User talk:Sortan

Welcome!

Hi Sortan! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! --Falphin 8 July 2005 02:01 (UTC)

Sortan, are you sure this isn't just a "BCE dispute" role account? dab (ᛏ) 8 July 2005 17:50 (UTC)

WIkipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)

As you are probably aware, recently there has been a somewhat divisive campaign by supporters of BCE/CE notation to encourage it on Wikipedia - and to change our guidelines on date notation to support their views. The Wikipedia community voted down the first proposal, ArbCom neutralised an attempt to enforce the first proposal despite its failure to gain a majority, let alone consensus, which is what WP is effectively governed by. A new (slightly watered down) attempt to change the guidelines is also about to fail. What this means is that we are left with the guideline as it currently stands. In summary, this guideline, which applies globally, is that either BC/AD or BCE/CE is acceptable, consistency within an article is desirable, and no-one should go changing articles that are fully consistent in their style to the alternative style.

You will note that my recent edits, being edits to make articles consistent in notation, are recommended by the guideline (and also recently by ArbCom). Whereas your edits, which were to change articles that use fully consistent notation (post my editing) to your preferred notation were not.

It is far from being an ideal guideline, but if we are to progress and edit amicably on WP going forward, we all need to accept this guideline (at least until there is support for an alternative - which there isn't at the moment). Kind regards, jguk 07:20, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Care to explain your reverts?

Would it be too much to ask that you explain the rationale for your reverts, and why you're joining with User:Jguk to violate policy by changing date styles in articles which consistently use one? Sortan 17:09, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

You're trying to impose a rare alternative for the BC/AD terminology which has been rejected by community vote at Wikipedia. The rejection of your preferred terminology by the community is all the reason I need to revert you.--Wiglaf 17:13, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

No, if you'd read the WP:MOS, it explicitly allows both styles as long as articles are internally consistent. What is not allowed is to change an article which consistently uses one style to another style, which is what you (and User:Jguk) have been doing. The community has rejected not only using BCE/CE as a standard but also BC/AD, instead preferring to allow both systems. Sortan 17:17, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

The majority vote was to reject the BCE/CE as a standard. Apparently, it is still not settled: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Eras. It is interesting to note that YOU have appointed yourself the arbiter of which one to use for consistency. Note that I am entitled to do the same and revert you. I do suggest that you consider only BC/AD for consistency as well, but I have not seen you opting for that version in a single article.--Wiglaf 17:36, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

And the consensus was to reject BC/AD as a standard as well... your point being? Again- the MoS only states that articles should be consistent (with either style), and so anyone is free to make articles internally consistent. What is inappropriate is to change an article which is consistent to another style without a good reason. Sortan 17:41, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I am going to watch your edits, and if I see a single rv petty vandalism where you have changed a consistent AD/BC article into a BCE/CE article, I WILL revert you. Have no doubt about that. And don't try any "original version inconsistency" argument, because according to the logic you have presented here, you have no reason to change articles that are presently BC/AD consistent.--Wiglaf 17:48, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

this is pathetic, I suggest you find something more productive to do on Wikipedia :( dab (ᛏ) 18:04, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Cease-fire on eras

I've suggested a cease-fire on eras, at the Village pump. Maurreen (talk) 09:44, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Massive deletion of content

Can you explain this massive deletion of content [1]?--Wiglaf 17:10, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Note that you can be blocked for vandalism.--Wiglaf 17:11, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Date era style

Yuezhi is now where it was before the revert war over eras hit that page. Please do not keep reverting people on that. Our style manual says the date form in that article is fine. Jonathunder 03:05, 2005 August 24 (UTC)

Jguk for admin?

You may be interested in this: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/jguk CDThieme 20:22, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Discussion about you

Hi Sortan: You should know that your name has come up in some discussion on my talk page (see "Accusations of 'troll'). Actually it began with a question to Jguk on his talk page, but it has expanded, so I copied the whole thing to my talk page. I just thought you should be aware of it if you're not already. No action necessary at this point. Sunray 18:42, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

BCE

I see that you are continuing to change articles that are quite happily sitting with BC notation to BCE, somewhat against WP policy - as is your approach to using invective rather than explaining your position. Only BC notation has worldwide recognition amongst our target audience, and good writing requires an author to use terms his reader will understand and be familiar with (as opposed to requiring the reader to put up with the writer's peccadilloes). I don't understand why you are so in favour of trying to make our articles more inaccessible - but then, of course, I can't, as you have consummately failed to discuss your position.

So far the majority of your edits to WP have been purely destructive, and those which have helped WP have been somewhat minor in nature. If this is all you can contribute, please consider whether your energies would be better served elsewhere - life is short and you are more trouble here than you are worth at present. Kind regards, jguk 18:23, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Are you going to comment on your actions - which only serve to make WP less accessible to its reader base, or just blindly revert in the hope that in time anyone who reads WP will go away? jguk 18:21, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

When are you going to do something other than revert to insert your POV, which is contrary to WP policy? It's not the done thing to revert blindly, but it's difficult to see a resolution to this when you are unwilling to discuss your behaviour, which to date has been entirely against the spirit of Wikipedia. Wikipedia needs good editors, it does not need editors who only disrupt it, which is what you have done so far, jguk 15:32, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I strongly believe that good writers should write with their readers in mind, and that this alone should dictate the style they adopt, with the writer's personal preferences having little or no bearing. Is this POV? Well, I don't think so - it's just what is at the heart of good writing.

You seem to know quite a bit for a new user. Do you have another account and, if so, what is it?

Also, what's your interest in all of this anyway? jguk 15:46, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Not sure about the previous account, but his next account was going to be James-R - David Gerard 10:01, 4 October 2005 (UTC)