User talk:Uncledonmc

Uncledonmc, you are invited on a Wikipedia Adventure!

The

Adventure

Hi Uncledonmc!! You're invited: learn how to edit Wikipedia in under an hour. Hope to see you there!

Play The Wikipedia Adventure

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 17:40, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why I reverted your last edit

See here. Anon. U. 15:16, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:ERA.

Please stop changing BC and AD to BCE and CE

Please read WP:ERA. Paul August ☎ 18:53, 3 January 2019 (UTC) Please stop trying to impose your assumed christian ideology when the very Wikipedia reference page that you are attempting to enforce [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers#Era_style ] states clearly in the first bullet: "BC and AD are the traditional ways of designating eras. BCE and CE are common in some scholarly texts and in certain topic areas. Either convention may be appropriate for use in Wikipedia articles. " This is overstepping your rather unwarranted 'authority' as an 'editor' by seeking to to impose a christian ideological view on what is clearly an attempt at scholarly work. That indicates a strong bias inappropriate to the basic ideas of this forum. you do not have either the right or authority to tell me to 'stop' doing something that is both appropriate and sanctioned by this site merely because you seem to want to continue imposing your religious views on the world in general. Please stop trying to be an authoritarian 'tool' in this manner when you are violating the very procedures as set forth by this site. Uncledonmc (talk) 12:45, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please continue to read MOS:ERA from the where you quoted. The second bullet under what you quoted says, "Do not change the established era style in an article unless there are reasons specific to its content." If you believe there are reasons, use the talk page to gain consensus on your preferred change. ~ GB fan 00:33, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

January 2019

Please don't change the format of dates, as you did to Constantine the Great. As a general rule, if an article has evolved using predominantly one format, the dates should be left in the format they were originally written in, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic. Please also note that Wikipedia does not use ordinal suffixes (e.g., st, nd, th), articles, or leading zeros on dates.

Unfortunately asserting that because something has existed in a certain form it should be left untouched is not a valid reason particularly when Wikipedia's own guidance on the issue of eras states "BC and AD are the traditional ways of designating eras. BCE and CE are common in some scholarly texts and in certain topic areas. Either convention may be appropriate for use in Wikipedia articles. " Therefore you are asking that because you apparently prefer the traditional religious connotations to remain in place most likely due to personal belief on your part when the more correct and equally valid use of the scientific / historically unbiased er designation is equally valid without applying a religious bias I stand by my edit unless you can provide a more sound reason other than 'I like it the old way' when the guidance allows for either.Uncledonmc (talk) 23:09, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For more information about how dates should be written on Wikipedia, please see this page.

If you have any questions about this, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Enjoy your time on Wikipedia. Thank you. Dr. K. 22:41, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Constantine the Great. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Dr. K. 23:12, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are you now stating that you are an agent or authority within the Wikipedia system or are you simply attempting to imply that you possess such authority when you do not and are merely attempting to enforce your views which do not in fact comport with the guidance as set forth on the issue of eras states "BC and AD are the traditional ways of designating eras. BCE and CE are common in some scholarly texts and in certain topic areas. Either convention may be appropriate for use in Wikipedia articles. "? Thus far neither you or the first self-styled arbitrator on this issue has presented any sound reason for trying to force your views on this issue as the correct one when it is nothing of the kind and in fact goes against Wikipedia’s guidance. I see this as little more than an attempt to control what you are not in charge of due to some personal and therefore unsupported ideas on the matter. Making implied threats relating to ‘blocks’ and so forth that in all likelihood you are not empowered to apply gives every appearance that you are trying to coerce compliance when you almost certainly understand that you are stepping outside of the actual rules applicable here and are merely trying to get what you want. You have stated “If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be” apparently ignoring the fact that this is precisely what you are doing for no other valid reason that your stated ‘leave it alone because I like the old way’ or words to that effect. You are also stepping into the territory that you are making implied though passive ‘threats’ regarding by doing exactly what you are attempting to get my to cease. Please have a Wikipedia ‘monitor or whatever someone who actually works for this site contact me that can in fact decide the course of this matter as well as being verified regarding their status if you truly have a problem here otherwise I see this simply as you trying to protect your personal bias for a religious designation in spite of the fact that the edit that I have made do in fact conform to the established guidance as well as you not providing any rational reason to alter the designation to a more unbiased and scientific / historical standard. Uncledonmc (talk) 23:28, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Uncledonmc. People have been encouraging you to follow WP:ERA. This advice is well-taken. If you think the date convention in use at Constantine the Great should be changed, you can propose that on the article talk page. See the section of WP:ERA which says: "Seek consensus on the talk page before making the change." Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 03:46, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Era convention

The era convention of BC / AD is becoming ever more outdated as well as indicating a significant bias for one specific religious ideology that is not shared by over two-thirds of the world. In academia both scientific and historical, which I must point out this site endeavors to at least emulate if not mirror in a sense, that convention has almost entirely been dropped except within those institutions that are primarily devoted to the christian ideology. In its place the more objective and far less biased BCE / CE era format is used that still dates historical events from the same starting point but does not directly assert that connotation thus respecting the vast majority of the world who do not follow that ideological system.

As a scientist myself, geologist and paleontologist, I think that setting aside this outdated system for one based solely in non-subjective ideas is a far more appropriate for this forum.

I do understand that many might see this as an ‘attack’ on their beliefs yet I doubt that they can present a rational, non-emotional argument against such a change that is not solely rooted in their desire to retain a hold on such a matter for no other reason.

To date several other people have simply reverted my edits without properly explaining this process alluded to what appeared to be totally subjective personal choice, a statement that boiled down to ‘leave it alone’ without explaining where I was in error while adding what could be seen as an implied penalty for failing to submit again without explanation, until the most recent did explain my error and explaining the proper course of action.

I strongly recommend abandoning the older highly religiously oriented system for one that more appropriately comports with the intended focus of this site which is knowledge and learning without bias.

Uncledonmc (talk) 04:47, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The place to discuss removing the option of BC/AD is at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers. You will need to convince other editors that we should start using BCE/CE. Until there is a change you need to comply with the guidelines in place. ~ GB fan 12:01, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]