article: I understand that the information on the training base may be removed if the bid does not proceed, as per WP:CRYSTAL. But this information is fact as it's a process of FIFA recognized facility which Port Alberni earned. To ensure neutrality and avoid speculation, I will not add any further information about the bid to any Wikipedia article until a national team has officially accepted the invitation to train there. Abujahangir (talk) 19:46, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

I think this response alleviates NPOV concerns. I'm satisfied. Masterhatch (talk) 20:16, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

@Masterhatch It's so encouraging to me and my learning process. Abujahangir (talk) 20:18, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Since we are now less than three months away from the beginning of the World Cup, I believe that all teams who have qualified so far have already chosen their base camp. As such, did any national teams eventually accept the invitation to train in Alberni Valley? Assadzadeh (talk) 19:35, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Assadzadeh, this editor was blocked in December and isn't currently able to edit Wikipedia. Blue Sonnet (talk) 22:27, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Assadzadeh (talk) 23:37, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Can I write a new article on **Bob Dailey Stadium** Abujahangir (talk) 14:04, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Abujahangir, welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. Your editing pattern indicates that you may be using multiple accounts or coordinating editing with people outside Wikipedia. Our policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow this, and users who misuse multiple accounts may be blocked from editing. If you operate multiple accounts directly or with the help of another person, please disclose these connections. Thank you. ScrabbleTiles (talk) 15:53, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

@ScrabbleTiles Hello ScrabbleTiles,

Thank you for reaching out.

I can confirm I am only one person operating this single account, Abujahangir. I do not use any other accounts, and I am not coordinating with anyone else to edit Wikipedia.

I have disclosed my connection (COI) with Bob Dailey Stadium on my Talk Page and Abu Hasan Muhammed Jahangir on my user page and I am following the rules by submitting my draft through the Articles for Creation (AfC) process.

Any suspicious editing pattern might be because I am editing from using multiple wifi, office, or home and mobile data. I am committed to following all rules with this one account. Please feel free to reach out to me if you have any questions.

Thank you, Abujahangir (talk) 16:52, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

What about User:Abuhasanjahangir? You appear to be editing the same articles and are working in each others userspaces. ScrabbleTiles (talk) 17:04, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

@ScrabbleTiles The User:Abuhasanjahangir account is also me. I created it by accident when I was trying to upload photos for the draft to Wikimedia Commons (the image site). I thought I was using my main account, Abujahangir. I must have made a mistake or the system had me create a slightly different username for that project.

I have not used the Abuhasanjahangir account for anything other than that image upload attempt. I will try to close that if there is any way. Abujahangir (talk) 17:12, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

You cannot close accounts, only vanish them. It might be easier just to put Template:User alternative account banner on the other account instead but your choice. ScrabbleTiles (talk) 17:23, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

@ScrabbleTiles Thanks for your advice, I will try to vanish it within the weekend. Abujahangir (talk) 17:26, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Vanishing process completed. Appreciate your guidance. Abuhasanjahangir (talk) 01:29, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

I just read your Draft:Bob Dailey Stadium. Looks like you are still using AI (Large language model) to write for you. The stadium may or may not be notable enough for its own article but please use your own words to write it. Using your own words will improve the chances that it'll be approved. Masterhatch (talk) 16:40, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

I truly appreciate you catching that and helping guide me through the learning process of Wikipedia article writing and editing. I have now resubmitted the draft for review. Please feel free to write your opinion if you have any other opnions or notes. Thank you once again. Abujahangir (talk) 22:41, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

You have recently edited a page related to the region of South Asia (India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal), broadly construed, including but not limited to history, politics, ethnicity, and social groups, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia's norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Additionally, you must be logged in, have 500 edits, and have an account age of 30 days in order to make edits related to two subtopics: (1) Indian military history, or (2) social groups, explicitly including caste associations and political parties related to India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Jay8g [V•T•E] 06:27, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

This user is aware of the designation of the following as contentious topics: They should not be given alerts for those areas.

Thank you for the notice. I will edit carefully, adhere to all policies, and discuss any major changes on talk pages.

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Dan arndt was:

This appears to be a duplicate of another submission, Abu Hasan Muhammed Jahangir, which is also waiting to be reviewed. To save time we will consider the other submission and not this one.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Abu Hasan Muhammed Jahangir (2) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Dan arndt (talk) 05:19, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

@Dan arndt Thanks for the notice regarding the duplicate submission of "Draft:Abu Hasan Muhammed Jahangir (2)". I understand the issue and will focus all further work and resubmission efforts on the original draft, "Draft:Abu Hasan Muhammed Jahangir".

​Apologies for the inconvenience! Abujahangir (talk) 05:48, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Please stop using wikipedia as a promotional tool for Abu Hasan Muhammed Jahangir. I've reverted all your attempts. Please stop adding him everywhere. Masterhatch (talk) 11:44, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

@Masterhatch Your feedback is helping me to improve my npov skill. Thank you 😊 Abujahangir (talk) 13:13, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

You are still trying to add him everywhere. Masterhatch (talk) 14:35, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

You appear to be using wikipedia as a promotional vehicle. Read: WP:PROMOTION. Also, when you suggest a COI edit on the talk page you must use the COI template {{edit COI}} so that uninvolved editors can review. Please re-read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Masterhatch (talk) 12:23, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

@Masterhatch Appreciate your guidance; will use COI template. Abujahangir (talk) 13:17, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

I suggest you mention on your userpage that you are also User:Abuhasanjahangir. It'll make it clear you are not a sockpuppet. Masterhatch (talk) 14:37, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

@Masterhatch Thank you for the suggestion, Masterhatch—it's now added to the top of both user pages for full transparency:

• User:Abujahangir
• User:Abuhasanjahangir

Appreciate the guidance! — Abujahangir (talk) 15:14, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Your submission of the draft of Abu Hasan Muhammed Jahangir was declined: User talk:Abuhasanjahangir#Your submission at Articles for creation: Abu Hasan Muhammed Jahangir (December 7). That does not mean you force it through anyway. It means it stays in draft until (or if) he becomes notable. Being COI, you must be careful. I will be reverting it. Masterhatch (talk) 10:27, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

@Masterhatch

​I apologize for bypassing the official review process and moving the draft myself. I accept this was a procedural error.

​I confirm I have now fully disclosed the COI and will adhere strictly to policy. I will not attempt to move the article back and will wait for a neutral editor to review the draft.

​Thank you. Abujahangir (talk) 11:02, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

I am not an expert on what makes a person notable enough for an article on Wikipedia. All I see is that every time you tried to submit a draft for him, it gets reviewed as not notable. So I am assuming he isn't notable. Masterhatch (talk) 11:26, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi there! I believe you have been using an AI/LLM to both write drafts and talk to other editors. If I am correct, please stop doing so. We would much rather hear from you in your own words - it's considered rude to expect people to talk to a machine instead of a human.

In general there are a lot of problems with AI/LLM contributions. You can find more information at WP:AIFAIL (about using it to create drafts or edit articles) and WP:LLMCHAT (about using it to communicate with other editors. Thanks for reading this, and happy editing! Meadowlark (talk) 20:10, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello everyone, ​I want to be fully open about my editing process. ​Due to my visual limitations and age, I sometimes require assistive technology to overcome technical barriers. Specifically, I use tools (including browser search and simple AI assistants) to perform the following technical maintenance tasks: ​Correcting typos and grammatical errors caused by visual limitations. ​Reorganizing sentence structure for improved clarity and flow. ​Finding working, archival, or alternative URLs when original news links (especially from Bangladeshi and Canadian sources) have become broken or redirect. ​I want to confirm that all editorial decisions, all final text, and all policy interpretations (e.g., Notability, NPOV) are mine alone. I never use AI to write entire paragraphs of content or to engage in discussions with other editors. ​My use of technology is strictly limited to assistive formatting and URL maintenance to ensure the article remains readable and verifiable, in compliance with Wikipedia policy. ​Thank you for your understanding and consideration. — Abujahangir (talk) Abujahangir (talk) 02:17, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Abujahangir, you wrote above I never use AI [...] to engage in discussions with other editors. Barely 24 hours later, you posted this on the Teahouse - a blatantly AI-generated request - and followed it up with another AI-generated response. If you continue, editors are likely to begin ignoring you and hiding your AI-generated comments. We want your words, even if there are typos or the sentences aren't perfect. Meadowlark (talk) 04:52, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

@Meadowlark I am not sure whether i wrote ever that I never use AI. I do have visual limitations. Acute glaucoma. one eye is implanted with external Valve. Therefore. I need to use some tech. We use lot of application software in our different daily activities where there are already some sort of AI mixed up. During wiki work if I use any Ai support, before submitting either conduct review first then submit, or submit draft then started reviewing/fine tuning. it's like use of WordPress and customize the template, then modify and update. I learnt my first programming language Qbasic and GWbasic. Now if I want to do all work done by basic you will definitely say I am outdated. Wikipedia itself a application software module. For learning and understanding wiki terms by practicing and learning. Hope my work is improving. Abujahangir (talk) 08:03, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

You wrote exactly that in the third-last sentence of your previous comment. I understand the need to use tech when you have limitations - and that's a good reason to use it! - but can I strongly suggest that you use your own words whenever possible? You might feel that that makes your communication less effective, but it's actually much more effective because we see so much AI/LLM use that people tend to disregard obviously-AI-generated comments. Comments like this one that I'm replying to are coherent and give me confidence that I'm talking to a human.

Have you tried out any voice-to-text software (or apps, websites, etc)? Perhaps that would be an option to write using your own words and style. You may not be aware, but talk-page comments that seem to be generated by an AI/LLM are often collapsed/hidden and disregarded. Other editors will listen to what you say, but not what a machine says. AI/LLMs don't understand our policies, make up information, and contradict themselves. They're really not a good tool to use on Wikipedia. Meadowlark (talk) 16:13, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Well Noted with thanks @Meadowlark. I will start practicing on voice-to-text. In the meantime, i would type by own word if anything comes up which I can do the verification. Do you suggest any particulculap apps to use voice-totext? I'll also check with CNIB (Canadian National Instiutue of Blind) as I am member of the institute. Moreover, next couple of days I'll be busy with final calls to federations who may be interested in port alberni, fund raising work and stakeholders co-ordination to sign up with a nation other than regular business activities. Will update some more independent news once available. Appreciate your positive guidance. Thanks Abujahangir (talk) 05:31, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

This sentence: "During wiki work if I use any Ai support, before submitting either conduct review first then submit, or submit draft then started reviewing/fine tuning" means that you sometimes create drafts using AI, then submit for review, and only then do you start reviewing it. I don’t think that submitting an AI-written draft before human review is allowed at Wikipedia. Am I right in that, @Meadowlark? David10244 (talk) 04:38, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Appreciate your care. Some templates are useful, e.g., infobox and url set up while referencing. I am so glad to have you as mentor. Abujahangir (talk) 04:47, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

@David10244 and @David10244 @Timtrent I added a new topic into [[draft:Abu Hasan Muhameed Jahangir]]. as Proposal to add new independent coverage of FIFA 2026 bid progress (December 2025). In that topic I added another independent source contain Headile: "Experts assess Port Alberni fields for FIFA team readiness" by Austin Kelly, originally in Alberni Valley News and syndicated across multiple Black Press Media outlets (e.g., https://chemainusvalleycourier.ca/2025/12/17/experts-assess-port-alberni-fields-for-fifa-team-readiness/Chemainus Valley Courier, Alberni Valley News, North Island Gazette, Nanaimo News Bulletin, Comox Valley Record, etc.). This article reports on recent independent expert field assessments (by The Sports Labs on December 10, 2025) for Port Alberni's ongoing bid to host a FIFA World Cup 2026 team base camp. It identifies me as "one of the dedicated volunteers" leading the effort. Please let me know your though this article will serve purpose my Notability/BLP criteria. Appreciate your thoughts and comments. I'll keep you updated with further independant sources when I found. Thank you. Abujahangir (talk) 09:07, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Is it more than three paragraphs of good prose which are about you?

No. It is not about you it simply says that you exist, and states some things you have said. Thus it does not add any value to WP:GNG.

I have given you the tools to judge this for yourself already. I will restate them here:

For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, in multiple secondary sources which are WP:RS, and is significant coverage. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact cited, that meet these tough criteria is likely to make this draft a clear acceptance (0.9 probability). Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the person is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today.

There is no need to ask others to check when you can see, already, whether references meet the requirements.

You may simply have to face the facts that you are a decent person doing the things you do well, but are notable only to those who love you, and are unsuitable for a Wikipedia article. We are very close to the end of this road, and may have reached it already. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 09:33, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

@Timtrent Thanks for your valuable input. All independent sources (News), they write the facts according to their own perspective and own way. As a human my BLP i might be be biased for own work. But the acid test is your judgment. People are started recognizing my work that I am trying yp bring some value to a community and region. My perspective is I am trying to create example which will be example for others and other communities, about how to make changes and work beyond boundaries with a noble cause. I will bring more once I will be to collect and submit for your neutral view

Appreciate your feedback. Good night!! Abujahangir (talk) 10:24, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

You cannot conjure notability out of thin air. You may only record, in your own words, what is said about you in sources meeting the criteria I have reminded you about.

Youi say "I am trying to create example which will be example for others and other communities, about how to make changes and work beyond boundaries with a noble cause" and this is great for a magazine. It is diametrically opposed to what is required for an encyclopaedia.

The road you are walking proves beyond any real doubt that you are a single purpose accpunt intent on using Wikipedia for self promotion.

You have sought to add yourself to multiple other articles. I see you as WP:NOTHERE, who has, somehow, avoided being warned against using Wikipedia fr promotional purposes. I think it is time to correct that, and that you have now reached the end of this road. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 10:40, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

This is your only warning; if you use Wikipedia for soapboxing, promotion, or advertising again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 10:40, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Abujahangir, look at how many times you have tried to add yourself at Bangladeshi British Columbians. You don't seem to be "getting it", Wikipedia does not consider you to be "notable". Your edits are disruptive and you need to stop. Magnolia677 (talk) 12:18, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Magnolia677 (talk) 12:29, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I am sorry for my old edits that looked like self promotion. I was new and did not know the rules. Now I know better. I stopped all edits about myself in December when admin said to stop. If new important news about me comes, I will only ask on the talk page – I will not edit myself. In one teahouse conversation i was suggested for referencing. That's why misunderstood on inclusion of myself into other articles. Now i understand better. If you let me edit again, I will only work on other topics which I know. Thank you very much. Abujahangir (talk) 12:11, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Editor has said they will take the standard offer, so closing this request. They can open in a new request in 6 months time. PhilKnight (talk) 17:55, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

---

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.

Abujahangir (talk) 12:11, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I'm afraid this doesn't say anything new that you haven't mentioned already and doesn't address the specific concerns raised at ANI. Your edits didn't just look like self-promotion, that's all you've done here.

You explicitly said you wouldn't edit your draft yet continued to do so. You submitted your draft eleven times and moved it to mainspace twice. Pretty much every edit you've made had been aimed at promoting yourself, or building a foundation for you to promote yourself.

You used your wife's account to promote yourself, and that's the only thing her account has done. This appears to be the sole reason for your presence at Wikipedia.

If you were unblocked, I'm almost certain that this pattern of long-term behaviour will continue. Please read through the most recent ANI thread and understand just how much evidence and consensus there is against unblocking you - this appeal barely scratches those concerns. Blue Sonnet (talk) 13:12, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

@Blue-Sonnet, I hear you.. I want to prove what said: (1) I have told my wife to uninstall the app so there is no more account sharing (action implemened). (2) I promise to never edit the draft about myself again. If there is any significant achievements and coverage comes i will keep updated into talk page for information. I will leave it alone completely and let the community decide if it is ever notable (which i already started). (3) I want to show I can be a helpful editor on other topics that have nothing to do with me but I have knowledge on that. (4) In my nature I don't like to beg but request your consideration to prove my words. Happy to answer if you have any questions. Abujahangir (talk) 13:38, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

WP:BROTHER and The boy who cried wolf apply. Sometimes we run ourselves right out of chances. My opinion is that you are where you are today because of the choices you have made here. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 14:11, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with Timtrent. You make that exact same promise twice and immediately broke it - we have proof of this.

You've shown no interest in anything beyond yourself, and the community has already determined over a dozen times across multiple articles that you don't meet notability criteria.

If you're unblocked, I firmly believe that you'll continue to try to insert yourself into Wikipedia in one way or another. You'll continue to try to argue that you're notable on your draft, taking up time from volunteer editors who could be doing anything else.

I'm sorry to say this, but you've broken the communities trust.

Even in your appeal, you're still focusing on yourself, your drafts and your notability even though it's abundantly clear that you don't qualify for inclusion. You still want to try to get your draft accepted on Wikipedia, despite being blocked for this. I do not think you're able to edit about yourself in a neutral, objective manner because you just can't seem to let this go.

If you become notable in the future, an independent editor will create an article for you with the relevant sources. That time is not now.

If you do want to become a productive editor in subjects unrelated to yourself, the Standard offer is an option. You edit on another Wikipedia project for six months to gather a history of productive edits as evidence for a future appeal - if you're interested, you can find a list by clicking here.

Honestly, that's the only possible route I can see to becoming unblocked. Blue Sonnet (talk) 15:29, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

@Blue-Sonnet I hear your concerns and understand that my previous actions have damaged the community's trust (but trust me there was no wrong intentions only learning process - trying to understand the procedure and resources of consensus). I will not argue the background or my intentions further. I accept the Standard Offer and will stop all editing on the English Wikipedia for at least six months to prove I can follow the community's instructions. I will see you in June 2026. But if you review your decision prior to June just ping me. Happy holidays and happy new year. Abujahangir (talk) 17:09, 23 December 2025 (UTC)