User talk:AliasSeaThinker

BC/BCE
Prease refrain from changing BC to BCE and AD to CE. Please read WP:BCE, thank. Alex2006 (talk) 07:23, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Hallo, and thanks for writing. I am sorry, but AD must stay in the lead. The reason is that for a normal reader (this means, someone who does not known when the Flavians ruled the city) an ambiguity can arise reading "79", a date that in case of an article about Rome could refer to a year before or after Christ: please see the example about Plotinus in the manual of style about that. You can also see that in the rest of the article AD is consequently used. In general, refrain to change the stable state of an article without discussing first on the talk page, and consider also that edits dealing with Manual of Style guidelines can be enforced by an Administrator, since they are subject to the Arbitration committee. Thanks. Alex2006 (talk) 05:37, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Gone to see a man about a horse. 22 January, 2016 CE
--AliasSeaThinker (talk) 08:36, 22 January 2016 (UTC)Hi Alessandro,

I'm not sure if I'm (er) talking to myself here. Being new to Wiki editing, I supposed I would have to see what stuck to the wall as I went.

Re: the article we were discussing, I'll give you that one. It was messy with the AD bits when I got there, I'm not going to fool with it any more.

Re: "AD must stand." That is absolute bollocks. Mandating that Wikipedia users must accept/learn/be conditioned to the idea that the measurement of time inherently has mystical, magical properties is the same sort of stubborn ignorance that has the US stuck on the Imperial System of measurement.

"AD" must not stand. "AD" is part of a finite cultural mythology, and is an important part of a Wikipedia page. It is not something any neutral, unbiased distributor of clear and accurate-as-possible information would seek to promote.

I think I've grasped the policy, in any event. I'm sorry not to be able to contribute professional editorial work to Wikipedia for free. No sarcasm, I find this utterly regrettable.

I will continue to donate, but I send no compliments.

K. --AliasSeaThinker (talk) 08:36, 22 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Hallo AliasSeaThinker, thanks for writing again! At Wikipedia there are guidelines, which often represent compromise, but nevertheless are compelling. Anyway, they are not carved in marble, and if you don't agree with one of them, you are welcome to discuss it on the related discussion page (in that case, the one about the manual of style). Cheers, Alex2006 (talk) 10:12, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User:AliasSeaThinker/sandbox/gone to see a man about a horse


A tag has been placed on User:AliasSeaThinker/sandbox/gone to see a man about a horse requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to consist of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. Please note that Wikipedia is not a free web hosting service. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time.

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 removed 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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Legacypac (talk) 08:46, 20 June 2017 (UTC)