User talk:Jgw71

ADMINS or others here because of date style edits please read

There seems to be a bias by certain admins concerning date styles. Wikipedia is very very clear on this topic. Per WP:ERA, this is a direct quote "Do not change from one style to another unless there is substantial reason for the change" ; therefore I am perfectly within the guidelines of Wikipedia if I revert the date style to its original form. If there is a topic in which I have reverted the date style, and you believe their was a "substantial reason for the change" please present that to me. I am not here to engage in edit wars! I do, however, dislike when articles go back-and-forth with the date format--Wikipedia addresses this as well WP:ERA.

Any admin who take punitive action against my account for reverting the date format to it's original format is overstepping their authority, and displaying a bias. It is my opinion that anyone using their admin powers to promote their own agenda should have those powers removed, and I will initiate that process.

I am also very open minded, so feel free, as I said above, to discuss any "substantial reason for the change." Obviously, articles solely Christian in nature should not use BCE/CE, as it is highly offensive to many. The opposite can be said of articles solely Jewish in nature. They find BC/AD offensive. (Jgw71 (talk) 20:00, 28 March 2010 (UTC))

Deleting George Tahdooahnippah.

Hi Jgw71, I have tagged the page you created, George Tahdooahnippah., for deletion. It will be deleted shortly. Hope that helps! - Fastily (talk) 03:24, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Moving a page

Hey there! You don't have to blank a page to move it to a new title -- just click the button that says "move" up at the top and enter the name you want. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me on my talk page. – PranksterTurtle ^(talk) 03:24, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Changes from BCE to BC

Please read WP:ERA and don't try to make such changes simply because other articles that may be related use BC (even if you really did do a survey of all AE articles, which I doubt, this wouldn't be an acceptable reason). Dougweller (talk) 06:54, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The WP:ERA is VERY clear on this topic. This is word-for-word what the WP:ERA says: "Do not change from one style to another unless there is substantial reason for the change." Therefore, restoring the date style to the original style is the appropriate action. There is an ongoing bias of many administrators who do nothing when the date has been changed from BC/AD to BCE/CE but issue warnings or take action against accounts of those restoring the original style. This is a clear demonstration of bias. No matter what the original date style is, that is the style that should remain--per Wikipedia rules. (Jgw71 (talk) 19:40, 28 March 2010 (UTC))

Your edit to Pharaoh

You changed two instance of BCE to BC claiming you were editing for consistency, but since there was only one instance of BC before, editing for consistency would have meant changing that to BCE. Please stop this. Consider my comments here a second notice about your editing. Dougweller (talk) 07:54, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Just noticed [1] -- it is pretty clear from the above edit and this that you are making pov edits. This is another reason why you should stop making such edits. Dougweller (talk) 11:21, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Once again, as was already discussed on History of India stop making your preferred changes. —SpacemanSpiff 03:02, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The WP:ERA is VERY clear on this topic. This is word-for-word what the WP:ERA says: "Do not change from one style to another unless there is substantial reason for the change." Therefore, restoring the date style to the original style is the appropriate action. There is an ongoing bias of many administrators who do nothing when the date has been changed from BC/AD to BCE/CE but issue warnings or take action against accounts of those restoring the original style. This is a clear demonstration of bias. No matter what the original date style is, that is the style that should remain--per Wikipedia rules. (Jgw71 (talk) 19:41, 28 March 2010 (UTC))

And yet you just changed Pharaoh, which seems to have had BCE before someone changed it to BC (BCE so far as I can see is the first use of a dating convention and was added No matter 20:24, 2 September 2002, so I've reverted to BCE which complies with your desires above. If you can find an earlier instance of BC, fine. Dougweller (talk) 20:50, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

By insulting me on your talk page and on the page in question, you have overstepped your boundaries as an administrator. If you were not bias on this subject, why could you not leave it at what you wrote above? (Jgw71 (talk) 21:39, 28 March 2010 (UTC))

I haven't interacted with you as an Administrator. I've replied on my talk page, and note again that this edit [2] is main reason (the other being the problem SpacemanSpiff mentions above) for considering your edits pov. Your comments about administrators above look like a personal attack aimed in part at me, by the way. But I'm willing to AgF now and assume that you will follow our guidelines and also respect talk page consensus, which means if you disagree you use the talk page, not just ignore it. Dougweller (talk) 22:14, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I have never ignored the talk pages. That is where I tried to engage you on this topic. However, if you notice that it says you must have a "substantial reason" AND a consensus WP:ERA. Otherwise, that consensus may change often, and this becomes a distraction from the project as a whole. A "substantial reason" should be as I listed about. I think changing a Jewish related article from BC to BCE is a "substantial reason." Same with changing a Christian article from BCE to BC. However, a consensus must be reached after the "substantial reason" has been discussed. I do not believe saying "most scholars use BCE/CE" is a "substantial reason." I also do not believe saying "most common people use BC/AD" is a reason either. They negate each other. A "substantial reason" must be clear, hence the word "substantial." (Jgw71 (talk) 23:05, 28 March 2010 (UTC))

ANI notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

March 2010

Please stop. If you continue to make disruptive edits in violation of WP:ERA, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:51, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking about (see my talk page.) Have you not taken the time to read the discussion? I am following the rules. In one case it was pointed out that I made an error, and I admit that point, but I made the edit in good faith. You would know this if you read the discussion page. (Jgw71 (talk) 23:08, 28 March 2010 (UTC))

Yes, I'm aware of the discussion here, and of the fact that you are editing various articles solely for the purpose of removing BCE/CE notation. I'm also aware of your manifesto here, even if you did remove it today. Editors have been sanctioned and blocked for doing exactly what you're doing. If you continue, you will be blocked too. Oh, and if you respond, please do it here, to keep the conversation in one place. I'll notice if you respond. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:16, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

If I am acting within the rules, and you block me, I will seek intervention. If someone changes BC/AD to BCE/CE without a substantial reason AND a consensus, I will revert them back. I will, however, try in good faith not to change any that were originally BCE/CE. What makes me angry, as you can tell by what I wrote, is that people are making the change to BCE/CE in violation of the policy here WP:ERA. If I accidentally make a change that should not have been change, I'll change it back myself. The rules are the rules, and I will respect them. However, it is not fair that administrators come out of the woodwork if someone changes BCE to BC, but do absolutely nothing when BC is changed to BCE. I am not directing that at you, but in general, that is what I am seeing.

Dougweller pointed out correctly that BCE was first used in the Pharaoh article. I had noticed that in 2009 it was changed from BC to BCE. I checked several previous dates and they all were BC. I did not, however, check the few month period in 2002 when it was BCE. When I made the edits, I truly thought the original article was in BC/AD style.

I really hope that I am wrong about the bias. If another account started changing BC to BCE in violation of WP:ERA would you and the other administrators block me for reverting them and do nothing to the one violating the rules? Maybe we will find out one day... (Jgw71 (talk) 23:50, 28 March 2010 (UTC))

I respectfully ask that anyone with a religious interest in the topic should refrain from making a judgment. (Jgw71 (talk) 00:12, 29 March 2010 (UTC))

Just to be very clear, again, if you go to an article solely for the purpose of converting it from BCE/CE notation to BC/AD notation, as you have been doing, you will be blocked. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:24, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

And to head off any obfuscation, we're not just talking about your edit-warring at the Pharaoh article, but going from article to article solely to convert era notations.[3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10]. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:37, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

As I have been doing? How in the world can you know why I was at an article? I go to articles to read them, not to edit them. With all due respect, someone whose edits and discussions are predominately related to religion should not block someone because of a religiously sensitive subject. My area of interest is history and sports. Yours seems to be related to the Jewish faith, a religion I have a lot of respect for. However, if I am reading an article that originally had BC/AD as its format, and someone has changed it without following the criteria found at WP:ERA, I will revert it. If you block me for following the rules, I will seek intervention from Wikipedia. I will never discriminate against you, and I hope you will not engage in religious discrimination against me. Let's both follow the guideline set by Wikipedia and respect each other (Jgw71 (talk) 00:40, 29 March 2010 (UTC))

Those edits were in compliance with WP:ERA. I will restate the rules for you: "Do not change from one style to another unless there is substantial reason for the change, and consensus for the change with other editors." If I am reading an article and someone has not followed the rules, I will REVERT them to their original format. If you then change them back, YOU will be in violation of the rules found at WP:ERA. You seem to have a religious interest in this topic, and you should not use your administrative powers in subject you may not be able to be neutral in. (Jgw71 (talk) 00:45, 29 March 2010 (UTC))

a) don't make any personal comments or speculations about me again, and b) don't treat us like idiots. Instead, re-read the previous warnings. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:03, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I have every right to voice my concerns. The more I write it the better off I am if you chose to take unwarranted action against me. You should re-read me previous statements, because if you block me for reverting a date style to its original form, I will seek intervention. If you can assume that I am visiting a page solely to edit it, why do you insist I not make assumptions about you based on your history? I think I have a very strong case if you choose to misuse your administrative powers. Instead of debating this, let's focus our energy on something productive. (Jgw71 (talk) 01:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC))

A wall of words will not protect you from being blocked if you continue to edit articles solely for the purpose of removing BCE/CE notation. The issue here is solely your demonstrated edits, and personal attacks on the administrator blocking you will not help either. I won't respond further here, as you have been well warned, and that is all that is required. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

If you block me, and do not block the person who changes it from BC to BCE, then I will seek intervention in the matter. Then Wikipedia can determine if you are misusing your administrative powers. I am not worried about being blocked. I am acting within the rules, and I will gain access to Wikipedia in alternative ways to seek to have your administrative powers reviewed. Furthermore, I have never attacked you personally. I have called into question your ability to be neutral on the subject. That is in no way a personal attack. It is my personal opinion that you are using your administrative powers to promote your pov. I deserve to have the matter reviewed by someone who can remain neutral.(Jgw71 (talk) 19:28, 29 March 2010 (UTC))

That isn't what he said. He didn't say he was going to block you, he said you'd be blocked "if you go to an article solely for the purpose of converting it from BCE/CE notation to BC/AD notation," and I hope you can see that's reasonable (and from what I've seen on my talk page and here, you don't plan to do that whether or not you have in the past." We are talking about patterns of editing here of course. There are a lot of other useful things to do, and I would you suggest that you not get more involved with this issue. It's not worth the hassle. Dougweller (talk) 20:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I have never gone to an article just for the sake of editing it. I read many history related articles. I have noticed that over time, as I go back and re-read them, that people are arbitrarily changing the date style. After reading the rules on the subject, I find the rules are quite clear. My edits only take place when the date style has been changed, or if they have both date styles in the articles. Per WP:ERA, the original date style should be used. I have NEVER intentionally replaced the original date style with the style of my preference. As for more useful things, and your suggestion that I not get more involved with this issue, that seems to be somewhat hypocritical since I have not done anything that you have not done. There is no difference if I restore the date style and if you restore mine. None whatsoever. Wikipedia has established a rule on this issue, and there is nothing wrong when my actions actually follow through on that rule. (Jgw71 (talk) 15:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC))