User talk:Elias Ziade/Archives/2015

They rock

Love the music, mate! And I'm already cleaning up their article! WikiEditorial101 (talk) 13:09, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Temple of Eshmun

Hi, I saw the edit on the above article and returned it to the anon's edit. It shows on the talk page that the correct era for the article is the BC convention and this was wrongly changed by a user named mdcar7 who used the account purely for switching several articles to the BCE system. According to the WP:MOS it is to stay as the original format.--Mevagiss (talk) 11:25, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Hey @Mevagiss:, MoS reads " Do not change the established era style in an article unless there are reasons specific to its content". I did not see how the unregistered user's edits could improve on the article. when i wrote the article i used AD system for eras until someone suggested changing them DURING the featured article Evaluation process and i dont recall who it was but it was unanimously accepted then. Why would mdcar7 switch AD to Current era system? what could be his motives? Thanks -Elias Z 15:22, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Actually i was mistaken, this happened during the GA nomination process, the eras were switched to BCE/CE before FA nomination and were stable since. no mention of it here, but it was Al Ameer Son who suggested the change here. -Elias Z 15:30, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Elie, in response to your question at my talk page: there is no unwritten rule regarding era formats that I'm aware of. Looking back at my suggestion in '09, I appear to be incorrect in suggesting that the MoS prefers the common era to the traditional BC/AD format. The MoS doesn't care which is used as long as it remains consistent throughout the article. It also suggests that if either of the dating systems has been used in a particular article for a while, then it shouldn't be changed unless there's good reason to. That being said, the BCE/CE format has been used in the Temple of Eshmun article since I made the suggestion in '09 (that's about seven years now), so my question to @Mevagiss: is why should it be changed to BC/AD now? To me, and apparently to Elie as well, the BCE/CE format is preferable because it's more secular than the Christianity-centric BC/AD format, which I believe is particularly important considering that the article in question is a Middle Eastern/Lebanon-related subject and the Middle East/Lebanon contain a multitude of religions besides Christianity. --Al Ameer (talk) 19:16, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm gonna wait for his reply for a couple of days; if I don't hear from him I'll revert it to the common era style for the reasons stated above. And I hope he doesn't engage in the reverting game for a silly and non deserving couple of edits the way he did with @Trekphiler: -Elias Z 06:41, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Well done for keeping an eye on this article. However there are several incorrect assertions above. It is not difficult to scan the article's history. The article not only did not use BCE format, it only used the AD one; Al Ameer did suggest switching the era usage and the talk page shows that this was opposed by 2 editors, so it did not happen. In this edit [[1]] a user MDCarr57 (whose account was only used to change era conventions) changed all of the BC etc. to BCE. Nobody questioned or reverted this edit which was done without explanation in the edit summary. Kindly don't attack me by describing my contributions as silly. I am following the correct WP policies.--Mevagiss (talk) 09:19, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Whatever you say. I'm not starting a war over this and I still think your edit was pure nitpicking. Happy new year. -Elias Z 09:31, 31 December 2015 (UTC)