[WikiEN-l] Re: Arbitration Committee Seeking Comment

[Jon]

Jay jg
 
Making proposals for change is perfectly acceptable - and  I though it was recommended in controversial areas.
 
My early conflicts made me realise that it was counter-productive to change articles that always use BCE/CE notation to BC/AD notation (even though it would be preferable to user a style most commonly used worldwide - as Britannica and Encarta realise). I have therefore desisted from doing so months and months ago. And not even an ArbCom in sight then!
 
However, I can name at least half a dozen editors, including one arbitrator, who choose to continue making arbitrary changes on articles that already use fully consistent notation. Why single me out for edits done 7 months or so ago? (Incidentally, I mention this more to ask that you calm down on me, I don't want to widen this witchhunt to more and more people - it's messy enough already.)
 
Jguk
 
 
 
From: "JAY JG" <jayjg at hotmail.com>
Subject: RE: [WikiEN-l] Re: Arbitration Committee Seeking Comment
To: wikien-l at Wikipedia.org
Message-ID: <BAY107-F5F564C9A34BE27067711BB0F60 at phx.gbl>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed

>From: Jon <thagudearbh at 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_and_numbers%29/proposed_revision&diff=prev&oldid=9603439]



		
---------------------------------
How much free photo storage do you get? Store your holiday snaps for FREE with Yahoo! Photos. Get Yahoo! Photos