129:
an attempt to enforce the first proposal despite its failure to gain a majority, let alone consensus, which is what WP is effectively governed by. A new (slightly watered down) attempt to change the guidelines is also about to fail. What this means is that we are left with the guideline as it currently stands. In summary, this guideline, which applies globally, is that either BC/AD or BCE/CE is acceptable, consistency within an article is desirable, and no-one should go changing articles that are fully consistent in their style to the alternative style.
626:'s edit was appropriate in that article (before his edit the article contained one instance of BC and one of BCE; the BCE instance was more recently inserted, making BC the "appropriate" style under the terms of the prior ArbCom ruling). Your revert actually returned the article to a state prohibited by the MoS, because you reverted only Jguk's change, and not the other instance of BC in the article.
397:
requires an author to use terms his reader will understand and be familiar with (as opposed to requiring the reader to put up with the writer's peccadilloes). I don't understand why you are so in favour of trying to make our articles more inaccessible - but then, of course, I can't, as you have consummately failed to discuss your position.
400:
So far the majority of your edits to WP have been purely destructive, and those which have helped WP have been somewhat minor in nature. If this is all you can contribute, please consider whether your energies would be better served elsewhere - life is short and you are more trouble here than you are
208:. It is interesting to note that YOU have appointed yourself the arbiter of which one to use for consistency. Note that I am entitled to do the same and revert you. I do suggest that you consider only BC/AD for consistency as well, but I have not seen you opting for that version in a single article.--
541:
I really don't know what ip addresses I have edited under - I try to always remember to log in, but that doesn't mean I don't make the odd mistake. I'm on dial-up and have always been on dial-up, so the ip changes. Plus, like most people, I started out as a logged-out editor. Perhaps you'd oblige me
664:
But please don't ask me unless you've read the whole thing and clicked on most or all of the links. I hate to sound like a dick, but as you may have noticed in my original evidence, my first run-in with ol' Jon was nearly a year ago, and if I never have to fire another neuron on his behalf, it will
396:
I see that you are continuing to change articles that are quite happily sitting with BC notation to BCE, somewhat against WP policy - as is your approach to using invective rather than explaining your position. Only BC notation has worldwide recognition amongst our target audience, and good writing
128:
As you are probably aware, recently there has been a somewhat divisive campaign by supporters of BCE/CE notation to encourage it on
Knowledge (XXG) - and to change our guidelines on date notation to support their views. The Knowledge (XXG) community voted down the first proposal, ArbCom neutralised
421:
When are you going to do something other than revert to insert your POV, which is contrary to WP policy? It's not the done thing to revert blindly, but it's difficult to see a resolution to this when you are unwilling to discuss your behaviour, which to date has been entirely against the spirit of
259:
where you have changed a consistent AD/BC article into a BCE/CE article, I WILL revert you. Have no doubt about that. And don't try any "original version inconsistency" argument, because according to the logic you have presented here, you have no reason to change articles that are presently BC/AD
229:
And the consensus was to reject BC/AD as a standard as well... your point being? Again- the MoS only states that articles should be consistent (with either style), and so anyone is free to make articles internally consistent. What is inappropriate is to change an article which is consistent to
132:
You will note that my recent edits, being edits to make articles consistent in notation, are recommended by the guideline (and also recently by ArbCom). Whereas your edits, which were to change articles that use fully consistent notation (post my editing) to your preferred notation were not.
432:
I strongly believe that good writers should write with their readers in mind, and that this alone should dictate the style they adopt, with the writer's personal preferences having little or no bearing. Is this POV? Well, I don't think so - it's just what is at the heart of good
384:(see "Accusations of 'troll'). Actually it began with a question to Jguk on his talk page, but it has expanded, so I copied the whole thing to my talk page. I just thought you should be aware of it if you're not already. No action necessary at this point.
745:
Thanks for your explanation. You're right about it's irrelevance. If Trump had mentioned how much money each department normally brought in, we could calculate an accurate difference. Since he didn't, those numbers mean very little. I'll remove the section.
715:
Okay, could you explain to me where the number 163 comes from then? I understand that the departments take in different amounts of money, which is why straight out subtracting the numbers doesn't say much. But I have no idea where 163 comes from.
136:
It is far from being an ideal guideline, but if we are to progress and edit amicably on WP going forward, we all need to accept this guideline (at least until there is support for an alternative - which there isn't at the moment). Kind regards,
631:
I've not decided whether to recommend that we accept this case or not, but at this point if we do accept it be aware that your conduct in this matter will also be subject to our review. You appear to have have no history of editing
165:
You're trying to impose a rare alternative for the BC/AD terminology which has been rejected by community vote at
Knowledge (XXG). The rejection of your preferred terminology by the community is all the reason I need to revert
661:(confusingly presented, I know) that I gave in the first case, and if you think it would substantially add to your case, then I would be happy to clean it up for reader-friendliness, and re-present it for this case.
935:. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
651:
Thanks for the heads up on the arbitration, but to be frank, I have spent far too much of my time on that jerk already -- not just in arbitration, but in endless edits and pointless talk page palaver.
183:, it explicitly allows both styles as long as articles are internally consistent. What is not allowed is to change an article which consistently uses one style to another style, which is what you (and
477:
You left an important incident off your list; while his
Arbitration case was on-going, during a period when he claimed to have "left" Knowledge (XXG), in about 3 hours jguk astoundingly made over
89:! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the
411:
Are you going to comment on your actions - which only serve to make WP less accessible to its reader base, or just blindly revert in the hope that in time anyone who reads WP will go away?
830:
Please be advised that I have made a request for arbitration against you. You can read the particulars and, if you wish, make a statement not exceeding 500 words on the matter on
481:. While, as usual, he claimed to be merely conforming to the MOS, he actually removed CE from some pages while leaving AD in, and in other cases simply replaced CE with AD, e.g.
856:
852:
698:
654:
I also have to say that my faith in the arbitration process was severely shaken in that first case, so that's another reason I'm not inclined to participate this time around.
658:
351:
is now where it was before the revert war over eras hit that page. Please do not keep reverting people on that. Our style manual says the date form in that article is fine.
205:
122:
898:
891:
848:
811:
694:
35:
69:
636:
prior to your ill-considered revert of Jguk; this certainly suggests that you're stalking him, a behavior which we have indicated is unacceptable.
878:
824:
558:
187:) have been doing. The community has rejected not only using BCE/CE as a standard but also BC/AD, instead preferring to allow both systems.
960:
897:
This arbitration case has closed. Jguk is banned from editing with respect to era notation. This will be enforced by block, as per Jguk's
701:
I changed your statement by removing Jguk's real name. He doesn't put it on his user page, so probably we should just use his user name.
422:
Knowledge (XXG). Knowledge (XXG) needs good editors, it does not need editors who only disrupt it, which is what you have done so far,
509:
It's a question of openness (same reason as to why I've asked all the ArbCom candidates for the
December election the same question),
596:
591:
874:
600:
364:
956:
665:
be too soon. And as I said above, I and many others dealing with this guy were already burned once by the arbitration process.
74:
54:
26:
583:
64:
774:
Actually, I only took out the last sentence of that bullet. We can leave the rest about it being the worst defeat, etc.
45:
on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
30:
947:
describes the
Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
79:
952:
657:
HOWEVER... I still think this guy is a nut and is harming WP on a site-wide scale, so if you would go through my
94:
49:
86:
568:
33:. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the
948:
780:
752:
722:
151:
Would it be too much to ask that you explain the rationale for your reverts, and why you're joining with
785:
775:
757:
747:
727:
717:
59:
924:
915:
906:
675:
I apologize for being so cantankerous about this, but I do look forward to hearing from you. Best,
283:
110:
944:
928:
457:
587:
565:
562:
335:
326:
309:
261:
209:
167:
438:
You seem to know quite a bit for a new user. Do you have another account and, if so, what is it?
204:
The majority vote was to reject the BCE/CE as a standard. Apparently, it is still not settled:
637:
520:
461:
940:
932:
831:
90:
860:
795:
767:
737:
702:
381:
352:
302:
278:
this is pathetic, I suggest you find something more productive to do on
Knowledge (XXG)Β :(
943:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
936:
180:
902:
790:
762:
732:
279:
106:
39:, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type
901:. You are also warned regarding stalking him. On behalf of the arbitration committee,
882:
668:
But if -- after reading it through -- you really, truly think that my evidence would
633:
579:
528:
367:
306:
815:
676:
98:
617:
155:
to violate policy by changing date styles in articles which consistently use one?
385:
231:
188:
156:
486:
835:
623:
543:
532:
524:
510:
500:
444:
423:
412:
402:
380:
Hi Sortan: You should know that your name has come up in some discussion on
184:
152:
138:
499:
Sortan, please confirm what other WP accounts you edit under. Many thanks,
456:
Not sure about the previous account, but his next account was going to be
931:
is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the
Knowledge (XXG)
577:
I just did a spot-check on one of the alleged "inappropriate" changes (
348:
964:
909:
885:
863:
838:
818:
797:
769:
739:
705:
684:
640:
571:
546:
535:
513:
503:
489:
464:
447:
426:
415:
405:
370:
338:
329:
312:
291:
264:
234:
212:
191:
170:
159:
141:
105:
Sortan, are you sure this isn't just a "BCE dispute" role account?
559:
Knowledge (XXG):Requests for arbitration#Jguk and date notation
810:
The arbitration committee has reached a final decision in the
857:
Knowledge (XXG):Requests for arbitration/Sortan/Workshop
853:
Knowledge (XXG):Requests for arbitration/Sortan/Evidence
206:
Knowledge (XXG):Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Eras
613:
609:
605:
484:
482:
478:
323:
255:
I am going to watch your edits, and if I see a single
672:help your case, let me know and I'll post it asap.
542:by letting me know which other usernames you have?
647:Your invitation to participate in Jguk arbitration
443:Also, what's your interest in all of this anyway?
923:You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
322:Can you explain this massive deletion of content
892:Knowledge (XXG):Requests for arbitration/Sortan
849:Knowledge (XXG):Requests for arbitration/Sortan
825:Knowledge (XXG):Requests for arbitration#Sortan
812:Knowledge (XXG):Requests for arbitration/jguk 2
695:Knowledge (XXG):Requests for arbitration/jguk 2
479:300 BCE/CE date style changes as an IP address
334:Note that you can be blocked for vandalism.--
301:I've suggested a cease-fire on eras, at the
123:WIkipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)
97:or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!--
8:
851:has been accepted. Please place evidence at
697:has been accepted. Please place evidence at
473:You left an important incident off your list
365:Knowledge (XXG):Requests for adminship/jguk
855:. Proposals and comments may be placed at
85:I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
711:Apprentice - Difference in Percentages?
230:another style without a good reason.
7:
50:The Five Pillars of Knowledge (XXG)
29:to Knowledge (XXG). Thank you for
14:
949:review the candidates' statements
401:worth at present. Kind regards,
519:I'm happy to: the accounts are
363:You may be interested in this:
955:. For the Election committee,
925:Arbitration Committee election
916:ArbCom elections are now open!
531:. I trust you'll reciprocate,
416:18:21, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
406:18:23, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
1:
965:13:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
910:09:15, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
886:02:54, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
864:19:32, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
819:03:30, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
388:18:42, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
147:Care to explain your reverts?
839:20:00, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
798:06:00, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
770:05:55, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
740:04:36, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
706:13:57, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
685:02:31, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
641:22:29, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
572:23:37, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
547:18:54, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
536:18:30, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
514:18:11, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
504:16:44, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
490:15:28, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
355:03:05, 2005 August 24 (UTC)
70:How to write a great article
951:and submit your choices on
557:Please consider supporting
465:10:01, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
448:15:46, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
427:15:32, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
371:20:22, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
318:Massive deletion of content
36:New contributors' help page
980:
957:MediaWiki message delivery
339:17:11, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
330:17:10, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
313:09:44, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
292:18:04, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
265:17:48, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
235:17:41, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
213:17:36, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
192:17:17, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
171:17:13, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
160:17:09, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
142:07:20, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
495:Request for confirmation
118:8 July 2005 17:50 (UTC)
101:8 July 2005 02:01 (UTC)
93:, add a question to the
899:prior arbitration case
179:No, if you'd read the
929:Arbitration Committee
873:What do you think of
844:Arbitration accepted
690:Arbitration accepted
376:Discussion about you
933:arbitration process
553:ArbReq against Jguk
945:arbitration policy
297:Cease-fire on eras
257:rv petty vandalism
75:Naming conventions
55:How to edit a page
31:your contributions
521:User:Jongarrettuk
290:
117:
971:
793:
788:
783:
778:
765:
760:
755:
750:
735:
730:
725:
720:
682:
681:
621:
603:
282:
109:
65:Picture tutorial
60:Editing tutorial
43:
979:
978:
974:
973:
972:
970:
969:
968:
953:the voting page
919:
895:
871:
846:
828:
808:
791:
786:
781:
776:
763:
758:
753:
748:
733:
728:
723:
718:
713:
692:
679:
677:
649:
594:
578:
555:
497:
475:
394:
378:
361:
359:Jguk for admin?
346:
320:
299:
149:
126:
80:Manual of Style
41:
19:
12:
11:
5:
977:
975:
922:
918:
913:
894:
889:
870:
867:
845:
842:
827:
822:
807:
806:Final decision
804:
803:
802:
801:
800:
712:
709:
691:
688:
648:
645:
644:
643:
628:
627:
554:
551:
550:
549:
517:
516:
496:
493:
474:
471:
470:
469:
468:
467:
451:
450:
440:
439:
435:
434:
419:
418:
393:
390:
377:
374:
360:
357:
345:
344:Date era style
342:
319:
316:
298:
295:
276:
275:
274:
273:
272:
271:
270:
269:
268:
267:
244:
243:
242:
241:
240:
239:
238:
237:
220:
219:
218:
217:
216:
215:
197:
196:
195:
194:
174:
173:
148:
145:
125:
120:
104:
83:
82:
77:
72:
67:
62:
57:
52:
18:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
976:
967:
966:
962:
958:
954:
950:
946:
942:
938:
934:
930:
926:
917:
914:
912:
911:
908:
904:
900:
893:
890:
888:
887:
884:
880:
876:
868:
866:
865:
862:
858:
854:
850:
843:
841:
840:
837:
833:
826:
823:
821:
820:
817:
813:
805:
799:
796:
794:
789:
784:
779:
773:
772:
771:
768:
766:
761:
756:
751:
744:
743:
742:
741:
738:
736:
731:
726:
721:
710:
708:
707:
704:
700:
696:
689:
687:
686:
683:
673:
671:
670:significantly
666:
662:
660:
655:
652:
646:
642:
639:
635:
634:Maya calendar
630:
629:
625:
619:
615:
611:
607:
602:
598:
593:
589:
585:
581:
580:Maya calendar
576:
575:
574:
573:
570:
567:
566:Humus sapiens
563:
560:
552:
548:
545:
540:
539:
538:
537:
534:
530:
529:User:SmokeDog
526:
522:
515:
512:
508:
507:
506:
505:
502:
494:
492:
491:
488:
485:
483:
480:
472:
466:
463:
459:
455:
454:
453:
452:
449:
446:
442:
441:
437:
436:
431:
430:
429:
428:
425:
417:
414:
410:
409:
408:
407:
404:
398:
391:
389:
387:
383:
375:
373:
372:
369:
366:
358:
356:
354:
350:
343:
341:
340:
337:
332:
331:
328:
324:
317:
315:
314:
311:
308:
304:
296:
294:
293:
289:
287:
281:
266:
263:
260:consistent.--
258:
254:
253:
252:
251:
250:
249:
248:
247:
246:
245:
236:
233:
228:
227:
226:
225:
224:
223:
222:
221:
214:
211:
207:
203:
202:
201:
200:
199:
198:
193:
190:
186:
182:
178:
177:
176:
175:
172:
169:
164:
163:
162:
161:
158:
154:
146:
144:
143:
140:
134:
130:
124:
121:
119:
116:
114:
108:
102:
100:
96:
92:
88:
81:
78:
76:
73:
71:
68:
66:
63:
61:
58:
56:
53:
51:
48:
47:
46:
44:
38:
37:
32:
28:
24:
16:
920:
896:
881:. Thanks. --
875:the movement
872:
869:The Movement
847:
829:
809:
714:
693:
674:
669:
667:
663:
656:
653:
650:
638:Kelly Martin
556:
518:
498:
476:
462:David Gerard
420:
399:
395:
382:my talk page
379:
362:
347:
333:
321:
303:Village pump
300:
285:
277:
256:
150:
135:
131:
127:
112:
103:
95:village pump
84:
40:
34:
22:
20:
861:Fred Bauder
703:Fred Bauder
353:Jonathunder
941:topic bans
91:help pages
87:Wikipedian
42:{{helpme}}
937:site bans
903:Johnleemk
699:/Evidence
624:user:Jguk
525:User:Jguk
185:User:Jguk
153:User:Jguk
883:Kin Khan
877:? Reply
816:βRaul654
659:evidence
433:writing.
368:CDThieme
307:Maurreen
832:WP:RfAr
622:), and
597:protect
592:history
458:James-R
99:Falphin
27:welcome
21:Hello,
17:Welcome
927:. The
814:case.
601:delete
487:Jayjg
386:Sunray
349:Yuezhi
336:Wiglaf
327:Wiglaf
310:(talk)
262:Wiglaf
232:Sortan
210:Wiglaf
189:Sortan
181:WP:MOS
168:Wiglaf
166:you.--
157:Sortan
25:, and
23:Sortan
680:blaze
618:views
610:watch
606:links
961:talk
907:Talk
879:here
836:jguk
614:logs
588:talk
584:edit
569:βΠ½Ρ?
544:jguk
533:jguk
527:and
511:jguk
501:jguk
445:jguk
424:jguk
413:jguk
403:jguk
139:jguk
921:Hi,
787:tic
759:tic
729:tic
392:BCE
325:?--
280:dab
107:dab
963:)
939:,
905:|
859:.
834:,
777:Ac
749:Ac
719:Ac
678:da
616:|
612:|
608:|
604:|
599:|
595:|
590:|
586:|
523:,
460:-
305:.
959:(
792:'
782:e
764:'
754:e
734:'
724:e
620:)
582:(
564:β
561:.
288:)
286:α
284:(
115:)
113:α
111:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.