User talk:Nikopolis1912

Welcome!

 * }

Era changes
Please do not edit just to make changes from BCE/CE to BC/AD or vice versa. See WP:ERA. Such changes need discussion first and a justification specific to the article. THanks. Dougweller (talk) 15:55, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Nikopolis1912 didn't break the rule; you did. (WP Editor 2011 (talk) 09:16, 28 May 2012 (UTC))
 * - obviously against WP:ERA.
 * . Ditto.
 * and again.
 * this one's great, actually changed the title of a book whose title uses BCE.
 * missed this one, done after my warning.
 * also this one. Not good, just ignoring a warning and carrying on regardless.


 * Nikopolis, you've been warned and chose to ignore the warning. If you carry on like this you are likely to be blocked. WP Editor 2011, thank you for bringing this to my attention. This editor has changed a number of dates, always from BCE/CE to BC/AD. Are you suggesting this is a good thing? Dougweller (talk) 09:33, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


 * When Nikopolis edited the article Palladium (mythology), there was only one instance of CE/BCE in the article and he corrected it. That's why I said he didn't break the rule. You quickly changed it back and told him off, even though the article history vindicated him. Sure, he should have used an edit summary, but just because he didn't doesn't mean he was breaking the rule. (WP Editor 2011 (talk) 09:40, 28 May 2012 (UTC))


 * When I said you broke the rule, Dougweller, I was referring to your edit of Palladium (mythology); I didn't realise you had been following Nikopolis around to multiple articles. You were wrong about Aesop though, since Aesop originally used AD/BC but it was changed by one self-important editor acting like he owned the article and there was no discussion on the talk page. Just because Nikopolis broke the rule once doesn't mean he was breaking it every time; you shouldn't assume the worst in people (WP:AGF). (WP Editor 2011 (talk) 09:52, 28 May 2012 (UTC))


 * Then maybe you shouldn't assume that I broke a rule? Or if I did, that it wasn't in good faith? See which I believe is the first time any era was used, and that was BCE. Nikopolis has a pattern of one-way changes - are you supporting them? I didn't point them all out, there are more going further back. And yes, when I find a pov/problematic editor I check their other edits, that's good practice. Dougweller (talk) 11:53, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Dougweller, I've just finished looking through the histories of the 6 examples you showed me above and it turns out that actually you were wrong about 4 of those 6 articles. Even if, as you've now said, those are just a sample of more edits, it doesn't look very good that you were wrong about two thirds of them. I've since reinstated Nikopolis' corrections. Specifically, Sumer, Younger Futhark, Khan (title) and Aesop were all supposed to be using AD/BC. In fact, Sumer was full of BC already except for 2 or 3 instances of BCE introduced soon before Nikopolis changed them back to BC. I never said that by reverting Nikopolis' work, you deliberately broke the rule, although there is no denying that you changed an article from one system to the other when you weren't supposed to. I don't believe you intended to break the rule but I do believe you were overly hasty and you didn't bother checking the history of any of those articles before you undid Nikopolis' contributions. (WP Editor 2011 (talk) 12:09, 28 May 2012 (UTC))


 * The guideline says "Do not arbitrarily change from one era style to the other on any given article. Instead, attempt to establish a consensus for change at the talk page. Reasons for the proposed change should be specific to the content of the article; a general preference for one style over another is not a valid reason." He made changes without a discussion. He did it without even caring that it changed the title of a book. I made that clear my post above yet you ignored it, and now the book title has BC instead of the actual title which has BCE. - please fix it. You reverted me at Younger Futhark saying you'd reverted to the original format but in fact I'd left it consistent at least, and you left it with both AD and C.E., which I've changed to AD. WP:ERA says nothing about the original format having priority, and if it's been stable one way for some time an article shouldn't be changed without following WP:ERA. Sorry about Sumer, I should have checked that. But this wouldn't have happened if he'd left edit summaries and he edits didn't concentrate on era changes. And how about Palladium (mythology) which you changed? Isn't the first use at ? And will you fix Sanupan which started as CE until this editor changed it recently? Are you going to revert him? Dougweller (talk) 13:01, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry about my botched correction of Younger Futhark; I didn't see the "C.E." there because it wasn't supposed to have the full stops and therefore didn't appear when I used the search function. Thank you for finishing that. I just realised that Aesop's Fables was meant to be using BC too, so that makes 5 out of 6. I didn't ignore what you said about the book; I just can't find the spot in the article where the BCE book is mentioned. Can you please deal with that? I take it you know where the book is mentioned. It's true that Nikopolis was probably making arbitrary changes, but I said he was right in those cases because the articles in question had only been using CE/BCE as a result of other editors' breaches of the same rule. I won't be reversing Nikopolis' edit of Sanupan, since the article doesn't exist any more. It's rather hypocritical of you to say that Aesop should keep a date format because it has been there on and off for a year, but Palladium (mythology) should switch back to the format that wasn't established in the article since 2007. (WP Editor 2011 (talk) 15:09, 28 May 2012 (UTC))

It's Suanpan, that was a typo. With that article, not only was it started as CE/BCE, there was clearly no discussion to change it. With Aesop there was at least a statement about the change which no one objected to, and it's been stable for just over a year. Now it's inconsistent. And I'm arguing that it shouldn't be changed without discussion on the basis of its stability. So far as Palladium goes, your argument seems to be that the original status has priority (which is wrong). Since it's wrong, and the original status was BCE/CE, the only reason to keep it as BC/AD is surely stability? It's got to be one or the other, either we keep a version that's been stable for the past year for both, or revert both back to the original on the basis there's been no discussion (not quite true for one however). You seem to be trying to have it both ways, I'm not. And unless you are arguing that two wrongs make a right, Nikopolis was in breach of WP:ERA. Dougweller (talk) 15:38, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, multiple edits with no edit summary on this issue is clearly against WP:ERA I would argue. Dougweller (talk) 18:09, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Your assessment of Aesop is really a stretch. ‎Mzilikazi1939 told everyone that he was changing the format because he got away with it elsewhere and anyone who disagrees with him should get lost because he's a regular editor and they're not. I don't know why you're asking me to change Suanpan instead of you for instance; you're obviously familiar with the article's history and I don't want to go trawling through it unnecessarily. I wasn't trying to "have it both ways" with Palladium (mythology); I was just saying that you were being hypocritical. I could even say that you were trying to have it both ways. I support the rules being upheld, so if Palladium isn't meant to be using BC, I agree with you that it should be changed. As I said before, I agree that Nikopolis should have been using edit summaries and checking the articles' history instead of sneaking through his arbitrary changes, but, as it turns out, he was inadvertently right to change them most of the time. (WP Editor 2011 (talk) 02:26, 29 May 2012 (UTC))

List of oldest companies
Hi there. So you know, I undid this change to this list. If you look at either of those reliable sources assigned to that entry, or at the Italian version of the official website, you'll see no mention of 1483, only 1438. Cheers,  Nik the  stunned  08:28, 12 August 2013 (UTC)