User talk:Monsieur Voltaire

Dating systems
I don't see the rule you alluded to- that date systems can never be changed in articles, but must remain as originally written- in the manual of style. Can you point to where you read that rule? I'm always interested in learning correct style for articles. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:51, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Please see... "Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)" sub-section "Year numbering systems" Quote: "It is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is a substantive reason". Now if you wish to enter debate on what constitutes "substantive" i will be happy to engage... Monsieur Voltaire (talk)
 * Yes, that would seem to indicate that you should not have changed the date, since you did not appear to have a substantive reason. Thanks for noticing that; I sometimes have to adjust myself when I learn new rules, too.  Thanks! -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Notice that you're in violation of the rule by changing the date, and that the date is not formatted correctly according to the manual of style. Can you at least format it correctly if you're determined to edit-war about this? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Once again you jump to a conclusion without examination because you are being guided by your ideology and not by an honest pursuit of truth. The first application of a dating system was back in 2004 and it was the AD/BC dating system. Now in September of 2006 the dating system was changed to CE/BCE for no substantive reason. This had been listed in older edit notes. Monsieur Voltaire (talk)
 * Yes. You have made a change to the version that has been in place for three years, and have stated no reason at all (so I don't know whether your reason is substantive or not). You're in obvious violation of the policy, but since it really doesn't make any difference which system is used, and since I have no interest in an edit-war, I will leave it to some other user to return it to the previous version or seek consensus on the talk page.  Won't you please, if you insist on this course of action, at least format it correctly?  I don't feel we can leave your desired version up if it's actually incorrect. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:26, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

If I may I wish to examine your logic here. You state that my edit is in violation of policy for not showing "substantive" reason for my dating revert because the version I changed had been in place since Sept 2006 (2.5 years). However, the Sept 2006 change to BCE/CE changed the original article dating system applied by Jorge Stolfi in June 2004 (2.25 years before). The Sept 2006 edit provides no "substantive" reason for changing the dating system; would this edit not be in violation of policy??? Now if it does constitute a violation then my edit corrects this violation by reverting the 2006 edit to be consistent with the original dating system introduced by Jorge Stolfi in 2004. Now, if you are saying that the 2006 edit is no longer in violation because 2 1/2 years has passed then you are also saying that policy suggests that a violation unchanged for an "undetermined period of time" will no longer be considered a violation essentially applying a "statute of limitations" on edits that violate policy. I can not find anywhere in the Wikipedia guidelines anything that supports such reasoning and i submit that any such guideline imposed would only lead to greater inaccuracy within Wikipedia. Monsieur Voltaire (talk)

With regard to formating I will look into what i may be doing wrong and make changes accordingly... Monsieur Voltaire (talk)


 * Clearly we disagree on this subject. I am not sure which is more important to you, that the rule is followed appropriately or that the article says 'AD' rather than 'CE.'  If the rule is the most important thing, I would be happy to submit the question for a third opinion, so that other users can look for consensus on the question of whether changing after two and a half years is a reversion, or an essentially new edit.  Would you like me to do that?   I'd be happy to agree with whatever the third-opinion volunteer's opinion is. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

again, welcome.
please read the following on 'gaming the system'.

then read the discussion here on dss talk page regarding the use of scientific labels for scientific articles.

then please read the wiki 3RR prohibitions about reverting a page 3 times in one day.

we've had this discussion. you are now in violation of 3RR. there is nothing intellectually dishonest about using the accepted scientific formats for a scientific article.

(and we really should listen to our lawyers, don't you think? ;-)
 * what is it with the dss and nyc sockpuppets??? lol. IsraelXKV8R (talk) 00:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

enjoy! IsraelXKV8R (talk) 22:40, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Personally, I wouldn't agree that the talk page discussion really reached a consensus on the question. That was the first place I looked, to see if the matter had been previously decided.  In addition, this user is not in violation of WP:3RR, as he has only reverted once.  -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:42, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * only once as Monsieur Voltaire, but 2x before as the IP address w/out an account. no worries. these disputes always work out ;-) IsraelXKV8R (talk) 22:45, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't even see that he was already edit-warring before creating the named account! I thought his edits weren't characteristic of a new user... that is helpful.  -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:54, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * not a problem. thanx for the help. i'll revert if you haven't already done so. i also filed a 3RR violation here fyi. IsraelXKV8R (talk) 23:01, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * In general, I am indifferent in the question of AD vs CE. They're synonymous for me, and fighting over them is about as useful as fighting over color vs colour.  But I have noticed that some people care very much about it, and it's not a good idea to encourage them to edit-war over minutiae when they could be doing something useful. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text  below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.


 * tracks to 173.77.216.250: p12-0-0.lcr-12.nycmny.verizon-gni.net. again nyc.
 * could be meat or sock. i've passed it on. will monitor. i just keep shaking my head....
 * same as 173.77.207.5 (User:173.77.207.5), which is also nyc, and also made edits to dss article. IsraelXKV8R (talk) 05:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * watch for bait/flame as well. IsraelXKV8R (talk) 05:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

M. Voltaire, I looked into the edit history and policy statements that you alluded to and you are quite correct. I do not understand why the editor “Fisherqueen” chooses to ignore such policy. Judging by her statements above it is pretty clear that she chooses to apply such policy with prejudice guided by her own preference. IsraelXKV8R seems to be applying religious preference under the guise of scientific acceptance, again ignoring Wikipedia policy. Judging by the unabashed self-promotion of his Wikipedia page I am not surprised that he would be so "pushy" in his pursuit of changing the dating system to BCE/CE.

Hope to See you an the next RSA – GV —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.46.201.135 (talk) 17:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * welcome back. again with the ny ip addresses?? new posts from a previously unused ip on the same pages? lol.
 * what you (24.46.201.135) said above makes no sense. i have a religious preference, so i insist upon bce/ce? go figure. you make as much sense as another anonymous contributor i know in the ny area. ;-)
 * as far as my user page is concerned, i'd go look at yours, but alas..... ;-) IsraelXKV8R (talk) 20:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Israel, if you are trying to say that I am the 24. etc... address you are in error... I thought it funny that you are continually making negative references to addresses from NY. But after reading through all of the talk pages i discovered that you had a problem with the son of fairly well known professor. Well, I have nothing to do with them and am not even knowledgeable of the disputed facts. Gerard, is a person I have worked with off and on and I asked him to look at this conflict with a clear and objective mind. Now after reading his comments i see (as i figured) that he is in agreement with me. I suspect that many others who look at all of the facts will also conclude that i hold the most correct position. Please dont try to sell me that BCE/CE is the de-facto standard nomenclature for any community and please understand that wikipedia policy does recognize both applications of dating but as a matter of policy it does not support changing of a dating nomenclature. Now, if reverting such changes are to be considered gaming then how is the policy to be enforced? Other articles that have been started with the BCE/CE system should continue with that system. A related article for example would be "Essenes" of which i notice you have contributed. This article was created in 2001 and used the BCE/CE system right from the start. This articles dating system should not be changed if i notice that it is I will also change it back to BCE/CE. I may not agree with dating system used but I will certainly support policy. This is the only honest and clear approach that people on both sides of the "camp" should be able to live with, it is in essence a policy of compromise.

Kind Regards, Monsieur Voltaire (talk) 14:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * never said you were .24. just interesting that all of these anon ny i addresses take interest in the dss. asking 'friends' to 'take a look' just makes me laugh. no offense to you, i've just have had experience with that phrase, just as i have had with your 'kind regards' salutation.
 * truth be told, i use both bc/ad and bce/ce. and like you, i think the policy of 'however an article was started' is stupid, because those who start articles aren't always the brightest. it is better to use the consensus of the credible (and real) contributors, and yes, there is a consensus (as you are learning). there is also a consensus that certain topics of scientific significance should maintain some level of scientific neutrality. after shouldn't we be demanding neutrality in scientific presentations?? ;-) bc/ad is, by its nature, religious (as flawed as it may be, you know, with jesus actually being born somewhere between 5-7 bce and the poor pope skipping year 1, etc., which makes the 'year of the lord' somewhere about 7 BC. oops.). while retaining the same numerical dates, bce/ce is understood to be less offensive to non-religious folks, while retaining the most commonly held calendrical dates, requiring less adjustment, and has therefore become the standard for science. as we've discussed in the past, if we allow bc/ad, then we should be prepared to have a faithful muslim redate this page to the time of the prophet (this year is 1430 ah), or an orthodox jew to use the jewish standard from the supposed creation of the earth (today is 23 nissan, 5769). all of this is moot if we agree to use bce/ce, which the scientific community has done, and which we have done here.
 * we have this little discussion every few months, and it always ends up the same way. enjoy your day. IsraelXKV8R (talk) 15:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Radiocarbon dating
Check WP:ERA - the edit you reverted is no violation of policy. Babakathy (talk) 15:58, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Aaah, OK. Babakathy (talk) 18:43, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Era styles and NPOV violation
You should be aware of our guideline on this which mentions " the established era style". The discussion several years ago established the current style, and you are trying to change this against our guideline. In fact, it looks like a large number of your edits are solely to push your favorite era style. Doug Weller talk 09:06, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

"Neoconservatism" category
I'm afraid that I've had to revert your recent edit, adding Category:Neoconservatism to the Ben Sasse article. A note at the top of the category page states 'This category is not used for categorizing people as "neoconservatives, and links to this discussion, in which consensus was reached for deleting a category "Neoconservatives". I'll note, as well, that the word "neoconservative" is used nowhere in the Sasse article; I think we'd need a citation to a reliable source before describing Sasse thus, either in text or in the categories.

I'm afraid that I also have to take exception to your marking the addition of the category as a minor edit. I don't see any sign that you participated in the deletion discussion of the "Neoconservatives" category, nor does your contribution history include any edits to the "Neoconservativsm" category, so I'll assume that you weren't aware that the edit might be controversial. However, in view of the fact that neoconservatism wasn't mentioned in the article text, your categorizing was essentially adding information to the article, so the criteria at WP:MINOR expressly state that it shouldn't have been marked as minor. Ammodramus (talk) 01:27, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Coi noticeboard
Hi I have posted a entry up to the coi noticeboard at Conflict of interest/Noticeboard.  scope_creep Talk  10:55, 3 April 2022 (UTC)