User talk:Zulu1963

Welcome! Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful: You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help. Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome!--Biografer (talk) 20:17, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

MOS:ERA
Per MOS:ERA, get consensus before you change the date style of an article. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:24, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

August 2018
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:47, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

August 2018
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  12:53, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:03, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Edit warring at Hellenistic Judaism
You've been warned per the result of an edit warring complaint. You may be blocked if you change the article dating again to BC/AD unless you have previously got a consensus in its favor on the article talk page. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 03:38, 25 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I would like to point out that I have not edited the page since I saw the previous warning. Whilst I appreciate you have a role to perform this new warning strikes me as an example of excessive policing, particuarly considering a certain number of administrators are allowed to selectively apply wikopedia rules and guidelines when it suits them. I'm sure you've read my discussions with the two admins in question so I won't repeat them here.


 * Having attempted to start a discussion on the talk page for the city of Split I found my arguments were not engaged with and we're merely turned down without any initial explanation. This is hardly conducive to encouraging a debate and reinforces the notion that pages are the private fiefdoms of certain admins who excercise control over what content stays and what goes, and that no matter how strong an individuals arguments are ultimately decisions on content are taken executively. Zulu1963 (talk) 13:43, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Feel free to open an WP:RFC or use some other method of WP:Dispute resolution. If you can get the other editors to support your change you won't find administrators standing in your way. EdJohnston (talk) 17:43, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Era style - not original style but established style
Although I have reverted the latest change to BCE, our guidelines to not warrant using the original style as the only style. They say "established style". You clearly are continuing with the same agenda you've been warned about in the past. Doug Weller talk 09:14, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

September 2019
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 19:20, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Indefinite blocking due to editing of dating style

 * Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. The MOS:ERA/MOS:VAR guidelines are there to stop tedious edit wars over an inconsequential stylistic point. Changing an era style that has been established on an article for years is not in line with the spirit of these guidelines. Changing era style without prior consensus is against the letter of them. Using BCE/CE is not vandalism. You have been told all this before and warned that continuing may lead to a block.
 * I blocked you because for the past two years you have used this account almost exclusively to change BCE/CE to BC/AD, which shows that you are not really here to build an encyclopaedia. If you want to actually contribute to articles and will commit to not changing era styles again, I'd be happy to unblock you. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 20:48, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

As I explained in my initial appeal the dating style was changed to BCE/CE without consent, my edit was undoing this. It does seem counter productive that an edit which is correcting a change that was made without consent is itself penalised for not having consent and begs the question why the edit which changed the style in the first place was upheld, despite the fact the editor made no effort to gain consent.

I hope you can see why, from my position, your comments seem somewhat paradoxical.