User talk:EuCJD

Welcome!

Hello, EuCJD, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Tiffany stone, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's content policies and may not be retained. In short, the topic of an article must be notable and have already been the subject of publication by reliable and independent sources.

Please review Your first article for an overview of the article creation process. The Article Wizard is available to help you create an article, where it will be reviewed and considered for publication. For information on how to request a new article that can be created by someone else, see Requested articles. If you are stuck, come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can help you through the processes.

New to Wikipedia? Please consider taking a look at the our introductory tutorial or reviewing the contributing to Wikipedia page to learn the basics about editing. Below are a few other good pages about article creation.

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 have any questions ask me on my talk page or you can just type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! — Diannaa (talk) 19:18, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Tiffany stone

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Tiffany stone requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://geology.com/gemstones/tiffany-stone. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. — Diannaa (talk) 19:18, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please only change era styles if our guidelines allow

I prefer BCE but we have guidelines to follow, see WP:ERA, thanks. Doug Weller talk 19:14, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see any conflict with the guidelines. I am making this change to enforce the policy of neutrality on WP--specifically religious neutrality. There is no reason given in the guidelines to prefer "BC/AD" over "BCE/CE". Can you please point to the specific section of the guidelines that say that a dating methodology specific to one religioun should be preferred over a religious-neutral method?

Thank you! EuCJD (talk) 02:46, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, but I can point to the bit that says "An article's established era style should not be changed without reasons specific to its content; seek consensus on the talk page first (applying Wikipedia:Manual of Style § Retaining existing styles) by opening a discussion under a heading using the word era, and briefly stating why the style should be changed." Doug Weller talk 16:10, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

December 2021

Hello, I'm Doug Weller. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Ancient history seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 19:49, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Era styles

If you have issues with BC/AD, please read MOS:VAR. One of the quotes from there is "When either of two styles are acceptable it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change." The key word is substantial and your argument of "neutral" is not substantial. We have a Wikipedia:Manual of Style that has been built over the last many, many years. And for the most part, it works. One of the foundations is "most common usage in English." Believe it or not, BC/AD is still most common in English and so therefore it is an acceptable style. Masterhatch (talk) 18:22, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]