Assuming you're not holding my newbie edits 9 months ago against me, I very quickly stopped changing articles from BCE/CE to BC/AD notation. What I continued doing was (1) reverting those who were changing BC/AD notation to BCE/CE notation (which presumably, if you are neutral, you would agree with on the grounds that they shouldn't have changed the notation in the first place); (2) making articles consistent. When I first came to WP most articles that used BCE/CE notation also used BC/AD notation. It makes sense (and indeed should be regarded as a good edit) to copyedit those articles so that they use one and only one notation.
Wouldn't a barnstar be more appropriate than approbation?
Jguk
Jay wrote:
Just to make it clear, for the past 9 months he has been on a campaign to remove all BCE/CE notation from Wikipedia, and has made over 1,000 article edits solely to support that campaign.
Jay.
--------------------------------- Yahoo! Messenger NEW - crystal clear PC to PCcalling worldwide with voicemail
On 6/19/05, Jon thagudearbh@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
Assuming you're not holding my newbie edits 9 months ago against me, I very quickly stopped changing articles from BCE/CE to BC/AD notation.
Jon, what you say isn't correct. You made hundreds of edits under your old user name, and not just as a complete newbie but after two months of editing, where you deleted BCE and inserted BC, in articles that had nothing to do with Christianity. See here, for example http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chandragupta_Maurya&diff=prev&...
Sarah
From: Jon thagudearbh@yahoo.co.uk
Assuming you're not holding my newbie edits 9 months ago against me, I very quickly stopped changing articles from BCE/CE to BC/AD notation.
What about attempting to change the MOS to reflect your views months after you joined Wikipedia, and had already been involved in conflicts at the Common Era article?[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_%28dates...]
What I continued doing was (1) reverting those who were changing BC/AD notation to BCE/CE notation (which presumably, if you are neutral, you would agree with on the grounds that they shouldn't have changed the notation in the first place); (2) making articles consistent. When I first came to WP most articles that used BCE/CE notation also used BC/AD notation. It makes sense (and indeed should be regarded as a good edit) to copyedit those articles so that they use one and only one notation.
That might be a reasonable argument except that you appeared to use any excuse to convert an article to BC/AD notation. You used "consistency" as an excuse to convert an article that had one use of BC and eight of BCE,[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bihar&diff=prev&oldid=1093...] or one that had 10 uses of BC/AD and 19 uses of BCE/CE,[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Silk_Road&diff=prev&oldid=...] to all BC/AD format. If a stub used BC, but the subsequent re-write into a proper article used BCE, you used "original usage" as an excuse to switch it back; yet if an article originally used BCE as notation, and subsquently grew to contain both usages, you used "consistency" to switch it to BC.
Wouldn't a barnstar be more appropriate than approbation?
Perhaps if you had truly been even-handed in your attempts to support the MOS.
Jay.