User talk:Roxi2/Archive 1

BCE/CE
Thanks for the "slack". I am sorry if I offended you, but I will not apologize. The Wikipedia Manual of Style states "When either of two styles are acceptable it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another."

When is the use of BC/AD acceptable? Is it acceptable on the Vietnam page? Is it acceptable on the Theravada? I don't think so. The majority of "pages" linking to these use BCE/CE.

Why does it matter if someone does not know what BCE/CE are? Is that our concern? Should we revert to cultural conservatism? I am sure Setanta747 could have searched BCE/CE. There is a fine Wikipedia entry dedicated to them. In fact, you could have just linked the first use of BCE/CE to the BCE/CE page - that would have been more enlightening. BCE & CE have been in use for years. They are the standard at western universities.

The third line of the Wikipedia: Manual of Style states "Wikipedians are not required to follow any of these rules." I understand that you likely consider my change of BC/AD dates to BCE/CE dates to be petty. However, that you feel obliged not only to "revert" my edits, but also to take the time to scold me, truly is petty.

Regards and Happy editing. ACinfo 01:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)



Hello ACinfo, I see that you are new to Wikipedia so I'll cut you some slack, but please do not change era formats from BC/AD to BCE/CE. This goes against the Wikipedia Manual of Style (dates and numbers),(follow the link: WP:DATE#Eras). Also, some people do not even know what BCE/CE are. As demonstrated by the person who reverted your changes to Britian as copied: 15:31, 3 April 2006 Setanta747 (→Earliest attested references - changed (what is a "BCE"?)). Therefore I reverted some of your edits. Regards and happy editing. Roxi2 15:41, 6 April 2006 (UTC) Moved here for consistanty— Thanks for the "slack". I am sorry if I offended you, but I will not apologize. The Wikipedia Manual of Style states "When either of two styles are acceptable it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another." When is the use of BC/AD acceptable? Is it acceptable on the Vietnam page? Is it acceptable on the Theravada? I don't think so. The majority of "pages" linking to these use BCE/CE. Why does it matter if someone does not know what BCE/CE are? Is that our concern? Should we revert to cultural conservatism? I am sure Setanta747 could have searched BCE/CE. There is a fine Wikipedia entry dedicated to them. In fact, you could have just linked the first use of BCE/CE to the BCE/CE page - that would have been more enlightening. BCE & CE have been in use for years. They are the standard at western universities. The third line of the Wikipedia: Manual of Style states "Wikipedians are not required to follow any of these rules." I understand that you likely consider my change of BC/AD dates to BCE/CE dates to be petty. However, that you feel obliged not only to "revert" my edits, but also to take the time to scold me, truly is petty. Regards and Happy editing. ACinfo 01:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC) First, I wasn't trying to scold you and did not want an apology. The MOS is there to help guide editors toward a consensus. Making such edits in well-established articles without any reasoning other than your own personal preference will only lead to conflicts with other editors. Hence, the reason why the MOSDATE states: it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change. While you quoted the third line of the MOS, you forgot the second part of that sentence—but their efforts will be more appreciated when they do so [follow the MOS]. As an experiment for you, try changing BCE/CE to BC/AD in the Pakistan article and watch what happens. As for BCE/CE being the standard in western universities, maybe in the one that you are currently at. However, is not the standard at every university and by no means is it the standard to which the western world is familiar with. If you watch the History or Discovery Channels, they almost never use the BCE/CE method for formatting era. Also, the Encyclopaedia Britannica and Encarta both use the BC/AD format. The point is—that once the article is published with a certain era format, it should not be changed to the other format. If such a changed is desired it really should be discussed on the articles talk page first. If you created an article in wikipedia and use use the BCE/CE method thoughout—I think it would be wrong for someone to come along sometime later a change that to the BC/AD format because of their personal views. Wouldn't you agree? Regards, Roxi2 04:09, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I accept your argument. Consistency is important. Still, are BC/AD acceptable on the Theravada page? I don't think so. Firstly for cultural reasons. Secondly, and most importantly, nearly every other page relating to Hindu or Buddhist thought makes use of BCE/CE.

You hunted down my edits and reverted them. You turned this into a confrontation. I'll leave you with Britain and France, but in the morning I am checking over your reverts. If the majority of the pages linking to them are in BCE/CE I will re-revert them.

Also - at least one of the edits I made was done to a page that was using both BC/AD and BCE/CE. I'll go through the history to find it. I spotted it; I had the right to change it. ACinfo 04:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * You were right in regards to the Theravada page. I changed it back to BCE/CE and in the discussion page, I explained why I went against the MOS.  If you are going to go against the MOS it is a good idea to discuss it on the discussion page first.  Sometimes there are good reasons, other times there are not.  Theravada had good reason.  Roxi2 01:19, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for coming across as agressive. I am sure that you are a fine editor. Best, ACinfo 18:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

AD/CE on Gregorian chant page
Why do you think "AD" is more appropriate for an important date in Jewish history than "CE"? Gregorian chant is a Christian phenomenon, but the history includes both Jewish and Christian events. In general, I prefer BCE/CE to indicate an attempt at being NPOV. Peirigill 19:15, 24 August 2006 (UTC) I'm especially confused by your proactive choice to change a Jewish date to "AD," especially in light of your comments above: "once the article is published with a certain era format, it should not be changed to the other format. If such a changed is desired it really should be discussed on the articles talk page first." I'm genuinely puzzled, and would like to know why I shouldn't change the date back to CE. Peirigill 23:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I responded on the Talk:Gregorian chant page. :) Roxi2 15:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)