User talk:Bilcarter

Welcome!

Hello, Bilcarter, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! __meco 07:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Temple in Jerusalem

Your change in the era style at Temple in Jerusalem from BCE/CE to BC/AD is in conflict with WP:ERA. Please don't do anything like that again. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 05:01, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of what the progressives like to put after the year to reinforce their claim that there is no God, or at least that there is cause to silence Him in academia, but when I'm reading an article about the Temple of Jerusalem, I think it's appropriate. I would even settle for the year as denoted by the Jewish calendar, but when referencing the Gregorian (that is, Christian) calendar, I think it warrants the traditional BC/AD. Jesus Christ died for you, too Steven, whether or not your calendar says so. And don't tell me what to do.Bilcarter (talk) 05:16, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing to do with progressive or other politics. It's simply WP policy, per WP:ERA and WP:DATE, which call for whichever style is established in an article to be respected. Please remember to assume good faith when being informed of the rules. Hertz1888 (talk) 05:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not having a problem understanding the rules. The rules are simply wrong in this case. This is a religious topic. It is academically dishonest for you or anyone else to deny that. The Jewish Temple in Jerusalem belonged to the Jews (and by extension, the Christians) long before it belonged to your precious WP policy. What are you so afraid will happen if we adhere to BC/AD (or the Jewish calendar)? Will peoples' minds suddenly cling to religion and make them incapable of understanding science and research? I can't see any reason for your intransigence on this matter. Using BC/AD is wisdom that got us through 2000 years of societal development, but NOW, some website policy has the audacity and self-proclaimed authority to change that? You guys are smarter than that. Aren't you?Bilcarter (talk) 06:00, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

February 2010

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits, such as those you made to Temple in Jerusalem. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing. Hertz1888 (talk) 06:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

so now FASCISM is your tactic? You don't like the message, so you shut the messenger up? I'm not being disruptive at all. I am dissenting. Isn't that a tenet of academia? This is exactly why Wikipedia is a joke among credible researchers.Bilcarter (talk) 06:51, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After a quick glance, I dont really think this is vandalism. Take it to Dispute ResolutionAcather96 (talk) 07:05, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

of course it isn't. Hertz simply has a bone to pick with me now, and he is abusing his authority. Like I claimed from the beginning, he is academically and intellectually dishonest. He wants to BAN me for vandalism. He even deleted my comments from his page, where everyone else seems to have to freedom to say what they want, except me.Bilcarter (talk) 07:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A note

Both BC/BCE and AD/BC systems are perfectly valid on wikipedia. There is no preference whatsoever and the only requirement is to keep it consistent within an article. Materialscientist (talk) 07:06, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:ERA: "Do not change from one style to another unless there is substantial reason for the change, and consensus for the change with other editors." From WP:DATE, "If an article has been stable in a given style, it should not be converted without a style-independent reason." and "Where Wikipedia does not mandate a specific style, editors should not attempt to convert Wikipedia to their own preferred style". Hertz1888 (talk) 07:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That being explained, any other unjustified change of BCE/CE to BC/AD or any other instances of incivility will be considered disruptive and "pointy" and will result in a suspension of your editing privileges. Let me know if you have any questions about this. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 08:08, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

honorific-prefix

Stop removing the honorific-prefix field from infoboxes. Elizium23 (talk) 23:49, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Bilcarter. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]